VICTOR JOECKS: How universities unwittingly undermine evolution

Victor Joecks argues that universities, while professing commitment to evolutionary theory, often act contrary to its principles. Many higher‑education institutions claim to support evolution, yet their practices suggest otherwise. In recent weeks the career of former Cambridge University professor Jason Arday unraveled. He was not a household name, but he was described as a world‑renowned figure with a fairy‑tale background. Arday stated that his autism and other developmental delays prevented him from speaking until age 11 and that he could not read until age 18. Nevertheless, at 37 he became the youngest Black professor in Cambridge’s storied history. He also asserted that he had completed 30 marathons in 35 days to raise money for charitable causes—a sampling of the claims surrounding his biography. Arday’s narrative began to fall apart after Nathan Cofnas of Ghent University presented substantial evidence of plagiarism in Arday’s international work. Other scholars had previously raised similar concerns, but Cambridge appeared uninterested in determining whether its star professor was a fraud. Arday died—apparently by suicide—after the public learned the extent of his fabrications. It is evident that Cambridge, as an institution, and dozens if not hundreds of academics evaluated Arday based on his skin color rather than his scholarly merit. They pursued diversity so fervently that they overlooked obvious falsehoods. Only within academia can someone be celebrated for “wearing the Emperor’s New Clothes.” This pattern extends far beyond a single institution in England. For years American universities have lowered admissions standards in the pursuit of demographic diversity. In some instances they have blatantly discriminated against white and Asian applicants. In other cases they have removed standardized test scores from admissions considerations. This month a mathematics professor at UC Berkeley explained that the policy has left her students five to eight years behind in mathematics. Consider the theory of evolution. Perhaps the rarer occurrence than a conservative professor is one who believes, as I do, that “God created the heavens and the Earth.” Evolution posits that life developed from simple organisms into progressively complex animals through natural selection, not divine direction. To claim that everything and everyone arose from nothing requires a leap of faith larger than a child jumping the Grand Canyon. “Natural selection is sometimes (seen) as ‘survival of the fittest’ because the ‘fittest’ organisms—those most suited to their environment—are the ones that reproduce most successfully and are most likely to pass their traits to the next generation,” National Geographic states. The idea of survival of the fittest is presented as an unstoppable, undirected natural process that most scientists assert has unfolded for billions of years. Yet universities have consciously rejected it. These formerly elite colleges should prioritize intellectual merit irrespective of skin color, ethnicity, or other factors. Instead, they have long elevated other considerations above genuine fitness. A typical rebuttal holds that human beings are not mere animals driven solely by instinct and genetics; we possess a moral compass, are willing to die for principles, and make conscious decisions to prioritize various values. These distinctions are evident because humans are fundamentally different from animals. It is intellectually honest for a Christian or theist to assert this view. How do atheists arrive at the same conclusion? Many seek to live under theistic implications while denying their intellectual foundation. As apologist Frank Turek put it, atheists “steal from God” concepts such as morality. Observe what is happening on campuses: “Survival of the fittest” is taught in the classroom but rejected throughout the rest of university life.