The school board of Topeka, Kansas, recently voted
to stop requiring that students be taught evolution.
I have always believed that parents should have
the final say over what their children are taught,
and to the extent that this is a victory for that
principle, I am all for it
When I say "I am all for it," I am not
merely saying that I give my MORAL support to parental
rights. I mean I have been out on the streets, risking
my neck and reputation, fighting for parental rights.
I mean I have stayed up nights and done free press
conferences and been denounced and risked my job
for parental rights in education.
My tiny group -- three of us --arranged the first
united march of anti-busing and textbook protestors
in Washington, DC, in 1974. At that time, there
were national protests against dirty textbooks,
the biggest one of which was in Kanawha County,
West Virginia. There were separate protests going
on against busing, the largest of which was in Boston,
Massachusetts. We joined these groups together in
a joint march in Washington, a show of solidarity
by parents against the educational establishment.
We did it, as always, free of charge -- even our
costs were at our own expense, out of our own pockets.
It cost little money and lots of work.
At the hotel the night before the march, the Boston
anti-busing group was having some trouble deciding
who would speak for them at the press conference.
One of the Kanawha County parents joked, "Well,
we don't have any trouble deciding. Whitaker speaks
for us, and he's not even a hick!"*
West Virginia mountaineers very seldom let ANYBODY
speak for them, so I was very flattered by this
trust.
And when I mentioned to some West Virginia fundamentalists
and Boston Catholics that my theology might not
be same as theirs, someone said something like,
"Listen, you stuck your neck out for us and
you work your backside off for us. You can believe
what you want to and keep our respect."
I am all for all for parental authority over what
their children are taught. Given my history, that
is a major understatement. Teaching children their
particular version of creationism should be their
parents' choice. But for grown men to HIDE behind
a religious view of creationism is a wholly different
matter.
Let me explain what I am talking about here.
In the seventeenth century, Newtonian physics challenged
the Biblical view of the universe. Before Newton,
it was held that the universe was kept moving by
the direct, daily intervention of the Hand of God.
Newton's theory said that gravity rather than the
direct intervention of God took over the day to
day movements of celestial bodies. Church after
church beat its credibility to pieces against the
Newtonian rock.
But now we find out that Newtonian physics ITSELF
is fundamentally flawed. It has gaping holes in
it. But the fact that Newtonian physics is wrong
on some basic points does NOT mean that the seventeenth
century churches were right in THEIR theories of
the universe.
What would happen to somebody who said that, since
the Newtonian theory is flawed, we have to go back
to the direct intervention of God to explain every
motion in the heavens? He would be horse laughed
off the stage, of course.
There are gaping holes in the Newtonian theory.
But no one would say this means that the planets
can only move by the direct, daily movement of the
Hand of God.
There are huge, gaping holes in the Darwinian theory
that are as fatal as those in Newtonian physics.
The book "Darwin's Black Box" exposes
a lot of these failures of the Darwinian theory.
The fact is that Darwinian theory does not explain
many of the real jumps from animal to animal. For
example, the eye is far too complicated to have
been developed by tiny, marginal evolutionary changes,
as Darwin would posit.
But you can't use the holes in Darwinian theory
to get back to the six-day creation, any more than
the holes in Newton's theory can get gravity out
of the motion of the planets. You can BELIEVE in
creationism, and you can BELIEVE that, as Genesis
says, that the sun is just a light hung up in the
sky. What you CANNOT do is act like you are being
**scientific** in saying that. Many conservative
spokesmen are using "Darwin's Black Box"
to sound like they are making the six-day creation
sound science.
Why does this bother me? It bothers me because many
spokesmen for the right are using the holes in Darwinism
as an excuse not to take leftists on where it is
risky. They posture and try to look look brave by
attacking evolution. Well, that's cheap and easy.
To see why, let's take a quick look at the leftist
reaction to this posturing.
If you say leftism is stupid, and none of its programs
ever works, you are threatening the very lifeblood
of leftism. You are laughing at it. And mark my
words: LEFTISM WILL BE DESTROYED WHEN WE UNITE IN
LAUGHING AT ITS ABSURDITY:
"The Devil, proud spirit, cannot bear to be
mocked."
Everybody knows that leftism is silly, but it is
also very, very powerful. PROFESSIONAL CONSERVATIVES
WOULD RATHER DO ANYTHING BUT TAKE ON LIBERALS THIS
WAY. They will use any excuse to make liberalism
look like something deep and intellectual rather
than to expose it as simply ridiculous. Exposing
leftism as just plain silly scares liberals, and
that makes them nasty.
When you want to avoid hitting leftism where it
hurts, religious posturing is a wonderful thing
to hide behind.
By attacking evolution, you get to say, "I
am really taking on these leftists. The leftists
are a giant, highly intelligent conspiracy arrayed
behind the Theory of Evolution. I am out there bravely
attacking the archenemy, the Devil's Evolution."
That's fine with the liberals, because it is every
bit as silly as they are. The public that would
join you in laughing leftism out of existence is
now quietly laughing at the professional conservatives
who are hiding behind religion.
But nobody laughs in church. Nobody OPENLY laughs
at some political columnist who is making a fool
of himself as a religious nut in his columns. Everybody
acts like he is saying something profound, out of
respect for his religious views.
Except, as usual, me.
The bottom line is that you can be a professional
conservative, take the religious nut line, and keep
getting paid without taking any serious risk.
Liberals LAUGH at you for being a religious nut,
but they will not DESTROY you for it. They will
do their very best to destroy you if you expose
the reality that THEY are the nutcases. They will
do their best to destroy you if you expose the fact
that THEY are the laughing stock.
But if you clown around as a Political Pope, they'll
encourage you.
To repeat: PROFESSIONAL CONSERVATIVES WOULD RATHER
DO ANYTHING BUT EXPOSE LEFTISM AS LAUGHABLE NONSENSE.
Religious posturing, as in the case of evolution,
gives professional conservatives an excuse not to
attack liberals where it hurts.
Let me give you an example of this sort of religious
posturing to please leftists. One of the biggest
threats to leftism is the research psychologists
like Arthur Jensen are doing. A lot of psychologists
like Jensen have discovered that the differences
between races and individuals shown on IQ tests
cannot be explained away by evil white oppression.
This is devastating to the fundamental bedrock on
which leftism is based.
When The Bell Curve was published, discussing this
kind of research, liberals went ballistic.
So unless you denounce The Bell Curve and Jensen,
the liberals might destroy you.
So one rightist leader, whom I otherwise respect,
used evolution as what he thinks is a Shrewd way
to attack Jensen. When Jensen first published his
findings, a liberal magazine, The New Republic,
denounced him in a cover article that labeled his
test results "Scientific Racism."
So this conservative leader says he opposes "scientific
racism." "Scientific racism," he
says, is based on the Devil's Evolution.
As always happens when a conservative gets Shrewd,
he is totally, laughably wrong. We are talking about
psychological tests here. Long before evolution
was ever imagined, it was assumed that different
races had different average intellectual abilities.
Nobody ever actually believed that God created all
men equal. Jensen has nothing to do with evolution,
one way or another.
The reason this professional conservative is using
the liberal label, "scientific racism,"
is so that he can attack Jensen as representing
The Devil's Evolution. Needless to say, Jensen's
findings have nothing to do with evolution.
But by pounding a Bible and shouting "Evolution!!!,"
yet another conservative who should be providing
us with leadership is using religion TO ATTACK THE
LIBERALS' ENEMIES.
As always, the resort to blasphemy ends up not only
being evil, but also by being stupid.
Another problem: Using religion to avoid taking
on the liberals frontally is very, very destructive.
For one thing, it turns politics into a religious
test. It insults and isolates people who are our
natural allies against leftism. If parents want
their children to be taught evolution, I get the
feeling that our Political Popes would prohibit
it.
Sorry, but I believe evolutionists have parental
rights, too.
So, in that case, as William Rusher once wrote about
me, "You will see Whitaker on the barricades."
* This guy never saw Pontiac,
South Carolina in the 1950s. I AM a hick and I'm
proud of it!
|