Welcome About the Book Sample Chapters Book Reviews About the Author Articles by the Author 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
|
 |
The United States of America is a divided country, beset by an intense cultural conflict, which may one day soon evolve into a shooting civil war like it did 150 years ago. States primarily in the Northeast and on the West Coast; currently referred to as “blue states” in American political jargon, generally have a higher per capita income and spend more money on schools. The folks in the rest of the country, the “red states,” earn less and tend to have cultural values aligned to Fundamentalist Christianity. As such, they reject Darwinism, the modern materialistic interpretation of reality. The people in the blue states think red-state citizens are a bunch of know-nothing yokels for thinking that way. Just to be sure, there are laws in the United States that enforce the teaching of Darwinism, and in late 2004 a local school district in Georgia, a red state, was forced to defend itself in court for amending a science textbook by stating:
This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.
Incredibly, a federal judge ruled this disclaimer unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of church and state. He was confused into thinking that any doubt about Darwin’s idea must be religious in nature. It is not, and last time I looked, Darwin is not mentioned in the US Constitution either. But the fellow’s ideas are force-fed to our students with the full support of the judicial branch of American government.
The essence of Darwinism is that it proceeds totally in a mechanical way and utterly without spiritual guidance. It is a Cosmological Philosophy, not a science. Very few people in America understand this clearly, including many professed Darwinists. Polls say only 15 percent identify with and trust Darwinism as it really is and accept, without question, this statement:
Human beings have developed over millions of years, but God had no part in this process.i
This 15 percent, many of whom are educators or employed by the media, accounts for approximately 25 million people, and most of them trust the theory solely on what they learned in high school or college biology classes or from popular science magazines and television. They tend to attribute rejection of Darwinism to “creationist” groups or simple ignorance. This is not accurate. The majority is justified in their disbelief since no one has ever actually seen Darwinist evolution at work. Many Americans, including federal judges, are hoodwinked by the notion that evolution is an evident truth. But Darwinism remains conjecture and a mystery, precisely because the “origin of species” is never observed, has never been observed, and cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory. But science and the media say it’s absolutely correct, and average Americans who have questions and reservations about it, are usually shouted down in school board meetings when they discover that their children are being forced by law to learn it. This is a real social problem. Generally, whenever an idea needs to be legally protected, it’s probably neither a good idea nor a good regulation. If it’s the truth, it will prevail. The truth does not need to be sheltered in an official edict.
Darwinist reasoning makes it all seem trouble-free, and this fools plenty of high school teachers. The following is an example of the evolution of mammals and humans taken from a pop science book. Similar ideas are presented in the classroom.
Some of the reptiles in the colder regions began to develop a method of keeping their bodies warm. Their heat output increased when it was cold and their heat loss was cut down when scales became smaller and more pointed, and evolved into fur. Sweating was also an adaptation to regulate the body temperature, a device to cool the body when necessary by evaporation of water. But incidentally the young of these reptiles began to lick the sweat of the mother for nourishment. Certain sweat glands began to secrete a richer and richer secretion, which eventually became milk. Thus the young of these early mammals had a better start in life.ii
This kind of evolution, the large-scale creation of new species from old ones, is called macroevolution, and the author makes it sound as easy as buying a new hat. But it is completely unknown if anything like this description ever actually happened, or can happen. Yes, mammals have fur, and reptiles, from which they supposedly evolved, have scales. But scales and fur are not even remotely similar in structure. It is not evident that one evolved into the other. No transitional form exits. It’s the same with all the other suppositions in this passage. The Darwinists create an interesting tale about what might have happened. These are called “Just So Stories” from Rudyard Kipling’s fantasy work by the same name. There is no way to know if any of it ever did happen. The logic is just connect the dots and presto, there you have it: Mammals needed fur; they got it when they needed it because they needed it. It sounds good in a very superficial way and this convinces impressionable students, especially in academic settings that automatically lend social credence to the theory.
There are observable evolutionary effects called microevolution, which are slight adaptations generally observed in nature; Darwin’s famous finches or the legendary changed pigmentation in the wings of a group of English moths are examples. Another well-known case in point deals with bacteria that develop immunity to antibiotics. Here, natural selection does insure that most of the bacteria around hospitals have genes that defend them from antibiotics in order to better survive in this hostile environment. But bacteria with the genes that offer this protection already existed before the selective pressure occurred. Nothing new was created. Though these antibiotic bacterial strains are often cited in the popular literature as examples of evolution, we are not dealing with the introduction of a new species or with the creation of new organs. This small-scale evolution, like the beak variations in Darwin’s finches, is also known as the mathematical theory because there are some statistical genetic data in it that can be used for analysis. The famous biologist C.H. Waddington had this to say about it:
The whole real guts of evolution—which is how do you come to have tigers and horses and things—is outside the mathematical theory.
What he meant is, the never observed macroevolution—how you get horses and tigers out of frogs and crocodiles—is only a deduction based upon the observed effects of microevolution. What is presented as science, is actually no more than a presumption, supported by the noticeable facts of apparent adaptation.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why a polar bear’s fur is white. It seems apparent that polar bears have adapted to the ice and snow of their environment and it may have happened through the effects of natural selection: Brown bears, like most mammals, occasionally produce albino offspring. In the polar region, these progeny, through survival of the fittest and reproductive success, eventually evolved a population of white bears. This might be true. But it is not species creation. Polar bears are exactly the same as brown bears except for their coloring, or technically, their lack of coloring. They can both mate and produce fertile cubs.
All of the changes so far described are called variations, meaning that they are not changes in the form of the animal. The clear hairs on the polar bear are anatomically identical to the darker ones on the brown bear. But the Darwinists take this much further and propose that a walking land mammal, able to swim like a polar bear, could become a whale by undergoing a myriad of profound physical changes, such as loss of legs, development of sonar, and a 90-degree rotation of the pelvis, to mention only a few.
This kind of proposal is the nexus of the primary dilemma: How, for example, would a fish evolve into a land-dwelling, air-breathing creature? Its fins would have to turn into legs with powerful new sets of muscles, while at the same time, it would have to develop lungs for breathing oxygen and completely new kidneys to flush the fluids it now needs to drink from its system. All these changes, and many more, must happen in a coordinated manner and be beneficial to the creature at every stage of the process, so that natural selection, acting on the level of the individual organism, can fix these new genes in the population. Darwinists admit that such changes are so unlikely that we will never see them occur in our lifetime, but over millions of years, they assert, such changes have happened not once, but repeatedly. Because the process is supposed to be slow and gradual, Darwinists think that they are off the hook and do not need to provide examples. They are content to create vivid explanations, like the one cited in the pop science book about reptiles, to show how it could have happened.
But tall tales are not science. If evolution is happening slowly, why don’t we see any of it happening now? If random events create new forms, genetic mutations indicative of directional change should be popping up all the time. As Darwin said, “Why isn’t all of nature in flux? Why isn’t every species a transitional form?” Good point! If selection and mutation are the creative force in life, then you need something to select from. We should see all the false starts that selection has not yet eliminated. We should see this within all species, continually and forever. Transition would be the normal state of nature. But we don’t see that happening. Instead, nature is remarkably stable, and the fossil record, as we shall see, validates this.
Ordinary people need to know that serious disputes about Darwinism don’t just come from fringe scientists and religious fanatics. Basically, the scientific dissenters, including Intelligent Design proponents, don’t deny microevolution. They reject the notion that random mutation and selection alone can produce new organs and new species. Distinguished geneticist Richard Goldschmidt issued this famous and still unanswered challenge to Darwinists in 1940:
I may challenge the adherents of the strictly Darwinian view, which we are discussing here, to try to explain the evolution of the following features by accumulation and selection of small mutants: hair in mammals, feathers in birds, segmentation of arthropods and vertebrates, the transformation of the gill arches in phylogeny including the aortic arches, muscles, nerves, etc.; further, teeth, shells of mollusks, ectoskeletons, compound eyes, blood circulation, alternation of generations, statocysts, ambulacral system of echinoderms, pedicellaria of the same, cnidocysts, poison apparatus in snakes, whalebone, and, finally, primary chemical differences like hemoglobin vs. hemocyanin, etc. Corresponding examples from plants could be given. iii
Some of Goldschmidt’s suggestions are beyond the average reader’s ken but we can all get the drift. He isn’t asking for any proof as to how teeth or feathers evolved from tiny mutations, just some kind of valid explanation beyond a wave of the hand. He didn’t get one, because no one could explain it then and no one can explain it now. Darwinism is an idea, and you may interpret data according to it, but there’s no way to know if any of it is true. And as Goldschmidt correctly challenged, it’s not even possible to realistically imagine how it works.
There is a good possibility that Darwinism is absolutely false but it survives all challenges because it is a political and sociological issue vital to the perpetuation of material atheism and monopoly capitalism as an economic system. The United States is secular and stridently militaristic; we have the largest and most powerful military force in world history. And sure, there are plenty of people in America who believe in divine beings and Jesus’ essential message, as well as innumerable politicians who want to fleece money and harvest votes from organized Christians, but the government and the educational system are secular. Darwinism fits in precisely because it is an atheistic determination of reality—a history of life devoid of spirituality. As such it is called “science” even though it does not meet the usual scientific criteria. Observations from nature don’t support the idea, but it holds sway anyway because it presents a possible way for life to evolve without any sort of God getting in the picture.
Darwinism is now the overriding philosophical principle of our culture and our Age. All our sciences conform to its materialistic design. It is the most important principle of our time because it has completely displaced spirituality and put animals on an equal footing with humanity. Humans, in spite of the fact that they are completely unique, are now often regarded merely as an advanced form of monkey, and a dangerous one at that.
The destruction of the natural world is not the result of global capitalism, industrialization, western civilization or any flaw in human institutions but is a consequence of the evolutionary success of an exceptionally rapacious primate.iv
Thus our civilization often interprets the evolution of the entire world, as well as the advancement of human nature, according to one general idea. Powerful institutional forces reason from this assumption and see, for example, a positive good in massive population decline. Some, like the late oceanographer Jacques Cousteau, argue that only a 90% reduction in human population will save the planet from environmental collapse. Others, like Dr. Henry Kissinger, simply argue with extreme malice that the “depopulation” of the Third World is necessary for the continued security of the United States and its allies.vThere are a lot of dead people in that equation, but it doesn’t present a problem to those indoctrinated in Darwinist/Eugenic logic. This ethos allows us to accept massive population reduction, to rationalize the evil inherent in the idea, and to make this wickedness intellectually and morally acceptable to ordinarily good people. This sort of iniquity seems commonplace today as we often calmly view mass murder for entertainment. In our minds, the Universe has become a cold and brutal materialistic environment and our society has evolved accordingly. For the last 100 years, the entire world has been at war. The just-closed 20th century was the most violent in history and the new century doesn’t appear to be any better. It is no coincidence that the rise of Darwinism to de facto state religion has exactly coincided with our civilization’s decline into the depths of depravity and unrepentant brutality.
i Gallup Poll, March 5 2001. Gallop began questioning views of evolution in 1982 and the numbers have remained constant ever since. Also, CBS News poll, Oct. 23, 2005.
ii George Gamow, Martynas Ycas, Mr. Tompkins Inside Himself (New York: Viking Press, 1967), p. 149.
iii Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution(New Haven: Yale, 1982).
iv John Gray, Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals (Granta, 2003). Also, Robert Wright, The Moral Animal: Why We Are the way We Are-The New scienceof Evolutionary Psychology, (Vintage, New York, 1994), Frans de Waal, Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are, (Penguin, New York, 2005). For a scathing critique of evolutionary psychology see John Horgan, The Undiscovered Mind: How the Human Brain Defies Replication, Medication, and Explanation, (Simon & Schuster, 1999), “Darwin to the Rescue” pp.167-19 and Mario Beauregard, Ph.D & Denyse O’leary The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul, Harper One, 2007.
v National Security Memo 200, April 24, 1974, "Implications of world wide population growth for U.S. security & overseas interests." It states in part "depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy towards the Third World." The latest things are ethnic specific germ warfare weapons: Roy Blake, “Genetic Bullets, Ethnically Specific Bioweapons,” Washington Free Press, Jan./ Feb. 2000. Robert Lederman, “The Human Genome Project and Eugenics,” North Coast Xpress, Fall 2000. Greg Bishop, “Ethnic Weapons for Ethnic Cleansing,” Konformist, March 2000, Terrie Girdner, Karen Parlette, Jennifer Swift, “Human Genome Project Opens the Door to Ethnically Specific Bioweapens,” Project Censored, April 8, 2003. Corporate news coverage: Daily Telegraph (London) 7/7/00, Agence France Presse 1/21/99, The Gazette (Montreal) A-4, Baltimore Sun 1/22/99 A-18, The Salt Lake City Tribune 1/27/99 A-13, The Times Union (Albany) 2/2/99 D-2.