• On Second Thought: Perhaps AOC Not the Best Example of Scientific Expertise

    Surge Summary: Socialist Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez accuses conservative Republican Senator Ted Cruz of being disqualified to speak on scientific matters – even though she touts her confidence in the increasingly fragile theory of “evolution” as evidence of her scientific perceptiveness.

    by Peter Heck

    Last week, socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made the fateful decision to debate with Senator Ted Cruz on Twitter. It didn’t end well.

    But in the course of trying to run away from Cruz’s line of scientific questioning, Cortez said something peculiar:

    For the record, the whole “you don’t believe in evolution” line is silly given that it intentionally ignores the nuance involved in the scientific realities of evolution. No one – not a single person – I have ever encountered in all the religious events I’ve attended, church services I’ve sat through, faith communities I’ve surrounded myself with, denies the obvious reality of adaptation and evolving changes within a species. I feel quite confident in concluding that: (1) Ted Cruz doesn’t deny this either, and (2) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez knows that.

    What men and women of faith, particularly faith in the Bible, reject is the scientifically untenable hypothesis of so-called macro-evolution – that is, the unobserved and unobservable change of one species (kind) becoming another species (kind). Even famed atheist scientists are unable to offer one observable example of such. I feel quite confident in concluding that: (1) this is precisely the portion of evolutionary theory that Cruz rejects, and (2) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez knows that.

    But it’s interesting that AOC brings this up, as it comes on the heels of a fascinating scientific analysis of neo-Darwinism recently produced by Dr. Stephen Meyer and the Discovery Institute. Meyer’s two books, Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt, are phenomenal works of science that go a long way in demonstrating why sophisticated minds are bailing on Darwin at breakneck speed these days.

    The analysis I reference outlines five areas of science that each pose serious problems for the neo-Darwinist interpretation of both chemical and biological evolution.

    1. Genetics: Mutations cause harm and do not build complexity.
    2. Biochemistry: Unguided and random processes cannot produce cellular complexity.
    3. Paleontology: The fossil record lacks intermediate fossils.
    4. Taxonomy: Biologists have failed to construct Darwin’s “Tree of Life.”
    5. Chemistry: The chemical origin of life remains an unsolved mystery.

    Assuming that neo-Darwinism is what Cruz rejects, it seems that his choice to do so is actually on fairly concrete scientific footing. AOC’s choice to advocate this increasingly anti-science theory on the origin and development of life, however, is what a rational mind would question.

    Then again, based on her response to Cruz, it’s clear that even attempting to answer science questions isn’t really the young socialist’s cup of tea.

    The views here are those of the author and not necessarily Daily Surge.

    This article Originally posted at The Resurgent

    Image: Adapted from: El Borde, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=74304213

    Trending Now on Daily Surge

    Send this to a friend