"Whether one believes in Creationism or not is not really relevant to my point from last week; it is undeniable that the conflict between a literalistic reading of the Bible and science, 'whether currently resolvable or not', was a strong source of anxiety for the Victorians. There are various texts to which I can gesture as examples of this anxiety; two which immediately spring to mind are Tennyson's In Memoriam A H H, and Edmund Gosse's Fathers and Sons" (1)
Darwin did far more with his theories than just give us postulations on how animals may have evolved and changed and developed. His theories caused great intellectual and philosophical dilemmas. Many of these problems were projected typically through literature and other forms of human expression. As belief in a Creator declined, the understanding of accountablility declined as well. With no sovereign God and hence no moral reference point, men and women are left to do as they please since they are accountable to no one. As a result, moral dilemmas increased; Darwin himself exhibited his own susceptibility to moral decline in his scientific dishonesty and deceptive publication of his theories. Quite simply, Darwin stole his ideas from others. Famed evolutionist Loren Eiseley documented in his book (Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X. New York: Dutton Publishers, 1979) that Darwin on the Beagle voyage received a scientific journal at a stop in Chile in 1836, where he read a paper by Edward Blyth (Eiseley's Mr. X) that made reference to "natural selection" in a breeding context. However, Darwin was too confused to make much of it because he was restrained by the idea that such changes were limited. Arnold Brackman has proven in his book (A Delicate Arrangement: The Strange Case of Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. New York: Fitzhenry and Whiteside, 1980) that when Darwin received a paper in 1858 from Alfred Russell Wallace, who was strenuously working in the forests of New Guinea with no resources, Darwin was very upset when he realized that Wallace beat him to it. Wallace came up with the idea of unlimited biological change sorted through by natural selection as the mechanism leading to all forms of life. Darwin rushed his book into print knowing Wallace was too poor and too far away to do anything about it. This hostile irresponsibility has continued; Darwin's progeny are similarly guilty of dishonest scientific experimentation and bloated conclusions.
The faulty leaps of logic that Darwin's followers have made in their unequivocal acceptance that evolution does work is the most glaring contribution to moral ineptitude. They blithely assume that Darwin's theory is undoubtedly the most impressive and workable theory available to us; many scientists working in the field, including Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould, seem to assure us that until a more conceivable theory comes up of how we evolved, Darwin and et al are perfectly worthy of our praise and attention. Once we objectively look at some of those logical leaps that have been made, we will see how, for now and up to this point, Darwin and his followers are not capable of the simple rule of honesty when it comes to scientific responsibility. Praise and attention are not warranted since these scientists embody the very things that arouse anger and distrust. The sheer nonsense of the many logical leaps made by evolutionary proponents is testimony of the fact that they are hoplessly marred in a world of glass that is about to shatter forcibly. Evolution is nothing more than pseudo-scientific justification for materialism and the corollary of exemption from moral duty.
Hoaxes in the evolutionary framework abound, here are some examples:
"As far as geologically more recent evidence is concerned, the discovery in East Africa of apparent remains of 'Homo' in the same early fossil sites as both gracile and robust australopithecines has thrown open once again the question of the direct relevance of the latter to human evolution. So one is forced to conclude that there is no clear cut scientific picture of human evolution." (3)
"Echoing the criticism made of his father's 'habilis' skulls, he added that Lucy's skull was so incomplete that most of it was 'imagination made of plaster of paris', thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species she belonged to." (4)
The evidence for evolution is, at best, very weak. The evidence for scientific irresponsibility on the part of evolutionists is tragically and sadly conspicuous. It should also be said that along with dishonesty, trust is another casuality of aderence to evolution; dissention amongst proponents of evolution is quite telling of the fact that there are serious problems with the evolutionary paradigm. For example:
While dishonesty has its ethical and moral consequences for the evolutionist and the people they influence, the real problem is that some of these deliberate fallacies continue to be part of the educational curriculum in Universities and High Schools. It is rank hypocrisy to continue to promote such overt fabrications while pretending to be objective in scientific analysis. It is an evil intellectualism that would continue to promulgate such fallacies to children and the growing minds of the next generation. The following textbooks continue to contain these frauds: Evolutionary Biology by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd edition, Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1998), and also the bedrock text, Molecular Biology of the Cell (3rd edition), whose authors include biochemist Dr. Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences.
I sincerely doubt that even ONE ardent evolutionist will be willing to admit the intellectual degeneracy of neo-Darwinian ideology. Given their track record, it looks like they will continue to retreat into dishonest and ridiculous assertions and claims, packaged and re-packaged for consumption in the latest scientific jargon in order to appear like they are on the right track. In reality, they continue to bolster and attract a preponderance of followers to join them on their hopeless journey into moral oblivion.
1. Personal e-mail from a York University Teaching Assistant.
2. Dr. Michael Richardson is an embryologist at St. George’s Medical School. This statement appears in an 1997 interview appearing in The Times of London
3. "Man is not an onion." New Scientist 4 August 1977
4. Referring to comments made by Richard Leakey (Director of National Museums of Kenya) in "The Weekend Australian", 7-8 May 1983, Magazine, p. 3.
5. Mann. C. "Lynn Margulis: Science's Unruly Earth Mother." Science 252 (1991): 378-381.
6. Endler, J.A, and MacLellan, T. "The Process of Evolution: Toward a Newer Sythesis." Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 19 (1988): 397.
7. Shutzenberger, M.P. "Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution." Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution ed. P.S Moorhead and M.M. Kaplan. Philadelphia: Wistar Institute Press, 1967.
8. Eldredge, N. Reinventing Darwin. New York: Wiley Press, 1995.
Response received from a critic:
"I thought that one of chritianism (sic) or born-again chritianism (sic) values was respect. That would also mean respect of other theories, whether you believe them or not and meaning that you can't say that: "it looks like they will continue to retreat into dishonest and ridiculous assertions and claims, packaged and re-packaged for consumption in the latest scientific jargon in order to appear like they are on the right track. In reality, they continue to bolster and attract a preponderance of followers to join them on their hopeless journey into moral oblivion." And who are you to call this moral oblivion ? I can also say that any religion can also be a moral oblivion....One other thing I noted. There is a reference that claims his theories caused intellectual and philosophical dilemmas... Philosophy was always a science to understand our nature, our behaviors without any theological references. Why did religion kill all the philosophers in the Roman and Greek ages and now refers to philosophy ?? Nonsense to me...Looks like, admitting a mistake and trying to stitch it later by referring to it... " it was bad then. Now we can sort of refer it! Has he ever read philosophical books ? Camus ? Existentialism at its best. "...the world can be so absurd..." in the Stranger Nietzsche ? Wrote The Gay Science, where he announces for the first time that "God is dead!" Since when religion mixes with Philosophy ? Or approves philosophy?"
I find these comments interesting and I also see that I raised this person's ire somewhat. There are significant problems with Claude's criticism which cannot be ignored: First, the grammatical errors make it difficult to take these accusations seriously, since if someone doesn't know how to spell something, you have to wonder if they know what it means. Secondly, by labelling me "Christian" denotes that I am a person who lives by a set of ideals or principles, whereas an evolutionist, whom are regarded mostly as materialists, cannot live by set principles since the origin of those principles is unclear. What Claude doesn't realize is that he actually proves, by implication, the thesis of my article; he clearly states that I am acting "unchristian" in my criticism of the scientific irresponsibility on the part of evolutionists. Therefore, he knows that a Christian is accountable to his/her Creator when acting in ways that are debilitating to themselves and others. It is quite easy to differentiate between true believers and false ones, since these principles can be studied, practised, and the influences seen. When you remove the Creator, however, there really isn't any basis for behaving properly towards others or maintaining a level of honesty, since those actions are not subject to anything or anyone, except of course, the evolutionist. In reality, my criticism is biblically based, since Jesus himself was quite caustic towards the religious bigots of the day (Matthew 15:12-14); the apostle Paul denounced the Corinthians, for example, for their leniency towards immoral conduct (1 Corinthians 5). The Bible makes it clear that an essential aspect of the Christian faith is in fact exposing destructive views for what they are: a skin of the truth stuffed with a pernicious lie. The funny thing is that Claude spends plenty of time critiquing my brief comment on philosophy (an effect) but NO time critiquing the very clear dishonesty of the evolutionary movement (the cause). "Respect for others theories" only goes so far as those who propose them maintain a level of integrity; since there is clear evidence for deliberate and fraudulent claims and conclusions, it is difficult to attribute a respectful tone when exposing "fallacies" communicated as "truths." In other words, it is patent absurdity to grant a measure of respect for deliberate lies. Like I said in my article, they do not deserve or merit respect since their craft has qualified them as deceitful and dishonest. Our friend Claude wishes to be subtle, but he glaringly ventures into what is known as "selective reading." It is clear that there is no willingness to be objective on his part, therefore, no further response should be warranted; at the outset, he doesn't address any of the main tenets of my article, so that makes it clear to me that he is bent towards derision no matter what the evidence shows, hence any debate will prove to be fruitless. One final note, the comment on "philosophical speculation" did not come from me, but rather from a Teaching Assistant at my University, who is an avowed atheist (interesting how this person solidifies the allegation towards "selectivity" in not paying attention to the referencing of this person's comment). The comment is appropriate since it comes from a proponent of evolution, and not from a Creationist/Christian per se. It would be entirely different if the premise of philosophical speculation giving rise to moral degradation was predicated specifically and exclusively upon the beliefs of Christians, but as has been cleary noted, such is not the case. What we have here is a very clear and unambigious digression into philosophical nonsense meant to obfuscate the issue and appear "concerned" at how I argued the premise; sorry, the allegations against evolutionists and their dishonest machinations stand, since Claude failed to provide even a shred of proof to illustrate otherwise.