Creation: The Modern View Stepping Backward I
A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.
Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by taking over the homemaker duties here. His primary topic, the Biblical Truth of Creation vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications and is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical and defensible fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.
Two Approaches to Darwinism
I was really looking forward to getting into Information Theory and the laws, paradigms, and theorems governing Information. But recent events have opened my eyes to something. Some of my recent detractors have very obviously demonstrated that they are thoroughly ignorant of the actual claims made by modern Darwinists. This struck me as odd until it occurred to me that many people who profess to be practicing Christians have never actually read the Bible, beyond a verse here and there at Summer Camp, and are often shocked when confronted with the religious beliefs to which Christians are supposed to adhere. These people are known as immature Christians. It occurred to me that some spiritually immature Darwinists visiting here might be in the same boat.
“I was a young man with uninformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.” Charles Darwin writing about the religion of Darwinism
Since I really hate to repeat myself over and over and over, in an effort to head that off for now and in the future, I realize there is a simple need, here, that I can fulfill. I simply need to explain exactly what it is that Darwinists actually believe in order to alleviate a great deal of the bald ignorance recently displayed with respect to the actual claims made by modern Darwinists, and the religious tenets to which Darwinists are supposed to adhere and staunchly defend.
I determined that the easiest way to explain these beliefs is via a two-pronged approach. In today’s post, I will begin to examine the modern Darwinist beliefs and step all the way back to the first nanosecond in the life of the entire universe. Once completed, I will examine the birth of Darwinism (which preceded Charles Darwin by a number of years) what Darwin himself actually believed, and how the religion of Darwinism “evolved” into its present state of crisis.
Hopefully, when I have finished outlining the Darwinian bible, I can get back into the Information related material which I find simply fascinating.
The Modern View Stepping Backward: Evil Philosophical Bias?
To state the obvious and at risk of sounding redundant, the modern Darwinist believes in the Darwinian model of Evolution. The Darwinist doesn’t just think evolution is an interesting ideal His unshakable belief in the Darwinian evolutionary model amounts to a PHILOSPHY. The practice of that philosophy is what has been called, since about 1877, Social Darwinism of the variety practiced by such notables as Thomas Huxley, Herbert Spencer, Friedrich Nietzsche, Thomas Malthus, Francis Galton the father of Eugenics, and of course — Adolph Hitler despite all of his modern Darwinian apologists’ objections to that fact.
In the Social Darwinist’s heart and mind, the Darwinist has an unshakable faith that some kind of “evolution” can explain the existence of absolutely everything, and every kind of observed “evolution” is fallaciously and absent any logic or empirical science, equivocated with every kind of unobserved, envisioned, fictional, and theorized “evolution.” And every action of man and beast is then strained through the very restrictive colander of the Darwinian evolutionary model. Based on that foundational assumption, logic leaves the building, and Darwinists beg the question from there.
For the Darwinist, absolutely everything that takes place in nature, has ever possibly taken place, or could possibly take place in the future — including feelings, thoughts, dreams, desires, and emotions — everything is somehow dependent upon some kind of “evolution” or other. The word “evolution” must be tacked on to the end of common phrases and otherwise adequate nomenclature that describes all of nature and all of human activity and the Darwinist labels everything from common everyday happenings to imaginary mathematical models as this-or-that type of “evolution.”
Here’s a mild example of the absence of objectivity and logic to which the Darwinian worldview leads. A middle school textbook asks students, “Do you think human beings are still evolving?” Okay. Let me ask you a question. Are you still beating your children? In other words, this is a complex question fallacy that immediately begs the question. Do you see the complete lack of logic and objectivity this question demonstrates?
The Social Darwinist believes in survival of the fittest in the context of natural selection. Therefore, the male Darwinists understands that he must fight for and win copulations with as many possible suitable mates, and he must do so by any available means. It is all about survival of the fittest. Darwinists understand that the female Darwinist looks for traditionally masculine men (“cads”) during the most fertile times of her menstrual cycle, and relatively feminine men (“dads”) during the remainder of her cycle. While infidelity is the baseline for Darwinian males competing to rut with as many females in a lifetime as possible, these assumptions have led Darwinists to the conclusion that infidelity is also the natural state of women, and evolutionarily advantageous on the grounds that infidelity enables her to secure both the best genes from the “cads” and the best caregiver in the “dads” for her offspring. This Darwinian behavior is called the “sexy son hypothesis” and, no, I am not making ANY of this up.
“In a society where males compete with each other to be chosen as he-men by females, one of the best things a mother can do for her genes is to make a son who will turn out in his turn to be an attractive he-man. If she can ensure that her son is one of the fortunate few males who wins most of the copulations in the society when he grows up, she will have an enormous number of grandchildren.” Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
If the Darwinist doesn’t think he has a lot going for him by way of “fitness cost,” he is then permitted — based on Darwinian evolutionary principles — to use any environmental or personal advantage at hand, and may simply need to fall back to sexual coercion which Darwinists emphatically state is simply biologically driven and perfectly natural. You may know that better as “rape.” In the modern lexicon, this is also often referred to as “date-rape” depending upon the circumstances under which the rape takes place, as if making the violent act of rape sound more cute means it doesn’t really count as real rape.
“The males of most species—including humans—are usually more eager to mate than the females, and this enables females to choose among males who are competing with one another for access to them. But getting chosen is not the only way to gain sexual access to females. In rape, the male circumvents the female’s choice.” University of New Mexico biology professor Randy Thornhill and Colorado anthropologist Craig T. Palmer in their seminal work, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion, which takes the position that rape is a complex sexual act with strong roots in human evolution, emphasis added
Available environmental tools such as wealth, alcohol, and drugs can potentially supply the male Darwinist with a higher “fitness cost” than his competitors. Drugging his intended mate with Rohypnol, Ketamine, GHB, or some other “date-rape” drug such as very high doses of alcohol — any of which effectively remove his prospective mate’s cognitive ability to judge and discern that he is really just a “big loser” on the evolutionary scale — can assist him to come out on top as the most fit in the survival of the fittest model in the competition to rut.
The notion of rape as a Darwnian evolutionary imperative is accepted in evolutionary psychology and well documented in such works as A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion by Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer, The Evolution Of Desire by David M. Buss, Sex, Power, Conflict: Evolutionary and Feminist Perspectives edited by Neil Malamuth, and is validated in articles like the very recent Slate piece: Darwin’s Rape Whistle: Have women evolved to protect themselves from sexual assault?
As you might suspect, I believe that people who hold to a Christian world view do not rape other human beings, nor do they “date-rape” them or any other “cutsie” nomenclature used as a euphemism to fallaciously equivocate the act of rape. In short, God says that causing human suffering is wrong — specifically sinful — and rape causes a great deal of human suffering. Someone who commits rape is, by definition and pretty elementary exclusive logical elimination, not practicing Christian principles.
Likewise, someone — husband or wife — who is sexually unfaithful to his or her spouse is committing what God categorizes as sin as well. While human beings are certainly sinful, and while Christians are certainly human beings, we can choose not to sin. We are often tempted, enticed, even encouraged to sin but we are almost never forced, coerced, or entrapped into committing sin. We almost always have a choice.
I believe I was divinely directed to meet the woman I love and who loves me. She believes that God brought us together through a really long chain of events that led to us meet each other at a very specific time in our lives and not one second sooner. The first time we ever held hands was to pray together and ask for a blessing for the first meal we ever shared. We got to know each other over the course of the coming days and we mutually verified that we were committed to the same life goals. We married, and we will stay married and completely in love with each other, and committed to each other and our children, for the rest of our natural lives.
These foundational disputes are just a few of the manifestations of the ultimate results that demonstrate the stark differences in the world views we practice in our diverse faiths.
“The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an improved theory, is it then a science or faith?” Charles Darwin writing about the religion of Darwinism
Darwinists believe in the Darwinian Evolutionary model at the cost of any open minded observation or investigation. Like Darwin himself, they believe “evolution” is a fact and — also like Darwin himself — they believe this based entirely on faith. They observe every observation and decide every decision based on a prejudicial philosophical bias, a preconceived notion that any and all evidence will ultimately support the Darwinian Evolutionary model. It is an a priori adherence to materialism, to naturalism, to Darwinism. It is a religious belief in only the natural world, that there is nothing outside of nature, nothing outside of the material, even though Darwinism relies upon evolutionary “magic” at it’s foundation and the mechanisms for any change rely upon immaterial elements.
The rigorous enforcement of any kind of investigation, scientific or otherwise, that methodically rules out any but material causes is rightly known as Methodological Naturalism or Methodological Materialism. It follows that since this principle does not allow for the supernatural, it is a world view that automatically excludes any kind of supernatural being. Therefore, Darwinists very often adopt a a very secular (read: agnostic) and very humanist (read: atheistic) religious attitude. The two very often go hand in hand. Many Darwinist scientist claim allegiance to Christianity but do not adhere to Christian principles in their thoughts. In reality, they are religiously agnostic. In short, the philosophical bias of Darwinism is an extremely closed-minded, illogical, conflicted, and limited way of perceiving the universe which practically eliminates any kind of objectivity when problem solving, and precludes an individual ability to think critically.
There exist evangelical Darwinists. These are Darwinists who believe a certain way and want others to embrace and adopt those beliefs. They proselytize and preach the religious dogma of Darwinism. A role model for this activity is Richard Dawkins who can only be described as an evangelical atheist and staunch defender of Darwinism.
Practically every book Dawkins writes, like The God Delusion, concerns the God in Whom he allegedly does not believe. This further demonstrates the mental conflict Darwinists suffer. Personally, I do not believe in, say, the Tooth Fairy. But I do not energetically make it my life’s mission to write weekly blog posts explaining why no one should believe in the Tooth Fairy and why anyone who does is simply an ignoramus. I have to ask if Dawkins really doesn’t believe in God, and believes God is a fiction, why can’t he ever seem to shut up about Him?
The late Carl Sagan was another evangelical, in his case an evangelical secular humanist, who probably most succinctly summed up philosophical bias of Darwinism:
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.” Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, 1997 (Emphasis in the original)
Darwinism is the philosophical bias that has adversely affected science and culture for over 150 years. Its legacy includes such medical atrocities as the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment that ended prematurely and only after public exposure in 1971. It adds problems to such medical fairy tales as vestigial organs which are still touted in 2011 as having validity even in allegedly educated circles.
“For the most part, doctors and civil servants simply did their jobs. Some merely followed orders, others worked for the glory of science.” Dr John Heller, Director of the Public Health Service’s Division of Venereal Diseases on the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment
Darwinism is the sexist, racist philosophical bias that is the foundation for such social movements as the near extermination of Tasmanian native tribes by germ warfare and simple slaughter; Nazism, which resulted in the near extermination of an entire subculture of humanity with millions tortured, mutilated in obscene experiments, or outright mass murdered; and Eugenics, which recorded more than 64,000 forced sterilizations in the US alone, the last official state sanctioned forced sterilization taking place in 1981.
While a philosophy intrinsically cannot be characterized as evil, a philosophical bias certainly can be. Certainly the collected interpretations, conclusions, and rationalizations which are deftly wielded as the default whenever justification or rationalization is wanted for performing evil acts upon mankind — the so-called “Aboriginal” tribes who obviously “evolved separately” from the “original” and presumably favored races, and were therefore dangerous “sub-humans” closer to apes than man, a common pestilence like rats or other vermin — the so-called “final solution” to what the Nazis called the “Jewish Problem” because, as can be clearly seen, the Jews were sub-human filthy apes as stated directly in the Nazi propaganda of the day — or the understanding as recently as the 197o’s that black men in Alabama intentionally not treated for syphilis for over 40 years were not “patients” needing medical care but rather “subjects” in a health study of cases who were very close to actual humans, and therefore absent any rights afforded to “patients” — certainly that philosophical bias can and ought to be characterized as evil. History has shown that Social Darwinism often leads to unbelievable acts of evil on a grand scale, after all.
To judge it evil, one must have a moralistic frame of reference, and it is that morality that is absent in a relativistic worldview since morality is handed down by God. What I deem evil based on absolute truth a relativist sees is evil for me. What I deem good is good for me, but those are morally relative terms. A Social Darwinist might interpret acts that I deem as evil as biologically necessary, or perfectly natural and therefore somehow understandable in his framework and “right” and even required if you take things to extremes in the creation of a Malthusian worker class, or Hitler’s master race, or Nietzsche’s superman, or Galton’s purified genetic ancestors. A Social Darwinist, creating his own morality based on relative truth, would probably find my morality weak in the context of the survival of the fittest model.
Meanwhile, my personal history proves that removing the philosophical bias of Darwinism freed not only my mind to seek and learn and know and embrace real physical and metaphysical truth, but also freed my heart from the evil chains with which that bias bound it. I no longer find murder acceptable or necessary. I no longer believe that criminals who commit heinous crimes should be tortured. I no longer believe that life is cheap. I no longer believe that sex is an often pleasant biological function somewhere between a yawn and a belch. I am no longer limited in my quest for knowledge, being able to freely explore philosophies without bias even if they contradict my own such as the political essays of Ayn Rand or the philosophies of Bertrand Russell. I can consider their perspectives in a very open minded and free way that I could not before within the constraints of Darwinism.
Micro-evolution! Why is this called “evolution” in the first place?
Within the framework of the foundational philosophy, there are 6 tenets of Darwinism. The first and only tenet that is observed and confirmed by operational science is labeled “micro-evolution.” Darwinists believe that a series of biological imperatives driven by as yet unknown or unidentified “evolutionary forces” whatever that means — and it could have something to do with Dawkins’ utterly fictitious yet fully envisioned selfish-gene — will cause he and his mate to rut and possibly even reproduce; that the product of any successful reproduction is simply the result of something called “micro-evolution” which term presumably lends a great deal of Scientific sounding Authority and perhaps even some Weight to Darwinism as a whole, you see, because, in strict accordance with the Darwinian philosophical bias, absolutely everything is dependent upon some kind of “evolution” or another.
Normal people, those who are not influenced by an all-encompassing unargued philosophical bias call this phenomenon “parents having children.” But there is a little more to it, and the real gems are found in the field of “Evolutionary Psychology.”
So, the Darwinist believes that any unsuccessful reproduction effort can be discarded, preferably before coming to full term. The criteria for success is often a bit subjective, of course. Maybe the Darwinist wanted blond hair or blue eyes as was Hitler’s vision, but at the end of the day we aren’t talking about an actual human life anyway, we are merely talking about a potential “clever ape” since we are all, according to Darwinism, merely products of random chance and rearranged pond scum imbued with instinct.
Upon successful reproduction, the female Darwinist very often has no more use for the male Darwinist and does her level best to alienate him and separate him from his offspring, especially if he is a cad since she, at that point, needs a dad. The male Darwinist believes it is fitting to dispose of his mate and abandon any offspring to the female’s care while he goes about rutting with many more different mates. Unfortunately for him, the court system in our culture often hangs on to a significant portion of his wallet for any offspring. Come to think of it, this is probably another argument for pre-birth termination, in the mind of the male Darwinist.
I believe that my wife and I can cleave to one another and become “one” as in one flesh and one spirit. I believe that we can be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. I believe that we do not engage in “micro-evolution” but rather we have something called “children” who are often referred to as “blessings from God” and that they have absolutely NO more information in their genetic code than exactly half of my chromosomes and half of my wife’s chromosomes. NO additional complex biological information at all has been added to the human genome in this act of reproduction that has absolutely nothing to do with “evolution” or “micro-evolution” whatsoever. It is just parenting children. That’s all.
I believe that if there are complications during pregnancy and our child is born, say 12 weeks early, that we can anoint him with oil, lay hands on him, pray over him, and love him as only parents can love their child and that we would never, ever under any circumstances consider abortion as an option, because I believe that word is just a Scientific and Authoritative sounding synonym, rooted in a Darwinist world view, for simple murder. I believe that loving God, my spouse, and my children in that order for as long as I draw breath will result in better, smarter, happier, healthier human beings.
The Darwinist believes that when his parents begin to become a “drain on society” that they no longer serve a purpose and should therefore probably be euthenized. There is Darwinian precedent because, after all, if the surviving Darwinist inherits, this would probably give him an improved “fitness cost” in the whole survival of the fittest scheme of things. Certainly, it would prove to be an evolutionary advantage.
Not surprisingly, I believe that all life is precious. I believe that my parents — or yours for that matter — are owed honor, even in their declining years, and would never consider murdering my parents, or yours, whether such murder was sanctioned by fallible man or not.
Historically, a Darwinist is the ultimate racist and sexist. Simply put, he believes that inequalities can be drawn along racial lines and that males are categorically superior to females. The complete title of Darwin’s racist book is On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
For over 150 years, Darwinists have resorted to things like measuring skulls, brains, charting heredity, and analyzing skin tones — all with the primary goal of declaring that those of western and northern European descent have higher IQs than other whites and ANY people of color have much lower IQs.
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.” Charles Darwin writing on the lower races and the so-called “Aboriginal” tribes in Australia and Tasmania
Meanwhile, a plank of evolution is that bigger, stronger, hunter, fighter male is much more “evolved” than weaker, smaller, domestic, nurturing female who Darwin, at various times and in various ways in his writings, compared directly to stupid dogs, brainless sows, and mindless cows. Worse (from his point of view) he compared women to the “lower races.”
“It is generally admitted that with woman the powers of intuition, of rapid perception and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man: but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization.” Charles Darwin expressing his egalitarian views of the fairer sex in The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, 1896
In contrast, I personally believe that while Adam was God’s perfect creation, Eve was His masterpiece. Both men and women were created in the very image of God, meaning it takes both sexes to mirror His image. Being created in the image of God, a sincere woman represents everything a man wants and needs in a helper, comforter, and lifelong companion and a loving man represents everything a woman could desire for her spiritual, emotional, and physical well-being.
In scripture, we are informed that women repeatedly rescue Moses from death from the time he is a helpless infant. A woman was chosen to usher Jesus Christ, God’s only begotten Son, into our plane of existence when God could have easily manifested His Son some other way without involving anyone. The first witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection were women, showing that God intended women to be seen as trustworthy. 1 Corinthians 7:4 Reads, “Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does,” which gives women complete authority over a man’s body within the boundaries of holy matrimony (Note to Christian wives: remind your husband of that authority the next time he doesn’t want to go to the doctor!).
Furthermore, I believe that God created man, male and female created He them, in His image created He them. I don’t believe that the color of a person’s skin has anything to say about what Martin Luther King, Jr. called “the content of his character. ” In other words, I believe our bodies are mere temples for our immortal souls. I believe in ONE race, the HUMAN race, that we are ALL the sons and daughters of Adam, that God has made of ONE blood all nations of men.
Darwinists might sneer at my so-called parochial ignorance and laugh at my naivety in not wanting to murder the unborn, the infirm, the ill, and the aged. They might feel that I have an overdeveloped sense of nobility in that I do not support the forced sterilization of anyone, regardless of their race, alleged IQ, or crimes. They might laugh behind their hands at the notion that I feel it is my duty here on earth to HELP those who may not have the same advantages with which I have been blessed, instead of trying my level best to bring them additional suffering in order to bring myself an additional advantage.
That’s fine with me.
While Darwinists may deceive themselves into believing that their philosophy leaves them enlightened and unfettered, I know that my philosophy is one of true enlightenment and freedom. The Darwinian evolutionary model espouses a philosophy of excess, injustice, cowardace, flight, selfishness, impatience, unkindness, and personal agrandizement. The Christian faith model is based on prudence, justice, restraint (chastity, temperance), courage, perseverance (fortitude, diligence), charity, patience (being slow to anger), kindness, and humility.
The philosophical bias of the Darwinian evolutionary model depends upon eschewing faith, an existence without hope of eternity, and self-gratification or self-love. This is counter to the Christian ethos of faith in the word of God, hope for eternal life, and loving others. Faith, Hope, and Love — these three — and the greatest of these is Love.
All of these higher and more noble characteristics are reflections of the nature of our Creator. And that Creator is the one who created everything by the power of His will. And that Designer is the one who killed me and resurrected me without any of the sins of my past, an absolutely new creation. And that almighty God, by the power of His word, took on human form and became a living sacrifice in atonement for my once very wicked ways. And that amazing Healer rose from the grave and sent a helper to live in the temple of my body. And that Redeemer can do the very same thing for you if you don’t know Him. He can do it RIGHT NOW because absolutely NOTHING is beyond His power.
I commit to you that I will publish every single comment that meets this blog’s commenting criteria. You may want to review that criteria before adding your opinion here.
God Bless you and yours.