You have not viewed any products recently.
It is well to remember that ruling powers never exercise censorship to suppress falsehoods. They often themselves perpetrate falsehoods they find useful and are indifferent to others. The purpose of censorship is always to suppress inconvenient truths. One of the best reasons to question the prevailing dogma of evolution as the source of life is the vehemenence with which its critics are shouted down by “experts” who are often less intelligent and learned than those they seek to silence.
Nicholas Wade, long-time and respected science writer for the New York Times, has recently come under the gun for his book, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, and Human History, in which he proposes from recent DNA evidence that there are some identifiable, inherited differences between the races of mankind. One would think that it would take no scientific evidence to establish what has always been obvious from common sense and history. But that violates the predominant “clean slate” theory of human nature which says that race does not exist but is merely a social construct—like differing male and female characteristics. This theory is absurd on the face of it but controls our public discourse and public policy. Why else would we have compulsory “sensitivity training” and women sent into combat? Wade is British born and educated. Nobody who had been processed through an American graduate education could show such independence of mind.
Our ruling powers are invested in perpetuating a confusion of facts and values, which shows, among other things, their mistrust of and hostility to the democratic common man. If there are truly differences that distinguish races, that is a fact. What we do about that fact is another question—to be considered by decent and knowledgeable people. Such a confusion is only possible in America, where pervasive conformity and pseudo-intellectual abstractions routinely reign over both real learning and common sense.
Facts denied have a way of having their revenge.
I have long followed Wade’s work, not because of an interest in race theory but because of an interest in prehistory and the arguments around the theory of evolution. His recent controversial work is actually a continuation of his earlier book, Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors, which has been praised by the great E.O. Wilson as “by far the best book I have ever read on humanity’s deep history.” Wade is one of the most knowledgeable, literate, and persuasive advocates of the evolutionary history of mankind. In fact, it is a little ironic that he has caught such a barrage of hatred for this book, because his interest in race is merely a subset of his belief, reinforced by unfolding DNA evidence, that evolution is “recent, copious, and regional.”
Mankind, he insists, is not fixed but is continuing to evolve. And since evolution is constant and recent, it follows that it has taken a slightly different course in separate regions of the human habitat in which differing environments have naturally selected for different characteristics. Wade has marshaled DNA genetics to bolster his point about “recent, copious, and regional” evolution.
What occurred to me most in studying Wade’s work was not questions of race but his position that human character was not fixed 10,000 years ago in hunter-gatherer conditions, as is commonly assumed, but is still changing. Could this explain why America is now two countries, sharply divided between the Blues and the Reds? Being born and bred a certifiable Red, I find it hard to understand why Blue people seem to have no normal human reactions to an invasion of foreigners or sexual perversion and are fearful of the right of self-defense. Could there be a genetic difference created by the Blues’ adaptation to urban crowding, artificial “work,” or some other environmental factor?
I admit to being a skeptical semi-believer in evolution. I am willing to accept that the Biblical account of Creation is poetic and not literal. Much evidence in support of the evolution of species is plausible. If Wade is right about invisible genetic changes in the DNA, that counters the old argument that no “missing link” has ever been found. But evolution becomes rather less certain when one understands that, in respect to the human species, a great deal of “truth” has been established by extrapolating history with no more evidence than a fragment of bone. And after all, evolution just describes, it does not explain. Where and why did all this come from without a First Cause?
I find it interesting that the evolutionists, strain as they might, cannot explain the origin of language, the most unique human characteristic. It seems to have appeared suddenly. Perhaps there is an explanation: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
If you read “The Art Instinct” by Denis Dutton... ( http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-Instinct-Pleasure-Evolution/dp/1608190552/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393863267&sr=8-1&keywords=Denis+Dutton+the+art+instinct ) ...it may help you understand how language didn't appear suddenly, and also why human nature was fixed in all the important ways in hunter-gatherer times. You may even like his very clear way of writing.
We all know a great deal about evolution, one cannot help but know alot about it in these times, but not enough about our Sacred Tradition. I learned too late in life that the reason so many Christians embrace any tall tale of human progress and the beginnings is because of their utter failure to understand their own ancient notions of progress and principles.
"God created the ape in his own image." -- Dr. Zaius PLANET OF THE APES (1968)
The case for reviving sociobiology in a non-eugenic form would point out first of all that scientists no longer regard the nature/nurture delineation as dichotomously helpful - even a genetically loaded trait such as eye color still assumes certain environmental inputs of water, oxygen and nutrients for correct expression - and accordingly, there are important parallels between the way organisms evolve and adapt genetically and the way the societies and cultures around them evolve and adapt, even if the genes themselves stay the same - but of course they do not; there is no other explanation for the low alcoholic tolerance of American Indians or the fact that subsequent generations of Europeans resisted Plague far more effectively than did the first, even accounting for improvements in nutrition.
Accordingly, Dr. Wilson's theory about blue state mindset is far more than speculative politically-charged hypothesis, even if genetics aren't necessarily the only or predominant factor in this evolution (it is difficult to judge the relative social and biological dimensions for traits so "soft"). It is not a huge leap from incontrovertible facts such as those cited above, but for whatever reason, people who think an infinity of I observable multiple universes is a more plausible cosmic scenario than the existence of God aren't willing to make small steps from observable fact. (Similarly, we can watch with amusement at their denial that leftism is a mental illness in the face of suicide rates of communist and later libertine countries... and the catalyst in Norway 2011.)
With regard to the emergence of language Walker Percy, in his "Lost In The Cosmos", made the same comment. Language did seem to emerge suddenly some 50-60 thousand years ago but no one seems to know how or why.
To comment on this article, please find it on the Chronicles Facebook page.