Welcome About the Book Sample Chapters Book Reviews About the Author Articles by the Author Film Theory View the Blog Media News Email the Author Link Page
6 MILLION AND COUNTING
DARWIN, ATHEISM AND GENOCIDE
THE DARWINIAN CRISIS IN AMERICA
TABLE OF CONTENTS & SAMPLE CHAPTERS
|
 |
It would be very productive if we all could engage in free debate about Darwin. We know now that in a professional setting disagreement with Darwin can be dangerous. In a social setting, it’s almost impossible to talk to Darwinists unless you are in agreement. Critical conversation on the topic usually devolves into an argument, and a pretty vicious one at that. Expect to be treated with derision and scorn if you question Darwin in mixed company. Still though, it is necessary to deal with them, because Darwinists control the debate about human origins from the classroom to the newspapers, as well as in all the nature shows on TV and in all the popular science literature. They think they have the answers, even though most professed Darwinists have no more schooling in biology than perhaps a course in high school or college, and often what they know is from popular science magazines such as Scientific American and Discover.
The last time I spoke to a Darwinist, a college graduate, I told him I thought the theory didn’t have any weight. He just grinned and said, “That’s because you don’t understand Darwin.” We talked some more and it turned out he was the one who didn’t understand Darwin. He was under the impression that the blanket term “evolution” covered all the bases. It doesn’t. He referred me to an article he had read in National Geographic that explained everything, very clear. “If only you would read it,” he said, “Then you’d understand how evolution works.” He didn’t know that magazines like National Geographic are editorially bound to support Darwin to the point of absolutely prohibiting alternative discussions—not even contrary letters to the editors are allowed.
“Well” I asked, “what do you think I need to know?” He exhaled in sheer bliss. Now, the moment of opportunity had come. “The flipper of a whale has five digits, just like a human hand!” he exclaimed. I said, “That’s called a homology, but what does it mean?” Hyperventilated, he looked at me like I was a fool. “Why, it means that we share a common ancestor with whales and are related, just as Darwin predicted!” Now that might be true. But actually, it also means both are mammals and share similar characteristics of their class. I tried to point out to him that this was not proof for Darwinist evolution; that any number of events could have produced the similarity, and that the hindlimbs of all mammals were also constructed in the same way as the forelimbs. No evolutionist suggests that the fore and hindlimbs evolved from each other. They have different functions; but if both evolved independently from tiny mutations why did they both change in exactly the way? The design seems paramount and universal among mammals. Frustrated, he walked away, then turned back to face me. “It’s as plain as day” he said. “The whale and we have a common ancestor, and that’s why the flipper and the human hand are constructed practically alike!” He didn’t get it. I told him again that another explanation could be archetypes; that nature has a way of constructing similar organs because the natural world recognizes successful designs. “That’s Darwinism,” he shouted in triumph. So I asked him to define Darwinism. “It’s evolution,” he said. “Define evolution,” I replied. “Darwinism…” he started to say, but then shook his head in dismay. I looked him in the eye and interjected “Can’t you see the circular reasoning? Darwinism is evolution and evolution is Darwinism? It’s meaningless.” “It’s not circular,” he said with contempt. “They mean the same thing because they are the same thing.”
That’s where he was dead wrong. He saw “evolution” as being Darwinism, but Darwin’s idea is actually a very specific kind of evolution, one that proceeds mechanically by means of genetic mutations and natural selection. Finally, I tried another approach and said, “Tell me one thing that is true about Darwin’s theory of the origin of species?” He was dumbfounded. He looked to the left and to the right, shook his head, and said, “That’s not a fair question.” I couldn’t help but laugh because sure, it’s a very fair question. Had I asked him to tell me one true thing about astronomy or geology, he, being college educated, could have given me a long list of scientific truths. Why couldn’t he tell me one true thing about Darwin’s theory of evolution? He sat silently for some time, and then leapt up saying, “I know! All things are interrelated!” We weren’t going anywhere except back to square one. All things may be interrelated but that doesn’t mean they got that way according to Darwin’s idea. I thought about the Darwinist who told me that I only needed to look out the window for all the proof I needed. For her, the theory had become so ingrained that she couldn’t even conceive of any other interpretation of reality. Existence itself proved the theory.
Obviously, I still had a lot to learn about talking to Darwinists, primarily because they are not logical. Where, after all, is the logic in a science when no one justly knows whether it is true or not? Where is the logic when believers can’t recite one factual thing about what they are defending? The truth is Darwinists don’t like to be asked probing questions, especially by those who are critical of their theory and not intimidated by bluster. Where is the evidence that whales and humans have a common ancestor? How is it scientifically true that a mouse scurrying about in a field can grow wings and fly or that a fish can naturally turn into a person, given enough time? These propositions may be the essence of Darwin’s idea but are they true?
Darwin’s Field Trip
And how can marriages be made most beneficial? That is a question which I put to you, because I see in your house dogs for hunting, and of the nobler sorts of birds not a few. Now I ask you; do tell me, have you ever attended to their paring and breeding and do you breed from them all indifferently, or do you take care to breed from the best only? Yes, certainly only the best. Good heavens my dear friend, what consummate skill will our rulers need if the same principle holds of the human species! Plato, The Republic, Book V, -360 B.C.
Many people are at least vaguely familiar with Darwin’s one-and-only field expedition to the Galapagos Islands where he formulated his theory. While there, he saw that the islands’ finches (a family of birds, generally including the canary and cardinal) varied from one another and from mainland species in a mixture of ways. Darwin reckoned the differences sprang from the birds’ geographical separation from one another and through natural selection. Darwin’s finches are now classified into 14 species, even though the ground finches and the tree finches are indistinguishable from one another by molecular data and are able to mate. Like the polar and brown bear, variations among finches are morphological, i.e., their colors and beak size and shape may vary but they function the same way and are really not separate species. Renowned Darwinist Ernst Mayr defines species as; “Groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other groups.” By that definition, a roughly analogous situation among humans would be to classify Asians and equatorial Africans as different species because they are widely separated and generally do not mate with one another. But they can reproduce, and we know that despite the vast differences in physical appearance between Africans and Asians, they are one species. Sociologically, the Darwinists haven’t been able to get away with defining physically different humans as separate species, at least not now. They classify animal species solely on the basis of morphology because they feel they can sell this to an unwitting public as evidence for diversification from a common ancestor. But variations are not automatic evidence for evolution. Darwinist evolution requires a creative and unique hereditary element. Something new and original has to appear: Creation. The fact that the coloration of some birds differs slightly is not proof for the creation of new forms, which is the crux of the Darwinist argument. In the Galapagos, Darwin observed the effects of microevolution or small changes within a species. From this examination, he deduced that macroevolution; the origin of new species and organs was determined in the same way. This was speculation, and it remains so to this day. Why then is Darwin’s deduction mandated and enforced by law to be the educational standard for our entire society? That’s because the sociology of his idea became crucial to a massive atheistic and materialistic conception of the universe. This happened gradually. In response to an idea whose time had come, many people developed theories similar to Darwin’s, some even before him. In 1851, the book Social Statistics was published. Its author, Herbert Spencer, promoted evolutionary ideas apropos sociology. Spencer coined the phrase “survival of the fittest” and declared that those people who are the “fittest” would survive through evolution and that it would be better for everyone if those who weren’t “fit” disappeared. Herbert Spencer the Malthusian had this to say about the “unfit”:
The whole effort of nature is to get rid of such, and to make room for better…if they are not sufficiently complete to live, they die, and it is best that they should die. All imperfection must disappear. [xxxvi]
Malthus and now Spencer anticipated the Eugenics movement and its use as a rationale for the various systematically organized Holocausts that continue to plague humankind. Also, as we said, well before Darwin the English naturalist Patrick Matthew had introduced the concept of “natural selection.” In historical terms, it doesn’t matter when these ideas took root; it was the concept of “selection” and “fitness to survive” that captivated the industrial state. The Industrial Revolution was in the midst of a Malthusian upheaval in thought and action. Had Darwin not been there, Alfred Russel Wallace or someone else would have presented the same theory, one impossible to overlook, given the imagined needs of the time.
Shortly after Darwin published, a significant fossil find seemed to indicate his theory was valid. Archaeopteryx was a fossilized bird with reptilian features such as teeth and claws, and it looked like a creature in transition from reptile to bird. Since it had feathers, it was immediately assumed that this was an evolutionary link between the great flying dinosaurs and modern birds. However, one modern bird, the hoatzin, has claws, and many bird fossils have teeth, so it’s not altogether clear that Archaeopteryx is a form in transition. It could be just another odd bird, like the reptilian-clawed hoatzin. In any case, Archaeopteryx provides no evidence for the evolution of feathers, and that’s what makes a bird a bird. Darwinists assume, and tell impressionable students that, “feathers must have evolved from scales.” Like the imaginary evolution of fur from scales, there is no data to support this at all. Feathers in Archaeopteryx appear fully developed, as perfect as the modern form. No transitional phase exists.[xxxvii]
Still, Archaeopteryx was and still is an argument for the theory and its discovery dismayed and socially defeated the early academic opponents to Darwinism, or transmutation as it was called in those days. Brilliant 19th century biologists like Richard Owen, Louis Aggasiz, and Georges Cuvier, among many others, based their objections to Darwin not on religious belief, but upon the facts they saw in nature. Shortly after Darwin published, Owen had this to say about the theory:
Is there any one instance proved by observed facts of transmutation? The last ichthyosaurus, by which the genus disappears in chalk, is hardly indistinguishable specifically from the first ichthyosaurus, which abruptly introduces that strange form of sea-lizard in the Lias. The oldest Pterodactyl is as thorough and complete as one of the latest. [xxxviii]
You can’t argue with this. Observation reveals that nature is not in flux, not presently nor in the fossil record, and Owen’s remark is as true today as it was centuries ago. But Owen, who based his objections upon scientific observation, was dismissed as a religious fanatic, as are all dissenters nowadays.
Darwinism then took on a life of its own as industrialization and colonialism began to dominate Europe and North America. Darwin’s ideas were promoted for sociological reasons, while others, which at one time had primacy, were discarded. Scientists had already begun to rely upon a concept variously known as “methodological materialism,” “empiricism,” or “the scientific method.” This process demands that all scientific evidence be measurable, and reproducible under experimental conditions. To those in the university system who wished to escape the confines of Christianity, Darwin’s idea, as a materialistic conception of the universe, was very appealing. It offered an opportunity to explain a reality that didn't have anything to do with God, the Bible, or religious dogma. Given a choice between dealing with religious dogmatists or else developing ideas in an environment of academic freedom, Darwin and his ideas looked very good. With a new sense of freedom, researchers began to “find” evidence to justify Darwinism because after all, it was already known that things change over time in the physical world. Today’s media often use the phrase, “change through time,” as a general description of Darwinism when it sells the idea, and this seems reasonable to the average person.
But did all current life evolve from a common ancestor in the remote past as the Darwinists assert? Is there continuity in nature? This is still an open question. The leap from non-living matter to life is essentially unimaginable, and modern theories are guesswork.[xxxix]Fred Hoyle likened the spontaneous emergence of life to a tornado swirling through a junkyard and producing a Boeing 747 airplane. Darwinists long said that the original spontaneous emergence of life from inorganic matter must have taken billions of years. In a sudden turnabout, the current theory now proposes that life might have begun on Earth as soon as the oceans were sufficiently cool to allow it to happen, or very rapidly. One convenient characteristic of Darwinist theory is that it allows believers to interpret evidence in any which way to support its theory. So the new data, which completely overturned the old assumptions, didn’t faze Darwinist Carl Sagan at all:
Thus the time available for the origin of life seems to have been short, a few hundred million years at the most. Since life originated on the earth, we have additional evidence that the origin of life has a high probability.[xl]
“Since life originated on the earth.” How can he know this? Maybe life was introduced to the earth from afar. Anyway, the truth is unknown. But for Darwinists, whatever the facts, they always support the theory because the results are always interpreted according to the theory. The error in this methodology should be obvious. However, to the uncritical reader, Darwinist storytellers like Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, Michael Ruse, and Richard Dawkins spin a good yarn.[xli]However, a careful reading by anyone not intellectually or emotionally committed to the theory reveals that Darwin’s defenders make bold assumptions centered upon pure speculation.
Designed by Euro-Americans, Darwinism became a modern creation myth that placed European society at the center of human evolution. Through mechanical action, this myth purports that; in and around Europe and the Mediterranean Basin, apelike mammalian creatures gradually evolved from reptiles, amphibians, and fish into the human species. These peoples then emerged from the rigors of an Ice Age to develop agriculture, eventually migrating outward towards India, China, and the Americas. This idea, familiar to many of us, took hold in late 19th century England and in central Europe as a powerful alternative and refreshing break from a stifling religious intransigence.
Now, history sees humankind as only recently emerged onto the world stage, the product of billions of years of random, directionless, evolutionary development. This has evidently confused our civilization as we appear to be dependent upon an absolutely false theory of our origins. Consequently, without accurate historical perspective, we are puzzled about where we came from, how we got here, and where we are going. Euro-Americans responsible for the development of ideas measure almost all their disciplines to a faulty outline of history suggested by Darwin: These include anthropology (both physical and cultural), archeology, astronomy/cosmology, history, biochemistry, biology, exobiology, molecular biology, sociology, and psychology. This means that virtually every tenet of advanced education may be false. We’ve taken a wrong turn in the road.
[xxxvi] Cited in Edwin Black, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race, (Thunder Mouth Press, New York, 2003) p. 12.
[xxxvii] For more on Archaeopteryx see Adam and Evolution, op. cit., pp. 220-225. Michael Pitman has this to say about the evolution of feathers: “All birds have feathers: no other organisms do. Archaeopteryx has feathers. There exists absolutely no evidence for the evolution of feathers. The guess that DNA coding for scales `must have' changed to produce feathers is entirely unsubstantiated. No intermediate scale-feather exists” (p. 222). Also B.J Stahl: “No fossil structure between scale and feather is known. The supposition that feathers were derived from scales is based upon the fact that both are nonliving, keratinized structures generated from papillae on the surface of the body. The feathers in Archaeopteryx were already in Jurassic time exactly like those of birds flying today.” B.J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, (Dover, New York, 1974), p. 350.
[xxxviii] Richard Owen, “Darwin on the Origin of Species” Edinburgh Review, April 1860, 11: 487-532, cited in David L. Hull, Darwin and his Critics, (Harvard, 1973), p. 211.
[xxxix] Garry Hamilton, “Mother Superior” New Scientist, vol. 187, no. 2515, pp.26-29. He reports the latest theories, which generally imply; “The first living entity would have been a self replicating molecule.” Also, Robert M. Hazen, Gen-e-sis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origins, (Joseph Henry Press, 2005), Clay Minerals and the Origin of Life, Graham Cairns-Smith, ed. (Cambridge University Press, 1986), and for hundreds of theoretical papers; THE ORIGINS AND EARLY EVOLUTION OF LIFE, The World Wide Web Home Page for research on the origin and early evolution of life on the Earth, http://www.chemistry.ucsc.edu/~deamer/home.html
[xl] Carl Sagan, Scientific American, 1975, 232(5), p. 82.
[xli] Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence (New York, 1977), Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, (New York, 1980) offers the notion that through evolutionary biology one may comprehend the mind of God.