From the desk of Bill Zettler
Liberals fulminate regularly in the media about how “Intelligent Design” and its concept of “irreducible complexity” fall completely outside of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and, in fact, constitute the intrusion of religion into science. But, if you look closely, you will notice liberals have several of their own versions of “Intelligent Design” that fall outside the concept of Darwin’s Theory. However, when liberals stroll outside the bounds of Darwinism, as they often do, nary a word of criticism is heard.
In this three-part series, I will explore several Intelligent Design concepts of the Left to determine if they are truly Darwinian.
One of the most obvious examples is this: men and women are equal.
I am not speaking of equal rights or woman’s suffrage here. No one would argue with political equality. I am speaking about the liberal, anti-Darwinian belief that physically, mentally and emotionally men and women are the same, i.e. equal. They are genetically equivalent and can--and should--do the same jobs equally.
There is a reason there is no WNFL – Women’s National Football League. The participants of the WNFL would be crippled up in enormous numbers – women’s bodies are not “designed” to take the kind of pounding that men’s bodies are. Their bones are thinner, their musculature is much less robust, their connective tissue is weaker and their innate physical design is to carry babies with big heads and this design makes them especially prone to hip, pelvis, knee and ankle injuries.
And consider this fact: every single world record in track and field, the most basic of physical contests, is held by and has always been held by a man and, in every case, by a large margin. For example, there are no women who would rank in the top 1000 of the shot put, javelin or 200-meter dash. This record of physical superiority is overwhelming, 100%, not even close.
The reason for this is called sexual dimorphism, an evolutionary concept every biologist would agree with. Since sexual dimorphism shows us that female humans cannot compete equally with male humans in physicality, why would we believe they should be in combat platoons or on fire ladders or with police SWAT teams? Darwin says they should not be and, in fact, in those physical situations, women are likely to be a danger to themselves and others.
Who can forget what happened in Atlanta, Georgia on March 11, 2005 when Brian Nichols, a 6’2”, 235 pound former college linebacker on trial for murder, overwhelmed his guard, a 51-year old female sheriff’s deputy, 5'2" Cynthia Hall. As Darwin and sexual dimorphism would have predicted, the larger, much more powerful male easily overwhelmed the smaller, much weaker female. Nichols beat Hall so severely she was brain damaged. As she lay on the floor of the courthouse bleeding and unconscious, he took her sidearm. Nichols then shot and killed a judge and a court reporter with Hall’s gun. Un-Darwinian political correctness killed two innocent people in Atlanta that day.
Elitists who say women should be treated equally in physical occupations are practicing a very dangerous kind of secular “Intelligent Design”.
It is also known that men and women’s brains are different. Men’s brains are more symmetrical and spatially oriented, women’s are more asymmetrical and language oriented. If you think about this, it makes sense for survival: men, as hunters and explorers, need spatial skills to track game and enemies and find a new home--if the old one becomes dangerous. Women need community and language skills to teach and successfully raise children. Thus, under Darwin’s Theory, sexual dimorphism would increase the chance for survival. The innate, Darwinian, evolutionary skills of both sexes are equally valuable, but different. Women cannot hunt or defend as well as men and, by the same token, if men were the child raisers, the human species would have died off millennia ago.
For more than 99.95 per cent of Homo sapiens 120,000-year existence (all but the last 50 liberal-feminist years), sexual dimorphism was never in dispute. During that time frame, humans expanded from a few thousand to billions of individuals and became the dominant species on earth. It would be hard to argue that such success was just serendipitous. We have survived and prospered because of the differences between men and women, not in spite of them.
History shows that men and women are equal, but not interchangeable. Men cannot have babies and women cannot drag 250 pounds of wounded soldier and his gear off of the battlefield and out of harms way.
Those who deny this are denying Darwin and embracing “Intelligent Design”. Their intelligence, of course, and their design, not Darwin’s.
In Part 2 of this three part series, "Liberals and Intelligent Design," I will discuss the liberal concept of species diversity.
Bill Zettler is a contributing editor to RFFM.org.