Last week, socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made the
fateful decision to debate with Senator Ted Cruz on Twitter. It didn’t end
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.
- Genetics: Mutations cause harm and do not
- Biochemistry: Unguided and random
processes cannot produce cellular complexity.
- Paleontology: The fossil record lacks
- Taxonomy: Biologists have failed to
construct Darwin’s “Tree of Life.”
- 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.