The world is living in one of the great periods of shame for free scientific thought. As might be expected, most current scientists don't recognize or acknowledge this. But as we look back now upon things like the Spanish Inquisition or the Salem witch trials as points of Christian religious ignorance, intolerance and persecution, so too shall the period of the late 20th to early 21st centuries be regarded as the darkest days in the history of free science by future generations. Nevertheless, there is reason to hope. And, rather ironically, the hope comes from sources that have been mouthpieces for scientific fascism. In an interview with Time magazine's Eben Harrell, British journalist Dennis Sewell discusses his new book The Political Gene: How Darwin's Ideas Changed Politics. Heretofore, it's been scientific and cultural suicide to question either the validity or negative impact of Darwinism, or of its slightly more creative cousin, evolutionary theory. In this book, Dennis Sewell is one of the few people to express the belief that science itself is significant enough a pursuit that it will allow truth and dissent. When asked about whether his ideas will be manipulated, he responds "Science is a big enough interest group. It can look after itself." Oh, indeed it can, Mr. Sewell. Meanwhile, he maintains that evolutionary theory is not theory. But Sewell acknowledges that Darwin was a racist. Further, he faults Darwin for helping propogate the idea of eugenics. The original concept of eugenics claimed that poverty is a genetic condition that people are born into and must likely die in unless it is bred out of a society (see the racist black hero W.E.B. Dubois). In his interview with Time's Herrell, the author says that while classical eugenics is now reviled, there is a new scientific subtlety to what is essentially the same practice. From Chinese parents genetically engineering the gender of their pregnancies to Western parents being able to choose their baby's eye color, a new eugenics of fashion and preference is on the horizon. "What we will begin to see is scientists arguing for the use of genetics to breed out certain behavioral traits from humanity," says Sewell. He later states, "Who is going to make the value judgment of what is human enhancement and what makes a human better? I don't feel comfortable with such judgments being left to scientists." No $#!%, Sherlock. He also points to young mass murderers in Finland and at Columbine High School in Colorado who had supposedly twisted Darwin's ideals about humanity's status. One of the two 18-year-old murderers, Sewell says, "thought through the philosophical implications of Darwin's work and came to the conclusion that human life is like every other type of animal life: it has no extraordinary value." This begs a few other questions, then. How did the kid get it wrong? Or . . . did the kid even get it wrong? Interviewer Harrell poses the question to Sewell, asking ". . . how can we teach Darwin and also teach that humans are somehow exceptional in the natural world? Wasn't his great breakthrough to show that humans, like all animals, share a common origin?" Sewell offers a wishy-washy pseudo-endorsement of religion as somehow being the key to salvaging Darwinism and evolution from themselves. "I think we have to decide what status we are going to give to the human race. Most of the world's religions hold that human life is sacred and special in some way. In teaching our common descent with animals, we also have to examine what is special about human beings, and why they deserve to be treated differently and granted certain rights."
Well, that's the million-dollar question then, idn' it, Mr. Sewell?! PETA certainly doesn't believe humans are special. In fact, to those hardcore Darwinists, humans are the problem. Somehow, we bitch-slapped our way to the top of the food chain - and PETA is just putting things back in their proper place. Religious faith, for all its failings and foibles, does just what Mr. Sewell seems to be having trouble doing. Faith clearly puts humans in a position of accountability. In some religious faiths, it not only holds humankind accountable, but places them in a position of responsibility for and - dare we say it aloud? - dominion over other living things! Darwinism and evolutionary theory have held sacrosanct positions within the biological science community that has made them inassailable to adequate review and scientific dissent. In his final response, Sewell backhandedly addresses this "sacred cow" status. "What has the theory of evolution done for the practical benefit of humanity?" he asks rhetorically. "It's helped our understanding of ourselves, yet compared to, say, the discovery of penicillin or the invention of the World Wide Web, I wonder why Darwin occupies this position at the pinnacle of esteem?" Then, in what is probably the most accurate and telling observation the author offers in the interview, he answers himself. "I can only imagine he has been put there by a vast public relations exercise." And therein lies the great problem at the heart of Darwinism and evolutionary theory. It's never been about discovering the truth or defining accurate science. It has always been an ideology. And an ideology needs good PR. The Darwinists and evolutionists certainly seem to have that element down to a science. | 
True
