Ronald Reagan said it is not that liberals are ignorant: it’s just that they know so many things that are not so. Much of the problem is that liberals have an egotistical tendency to think that their views represent the truth simply because they are their views. They reinforce their self-anointed truths and favorite left-wing myths by using their dominance of the media, public schools, college faculties, and the entertainment industry to validate them. This is why books with titles that begin A Politically Incorrect Guide to… sell so well.
Some of these politically incorrect books focus on science: the origin of modern self-sustaining science, the history of science, the philosophy of science, the capabilities of science, the limitations of science, and the relationship between science and religion. Having been taught anti-Christian views of these topics by leftist teachers and professors, having read anti-Christian treatments of these topics in books written by liberal scholars, and having spent their lives in the self-reinforcing environment of fellow travelers, liberals mindlessly accept the myths of leftwing orthodoxy without question and then spend their lives trying to perpetuate them.
Evolution is a topic about which the left holds strong beliefs but is woefully ignorant. Secular humanists approach evolution with their eyes closed, ears shut, and mouths open. They have to because there is no middle ground in the debate. If Christians are right about creation, then the left’s entire philosophical house of cards comes crashing down around them. A big problem for liberals is that the claims of evolutionists must be continually revised as the science they use as their authority periodically invalidates these claims. In fact, out of desperation some liberals have given up on science and begun resorting to propaganda. A favorite propaganda tactic of the left is to claim that scientists are unanimous in accepting evolutionism as scientific fact. However, even a cursory review of the literature will reveal that this is hardly the case. Scientists are anything but unanimous on the subject of evolution, as the Intelligent Design controversy illustrates.
In reality, scientific evidence works against evolutionism, not for it. Among many scientific problems evolutionists cannot explain are: 1) gaps in the fossil record (the lack of transitional forms between and among kinds of creatures); 2) the uniformitarian presupposition of evolutionism (the amount of shrinkage of the sun per year, the amount of dust on the surface of the Moon, etc.); 3) and mathematical probability studies. Perhaps the biggest blow to evolutionists came when advanced technologies allowed scientists to discover the true nature and astounding complexity of single-celled creatures.
This new understanding of the so-called simple cell undermined the most foundational Darwinian assumption: that life began with simple single-celled organisms and evolved in the direction of greater and increasing complexity. A wristwatch can be used to illustrate Darwin’s theory. If you put all the various parts of a watch into a sack and shook it up for billions of years, it would come out as a fully assembled and properly functioning watch telling the right time. As unlikely as this is to happen, secular humanists stubbornly clung for decades to Darwin’s theory like drowning men clinging to a life raft. Consequently, when scientists learned that Darwin’s so-called simple cell was anything but simple, the very foundation of Darwinian evolution disintegrated.
Scientists observing single-celled organisms through today’s ultra-high-powered microscopes have learned that Darwin’s assumptions about the simplicity of what he claimed were the earliest forms of life were, in a word, wrong. Far from being simple, such single-celled organisms contain ultra-complex components which point not to an origin rooted in random chance but instead to an origin rooted in the intelligent design of an Intelligent Designer: God, the Creator. Such evidence is why evolutionists have become reluctant to debate creationists in a public forum. In fact, one of the highest-priority projects of evolutionists over the past two decades has been to find another basis for their stubbornly held, though illogical beliefs while quietly distancing themselves from Darwin.
Liberals and secular humanists have insisted for decades that American children in the public schools be indoctrinated in evolutionism by distorted textbooks, misguided or coerced teachers, and biased curriculum materials. This tactic continues in college. Consequently, it is not surprising that many Americans, including Christians who should know better, believe that science validates evolution.
The theory of evolution is taught in public schools and colleges as fact and it is accepted as such by unthinking people of all stripes. However, even a cursory examination of the concept will show that evolution is about politics, not science. True scientists look for objective, observable evidence to support or refute their theories. Politicians, on the other hand—whether in Congress or the classroom—begin with a presupposition and then select, reject, or even distort the evidence to fit the presupposition. This is what liberals have done with evolution.