Page 14 THE VILLADOM TIMES IV • September 30, 2009 who hate Darwin simply are not well versed enough in biochemistry or higher mathematics to realize just how strong Behe’s argument is. As I remember the book, Behe said that for the blood clotting process to prevent hemophilia, nine separate subprocesses have to occur. If these processes had developed gradually, we might have become giant scabs. The metaphor is mine; the science his. Darwin did not understand how the human eye could have been developed by natural selection, and said so. A number of the respondents who wrote in paraphrased “Darwin’s Black Box,” or sometimes cited Behe by name to show just how far-fetched literal Darwinism can be. Teachers who wish to present Darwin’s beliefs as fact, rather than as historically important theories with some aspects that are plausible and others that aren’t, need to read “Darwin’s Black Box” and be tested on the material it contains. They do not have to agree with Behe, but if they cannot explain his arguments, they should be replaced with teachers smart enough to see both sides of an argument. People who cannot handle Behe should read “Algeny” by Jeremy Rifkin. “Algeny” explains that a great many biologists have serious problems with Darwin’s theory of natural selection, and believe many museum exhibits touting Darwinism are fake. The development of the horse, as shown by the Chicago Field Museum, is one of Rifkin’s examples. The museum shows eohippus as the direct ancestor of mesohippus, and culminates in claiming mesohippus as the progenitor of the tarpan, which looks something like a zebra. The exhibit is a fake. All these horse variants existed pretty much simultaneously. The size of a small dog, eohippus was adapted, perhaps by a form of evolution, to exist in woodlands and thickets. The middle-sized mesohippus was probably a prairie dweller, and the full-sized horse was adapted for life on the open plains. Rifkin also points out that Darwin is not taken anywhere near as seriously in France or Germany as he is in England or the United States. There is a reason for this. Rudolf Virchow and Louis Pasteur revolutionized medicine and biology by expanding the “germ theory” into the realms of antiseptic surgery, food preservation, and immunology. Virchow and Pasteur discovered, independently of one another, that spontaneous generation does not happen. Sterile matter does not produce life on its own and cannot be made to produce life even with manmade assistance. This discovery led to progressive measures that made surgery comparatively safe, and with the assistance of Virchow’s and Pasteur’s French, German, and Japanese continuators, eliminated contagious diseases that once killed half of all urban children and a third of all mothers while they were of child-bearing age. Virchow was a Prussian. He was an anti-racist who championed the rights of Jews and Slavs to civic equality. He was also a Freemason, which means that he believed in a Universal God and the brotherhood of man. Pasteur, a Frenchman, hated Prussia because his son Paul was almost killed in the Franco-Prussian War and Prussian shells hit his lab in Paris. Pasteur was a theist and his key work, disproving spontaneous generation, was done to refute Darwinism. He said so himself. Pasteur believed that all people, once they reach a certain level of intelligence, acknowledge a force beyond themselves and an immortal spirit within themselves. He said this in a speech during his admission to the Academie Francaise. His comments acknowledged the religious beliefs of Hindus, Jews, Christians, and Muslims as inspired by the same creator. Pasteur blackballed Darwin as a corresponding member of the Academie Francaise because, he said, Darwin’s work on “The Origin of Species” and “The Descent of Man” involved speculation that could not be subjected to the experimental method. He relented after Darwin delved into scientific study of bees and earthworms toward the end of his life. Finally, Darwin was admitted to the Academie Francaise, but not for the works that made him famous. Those better known works were both dismissed as hokum by Pasteur and Virchow. The Anglo-Saxon world has not relented. Darwin has to be the greatest scientist of his time, you see, because he was English, spoke English and wrote in English, and because England – which produced many great scientists before and after Darwin’s time – had nobody to vaguely equal Louis Pasteur while both Pasteur and Darwin were alive. Darwin was not even as important or as accurate as Virchow. It was most heartening to hear some of the respondents paraphrase – I hope – my own views expressed in “The Atheist Syndrome” some years ago: Without Darwin, there would have been no Hitler. Nazi racial theory was called “neo-Darwinismus.” The “master race” theory infected Germany and the rest of Europe during a turbulent time and led to the murders of six million Jews and millions of Gypsies and Soviet Asiatics. The term “natural selection” turns up in English in the orders for the Holocaust. Darwin groupies claim they cannot get their hero’s movie released in the United States because of the Christians. Guess what country officially bans all mention of man’s purported simian origins and natural selection in the public media? Israel! If you have seen the films of what the death camps looked like, you will understand why. Hitler really did it. Darwin really inspired it. If you don’t believe me, read some history. Just when you thought it was safe to let the kids study biology, a new “controversial” movie about Charles Darwin is stirring up some popular interest. The website that started with a review by Roger Ebert got 146 comments from readers, and most of the other entries went off into multiple pages. “Creation” got a flat review from Ebert, who was not troubled by the film’s religious implications. The reviewer stated that most mainstream Christians have long since made their peace with evolution. Ebert said also the film was boring, which may be the reason the producers are trying to drum up hype about how the fundamentalists, not exactly a force in motion picture distribution, have managed to see that it isn’t distributed in the United States. Darwin is not banned in America. A walk through the Ridgewood Library will reveal three or four books about Darwin visibly displayed for the delectation of the passing reader. I think every library in Bergen County must have half-a-dozen Darwin biographies on the shelves. “Inherit the Wind,” a movie about the Scopes Monkey Trial starring Frederic March and Spencer Tracy, was nominated for four Academy Awards. Trying to stir up controversy about a movie that most reviewers describe as a bit of a snooze may get it distributed, but probably won’t turn it into a hit like “The Sound of Music” or “Casablanca.” Outside of his theory, which aroused enormous controversy, Darwin was a boring guy, unless you are a biologist or a would-be psychiatrist. The amazing thing about this artificially stimulated media controversy is that it touched off such a lively debate. Now a third force is being heard from in significant numbers, perhaps for the first time. Traditionally, creationists have told Darwinians they are going to go to hell if they believe this stuff, and Darwinians tell creationists they are illiterates with sub-normal IQs and can’t grasp a simple principle of science. The third force that emerged in recent letters includes people who have studied biology, biochemistry, and zoology well enough to understand Michael Behe’s book “Darwin’s Black Box” and understand that, while evolution within a limited framework is not only probable but plausible, using natural selection as the explanation for the origin of species does not work well. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University and a casual Catholic who does not invoke church dogma, points out that some biochemical processes, including those that involve eyesight and blood clotting, are so complex that the chances they developed by sheer chance during the available time span is mathematically most improbable. This is not a simplistic and fraudulent critique of Darwin’s theory of natural selection, like purportedly finding the tracks of cavemen and dinosaurs in the same bed of rock. It is not a threat of eternal perdition for anyone who dares to disagree with the person who does the threatening. It is a highly intellectual argument based on knowledge of biochemistry and the perceived understanding that the laws of probability are as palpable as gravity. Many people who love Darwin, and many other people Darwin is back: This time we’re hearing from all sides Letters to the Editor Dear Editor: The Mahwah Zoning Board of Adjustment is nearing its last hearing on the third application for expanding the Pilot truck stop. As it comes to its conclusion, I feel we need to all come together in this town to do what is right for Mahwah and think with the future in mind. This billion-dollar corporation has come into our town and conducted a PR campaign for the residents, telling us they are the answer to our problems. We need to think about their motives, which are purely profit-oriented, and weigh them against what residents are saying about safety issues and Mahwah’s ordinances. Might the point of this company’s campaign be to divide and conquer the residents? I wholeheartedly believe that what they are proposing is not a friendly little gas station, but a huge “Pilot City,” a truck stop just like the ones they have all over the country. This does not belong near a school. Please keep in mind that Pilot has not withdrawn its other application: one for an even more significant truck stop plan, complete with showers and more parking. Mahwah is a wonderful, safe town, and it’s safe because its leaders and its organizations constantly strive to keep it that way. The crux of this application centers on the 500-foot separation ordinance that states that “service stations” are not allowed within 500 feet of a school. Pilot is calling this application a “service station.” Pilot is not just “making newer” what is already there; they are adding new pumps, gasoline, and new amenities that are not there now. Approval of this application means we will have a huge, non-conforming truck stop/service station that we can’t get rid of and that clearly presents safety risks to the community. Our township council and forefathers had safety in Doing what’s best for Mahwah mind when they instituted this ordinance and again made it stronger just two years ago. This ordinance is the key to the whole application. I encourage everyone to do some research, check out Pilot on the Internet, and come to the final meetings. Only with the proper information can we do what is best for Mahwah. Suzanne Curry Mahwah Dear Editor: As a resident for the last year on the now infamous Olney Road, I’ve watched and read with great interest the debate on whether this road should be open to through traffic. I appreciate the passion and conviction on both sides of the debate. But for anyone who lives on or walks along this road, there really is no study that needs to be done, and no lawsuit that needs to be pursued. With cars flying through at over 40 miles per hour on their shortcut route at all hours, narrowly missing pedestrians who rush for cover day after day, it doesn’t matter that no one was injured yet. It was just a matter of time before it happened. And there we’d all be pointing fingers and wishing things could have been different. Closing Olney Road to non-emergency traffic, and keeping it that way, is a no-brainer. That accident won’t happen. There will be no lawsuit, no angry finger-pointing, and no division of the community. Let’s please let it be. This very narrow road is safe for our children now. Let’s leave it that way and move on. Ray Ullmer Mahwah Let it be