opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
Patrick Buchanan
Pat Buchanan
9 Feb 2016
Bloomberg vs. Trump?

The morning of the New Hampshire primary, Donald Trump, being interviewed on "Morning Joe," said that he … Read More.

5 Feb 2016
The Remainderman

Donald Trump won more votes in the Iowa caucuses than any Republican candidate in history. Impressive, except … Read More.

2 Feb 2016
Is a New Era Upon Us?

Whoever wins the nominations, the most successful campaigns of 2016 provide us with a clear picture of where … Read More.

Making a Monkey Out of Darwin


"You have no notion of the intrigue that goes on in this blessed world of science," wrote Thomas Huxley. "Science is, I fear, no purer than any other region of human activity; though it should be."

As "Darwin's bulldog," Huxley would himself engage in intrigue, deceit and intellectual property theft to make his master's theory gospel truth in Great Britain.

He is quoted above for two reasons.

First is House passage of a "cap-and-trade" climate-change bill. Depending on which scientists you believe, the dire consequences of global warming are inconvenient truths — or a fearmongering scheme to siphon off the wealth of individuals and empower bureaucrats.

The second is publication of "The End of Darwinism: And How a Flawed and Disastrous Theory Was Stolen and Sold," by Eugene G. Windchy, a splendid little book that begins with Huxley's lament.

That Darwinism has proven "disastrous theory" is indisputable.

"Karl Marx loved Darwinism," writes Windchy. "To him, survival of the fittest as the source of progress justified violence in bringing about social and political change, in other words, the revolution."

"Darwin suits my purpose," Marx wrote.

Darwin suited Adolf Hitler's purposes, too.

"Although born to a Catholic family Hitler become a hard-eyed Darwinist who saw life as a constant struggle between the strong and the weak. His Darwinism was so extreme that he thought it would have been better for the world if the Muslims had won the eighth century battle of Tours, which stopped the Arabs' advance into France. Had the Christians lost, (Hitler) reasoned, Germanic people would have acquired a more warlike creed and, because of their natural superiority, would have become the leaders of an Islamic empire."

Charles Darwin also suited the purpose of the eugenicists and Herbert Spencer, who preached a survival-of-the-fittest social Darwinism to robber baron industrialists exploiting 19th-century immigrants.

Historian Jacques Barzun believes Darwinism brought on World War I: "Since in every European country between 1870 and 1914 there was a war party demanding armaments, an individualist party demanding ruthless competition, an imperialist party demanding a free hand over backward peoples, a socialist party demanding the conquest of power and a racialist party demanding internal purges against aliens — all of them, when appeals to greed and glory failed, invoked Spencer and Darwin, which was to say science incarnate."

Yet a theory can produce evil — and still be true.

And here Windchy does his best demolition work.

Darwin, he demonstrates, stole his theory from Alfred Wallace, who had sent him a "completed formal paper on evolution by natural selection."

"All my originality ...

will be smashed," wailed Darwin when he got Wallace's manuscript.

Darwin also lied in "The Origin of Species" about believing in a Creator. By 1859, he was a confirmed agnostic and so admitted in his posthumous autobiography, which was censored by his family.

Darwin's examples of natural selection — such as the giraffe acquiring its long neck to reach ever higher into the trees for the leaves upon which it fed to survive — have been debunked. Giraffes eat grass and bushes. And if, as Darwin claimed, inches meant life or death, how did female giraffes, two or three feet shorter, survive?

Windchy goes on to relate such scientific hoaxes as "Nebraska Man" — an anthropoid ape ancestor to man, whose tooth turned out to belong to a wild pig — and Piltdown Man, the missing link between monkey and man.

Discovered in England in 1912, Piltdown Man was a sensation until exposed by a 1950s investigator as the skull of a Medieval Englishman attached to the jaw of an Asian ape whose teeth had been filed down to look human and whose bones had been stained to look old.

Yet three English scientists were knighted for Piltdown Man.

Other myths are demolished. Bird feathers do not come from the scales of reptiles. There are no gills in human embryos.

For 150 years, the fossil record has failed to validate Darwin.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontologists," admitted Stephen J. Gould in 1977. But that fossil record now contains even more species that appear fully developed, with no traceable ancestors.

Darwin ruled out such "miracles."

And Darwinists still have not explained the origin of life, nor have they been able to produce life from non-life.

The most delicious chapter is Windchy's exposure of the Scopes Monkey Trial and Hollywood's Bible-mocking movie "Inherit the Wind," starring Spencer Tracy as Clarence Darrow.

The trial was a hoked-up scam to garner publicity for Dayton, Tenn. Scopes never taught evolution and never took the stand. His students were tutored to commit perjury. And William Jennings Bryan held his own against the atheist Darrow in the transcript of the trial.

In 1981, Gould had this advice for beleaguered Darwinists:

"Perhaps we should all lie low and rally round the flag of strict Darwinism ... a kind of old-time religion on our part."

Exactly. Darwinism is not science. It is faith. Always was.

Patrick Buchanan is the author of the new book "Churchill, Hitler and 'The Unnecessary War." To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at



9 Comments | Post Comment
Mr. Buchanan should know better. Anyone who holds even a slightly nuanced understanding of the Theory of Evolution knows that characterizing it as "survival of the fittest" is either purposefully disingenuous or stupid. No scientist interprets Darwin's theory this way. What Darwin's theory explains is that beneficial traits give an advantage to some under given environmental conditions; those who benefit for these chance advantages are more likely to produce more offspring. Over generations, these traits come to dominate the population. Over many generations, these slow, often slight changes add up to significant evolution. Hence, one species of finch exposed to varying pressures on different islands in the Galapagos eventually evolve into separate species.
In science, a theory must be supported by the evidence. A hypothesis is the seed of a theory. What Wallace had was a hypothesis. Darwin unveiled a nearly fully-formed theory. It would be some time yet before other sciences caught up and the scientific community reached consensus, in particular it was the discovery of radioactivity and carbon dating that allowed for the precise dating of the earth that would allow the huge spans of time that Darwin's theory required.
Yes, Wallace came approximately to these same conclusions some twenty years after the voyage of the HMS Beagle and a letter outlining his theory was given to Darwin before he published his completed theory, but only to spur Darwin on to publish. He'd spent the previous twenty years meticulously gathering proof across many species, locations and epoch. Darwin also postponed his publication for the love of his very religious wife, apparently not wanting to expose her to the debate he knew would ensue. Assassinating Darwin's character by accusing him of plagiary or associating him with despots makes his theory no less true, as Mr. Windchy correctly points out. But this doesn't serve Mr. Buchanan's rhetorical argument.
Mr. Buchanan through Mr. Windchy continues to try to debunk Evolution by associating it with failed, false or discredited episodes. This is obviously specious logic. Just because I keep a stone in my pocket to ward off fire-breathing dragons and I have yet to see such a dragon, does not make my rock magic. Just because there were hucksters, claiming great discoveries in support of evolution, which turned out to be false, do not make the theory itself false. The vast preponderance of evidence, appropriately vetted by scientific peers supports the theory. And yes, some may yet prove to be false, misguided or misunderstood. Nothing is science is held sacred. All is tested. Nothing is taken on faith by everyone. Science is much too competitive.
You'll also notice that Mr. Buchanan cites most recently Gould, but in 1981! His other examples are even more antiquated. Science marches on and just this year, paleontologists unveiled a very well-preserved fossil that may well possibly be the ancestor of all primates. It is by all accounts it is the proverbial transitional fossil.
It's very discouraging that non-scientists and theologians continue to spout nonsense about evolution. They only continue this unnecessary and particularly American debate. And arguments such as those made by Mr. Buchanan solely serve to demonstrate that failed logic and myth, and carefully crafted rhetoric can still serve politics and persuade stupid people (yes, stupid people). Finally, I take comfort in the fact that Windchy will, like so many other creatures not well-adapted to their environments, eventually will go extinct.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Jeffrey Weekley
Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:15 AM
Three words:
Antibiotic resistant bacteria
Evolution needs no more proof than that. There are no concious decisions, no willfull adaptations. A hostile environment destroys a large segment of a given population. Those in the population that have a genetic difference (typically the result of an infrequent favorable mutation) survive & reproduce. That becomes the new version of the life-form, until the next time environmental stressors cause some other prior genetic accident to become a survival advantage. Continue for several billion years, rinse, repeat. The End
Mr Buchanan is possibly more on the mark than anyone else when it comes to his analysis of US foreign policy. He should hew to his strengths; when he ventures away from them, he tends to make a fool of himself.
Yes, Wallace hypothesized natural selection before Darwin, but what Darwin brought to the table was data, reams of it. Wallace provided a palor game that allowed people to argue a hypoethesis without ever reaching a conclusion. It was when scientists pored over the data Darwin collected that it became incontrovertable to anyone who approached it as a scientist. Mr Buchanan clearly takes a politicized, cherry-picking approach here that serves him and his readership poorly.
Yes, evolution is 'only' a theory, as is gravity. Non-scientists (as Mr Buchanan clearly shows himself to be here) often employ the term 'theory' when the term 'hypothesis' (or something weaker still) is called for. Perhaps this can help the non-scientists to acquire a better grasp of the term: To call something a theory means that we know for certain that something occurs, but we're still in the process of figuring out all of the nuts and bolts of it (a neverending process). Further, a theory doesn't reach that status until it has demonstrated utility as a predictive tool, which is why 'intelligent design' is not and never will be a theory.
Oh, how did that canard about the fossil record lacking transitional evidence get such legs? It's patent nonsense.
Thank you for your kind indulgence.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Lamont B Dumont
Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:48 AM
Sir;...If you are trying to make an irrational argument against evolution, you have succeeded...You have not evolved; but we have... In your soul you are a squalid little Yahoo waiting on the metaphysics that made you make you into something other...Your home will always be a hovel, and your soup will always be supper, and the fates and fairies and goblins will ever attend you... You may have the past as the place where dead people and ignorance live...We should all be where we belong...And to finish let me point out...Ideas; even ideas like truth never kill any one...People with ideas kill people, and from my perspective those with the deadest ideas are the first to kill over them...And You are man with dead ideas...If you were not so pitifully old; that, would make you dangerous...Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #3
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:24 PM
Re: Jeffrey Weekley;..Creators needs a stone in their pocket to ward of idiots... Then; They could get rid of 99% of their so called conservative commentators... If you do not buy their false predicates you can trash the rest of their articles... They sell to the sold, and preach to the converted...Any way; good reply... Too bad it is wasted on Mr. B... He is trapped in a metaphysical paradigm like so many of those people...He does not really buy being created equal even if he thinks we were created...He wants to pick and choose what he wants to accept...The truth simply has no value to him...If it serves his purpose it must be true..If it costs him anything it must be false....Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #4
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:36 PM
Re: Lamont B Dumont;...He is only half right half the time about American Foreign Policy...Mr. B. is a geedy little man who seems very aware of what everyone in his field is making; but he is unaware of how the economy that has made him wealthy at the same time that it has made most of us poor and without hope or health care -is contributing to our worsening world situation... We have not just done a few things wrong... We have survived doing very little that is right...If we will not tax the rich for whom we have started and fought so many wars then all our empire will come crashing down....Mr. B. has got huge blind spots where ever his own money is concerned...He should remember that people like him are made rich so they will think as rich people think; so they will identify with the enemy, and make common cause with them against the people...He simply does not get it..And getting a few thing right is not enough....Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #5
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:48 PM
Most news reportors and commentators include their e-mail address along with their article so that they may benefit from reader feedback. I was curious to note that Mr. Buchanan of does not do so. That practice permits one to make all sorts of outrageous assertions in a near annonymous fashion.
His most recent artilce, "Making a monkey out of darwin" is a prime example of unsupported and outrageous assertions. We can learn from this article that Mr. Buchanan is clearly uninformed both about elementary matters of science and is equally uninformed about scriptural themes of honesty and the proscription of bearing a false witness.
His assertions are easly refuted, but it is clear from the article that he is only interested in his own opinions and has no interest in learning the truth. To paraphrase the comic strip character "Pogo", we have met the monkey and his name is Pat.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Ken Xydias
Wed Jul 1, 2009 7:24 AM
Whether the Creation was brought about by a super Wizard of Oz or occurred without one is indeed a matter of faith. There is no indication of His continued activity in making things happen in the world and it is very clear that if He is overseeing the fates of humans then He is neither just nor benevolent.
Science has not yet been able to say how life could have started. Hence it must be admitted that whether this was a miracle or could have occurred through natural processes is still a matter of faith. But remember, in Darwin's time no one could have disputed that speaking to everyone all over the world at the same moment was something only God could do, and even He chose not to, much to the detriment of remote peoples who had to wait for colonizers and their missionaries to learn about their sinfulness and redemption. Today, persons far less than divine can be seen and heard all over the world at the same moment.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Peter Ungar
Wed Jul 1, 2009 9:04 AM
Mr. Buchanan is clearly expressing his opinions, uninformed though they may be. But not only is he uninformed, he makes his case through distortion of the facts. Any informed individual knows that the concept of Social Darwinism which he rightly decries has nothing to do with evolution. It is simply is misapplication of a 200 year old explanation of speciation to human social systems. Mr. Buchanan's conclusion that Darwinism always has been about faith based on his reading of a 1981 article by the late Stephen J. Gould only demonstrates that Mr. Buchanan is either unable to comprehend what he has read or simply ignores information contrary to his viewpoint. The quote he used comes from Gould's article "evolution as a fact and a theory". The quote was part of Gould's frustration with Creationists who continually ignore and misrepresent the facts. Read the entire article here. Mr. Buchanan's actions remind me of the question of how do you tell when member of the political or religious right is lying? The answer is, when his lips are moving.
Comment: #8
Posted by: Ken Xydias
Thu Jul 2, 2009 9:53 AM

Your article: Making a Monkey out of Pat Buchanan
Author: Jim Fetzer

Description: In his comments on a new book attacking Darwinism, Pat Buchanan endorses the
claims (a) that Charles Darwin stole his theory from Alfred Wallace; (b) that the theory
of evolution has proven to be "disastrous"; and (c) that belief in evolution is an
example of faith-based science. These claims are not only provably false but reflect a
profound misunderstanding of one of the most important discoveries in the history of

Tags: Belief, Birds, Capitalism, Creationism, Darwin, Darwinism, Evidence, Evolution,
God, History, Marx, Nature, Politics, Religion, Science, Taxes, Theories, Wars

Article Location:
Comment: #9
Posted by: James Fetzer
Tue Jul 7, 2009 12:53 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Pat Buchanan
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Star ParkerUpdated 10 Feb 2016
Brent Bozell
Betsy McCaughey
Betsy McCaugheyUpdated 10 Feb 2016

31 Mar 2015 Stand Up for Indiana!

25 Oct 2012 McGovern & Goldwater: Losers or Winners?

2 Dec 2010 The 9/11 of American Diplomacy