Call it as it is: Evolution Pollution, Convolution; Darwin 's Delusion. I have decided not to publish this book in hard copy. In stead to do it on line, so as to avoid the endless cycle of editing, proof reading, then printing, marketing and distribution. This on line version can be added to and expanded as I feel the need. Please use the material as you wish - for personal edification or class curriculum.
FIRST SOME GROUNDWORK
According to atheist Richard Dawkins, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
This word ‘intellectually’, what does it mean? The Cambridge on line dictionary defines it to mean ‘in a way that relates to your ability to think and understand things, especially complicated ideas’.
Is evolution/Darwinism/neo-Darwinism complicated? No.
Does Dawkins intend us to understand that for the atheists, Darwin made it possible to be intellectual about atheism and to be contented and satisfied as well? But this is a category error. While the theory of evolution may support atheism as it does many other world views, atheism is a world view about the (non)existence of a God, and evolution purports to be science. A category error. Or is Dawkins underhandedly digging at dim-witted Theists?
This can get interesting. Either Dawkins has little knowledge of Darwin’s writing, or his blind faith in atheism has clouded his ‘ability to think and understand things, especially complicated ideas.’
Many who follow Dawkins assume, as Dawkins does, assume that Darwin ushered in a view of nature with no ultimate plan or purpose nor a place for God. However, an examination of Darwin’s notebooks and correspondence with colleagues after he wrote his tome reveals that he struggled with the religious implications of evolution. To modify Dawkins’ quote: Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Christian theist – not that Christianity needed the double-minded voice of Darwin.
Letters Darwin wrote to leading scientific colleagues from 1860 expresses his confusion on intelligent design (by God) and show his view and state of mind: ‘I grieve to say that I cannot honestly go as far as you do about Design. I am conscious that I am in an utterly hopeless muddle. I cannot think that the world, as we see it, is the result of chance; and yet I cannot look at each separate thing as the result of Design … Again, I say I am, and shall ever remain, in a hopeless muddle.’ And ‘The point which you raise on intelligent design has perplexed me beyond measure. I am in a complete jumble on the point. One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions and man without believing that all has been intelligently designed; yet when I look to each individual organism I can see no evidence of this.’ And ‘how difficult not to speculate! My theology is a simple muddle; I cannot look at the universe as the result of blind chance, yet I can see no evidence of beneficent design, or indeed of design of any kind, in the details. As for each variation that has ever occurred having been preordained for a special end, I can no more believe in it than that the spot on which each drop of rain falls has been specially ordained.’
Darwin ‘cannot look at each separate thing (individual organism) as the result of Design’ because in the forefront of biology was the belief in ‘Spontaneous Generation.’ This held that organisms could spontaneously spring forth from non-living matter – like grubs from bad meat, like fleas from dust, like scarabs from desert sand. Cells were just blobs of protoplasm. Therefore, Darwin found no need to posit intelligent design for the ‘details’. More on Spontaneous Generation later.
Darwin’s confusion. He was trapped between creation which leads him to the belief the world is “intelligently designed” and “blind chance.” Darwin is “compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind” because of “the impossibility of conceiving this immense and wondrous universe … as a result of blind chance or necessity.” But he also rejects unchangeable species and the perfect design of “every detail of structure.”
Enter Richard Dawkins. He is an intellectually fulfilled atheist thanks to ‘hopeless muddle’ of Darwin.
Here are a few quotes selected from many:
Philosopher Malcolm Muggeridge: ‘The theory of Evolution … will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has.’
Dr T N Tahmisian, a former U.S. Atomic Energy Commission physiologist: “Scientists who go about teaching that Evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining Evolution we do not have one iota of fact.”
Dr Louise Bounoure, Director of Research at the French National Centre for Scientific Research, Director of the Zoological Museum and former president of the Biological Society of Strasbourg : ‘Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.’
Even though the theory of evolution is on the way out and held together only by the guerdon faithful, the media and those who have a vested interest, it has been so well popularized that the ideas of evolution have permeated most of our culture.
While Charles Darwin’s life is an interesting read, only a few pointers will be listed here.
Darwin did not “invent” the theory of evolution. The evolutionary notion comes from as far back as Aristotle (died 322BC) and many other scientists presented the ideas through the ages without investing any meaningful research on the subject. Darwin’s father and grand-father, as well as his wife’s family subscribed to the concept of evolution before Darwin published his works.
Darwin first followed in his father’s footsteps, but found medicine not to his liking. His father then sent him to Cambridge to become an Anglican clergyman. At that time he did not doubt the literal truth of the Bible. He was however more interested in the natural sciences. He studied John Herschel, a prolific scientist and astronomer and William Paley, a Christian apologist best known for his teleological argument for the existence of God, and who saw adaptation of species as evidence of design.
Because of his interest in the natural sciences, Darwin was offered a position on board the Beagle for a sea voyage around the world for the purposes of research, and collected samples and made copious notes. Darwin was quite orthodox and would quote the Bible as an authority on morality. By his return he was critical of the Bible as history and thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy. Darwin was reluctant to give up the idea of God as an ultimate lawgiver but could not reconcile with the problem of evil.
In 1879 Darwin wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.”
Darwin published some 30 books and monographs. His most well known work was in 1859: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” known by it’s shorter title “The Origin of Species”.
The issues of evolution was a hotly contested debate amongst dozens of prominent scientists from the naturalistic as well as from the theistic side during and after the life of Darwin. In comparison the debate on evolution today is relatively mild. It seems that scientific research has advanced sufficiently, as well as the realization that the mechanisms for evolution are inadequate, for theists to have strong argument against evolution. Simply put, the arguments in favour of theists are strengthened as science progresses. Currently at least 60% of evolution scientists are dissatisfied with the mechanisms that supposedly drive the evolutionary process, and are working behind closed doors to find new mechanisms. Evolution is all they have and are hell-bent to make it work.
What are these mechanisms. Darwin described two mechanisms that drive the evolutionary process. These have been modified and are now called the Neo-Darwinian model, which is probably the mainstream theory of evolution today. Neo-Darwinian model argues that life has evolved through two natural mechanisms without explaining how these ‘natural mechanisms’ came to be: natural selection and mutation. The theory basically asserts that natural selection (survival of the fittest) and mutation (genetic changes) are two complementary mechanisms. The origin of evolutionary modifications lies in random mutations that take place in the genetic structures of living things. The traits brought about by mutations are selected by the mechanism of natural selection, and by this means living things evolve.
However, when we look further into this theory, we find that there is no such evolutionary mechanism, except on paper. Neither natural selection nor mutations can cause different species to evolve into one another, and the claim that they can is completely unfounded. The evolutionary mechanism cannot add new and novel information. Countless computer models have been designed to simulate evolution and these have shown that the process fails. Further, Darwin predicted that if the fossil record did not produce the missing links that connected known and extinct life forms, that the theory of evolution would be doomed. Richard Dawkins erroneously claims “Even if not a single fossil has ever been found, the evidence from surviving animals would still overwhelmingly force the conclusion that Darwin was right.” Right about what – that evolution is true or it is doomed? And so evolutionary science is replete with fraudulent claims – from bones to homology – all trying to fill the gap. Examples of these are discussed later.
There are an estimated 5 million to 100 million life forms inhabiting earth. Add to that the estimated 5000 million to 100000 million life forms that are now extinct. The numbers of fossils in museums and research institutions probably numbers in the millions, yet none of them, no not one of them wins the classification of a transitional missing link. Considering that there should be thousands of transitional forms between each known life form, alive or fossil, there should be more transitional specimens in our museums than there are known life forms.
In discussion with others, it is important to know your material. Always give credit where it is due. Never appear obstinate. Admit when you do not have the answers but promise to investigate.
The word “EVOLUTION” is arguably the most misused and abused word in scientific debate. It is vitally important for the reader to understand the word, and then to ask the correct questions during a discussion. If you do not master this you will be added to the long list of people who have been abused by the slight of the tongue and the misuse of science.
Science is your friend. Science does not have an opinion. Scientific facts are interpreted according to worldview. Theist, atheist, naturalist, animist etc. will interpret the data according to their worldview. Some will be intellectually dishonest and selectively exclude or filter data so that it fits their worldview. Evolution is not a science, it is a worldview. Evolutionists will use the same scientific data you have available and interpret it according to their worldview. John B. Haldane said “I am quite sure that our views on evolution would be very different had biologists studied genetics and natural selection before and not after most of them were convinced that evolution had occurred.”
If an Evolutionist responds that scientists do not have an answer to your question yet, it is time to question the validity of ideas based on those claims. For example: “If we do not know the conditions of the early earth, how can we be sure how the first cells were formed?” Answers are typically fluffed out with “perhaps”, “maybe”, “it can be imagined”, “it must have”, “probably”. Watch out for these words.
In a discussion, the Evolutionist may say that your view is a Religious view and cannot be used in science. Yes, secular science allows only natural explanations because that is how science has been defined. However, just because supernatural explanations are not scientific, does not mean that they are not valid. (See later) As already noted, evolution is also not a science – it is a worldview supported by cherry picking supporting evidences.
Myth Deceptions.
Free Book. Ideas, myths & stories everyone believes but are false or only partially true. This book is an easy read. With many millions of people placing their opinions in the public sphere it has become difficult to separate the sound from the distortion, the truth from the lie. From many years of reading and listening to top reliable Christian authors, philosophers and apologists this book comes as an aid to the Christian who has been smothered by distorted noise produced by vocal secularists. Myth-Deceptions helps you with ideas, myths and stories everyone believes, but are false or partially true in the following areas. The Galileo Legend. The Missionaries. The Slave Trade. The Da Vinci Code. Heretic and Witch Hunts. The Story of the Magi. The Real History of the Crusades. Zeitgeist. The War between Science and Religion. Faith is (not) Wishing
https://sites.google.com/view/mythdeceptions/home
The Homosexual Debate.
Free Book. Settling the dust around the gay-lesbian issue from a scientific, conservative, political, health, social, national and religious perspective. https://sites.google.com/view/thehomosexualdebate/home
Fokjo
Stupidity is it's own enemy - it just needs to be put out there for the world to see. If you want to defend your sorry case, you are welcome - just at least have a working knowledge of LOGIC101. Otherwise fokjo
https://rocksinthebox.blogspot.com/
Does it help to talk to rocks in a box. Well, it helps me feel better, and besides, maybe they will manage to think out of the box.
The Smell of Breakfast
https://smellofbreakfast.blogspot.com/
What happened while you were sleeping