An Attack On Evolution......
And......An Attack on the Emancipation of Women!
Peter Hitchens Focuses on the Challenges to Evolution Coming From the Scientific Community and Michael Buerk Challenges the Assumptions Behind Feminism.
The Mail on Sunday, the Sunday version of the top UK daily newspaper, Daily Mail, carried two articles of great interest to the Christian community in its August 21st, 2005 issue.
To find two such articles in the very same newspaper is rare ..........and very encouraging!
First of all, in its Review section the newspaper carried a report by its outstanding writer Peter Hitchens called, Did Darwin Get It Wrong After All? Here – at last – a leading and widely appreciated and respected British journalist brings a vital fact on evolution to the attention of the wider British public, namely, that huge challenges to evolution are starting to come from within the scientific community itself. Many of us have, of course, been aware of this fact for some time (I wrote my article, The Truth About Evolution which highlights this fact about 3-4 years ago but it could have been written even well before then since the points I make, and the evidence I gathered was very easily 'researchable'), but the British public has continued to swallow the greatly mistaken belief that evolution, namely macro-evolution, is above challenge and accepted by just about everybody right across the scientific community. Hitchens refers to Intelligent Design and to the outstanding work of microbiologist Michael Behe – a field of research now being taken up by others. Through the principle of Irreducible Complexity Behe has demonstrated that certain biological/chemical processes which Darwin did not even correctly understand back in the 19th century are not simple and naïve, as had been assumed, but are amazingly complex; the human cell is an example of this - without doubt the human cell was just a tiny blob of 'gunk' to Darwin – generally pretty useless - but it is now known that even one single human cell is a most intricate and complex factory of parts. Moreover, if just one part is taken away, nothing works! – so how could this have gradually evolved? This whole principle of Irreducible Complexity is also widely applicable in biology. In his article, Hitchens mentions several fascinating details about the new and growing challenge to evolution and quotes Andy McIntosh, Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory at Leeds University, England. McIntosh has said this:
'The non-evolutionist side of the argument is growing not because of ignorance but because of the rise of knowledge about the real fact of science without the fairytale additions of evolutionism' !!
McIntosh has also said,
'Evolutionary thinking is teetering as a way of looking at the evidence..'
Encouragingly, this leading academic in the British scientific field plainly believes that evolutionary thinking is based on an ideology – not on science! Of course, many of us have pointed this out for several years. Also, much evidence exists that many scientists have privately believed that the theory is seriously flawed for some considerable time but they have feared to speak out for fear of losing prestige among their fellow scientists. This is why the comments of McIntosh – and others – can have a very positive effect and encourage all who challenge evolution within the world of science to begin to speak out! In the articles which I have written I bemoan the fact that the average school teacher – or even college lecturer – is not even aware of the new challenges to evolution coming from the scientific community itself, but I fear that nothing will change for several years to come and that children and college students will continue to receive instruction on evolution which is several years out of date and which continues to worship at the altar of Darwinism.
So the article of Hitchens is excellent in bringing out these problems and illustrating them to the wider public. But, sadly, Hitchens appears to firmly separate himself from the Christian community. He never actually says so but his overall approach appears to be: Christians may well turn out to be right about this after all but this does not mean we should support Creationism. How very sad that Peter Hitchens shies away from a conclusion which may well finally prove to be inevitable and unavoidable.
And now to the Michael Buerk article in the very same newspaper.
Michael Buerk has been perhaps the most popular BBC television newsreader (newscaster) for several years. His friendly and conversational style of reading the news seemed to follow in the footsteps of the much-loved Robert Dougall, BBC television's leading newscaster of the late 50s and 60s. So Buerk's work in the television news media, as well as his appearances on several other BBC programmes, have made him popular and well-known to all viewers of British television. Buerk has recently attacked the Feminism which appears to be taking over British society and which has been driving men out of many leading positions. Buerk has also criticized 'the feminisation of men' suggesting that men themselves have had to become more femine in order to compete with women! His article, It's Not Only Men Who Will Suffer In a Woman's World, which covered a two-page spread in The Mail on Sunday, will send out shock waves and repercussions in all directions in the highly liberal and politically-correct world of early 21st century British society. Yet, I firmly believe that his honesty will be applauded because every single person reading the article will surely (at least privately) acknowledge that Michael Buerk is entirely correct - even though many will not care to openly admit it because of the current stifling atmosphere of political-correctness which is presently paralyzing large areas of British society.
Buerk is careful to point out that he is not wholly against the emancipation of women but seriously fears its growing affects upon family life. He (surely correctly) refers to the growing fashion of women bringing up families without men being present at all and points out how often this is not because the women were abandoned but because of their personal choice and decision to adopt the bread-winner role. Indeed many of us fear for the future of the traditional family in this crazy and topsy-turvy society! Women, indeed, appear at times to want to take over both the sexual roles - with men being reduced to mere 'sperm donors'! Michael Buerk has summed-up much of this problem rather well. He also points out that here in Britain a fifth more women are now in the workforce than were in the 1970s and about the same proportion of men are (necessarily) out of the workforce; Indeed, if British men are made redundant anytime from their forties onwards it can be almost impossible for them to find alternative work unless they will accept part-time or voluntary work! Maybe Buerk could have said a little more about this since it is an ongoing nightmare which thousands have experienced.
Of course – here again – many of us Christian writers have warned of the dangers of these trends for many many years but Michael Buerk's outburst is excellent because it brings these issues into a more sharp focus with the public in general – Michael will not be so easily ignored and his outspoken opinion not so easily 'swept under the carpet.'
I would like to say that Michael Buerk supports Christian values but I have no evidence of that, indeed, I have noted rather a cynical approach toward Christianity and toward all religion by this leading commentator in the past, yet a huge majority of Christians who have continually been warning of the erosion of the family and of the abandonment of a Christian lifestyle will warmly welcome his very true comments (even though feminists within the media have already – and quite predictably - started attacking Buerk and it could well be that his BBC career is now finished).
So, in just one Sunday British newspaper, two outstanding articles – both taking up two-page 'spreads' - and both bringing serious matters to the attention of the public which many of them may have been completely unaware of - or had failed to adequately face up to in the past. Neither article seeks the support of Christians in any way at all but both articles nevertheless give great credibility to evangelical Christianity and the things many of us have been saying for several years.
Robin A. Brace, 2005.