|
 Lev Navrozov emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1972 He settled in New York City where he quickly learned that there was no market for his eloquent and powerful English language attacks on the Soviet Union. To this day, he writes without fear or favor or the conventions of polite society. He chaired the "Alternative to the New York Times Committee" in 1980, challenged the editors of the New York Times to a debate (which they declined) and became a columnist for the New York City Tribune. His columns are today read in both English and Russian.
|
 |
The close of 2005 was accompanied by a remarkable event: 11 parents of schoolchildren in Dover, PA, sued the school board for teaching their children in a public school not only Darwinism, but also intelligent design (in evolution). In a 135-page ruling Judge John Jones accused the school board of "disguising their true motives for teaching intelligent design." The sneaky school board actually wanted to smuggle in creationism, that is, religion, which is against the separation of church and state enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
But let's look at Darwin regardless of his scientific beard. In 1828, the 19-year-old Charles Darwin began to study at Christ's College, Cambridge, from which he graduated in 1831 and went for a 6-year voyage on the "Beagle." A clergyman? Of course! In the United States today there are fanatics of scientism who suspect everybody of being a cunning religious fanatic. But in England there were "parson naturalists," reading "the Deity's second book of revelation: nature."
What did Darwin read in the Deity's second book?
That nature produces more organisms than the number able to survive. So?
Marx and Engels and hence Soviet propaganda were obsessed with Darwin. In Soviet schools there was a special lesson called "Darwinism," and I remember the explanation of how giraffes evolved. All giraffes could not be born exactly the same. Those who had somewhat longer necks were fitter for survival because they could eat leaves off higher branches of trees. In their longer-neck progeny, some specimens had again longer necks than others. Thus there evolved giraffes with very long necks by which we recognize a giraffe today. Natural selection! Survival of the fittest! Evolution! Origin of species!
The above example sounded to us, schoolchildren, at least plausible, since genetics was forbidden in Stalin's Russia. Now I know that the evolution of the giraffe's neck is as much nonsense as the whole reading by the Christ's College graduate Darwin of nature as the Deity's second book of revelation. Genetics (the word appeared in 1906) was unknown to Darwin, who did not understand that when a giraffe was born with a somewhat longer neck, this variation had to become genetic in order to be inherited by the giraffe's progeny.
But the rest of Darwin's science did not seem even plausible to those of us who thought, and not just memorized.
Evolution implies development from the simplest to the most complex. Its first hypothetical stage is the transition from inanimate matter to unicellular organisms-the origin of the most primitive life. But how could even the most primitive life evolve according to Darwin if it is less fit for survival than inanimate matter? The more evolved, developed, sophisticated an organism is the more it is vulnerable, demanding, exigent-and hence less fit for survival. We hear calls for the preservation of an endangered species. This is not a unicellular organism, but an animal with a digestive tract, a blood system, lungs, a brain, etc. Darwin's evolution is not just wrong, but is the opposite of reality: in the real nature billions of microbes can generate at a terrific speed, while the survival of just one higher animal may be a problem.
What about man? In the time of Darwin (who died in 1882) an Englishman could imagine himself to be the fittest for survival: the territory of the British Empire exceeded 91 times that of England itself. But the 20th century demonstrated that man is able to develop weapons that can reduce England to atoms. The evolution of weapons may yet destroy mankind, and not only convert it to world slavery.
Yes, the neck of the giraffe could become long if its elongations had been genetic. But what about the origin of an eye that even an insect has?
It was only in the 19th century that man's brain invented, constructed, created, a photocamera. An intelligent design! But what about the eye, an organic photocamera having automatic accommodation and protection and connected to the brain? It is ridiculous to imagine that the eye could evolve by tiny, accidental, incremental changes like elongations of the giraffe's neck that ensure a greater fitness for survival. And what about the brain?
When Henri Bergson (Nobel Prize in 1927) published his "L'Évolution Creátrice" in 1907, it was immediately translated into English ("Creative Evolution") and all other major languages of Europe. Every Russian intellectual read it either in French or in Russian. Predictably, the Nobel Prize winner made mincemeat out of Darwinism. But in the argument in the United States about a century later it does not seem that any worshiper of Darwin has ever heard of Bergson.
On Dec. 20, 2005, in Time.com (page 1) Michael Lemonick begins his article "Darwin Victorious" in a key of triumph resembling such articles at the dawn of Soviet Russia when Bergson had been discarded, and Darwinism, besung by Marx and Engels, became the Light of science victorious over the Darkness of religion:
"Breathtaking inanity" [!] is how U.S. District Judge John Jones characterized the Dover, PA school board attempts to cast doubt on the theory of evolution-but in fairness, the recently ousted members of the board were relative unsophisticates, snookered [!] by the intellectual scam [!] that calls itself "intelligent design," or ID.
Thank God (or shall I say, "thank Darwin"?) these were "relative unsophisticates." Can you imagine a sophisticate's "attempt to cast doubt on the theory of evolution"? This is like an attempt in the 17th century to cast doubt on the geocentric theory! It is a pity that those who cast doubt on Darwinism are not burned at the stake under the scientific auspices of Michael Lemonick of Time Magazine.
What about any controversy over Darwin? The Discovery Institute? Intelligent Design (ID)? The "scam"!
The Discovery Institute, a pro-ID think tank, favors teaching the controversy over evolution, but that's the scam [!]. There is no controversy, or at least, not the scientific controversy. Discovery says there is [the insolence!].
True, Lemonick admits that there is "a tiny [!] handful [!] of actual [!] scientists who back ID." But "the vast [!] majority [!] of biologists say nonsense." Perhaps Time Magazine should take a vote among biologists, and thus establish once and for all that Darwinism is the Science beyond all controversy (which is religious nonsense and hence to be kept from public schools). The only trouble is that if scientific issues were decided by majorities, we would still think that the Sun revolved around the Earth, and that Einstein is an insane clerk in a patent office.
Lev Navrozov's (navlev@cloud9.net] new book is available on-line at www.levnavrozov.com. To request an outline of the book, send an e-mail to webmaster@levnavrozov.com.
What about Darwinism? There was an evil anti-Soviet joke, "Why is Marx a great scientist? Because he has a big beard." A look at the photograph of Darwin in the BBC News of Dec. 20, 2005, could convince anyone that Darwin's beard is not smaller than that of Marx, and hence he is a scientist through and through, and whatever he said was purely scientific, not religious, and as fit to be taught in public schools as the multiplication tables. Hence the ruling establishing the scientist Darwin in public schools and forbidding intelligent design, sneakily concealing its religious origin and essence.