What Darwin and the Russian Collusion Theory Have in Common

For as long as man has stared toward the heavens and wondered why, and subsequently charged his sciences with the responsibility of answering that question, the holy grail of that largely worthy discipline has been to discover the origin of life itself, of course assuming as a foundational aspect of that effort, that with no help from outside the physical world, "something," originally morphed out of "nothing."  The built-in assumption regarding the scientific perspective on the origin of life is that "life" must have resulted naturally from "no-life."  If that is true, then a verified, reproducible life-creation discovery could even, eventually, place science into a position of supervising that activity.  If that is not true, then science ultimately has little to consider here.

Darwin, Rosenstein, McCabe, Comey and Mueller

But once the scientist’s foundational assumption that life came from no-life might be authentically verified, his next purpose would be to prove that the first kernel of life coming forth, prompted by no identifiable cause, subsequently multiplied, morphing as it went into all other categories of life, the end product of course being a scientific explanation providing a reason for all various forms of life on the planet, perhaps even the universe. Unfortunately, well, at least as of this writing, science is no closer toward reaching its prime objective than when Darwin first published his speculations nearly 160 years ago.

Curiously enough however, without a shred of evidence supporting the notion that life can, much less did, spring from no-life, aided by operatives in government, science eventually bridged the chasm separating pure conjecture on one side, from evidence-based, verifiable fact on the other, presuming itself to be the lone arbiter of such things, and painted the previous mere notion that life came from no-life as a reliable, scientific principle, which it began teaching in public schools, albeit a principle that science promises it can only certify at some indeterminate time in the future, given of course enough time and taxpayer resources...

And because those who pursue the holy grail of science have always been able to count on an inexhaustible supply of taxpayer resources to support their purposes, truth be told the minors and sappers engaged in the pseudo-science of determining life origin would be better off, at least financially, were they to continue to fail at their seemingly arduous, however self-serving purpose, which they undertake while working systematically to eliminate plausibility in the public mind that God really might be the one true Source of life in the universe, and the Creator of all things known and still unknown to man.

And I bring this up not to pick on those whose faith in science to eventually explain the unexplainable is, well, unexplainable, but instead to draw a parallel between those who have cemented that unverifiable conclusion in the minds of much the same impressionable segment of the population to which Darwin’s speculations appeal, and further convinced them that there is no thinkable conclusion other than the Russians interfered in the 2016 election and Donald Trump was behind it all, colluding and stealing the election from their candidate as he went.  Similar to Darwin's speculations, that final judgment requires the foundational presumption that something came from nothing.  Facts came from no facts.  As in Darwin’s theory, there exists no evidence to validate any hope that Trump colluded with the Russians, only manufactured manuscripts, such as Darwin once penned, paid for by Trump’s opponent, alleging the same.  

And curiously enough, in parallel style as above, without a shred of evidence supporting the notion that Trump colluded with the Russians, the Democrats and liberal media subsequently bridged the chasm separating pure conjecture on one side, from evidence-based, verifiable fact on the other, presuming themselves to be the lone arbiters of such things, and painted the mere notion that Trump colluded with the Russians as a reliable, certifiable principle, which they teach in the mainstream news, albeit a principle that special government investigators promise they can only certify at some indeterminate time in the future, given of course enough time and taxpayer resources...

And so armed only with conjecture and guileful purposes, but possessed of seemingly endless sums of taxpayer funds and time, political operatives who find it advantageous to bend weaker public minds to believe what no presentable fact can support, have not only made fools of themselves to those who see through their ruse, but have also made fools of those possessing only weaker aptitudes, and who are exceptionally predisposed by their own personal ideological prejudices to believe them, which brings us to our point.

Those unfortunate souls, predisposed by personal ideological preferences to believe the aforementioned 2016 election contrivances, have only wishful-thinking to guide their conclusions.  They wish Trump guilty and will believe anyone who offers them a path to that end.  But Darwin would agree, wishful thinking comes to nothing.  Wishful thinking, pure want of substance, cannot place food on the table.  Darwin would therefore predict, a society dependent upon wishful thinking, born of ideological prejudices rather than facts, would inevitably starve, diminishing the gene pool.  Ironically, were Darwin’s speculations truly correct, that segment of the population who believes them, and who also largely believes the Trump Russian Collusion Theory, would have become extinct eons ago, verifiable evidence that Darwin was either mistaken, or that he did not anticipate the welfare state.