March 3, 2005


Darwin's War on Political Correctness (James Pinkerton, 03/03/2005, Tech Central Station)

The news that a new and dangerously improved AIDS "superbug" is on the loose has dealt a sharp blow to three different kinds of political correctness. The only winner is reality; painful as it might sometimes be, reality is still our best true friend.

The first kind of political correctness to take a hit is, interestingly, a p.c. of the religious right: creationism. If some Christians wish to believe that dinosaurs and cavemen co-existed -- because after all, the Bible says that the world is just a few thousand years old -- that's not necessarily devastating. If Christian literalism chooses to deny evolution, that's arguably harmless.

But the AIDS superbug, nevertheless, is evolving, and it's evolving according to the immutable principles of natural selection. That is, the killer virus is playing by the exact same rules that have refereed life over the last three-and-a-half billion years. And if left unchecked, it could eventually bring about another Black Plague; the last one killed a third of Europe, back when Europeans were almost all believing Christians. And now we learn that scientists have identified two new retroviruses -- that is, out of the AIDS "family" in Africa. If this isn't evolution, in its blind amorality, nothing is.


Posted by Orrin Judd at March 3, 2005 2:35 PM

A mutation is not evolution. I am not aware of any creationists who deny the existence of mutation.

Posted by: rich at March 3, 2005 3:59 PM

Pinkerton's whole first three paragraphs are really irrelevant to the topic. It's just that he knows he's about to report some uncomfortable facts to the irresponsible and delusional left and he needs to innoculate himself against any charge that he might be veering right by taking this gratuitous swipe at the religious conservatives.

I'm sure he knows from experience that the lunatic left are very likely to attack him for disturbing their fantasies.

Posted by: L. Rogers at March 3, 2005 4:09 PM

Since the RCC has no problem with evolution (calling it "more than a theory") why do you have a problem with it? Is it evolution per se (mutations leading to changes in species over time with survivors determined by the current environment) or Darwinism (the philosophy that everything is meaningless blind chance). The first is just a simple statement of mechanism, the second and embrace of nihilism.

Posted by: daniel duffy at March 3, 2005 4:09 PM

OJ's views on science seem to motivated more by a deliberate, ornery contrariness rather than by any religious adherence. Methinks, he had a bad experience in a required freshman science course and it scarred him for life, much the same way that High School English courses scare many normal folks away from reading and writing.

Posted by: Bart at March 3, 2005 4:24 PM


Yet absurd reasoning like that makes folks believe in Darwinism generally.

Posted by: oj at March 3, 2005 4:25 PM


Someone has to defend science from Darwinists.

Posted by: oj at March 3, 2005 4:35 PM


"Yet absurd reasoning like that makes folks believe in Darwinism generally."

What exactly is the 'absurd reasoning' in the first three paragraphs?

Posted by: creeper at March 3, 2005 6:30 PM

Here are a few of the problems:

beginning from the claim to know "reality"

"improved superbug"

religious right/creationism as "p.c."

that skeptics believe dinosaurs and men co-existed.

That Christian literalism isn't evolutionary

That AIDs is evolving

That the evolution of a non-organism would tell us anything about Darwinism

That there are "rules" and he knows them and AIDs is following them

That a disease as difficult to transmit as AIDs can cause an epidemic

That AIDs which is by definition not a species has speciated.

That something which followed rules to become super and improved was part of a blind process

Posted by: oj at March 3, 2005 6:39 PM