As Rick Perry surges in the polling among GOP voters, quite a few of his controversial views are coming to light. Among these are Perry's critiques of the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin. If you thought the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925 wasn't enough, here is further proof that history repeats itself first as tragedy, then as farce. In any case, conservatives are already leaping to Perry's defense with attacks on Darwinism.
As Rick Perry surges in the polling among GOP voters, quite a few of his controversial views are coming to light. Among these are Perry's critiques of the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin. Apparently, if you thought the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925 wasn't enough, here is further proof that history repeats itself first as tragedy, then as farce. In any case, conservatives are already leaping to Perry's defense with attacks on Darwinism.
Here is a recent pro-Perry critique of Darwin entitled by a Bryan Fischer with the American Family Association:
http://www.afa.net/...
I thought this was interesting because the writer attempts to deploy scientific "laws" to discredit Darwinism and, by implication, rescue Rick Perry from his critics. To summarize, Fischer states four bases for his attack on evolution:
* First Law of Thermodynamics: matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This makes the theory of evolution impossible.
* Second Law of Thermodynamics: in every chemical or heat reaction, there is a loss of energy that never again is available for another reaction. This makes the theory of evolution impossible.
* Fossils: the fossil record is the only tangible, physical evidence for the theory of evolution and there is absolutely nothing in it that proves Darwinism.
* Genes: the only mechanism evolutionists have to explain the development of increasingly complex life forms is genetic mutation, but naturally occurring genetic mutations are invariably harmful if not fatal to the organism.
Now, even though I am not a scientist by training, my high school level of scientific knowledge plus the deployment of simple logic calls into question the assumptions made here by Mr. Fischer. Here would be my uneducated response:
On the First Law of Thermodynamics - it is true we don't really have a solid answer for how it all began. However, if we don't really know, that doesn't necessarily prevent us from using what information we have to theorize. It doesn't necessarily lead to disproving evolution (for the record, I believe in both Christianity and Darwin/Science, as I think they are reconcilable).
On the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Fischer's description of this law just doesn't seem right to me. It seems like he is leaving something out. But I have to defer to people who understand the scientific world more than I do.
On Fossils: again, I don't think Fischer is describing evolutionary theory correctly here. He is leaving something out but I don't know what.
Genes: my gut level tells me something is amiss here with Fischer's science. Is it true that the only changes to DNA are harmful? This sounds amiss.
Anyway, if you want the full flavor of Fischer's reasoning, click the link.
The reason I post this diary is that I know there are many Kossacks who have scientific backgrounds. I would be interested in hearing more informed critiques of what is in this AFA blog post.
Although it is painful to contemplate, I think it also useful to begin mustering a defense of Darwinism and evolution, since apparently that is going to be an issue if Rick Perry continues to gain traction.
Thanks in advance for any insightful comments.