Friday, April 20, 2012

Political Darwinism

Science and religious theology play an important role in politics. Most do not think there is any room for religious beliefs in politics because of separation of church and state. But most political issues, especially social and moral ones, are both scientific and religious in nature. For instance, abortion is a great example. Abortion is a scientific issue because there is an ongoing debate over at what point a fetus becomes a human being. Even most liberals would admit a fetus is a person once the third trimester begins since well over half of all premature babies survive at this point. Abortion is also a religious issue because most denominations believe in the sanctity of life. The same can be said of other moral issues such as capital punishment, enhanced interrogation techniques, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, and so forth.

Liberals like to use science to challenge conservative religious concepts. In particular, liberals use Darwinism and evolution to denounce religious theology that God created the Universe and life. Some Liberals, scientists, and atheists’ believe that the Universe started scientifically with a “big bang” and life forms on earth have naturally evolved over time. Many rigid forms of religions adhere solely to the Book of Genesis that says God created the Universe and life over a 7 day period. On the other hand, many religions have the belief that God and Darwin evolution theories can coexist. They claim that evolution is part of God’s plan. Either way, there has been an ongoing struggle between Darwinism and Creationism.

Interestingly, liberals seem to practice a form of selective Darwinism or what I like to refer to as convenient amnesia Darwinism when it comes to political philosophies and ideologies. Yes, liberals conveniently use Darwinism to challenge religious beliefs and argue that imaginary concepts cannot refute the laws of proven science. Maybe liberals have a point, but no one has proven that God does not exist. But what is extremely baffling is that liberals all but forget their Darwin beliefs when it comes to other political issues and problems.

For instance, what about entitlement programs that take money from one group of species (the wealthy), and give it another group of species (the poor – even if they provide nothing tangible towards society to earn a reward). If liberals are true believers of Darwin evolutionary philosophies including survival of the fittest – then why do they feel compelled to interfere and try to change the evolutionary process? Climate change is another excellent example of liberals’ selective Darwinism views. Our environment is extremely resourceful because plant and animal life are able to adjust and survive under warmer temperatures. Yes, some species die off, but many more new species are created. Consider that NASA scientist proved that bacteria can evolve and survive in an environment that lacks phosphorous. In fact, the bacteria reprogrammed its DNA to use a poison Arsenic in place of phosphorous. So, once again, why are liberals so compelled to interfere with evolutionary process and try to change its outcome?

And what is a more compelling a question, if liberals’ are so convinced that Darwinism and science are so powerful that it not only created the Universe but has sustained and evolved life forms for billions of years – then what makes them so arrogantly sure they can reverse science and evolution. Think about it; the world spends trillions of dollars each year to wipe out hunger and homelessness, but it still exists in our backyards. We spend billions to wipe out diseases but each day people die from cancer. And now liberals want to spend trillions to wipe out climate change.

Yes, there is a compassionate side to this story. It is admirable that liberals want to wipe out hunger, disease, and climate dangers. So do conservatives. But most liberals want to fight these seemingly losing battles using other people’s money. And if liberals can attempt to be compassionate for the poor then why can’t they reciprocate those same feelings about other people’s religious beliefs? You do not have to believe in something to respect the different viewpoints and opinions of adversaries.

I find that liberals conveniently use science, especially Darwinism, to hypocritically defend contradictory ideas and concepts. I will follow the conservative philosophy to help others in need (who deserve it), respect the views of all “reasonable” people, and to use “reasonable” scientific solutions to solve our global problems. Reasonable means people who do not preach evil and solutions that do not turn our current way of life upside down. In other words, I will apply scientific theories consistently to my political philosophies.

My Book: Is America Dying? (, Barnes and Noble)

1 comment:

  1. Re: the use of science: Science can prove nothing-nil-nada-zero-zip-zilch to be true. What it CAN do is to prove with acceptable certainty that something or some things are false.

    Contentions that something is "settled science" are nonsequitur. Contentions that some scientific conclusion is consensus is meaningless. Scientific consensus, after all, was that the earth was flat. And the sun rotated around the earth.