Donate search
Listen Now The Erick Erickson Show streaming live arrow_right_alt close


  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • send Email
  • print Print

As an Apparent Neo-Darwinist, Perhaps AOC Shouldn’t Bring Up Science

Last week, socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made the fateful decision to debate with Senator Ted Cruz on Twitter. It didn’t end well.

But in the course of trying to run away from Cruz’s line of scientific questioning, Cortez said something peculiar:

For the record, the whole “you don’t believe in evolution” line is silly given that it intentionally ignores the nuance involved in the scientific realities of evolution. No one – not a single person – I have ever encountered in all the religious events I’ve attended, church services I’ve sat through, faith communities I’ve surrounded myself with, denies the obvious reality of adaptation and evolving changes within a species. I feel quite confident in concluding that: (1) Ted Cruz doesn’t deny this either, and (2) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez knows that.

What men and women of faith, particularly faith in the Bible, reject is the scientifically untenable hypothesis of so-called macro-evolution – that is, the unobserved and unobservable change of one species (kind) becoming another species (kind). Even famed atheist scientists are unable to offer one observable example of such. I feel quite confident in concluding that: (1) this is precisely the portion of evolutionary theory that Cruz rejects, and (2) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez knows that.

But it’s interesting that AOC brings this up, as it comes on the heels of a fascinating scientific analysis of neo-Darwinism recently produced by Dr. Stephen Meyer and the Discovery Institute. Meyer’s two books, Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt, are phenomenal works of science that go a long way in demonstrating why sophisticated minds are bailing on Darwin at breakneck speed these days.

The analysis I reference outlines five areas of science that each pose serious problems for the neo-Darwinist interpretation of both chemical and biological evolution.

  1. Genetics: Mutations cause harm and do not build complexity.
  2. Biochemistry: Unguided and random processes cannot produce cellular complexity.
  3. Paleontology: The fossil record lacks intermediate fossils.
  4. Taxonomy: Biologists have failed to construct Darwin’s “Tree of Life.”
  5. Chemistry: The chemical origin of life remains an unsolved mystery.

Assuming that neo-Darwinism is what Cruz rejects, it seems that his choice to do so is actually on fairly concrete scientific footing. AOC’s choice to advocate this increasingly anti-science theory on the origin and development of life, however, is what a rational mind would question.

Then again, based on her response to Cruz, it’s clear that even attempting to answer science questions isn’t really the young socialist’s cup of tea.


  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • send Email
  • print Print


More Top Stories

Biden Accused of Sexual Assault by a Former Staffer

Stories like this one, a longtime accusation of rape, might get legs if the power brokers decide Biden is just too old and out to pasture to be a viable candidate in the general election.

NEW: Boris Johnson Tests Positive for COVID-19

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has tested positive for COVID-19. The controversial figure made the announcement on Twitter but says he is doing well and only experiencing mild symptoms.

De Blasio’s Church Threat Is Unconstitutional

Banning public gatherings in a crisis is constitutional. Keeping them closed afterward is not.