I'll be the first to say that I'm not a huge fan of GOP Senate candidate Herschel Walker. With the absolute dumpster fire the Democrat Party has predictably made of their two years of total control over the elected branches of American government, recent data shows the GOP enjoying anywhere between a 10-15-point, landslide-level advantage over Democrats in generic matchups nationwide.
Therefore, all the Republican Party needs to accomplish heading into 2022 is to select sane, reasonable, and coherent candidates. From his domestic violence admission to his MAGA allegiance and provocative remarks, Herschel Walker puts unnecessary strain on that simple objective.
Still, compared to a candidate who touts himself as "Reverend" while simultaneously acting as one of the most vociferous voices advocating 21st century child sacrifice to the false gods of convenience, Walker is the morally superior candidate. That's why he's going to be public enemy #1 in the eyes of the Democrat Party's propaganda arm, the mainstream media.
And while I do think their attempt to tube his candidacy will culminate in them attempting a public shaming and humiliation over his past domestic issues, for now it's starting here with this HuffPo hit:
There's something I've noticed about the media's reporting on these kinds of anti-Darwin statements from politicians. Once the candidate proves they know what they're talking about, the questions stop coming up. So even though I'm lukewarm on the Walker for Senate movement, let me offer some quick advice to the former NFL running back and anyone else that ventures into these high weeds of the culture war.
Start with the obvious: Darwinism, properly understood, is a buffoonish and utterly untenable theory. Whatever it once was, it is now painfully outdated and simply unable to account for the myriad of new data points and discoveries we've made since the famed naturalist was staring at long-beaked finches on the Galapagos Islands during the middle of the 19th century. It's not a viable theory given what we now know.
That leaves pop culture Darwinists walking a credibility tightrope – one false step, one publicized assumption or presupposition, and the whole house of cards tumbles to the ground. Therefore, defending the theory – unrepeatable, untestable, and unreasonable as it is – is a far less attractive option than simply focusing on attacking the character and intelligence of skeptics.
A prime example of this is what happened in the highly-publicized 2014 "debate" between Creation Museum founder Ken Ham and former kid television host Bill Nye. Notice the title of that debate: "Is Creation a Viable Model of Origins?" Before a word was spoken that night, you knew how it would all go down. The title of the debate itself put Ham on the defensive. While he would be forced to fend off Nye's attacks, Nye himself would never once be asked to explain how spontaneously-generated-molecules-to-man evolution is a viable model of origins. He would be permitted to sit there and lob rhetorical bombs intended to besmirch and slander Ham rather than defend what he actually claims to believe himself.
And that's why Walker has to be much smarter and not walk directly into such a trap. Darwinism ultimately teaches that apes and humans extend down separate branches of the famed "Tree of Life," not the same one. It's not that apes became humans; it's that if you trace back the lineage of both the ape "branch" and human "branch" on Darwin's tree, you'll see them converge at some common ancestor. Meaning, apes are still evolving, as are humans.
Now to be clear, I don't think Walker needs to feel any sense of intellectual inferiority for his mistake, particularly when his scientific acumen is being questioned by people who celebrate a man named Rachel Levine as the "woman of the year." If you're willfully calling swimmer Will "Lia" Thomas a "she," you are no friend to science, you're a threat to it.
So moving forward, my best advice to candidates like Walker isn't necessarily to avoid the topic of Darwinism altogether, but to be better informed about its fatal flaws and how to bring them to light.
Ask about macro evolution and where the existing, provable, verifiable evidence is that shows an animal evolving across their "kind" into becoming a completely different animal.
While we're at it, note that even Darwin himself excused his inability to locate transitional fossils (like the mysteriously elusive half-bird, half-reptile fossil) with the flimsy defense that we weren't very good at digging in rocks at that time. Well, we are much better at it now, and yet we remain painfully unable to locate and establish legitimate transitional fossils.
Finally, address the extraordinarily inconvenient racial ideas of Charles Darwin himself. There's a reason that the original title of Darwin's book included the line: "the preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for life." As some breed or race of humans evolves down Darwin's branch, they naturally are further developed, further trained, further advanced than all the others. A "master race," if you will.
Ask why those who claim they care about systemic racism and intrinsic racial bias in our institutions are looking the other way when it comes to a man who wrote in The Descent of Man that dark-skinned Africans and Australian Aborigines are closer to apes than Caucasians.
In short, don't avoid lampooning the ignorance of Darwin's fairy tale, ever. But in our current political environment, it's important for those courageous enough to do so that we make sure the attacks are well-placed, well-intentioned, and well-delivered.
