The View From 1776

§ American Traditions

§ People and Ideas

§ Decline of Western Civilization: a Snapshot

§ Books to Read


Liberal_Jihad_Cover.jpg Forward USA

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

A Reader Disagrees

Some points in favor of Darwin’s evolutionary hypothesis.

Reader Leonard Dickens disagrees with The Evolution of Charles Darwin.  He comments:

1.  Science is done by humans, and as such, is an imperfect domain.? So a scientist may come to believe a theory for the wrong reasons.? The right reason is only that it is true, meaning practically that it explains all the known data better than any other theory.? That some scientists may accept a theory for bad reasons doesn?t mean it is false.

My reply:  There is no disagreement that some scientists may accept a speculative hypothesis for bad reasons, nor that the reason to accept something is because it’s true.  Whether Darwin’s speculative hypothesis is truth remains the unanswered question.

2.  Evolution is perhaps the greatest scientific theory of all time.? It has been confirmed repeatedly, in domain after domain.? I refer you to the wiki page on it: : ?within the science of biology, it has completely replaced other explanations for the origin of species, including creationism and Lamarckism.? If you really want to explore the evidence for evolution, I?d suggest googling for ?evidence evolution? and see what comes up.

My reply:  Awarding Darwin the honor of the greatest scientific theory of all time is something of a stretch.  Most scientists, I suspect, would place Newton and many others higher on the scale than Darwin.  One of the points I made in my pieces about Darwin is that his theory is essentially useless.  It has no predictive value, nor does it aid our understanding of animals and plants in the same way that detailed study of those animals and plants does.  In contrast, other scientific and mathematical theories are used every day, in countless ways, to design and accurately predict countless things.

Darwinian evolution has only one use: to support the atheistic and materialistic doctrine of socialism.  It was concocted by a man who was motivated to discredit what he called the “damnable doctrine” of Christianity.

The fact that a large number of atheistic scientists accept Darwinian evolution, of itself, proves exactly nothing.  Approximately fifty million Germans believed that Adolph Hitler was correct in denigrating the Jews as an inferior race and declaring the Germans to be the master race.  Many millions more, here and in Europe, fervently believed that the Soviet Union was mankind’s hope for a perfected future.

Darwinians and liberal-socialists alike fervently believe in Darwinian evolution and in socialism, simply because they refuse to look with open eyes at the massive evidence that contradicts both doctrines.  As Karl Popper observed, a doctrine that seeks only to find confirming evidence and ignores contradictory evidence is not science, but scientism.

As for googling “evidence evolution,” the results I got are nothing more than the usual catalogue of similarities of parts of physical structures from one animal or plant to others.  I would suggest that you also look at contrary evidence presented in cutting-edge, new research in biochemistry, which demonstrates that the root proposition of Darwinian evolution is unsupportable. 

Darwinian evolution is not simply the idea that natural selection might act in the same way that animal breeders or horticulturists do to create new varieties.  That is an idea that many people would accept.  The essential element of Darwinism is the assertion that there is no morality, because there is no God, that life came into being spontaneously (from inorganic mud crystals in the Richard Dawkins’s thesis) and that all life forms, both plants and animals, evolved from the original single-cell creature. 

Biochemists have now demonstrated conclusively that the simplest known single-cell creatures have several independent systems, each comprised of many synthesized amino acids, and that without all of them existing simultaneously and ab initio, the cell would die immediately.  Darwin, as do evolutionists today, simply conjectured that it would be reasonable to suppose an original single-cell creature that would be nothing more than a blob of undifferentiated protoplasm within a cell membrane.  That is no longer a supportable idea, hence Darwin’s whole theory collapses.

3.  Clearly you don?t like it.? Too bad.? Science is ?cold? - it doesn?t respect human feelings.? The truth doesn?t respect human feelings.? It just is.? You can choose to acknowledge truth, or you may reject it.? But it stays true.? It is objective, independent of us.

My reply:  Agreed that the truth is the truth.  Darwinian evolution, however, remains nothing more than a speculation based on fragmentary evidence about events, conditions, and processes which can only be imagined.  There is absolutely no proof for Darwinian evolution beyond speculation that one species evolved from some other species, solely because some, but not all, of the physical characteristics of one are to be found in the other.

4.  The truth can certainly be abused.? So what?? I can say, ?gravity makes objects fall down, therefore you should kill Jews?.? Are you seriously going to blame that sentence on Newton?? And what if someone acted on that sentence - observed that objects do fall down, and decided to kill someone on that basis.? Is that not his fault?? Would you blame human actions on a piece of information?? Would you censor science in some manner to make sure it only comes up with theories you like?? I doubt it.

My reply:  Granted that the creator of a doctrine cannot be blamed for misuse of his doctrine.  That, however, is not at all the case with Charles Darwin.  He welcomed and supported the evangelical oratory of Thomas Huxley, who proclaimed that there is no such thing as morality or right and wrong, but only the raw struggle for survival.  That view, accepted by Darwin and vociferously proclaimed by Huxley and British Marxians, is precisely the basis for the savageries of Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler.
5.  Absent some sort of censorship, it?s unclear what you want.? Evolution is, for all intents and purposes, a fact.? It?s not going away; in fact every year it gets stronger as more and more information confirms it.? Any other body of information that purports to truth is going to have to adapt itself to evolution, not vice versa.? That is the hard, hard reality.?

My reply:  I regret that what I want is unclear.  Certainly it’s not censorship.  As I have written, on several occasions in other pieces on this website, what I want is an open minded willingness of educators and educated to cease worshipping Darwin as a secular god and begin to look at evidence on both sides of the issue. 

Above all, I want educators to cease teaching John Dewey’s pragmatism, which he claims to have based upon Darwinian evolution, and which instructs our children that there is no right or wrong, merely whatever you can get away with, provided it works for you.  Just as Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler found support in Darwinian evolution and the anti-civilizational belief that morality is ignorant superstition, that might makes right, the corruption we see today pervasively in business and government is supported by Dewey’s pragmatism.

Visit MoveOff Network Members

Posted by Thomas E. Brewton on 06/14 at 04:34 PM
Junk Science • (0) Comments
Print this ArticleEmail A FriendPermalink