I've often made the point that France does not fight wars but achieves peace by collaborating with her enemies instead. For example, Germany marched unopposed around the "impregnable" Maginot line in 1940, and then easily defeated France in only six weeks. What is seldom mentioned is that the French army was twice as large as the German army at the time.
But the French national character wasn't the only thing that led her to ignominious defeat again. Like in World War I, it was the French general staff who were the real cowards. Churchill had to fly to Paris just before the French gave up in 1940 in an unsuccessful effort to put some spine into a general staff already defeated before the firing began. He found the French generals in a fatal self-imposed paralysis of reorganization.
General Gamelin, whom everyone in France looked upon as the Commander-in-Chief, the worthy successor of Joffre and Foch, simply lost interest in defending France against the German attack until May 19, the very day he was relieved of his command! During that time, Gamelin gave another general the power to conduct "his" battle without interference from himself. As for Gamelin's responsibility for the liaison between France and her other Allies, Gamelin gave that job away too, handing it to yet another General and that General turned around and did the same, passing to another general. All of this happened in two days!
And so, with dizzying speed, the French General staff flew round and round, in ever decreasing circles, until they finally they flew up their own assholes. Small wonder that the poor frontline soldier never have the stomach for the fight.
After this humiliating defeat, France was divided into Nazi-occupied France with its capital at Paris, and unoccupied or "free" France, with its capital at Vichy. Though "free" in name only, Vichy was a collaborationist government and totally controlled by the Nazi's. Yet that was just fine with the French people, who for the most part did not mind the arrangement at all. In fact, Hollywood notwithstanding, the French strongly supported all of the goals of Nazi Germany and would themselves have put them into effect if it could be done without too much effort.
By supporting "all" the German goals, I mean the French people dearly desired the defeat of the Anglo-Americans, the Soviets, and eagerly supported the total annihilation of the Jews of Europe. Previously I have written about how in 1942, and exceeding the orders from its German occupiers, the Paris Police crammed 13,000 Parisian Jews into an enclosed sports stadium and left them there for five days without food, water, toilets or any needed facility whatsoever, and caused the deaths of many very young children under terrible circumstances.
With that as a background, another interesting fact just came to my attention which demonstrates again how sympathetic the French were with the Nazis. When France fell to the Germans in 1940, her colonies remained intact and were unaffected and beyond German control. Overnight, each colony had the freedom to choose with which to become allied, the German puppet government (Vichy) or the "Free French" government-in-exile headed by Charles de Gaulle in London. Almost all the colonies chose to stay under German rule, administered by Vichy. This had far reaching effects elsewhere which harmed the West greatly.
For example, French control of Syria-Lebanon overnight became German controlled through Vichy. And German control of Syria overnight spread and became German controlled Iraq. The pro-Nazi regime set up in Iraq prepared the way for the long range Nazi war plan to exploit Middle Eastern oil, after supplies from Romania came under severe American air attack.
It seems that France never loses an opportunity to attack her allies in the back, just as long as her allies are busy fighting Germans in order to free France. In another email I mentioned how it was French artillery, fired by French soldiers, which killed almost 2,000 American and British troops in Operation Torch, the allied invasion of North Africa in 1942.
Of all the treacherous acts of that dishonorable nation, one French act stands out alone and above all the rest. After her ignominious defeat in 1940, France was about to turn her entire navy over to the Nazis, intact. Naturally this would have had devastating effects upon Allied naval power. But since no French ships had been captured yet, the French fleet was free to sail into allied ports and was invited to do so. However, the French navy was very pro-Nazi, and indeed it was probably the most pro-Nazi sector in all of France, and so it refused. Very soon, it became obvious that the French fleet, intact and with all her crews, would defect to serve the Nazi cause. That being the case, the British Royal Navy took the only decisive action that the French understand. The British sank the entire French fleet in 1940 as it lay at anchor in Mers-el-Kebir, Algeria.
Yet despite all of its perfidy and lack of support of the war aims of the West, French troops were given the honor of liberating Paris after the defeat of Germany, and France was given full status as an co-equal member of the victorious Allies after the war. Not only that, but France participated in a place of honor in all of the surrender ceremonies and later on became a permanent member of the UN security council, one of a group of only five nations commonly regarded as the victors of WWII. All this despite the fact that France was regarded as the next best thing to an enemy, by many of our highest ranking allied officers.
Here are some links of interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France
http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Battle_of_France
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWarmedforces.htm
http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html
http://open-site.org/Society/History/Wars_and_Conflicts/World_War_II/Dunkirk/
http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Here is a wonderful (if I don't say so myself) What-If scenario that I cooked up for a What-If website that I used to visit. It shows how closely we came to having a much different world today. It could ha e been a world with a totally Nazi Europe, a totally Communist Asia, and an America partitioned between the two. I call it the Wally/Wallace scenario. Here it is, in three parts:
Case one (Wallace): When Franklin Roosevelt was about to enter his fourth term, he dropped Henry Wallace, his VP, from the ticket because he was a Communist. There is some doubt as to whether he was an actual card-carrying Communist, but there is no doubt that's where his loyalties lay. Now, Vice-Presidents often make out a list of men they would make cabinet ministers should they become president suddenly and Wallace made such a list. He was so pro-Soviet that his list included only seriously pro-Soviet people, and two actual card-carrying Communists, members of the CPUSA. One was later fingered as being involved some real Soviet espionage. Anyway, on outside advice, FDR dumped Wallace and picked Harry Truman. But was a very near thing. So that's how close America came to having a totally pro-Soviet Presidency.
Imagine what the outcome of Yalta would have been if we had two Communists, Wallace representing the West, and Stalin representing the East, carving up Europe, not that it wasn't pretty one-sided as it was. OK, now keep Wallace in mind while I describe the other near miss:
Case Two (Wally): In 1936, the King of England was Edward VIII. He was a very pro-Nazi, especially pro-Hitler personally. Then along came Wally Simpson. Then Edward VIII, while king, fell in love with her, and as everyone knew then, Edward abdicated in favor of marrying Wally Simpson. So this second What-If-Scenario says that if it weren't for Wally Simpson, England would have had a very pro-Hitler King, all throughout the war, and well beyond.
Case End: So you can see, both events almost came true. I mean, it was a VERY near thing. And both events were probably decided in only a few hours, FDR deciding to drop Wallace, and Edward VIII falling in love with Wally Simpson.
So what could have happened if these two things happened as I've described? Simply that America would have entered WWII with a very pro-Soviet President, and England would have entered WWII against Germany with a very pro-Nazi King. And how would that have made a difference?
America was strongly isolationist then and against entering the new war, or any other war, for that matter. We had no heart for it, nor did most Americans want to bail Europe out of yet another mess, not after 1918 anyway. Pearl Harbor changed that in a hurry, of course, but we could easily have taken on a one front war against Japan alone if we chose. After all, that option would clearly have been highest in our own near-term self-interest.
Only through Roosevelt's personal opinion and persistence did we help England at all, and so on England's behalf, FDR violated our Neutrality Act repeatedly. Under another president, our crucial help to England would simply not have existed at all. Certainly Wallace would not have wanted to, nor could he have convinced the Congress to help England, for which there was still a great deal of hostility as most Americans traditionally hated all colonial powers and European involvement again in particular.
What Wallace would have done would have been to help the USSR with the same passion and degree that Roosevelt helped England. His loyalties blurred from the start, common among Leftists, he would have helped Russia even to the extent of depleting America's readiness for war.
With a pro-Nazi King, England would not have intervened after Hitler's conquest of Poland, but instead would have agreed to the next Hitler-ultimatum, and the next, and the next. Seeing as how in the early days, the victors of WWII could have gone either way but for a little luck this way or that, Hitler would probably have won the war. As it was, it was a near thing in a lot of ways, but more about that later.
So What-If events would have left a Nazi England, a very strong Nazi Europe, a demoralized and weak America, and a vastly strengthened and determined USSR. The world would have separated into two blocs, Communist and Nazi. More disturbed by European entanglements than ever, America would have retreated back into our traditional isolationism. Not that that would have helped us. After all, with such a huge prize awaiting them, and with very strong standing armies and nothing better to do with them, America would soon be attacked again and be fighting a four front war, which we would lose. America would then be divided up into zones, just like postwar Germany was.
So, there is not only a chance, but a good chance, that if it weren't for those two seemingly small decisions, the Wally/Wallace events, this is how the world would look today.
Case one (Wallace): When Franklin Roosevelt was about to enter his fourth term, he dropped Henry Wallace, his VP, from the ticket because he was a Communist. There is some doubt as to whether he was an actual card-carrying Communist, but there is no doubt that's where his loyalties lay. Now, Vice-Presidents often make out a list of men they would make cabinet ministers should they become president suddenly and Wallace made such a list. He was so pro-Soviet that his list included only seriously pro-Soviet people, and two actual card-carrying Communists, members of the CPUSA. One was later fingered as being involved some real Soviet espionage. Anyway, on outside advice, FDR dumped Wallace and picked Harry Truman. But was a very near thing. So that's how close America came to having a totally pro-Soviet Presidency.
Imagine what the outcome of Yalta would have been if we had two Communists, Wallace representing the West, and Stalin representing the East, carving up Europe, not that it wasn't pretty one-sided as it was. OK, now keep Wallace in mind while I describe the other near miss:
Case Two (Wally): In 1936, the King of England was Edward VIII. He was a very pro-Nazi, especially pro-Hitler personally. Then along came Wally Simpson. Then Edward VIII, while king, fell in love with her, and as everyone knew then, Edward abdicated in favor of marrying Wally Simpson. So this second What-If-Scenario says that if it weren't for Wally Simpson, England would have had a very pro-Hitler King, all throughout the war, and well beyond.
Case End: So you can see, both events almost came true. I mean, it was a VERY near thing. And both events were probably decided in only a few hours, FDR deciding to drop Wallace, and Edward VIII falling in love with Wally Simpson.
So what could have happened if these two things happened as I've described? Simply that America would have entered WWII with a very pro-Soviet President, and England would have entered WWII against Germany with a very pro-Nazi King. And how would that have made a difference?
America was strongly isolationist then and against entering the new war, or any other war, for that matter. We had no heart for it, nor did most Americans want to bail Europe out of yet another mess, not after 1918 anyway. Pearl Harbor changed that in a hurry, of course, but we could easily have taken on a one front war against Japan alone if we chose. After all, that option would clearly have been highest in our own near-term self-interest.
Only through Roosevelt's personal opinion and persistence did we help England at all, and so on England's behalf, FDR violated our Neutrality Act repeatedly. Under another president, our crucial help to England would simply not have existed at all. Certainly Wallace would not have wanted to, nor could he have convinced the Congress to help England, for which there was still a great deal of hostility as most Americans traditionally hated all colonial powers and European involvement again in particular.
What Wallace would have done would have been to help the USSR with the same passion and degree that Roosevelt helped England. His loyalties blurred from the start, common among Leftists, he would have helped Russia even to the extent of depleting America's readiness for war.
With a pro-Nazi King, England would not have intervened after Hitler's conquest of Poland, but instead would have agreed to the next Hitler-ultimatum, and the next, and the next. Seeing as how in the early days, the victors of WWII could have gone either way but for a little luck this way or that, Hitler would probably have won the war. As it was, it was a near thing in a lot of ways, but more about that later.
So What-If events would have left a Nazi England, a very strong Nazi Europe, a demoralized and weak America, and a vastly strengthened and determined USSR. The world would have separated into two blocs, Communist and Nazi. More disturbed by European entanglements than ever, America would have retreated back into our traditional isolationism. Not that that would have helped us. After all, with such a huge prize awaiting them, and with very strong standing armies and nothing better to do with them, America would soon be attacked again and be fighting a four front war, which we would lose. America would then be divided up into zones, just like postwar Germany was.
So, there is not only a chance, but a good chance, that if it weren't for those two seemingly small decisions, the Wally/Wallace events, this is how the world would look today.
The Origin of Varieties? - Part Two
Darwin laid down a superb basis for understanding "The Origin of Species", but it that's all it was, only a basis. All of his proofs described only the origin of variations, and in this his contribution to science was great.
Now it is very rare indeed when a scientist can do that, when a scientist publishes a new paper proving the existence of a new basis for many heretofore unrelated facts. But that's what Darwin did, and he did so brilliantly. It is also a tradition for a scientist, once having laid down the basis, to take a great leap of faith to see the next step, which he hopes is just over the horizon. And that's what Darwin did when he entitled his work, "The Origin of Species".
That title alone is the great leap of faith, for all of Darwin's work went to presenting and then proving, "The Origin of Varieties", but he didn't say that. The fact that living things vary is a very convincing idea because any ordinary man can see it happening right before his eyes. But to take the fact that variation occurs within a species, and then to use that as a springboard from which to suggest that such variation can create new species is a great leap of faith, but a leap to which Darwin was entitled. Since most scientists know the difference between facts and theories, the misinterpretation of Darwin's work didn't come from that quarter. The complications came when people who do not know the difference between fact and theory, mixed up the two, often for private and political motivations. Theories seldom stand for very long. Consider the history of science:
Like Darwin, many other great scientists in the past have created brilliant new ways to look at old facts, and then put forth brilliant theories based upon that new understanding of those old facts. But, as brilliant as they were, most new theories turn out to be wrong in the long run. History abounds with examples:
When it was believed that the Earth was the center of the solar system, and when findings of fact controverting this view began to appear, the greatest scientist of the day created one of the most brilliant feats of mathematics of all time, explaining away the controverting data, "proving" again that the earth was still the center of the solar system. That great mathematician was Ptolemy and it was left to Copernicus 1,400 years later to prove Ptolemy wrong.
Probably the greatest physicist of all time created a way to calculate the way objects move. His theory of mechanics did explain everything mankind could measure then. But as time passed, it was found out that his terrestrial mechanics just wouldn't work when applied to outer space. There the matter rested for 200 years, until another brilliant scientist created celestial mechanics, yet another theory, which filled in the gap and let science progress still further. The first scientist in this example was Isaac Newton, and the next scientist was Albert Einstein.
And so it will be with Darwin. His facts will always stand, but the great leap of faith he made by applying the origin of varieties to the origin of species, will certainly not stand. I say "certainly" because thousands of other scientists, in the 150 years since Darwin, have tried to discover proof of Darwin's leap of faith, and all have failed. In this sense, repeated failure is proof, although certainly a weak proof, that the opposite claim is true, that species do not vary.
Indeed, even Darwin himself hedged on this point. While not generally known, the full title of Darwin's main work, the work for which he is so famous, includes a hedge. His true and full title it this: "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". So while Darwin boldly implies that species vary in the first part of his title, the last part of his title concerns only the survival of "races", and races, as we all know, are not species at all but are varieties.
Now it is very rare indeed when a scientist can do that, when a scientist publishes a new paper proving the existence of a new basis for many heretofore unrelated facts. But that's what Darwin did, and he did so brilliantly. It is also a tradition for a scientist, once having laid down the basis, to take a great leap of faith to see the next step, which he hopes is just over the horizon. And that's what Darwin did when he entitled his work, "The Origin of Species".
That title alone is the great leap of faith, for all of Darwin's work went to presenting and then proving, "The Origin of Varieties", but he didn't say that. The fact that living things vary is a very convincing idea because any ordinary man can see it happening right before his eyes. But to take the fact that variation occurs within a species, and then to use that as a springboard from which to suggest that such variation can create new species is a great leap of faith, but a leap to which Darwin was entitled. Since most scientists know the difference between facts and theories, the misinterpretation of Darwin's work didn't come from that quarter. The complications came when people who do not know the difference between fact and theory, mixed up the two, often for private and political motivations. Theories seldom stand for very long. Consider the history of science:
Like Darwin, many other great scientists in the past have created brilliant new ways to look at old facts, and then put forth brilliant theories based upon that new understanding of those old facts. But, as brilliant as they were, most new theories turn out to be wrong in the long run. History abounds with examples:
When it was believed that the Earth was the center of the solar system, and when findings of fact controverting this view began to appear, the greatest scientist of the day created one of the most brilliant feats of mathematics of all time, explaining away the controverting data, "proving" again that the earth was still the center of the solar system. That great mathematician was Ptolemy and it was left to Copernicus 1,400 years later to prove Ptolemy wrong.
Probably the greatest physicist of all time created a way to calculate the way objects move. His theory of mechanics did explain everything mankind could measure then. But as time passed, it was found out that his terrestrial mechanics just wouldn't work when applied to outer space. There the matter rested for 200 years, until another brilliant scientist created celestial mechanics, yet another theory, which filled in the gap and let science progress still further. The first scientist in this example was Isaac Newton, and the next scientist was Albert Einstein.
And so it will be with Darwin. His facts will always stand, but the great leap of faith he made by applying the origin of varieties to the origin of species, will certainly not stand. I say "certainly" because thousands of other scientists, in the 150 years since Darwin, have tried to discover proof of Darwin's leap of faith, and all have failed. In this sense, repeated failure is proof, although certainly a weak proof, that the opposite claim is true, that species do not vary.
Indeed, even Darwin himself hedged on this point. While not generally known, the full title of Darwin's main work, the work for which he is so famous, includes a hedge. His true and full title it this: "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". So while Darwin boldly implies that species vary in the first part of his title, the last part of his title concerns only the survival of "races", and races, as we all know, are not species at all but are varieties.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
"The Origin of Varieties"?
DARWIN'S BOOK SHOULD HAVE BEEN TITLED "THE ORIGIN OF VARIETIES".
Concerning Charles Darwin's great work called "The Origin of Species", it is naturally very important to know exactly what a species is. There is a rule by which "species" is defined so as better to understand what Darwin meant by this very important concept. It is this:
A species is a "fundamental category of taxonomic classification ... and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding".
Thus, the horse is a species, but the donkey is a different species. They are different species because they cannot interbreed to produce fertile offspring, the way dogs can for example. Thus, the offspring of these members of different species are not complete individuals and so they fail to pass the test of being what constitutes a species.Thus, being able to interbreed is the sole criterion for determining whether two animals are of the same species or not. It's as simple as that. If they can't interbreed, then the two animals are of different species. Period.
So the best the horse and the donkey can do is produce sterile offspring, or hybrids. It is probably true that some mules have produced offspring in the past, but it is so rare as to be considered impossible, resulting in one occurrence in many millions of matings, hardly enough to survive as a different breed. And as if to close the matter, those rare offspring of two Mules (60 or so in the last several hundred years) cannot themselves breed at all, thus sealing off even the most remote possibility that the Mule could ever qualify as a new species.
Now, the mule and the hinny are hybrids.
This is a mule:
And this is a hinny:
As an aside, the most interesting thing about hybrids is that it makes a big difference just how the parents are arranged. In this case, if a stallion breeds with a jenny-ass, then a mule is produced but if a jackass breeds with a mare, something different is produced. It is called a hinny. Now these offspring are not alike. The mule is much bigger, stronger and more robust than either parent, while the hinny is the reverse. That explains why you never see any hinnys around. See this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinny
Although widely studied, most people are unaware that other closely related species can also produce sterile offspring too, like my own favorites, the Tiglon and the Liger (the Tiglon having a tiger for a father, while the Liger has a lion for a father). When I was a small boy, I actually saw a Liger at the Bronx Zoo. Being hybrids like the mule and the hinny, the Liger is always much larger, more robust and stronger than either parent, while the Tiglon is small and weaker. In fact, the Liger is by far the largest cat in the world, sometimes weighing in at 1000 pounds, which is twice as big as any lion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger
Notice how enormous these Ligers are:
But back to Darwin's "The Origin of Species", loads of evidence is used in an attempt to prove his theory. But the evidence is entirely made up of examples of subtle changes taking place within a species, and these are called varieties, such as the beaks of the finches that Darwin himself studied on his famous voyage. Evidence for the appearance of new species is entirely lacking. It simply doesn't exist. Nothing even comes close.
That's not surprising either, since all we have to do is to look at our pets to see how many varieties can be seen within a particular species without creating a new one. Clearly, variation within a species not only doesn't prove nor even support the main point of "The Origin of Species", but variation within a species has nothing to do with Darwin's point at all. Not at all.
What is surprising to me is how many people never question that common assertion, accepted as fact by most people, that new varieties within species prove Darwin's theory that new species arise from old ones. The facts are very different because new varieties are not new species at all. That is because varieties can interbreed which means that they fail the test which would qualify them as a separate species, being the inability to interbreed.
Darwinism would be of no importance to people today if it wasn't widely used to support the claim that the appearance of new species is an inevitable consequence of variability within a species, given enough time. But there isn't a shred of evidence to support this, not even a little bit, so many ignorant claims to the contrary notwithstanding. I use the word "ignorant" because learning the meaning of the word "species" is a very easy matter, yet so few take the time to do so.
Moreover, the unquestioning and total acceptance of the claim that new species do arise in this way is so intense in our culture, that it can only be categorized as religious in nature. And like all religions, contrary beliefs are held to be heresy, which is another tip-off that Darwinism is truly a religion. And as almost always among the religious, to stamp out heresy is seen as a duty.
Only this explains why there is enough intense feeling in our culture to have created a climate which supports the ability of the state to have enacted laws forcing, under threat of penalty, the teaching of Darwinian evolution as being the only view taught in our public schools to explain how the human race came to be.
Now Darwin himself was a serious scientist and a very religious Christian. And it is said that he would be appalled if he could see how his work has been so misused today. Well, while he was a good scientist all right, it must be strongly stated that he greatly overreached himself when he entitled his work, "The Origin of Species". The only thing his book proved, and what he therefore should have entitled it is, "The Origin of Varieties".
Concerning Charles Darwin's great work called "The Origin of Species", it is naturally very important to know exactly what a species is. There is a rule by which "species" is defined so as better to understand what Darwin meant by this very important concept. It is this:
A species is a "fundamental category of taxonomic classification ... and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding".
Thus, the horse is a species, but the donkey is a different species. They are different species because they cannot interbreed to produce fertile offspring, the way dogs can for example. Thus, the offspring of these members of different species are not complete individuals and so they fail to pass the test of being what constitutes a species.Thus, being able to interbreed is the sole criterion for determining whether two animals are of the same species or not. It's as simple as that. If they can't interbreed, then the two animals are of different species. Period.
So the best the horse and the donkey can do is produce sterile offspring, or hybrids. It is probably true that some mules have produced offspring in the past, but it is so rare as to be considered impossible, resulting in one occurrence in many millions of matings, hardly enough to survive as a different breed. And as if to close the matter, those rare offspring of two Mules (60 or so in the last several hundred years) cannot themselves breed at all, thus sealing off even the most remote possibility that the Mule could ever qualify as a new species.
Now, the mule and the hinny are hybrids.
This is a mule:
And this is a hinny:
As an aside, the most interesting thing about hybrids is that it makes a big difference just how the parents are arranged. In this case, if a stallion breeds with a jenny-ass, then a mule is produced but if a jackass breeds with a mare, something different is produced. It is called a hinny. Now these offspring are not alike. The mule is much bigger, stronger and more robust than either parent, while the hinny is the reverse. That explains why you never see any hinnys around. See this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinny
Although widely studied, most people are unaware that other closely related species can also produce sterile offspring too, like my own favorites, the Tiglon and the Liger (the Tiglon having a tiger for a father, while the Liger has a lion for a father). When I was a small boy, I actually saw a Liger at the Bronx Zoo. Being hybrids like the mule and the hinny, the Liger is always much larger, more robust and stronger than either parent, while the Tiglon is small and weaker. In fact, the Liger is by far the largest cat in the world, sometimes weighing in at 1000 pounds, which is twice as big as any lion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger
Notice how enormous these Ligers are:
But back to Darwin's "The Origin of Species", loads of evidence is used in an attempt to prove his theory. But the evidence is entirely made up of examples of subtle changes taking place within a species, and these are called varieties, such as the beaks of the finches that Darwin himself studied on his famous voyage. Evidence for the appearance of new species is entirely lacking. It simply doesn't exist. Nothing even comes close.
That's not surprising either, since all we have to do is to look at our pets to see how many varieties can be seen within a particular species without creating a new one. Clearly, variation within a species not only doesn't prove nor even support the main point of "The Origin of Species", but variation within a species has nothing to do with Darwin's point at all. Not at all.
What is surprising to me is how many people never question that common assertion, accepted as fact by most people, that new varieties within species prove Darwin's theory that new species arise from old ones. The facts are very different because new varieties are not new species at all. That is because varieties can interbreed which means that they fail the test which would qualify them as a separate species, being the inability to interbreed.
Darwinism would be of no importance to people today if it wasn't widely used to support the claim that the appearance of new species is an inevitable consequence of variability within a species, given enough time. But there isn't a shred of evidence to support this, not even a little bit, so many ignorant claims to the contrary notwithstanding. I use the word "ignorant" because learning the meaning of the word "species" is a very easy matter, yet so few take the time to do so.
Moreover, the unquestioning and total acceptance of the claim that new species do arise in this way is so intense in our culture, that it can only be categorized as religious in nature. And like all religions, contrary beliefs are held to be heresy, which is another tip-off that Darwinism is truly a religion. And as almost always among the religious, to stamp out heresy is seen as a duty.
Only this explains why there is enough intense feeling in our culture to have created a climate which supports the ability of the state to have enacted laws forcing, under threat of penalty, the teaching of Darwinian evolution as being the only view taught in our public schools to explain how the human race came to be.
Now Darwin himself was a serious scientist and a very religious Christian. And it is said that he would be appalled if he could see how his work has been so misused today. Well, while he was a good scientist all right, it must be strongly stated that he greatly overreached himself when he entitled his work, "The Origin of Species". The only thing his book proved, and what he therefore should have entitled it is, "The Origin of Varieties".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)