He starts with an appeal to which any can relate: “Are you concerned about what’s happening to our country?”
Kirk Cameron, once the poster boy for cool on the sitcom “Growing Pains,” sits with his fist against chin, grave eyes robed in sternness and candor. He’s found a new calling since his days on ABC ““ he answers now to a higher authority. “An entire generation is being brainwashed by atheistic evolution,” the video warns. Cue dramatic music.
In commemoration of the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s seminal work, Cameron and his companions at Christian evangelistic ministry Living Waters have released a special edition of “On the Origin of Species,” with a new introduction that hopes to debunk evolution as false while prompting a mass conversion to Christianity. And on Thursday, five days before the anniversary, Living Waters will distribute free copies of this book to college students all across the nation. In spreading their edition, they hope to liberate the minds of our future doctors, lawyers and politicians from the cataclysmic dangers of science.
Rubbish.
That is not to say that their intentions are completely invalid. There is certainly nothing illegal about their reprint. But to call this campaign anything less than misguided would be absurd.
Ray Comfort, author of this introduction, neither disproves the theory of evolution nor provides a scientific alternative. Consider his deconstruction of Darwin. Nitpicking Darwin’s groundbreaking book does not render 150 years of scientific inquiry erroneous. The lack of transitional fossils in the record, long held as the strongest critique of Darwinian evolution, is grossly exaggerated to the point of deception.
Thousands of transitional fossils have been found since Darwin’s time, and any scarcity of such can be attributed to punctuated equilibrium ““ the tendency of species to steadily occupy large chunks of geologic time before adapting to environmental changes. But straw man tactics are diversions and beneficial to neither side. What’s important is the concept behind the theory ““ something Comfort is all too quick to misconstrue. He resorts to the classic retort: “How does randomness account for life’s complexities?” His reading reduces evolution to the analogy of a book coming together by paper and ink falling randomly from the sky.
To Comfort’s skewed understanding of science, the fact that mutations are random mean they “do not work as a mechanism to fuel the evolutionary process.” Compelling, perhaps, to one who is unfamiliar with the concept of genetic inheritance and increasing survivability. His argument rests on the false premise that purpose is necessary for life. He is right: Randomness alone does not produce change. It is randomness in relation to the advantages it produces. And when random genetic variations affect the passing of genes, change over time is inevitable, regardless of any intention (or lack thereof).
Evolution, he argues, is conducive to a dangerous, sinful culture. With evolution comes atheism, and thus moral depravity, social inequality, and human rights atrocities. Hitler, Cameron charges, had an “undeniable connection with the theory.” Perhaps this connection is that Nazi Germany banned the writings of Charles Darwin. And if atheism is so dangerous to the moral fabric of society, what then of Hitler’s Roman Catholic background, or praise of Martin Luther?
Drawing the false conclusion that evolution inevitably leads to godlessness, Cameron and Comfort forget that Pope John Paul II accepted the theory of evolution as compatible with the Christian faith. More preposterous is their proposed alternative. After criticizing evolution’s scientific value, the introduction posits the account in Genesis as more valid. Years of scientific research are apparently less valid than the writings of an ancient people.
Last time I checked, you can’t take one step forward by leaping 10 steps back. Progress cannot come from accepting whatever textbooks and professors say. But a truth-seeking, skeptical mind must look to the observable, logical facts, even if they conflict with tradition. Nor are those facts and religion mutually exclusive. The issue of a creator is a separate matter and has to do with philosophy or theology. But in terms of actual science, it has absolutely no place. And I’d be damned if my future doctor actually believed that woman grew from man’s rib.
If your uncle wasn’t a monkey, e-mail Manalastas at jmanalastas@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.