Darwin Had Absolutely No Doubt About Theism And The Evolution Of Humans

Posted on April 18, 2016 5 Comments

In his own words, “The Autobiography of Charles Darwin:”

“When thus reflecting [‘on the universe, including man’] I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man’ and I deserve to be called a Theist.”

Shame on Richard Dawkins, and other science atheists who deny, obfuscate, pervert or “cherry pick” Darwin’s words. They have sabotaged Darwin’s message to make it conform their soulless world, and what a cold, heartless world it must be. If one of Dawkins’ minions decides to initiate a nuclear war, he could shrug it of as a “random” result of Darwinian “survival of the fittest.” It is staggering to know that an overwhelming number of high school, college/university biology teachers agree with Dawkins.

Secular scientists are quick to point out that human beings and chimpanzees share 97% of the same DNA. While the fossil evidence suggests that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor over 5 million years ago, the obvious fact remains that chimps are chimps and humans evolved into the most extraordinary animals on the planet. Evidently that 3% increase led to the world’s greatest artists, poets, sages, musicians and, ironically, even scientists like Dawkins.

Much of Darwin’s theory can be proven in the laboratory and in the field. For 1000s of years, people have used “selective breeding” and “mass selection” as a means to develop more productive and useful plants and animals. However, this does not mean that his theory is complete and flawless. After a discussion with Alfred Wallace, he acknowledged that he failed to explain human “gifts” such as mathematical, musical and artistic genius. These qualities are almost totally absent in chimpanzees.

All of the genetic changes Darwin observed were minor and only rendered the offspring a small advantage of survival. Loren Eiseley quipped; the human brain grew “like a mushroom in the night.” This has equipped man with an indeterminate period of time of mental growth. There is no known biological cause for the rapid expansion of the two human cerebral hemispheres.

Lamarck’s theory of use and disuse is of no value.

The Leakey family, Louis, Mary and Richard verified the increased cranial capacity of modern man, but they did not demonstrate the compelling factor.

Stephen Jay Gould was a big fan of “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” however he failed to show why or how the human embryo (in evolutionary time) suddenly gained the ability to generate a triple-sized brain.

Gould was also a fan of “punctuated equilibrium” which may explain the “fits and spurts of evolution,” but he could not explain the evolution of the human brain.

Pathetically, human geneticist, Richard Dawkins, recently inferred that the human brain evolved out of “nothing.”

The latest wrinkle in the evolution battle is the emerging consideration of “Intelligent Design.” Although the theory suggests that evolution is not a random, chance-born process, it does not describe a “designated designer.” Therefore, “Intelligent Design” does not explain the emergence of the human brain.

The fact of the matter is, by virtue of the laws of chance and probability, the human brain should never have evolved and so it is not surprising that its origin remains a mystery. Considering the universe, with its boggling time/space dimensions, life on Earth is supremely enigmatic. The Earth has been evolving for 4.5 billion years and yielded millions of plant and animal species before man arrived. Darwinian evolution does not need or explain “man.” If all these living forms survived by “instinct,” what need is there for consciousness, values, or free will? If “modern man” evolved 5 million years ago, we have lived on Earth 0.01% of its history and yet arrogant practitioners of Scientism claim that Mystery is irrelevant and that they have all the necessary answers.

Meanwhile, there is a moral and ethical disease that is pandemic in our society and had afflicted scientists as well. It is called “situational ethics” and scientists use it frequently. Lacking any evidence for the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of the first cell or the tripling of the human brain, secular scientists either ignore or obfuscate the issues or make up their own ethics and pander them as truth.

Photo credit: Toscano: Darwin’s Ape. Available Amazon.com

Lowell H. Young
Author: Biodesign Out For A Walk

www.facebook.com/biodesignoutforawalk
www.biodesignoutforawalk.com
www.linkedin.com/LowellYoung
www.goodreads.com/BiodesignOutForAWalk

Darwin’s Doubt: By Stephen Meyer

Posted on April 11, 2016 Leave a Comment

Typically, it is a literary travesty to reveal the end of a book to those who have not read it. In this case, however, I think it is justified. Readers seeing the words “INTELLIGENT DESIGN,” on a book are likely to mistake its meaning and importance. Ironically (and unfortunately) the term has become toxic, in part because of some Christian Fundamentalists who like to use it as a euphemism for God in an attempt to sneak Him in the backdoor of public schools. The term has also been obfuscated by skeptical, secular biologists who distrust all visions but their own.

Therefore, the last paragraph of Meyer’s extraordinary book reads:

“The theory of Intelligent Design is not based on religious belief, nor does it provide a proof for the existence of God. But it does have faith-affirming implications precisely because it suggests the design we observe in the natural world is real, just as a traditional theistic view of the world would lead us to expect. Of course, that by itself is not reason to accept the theory. But having accepted it for other reasons, it may be a reason to find it important.”

Modern scientists who are devout Darwinists can be just as guilty of narrow-mindedness as some literal interpreters of the Old Testament. Neither side of the evolution debate can withstand a word-for-word dissection. Galileo was aware of this when he properly suggested that the Bible includes many metaphors that are obtuse and difficult to comprehend. One of them is the Earth being created in 6, 24-hour days. This is problematic with the sun not being created until the fourth day. Another involves the procreation of Adam and Eve’s grandchildren, without some kind of “sinful,” incestuous behavior.

However, Darwin himself admitted in, Darwin’s Autobiography: “This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having and intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.”

Furthermore, he conceded that his theory could not explain the origin of life, the emergence of flowering plants, the emergence of the human brain and the role of spirituality in human beings.

Isaac Newton wrote about the universe (circa 1677): “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an Intelligent and Powerful Being.”

Approximately 150 years later, Thomas Jefferson agreed with Newton and thought that there was scientific evidence for design in nature. In 1823, he insisted so in a letter to John Adams: “I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition.” As a classic renaissance man, Jefferson was a brilliant scholar, skilled in both letters and science. As one of the most gifted “founding fathers,” he was a major contributor in the writing of the Declaration of Independence and US constitution. He was a strong supporter of the laws that separate church and state, however, he was also an advocate that; “all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” These rights include freedom of thought and expression.

“Darwin’s Doubt,” should be required reading for all college/university biology majors. Furthermore, all college/university biology professors, pastors, priests and rabbis should read it as well. Of course they are free to take issue with any of Meyer’s positions, however, if they can temporarily set aside their petty prejudices, they may discover that more questions than answers remain in the evolution debate.

When “Intelligent Design,” “creation” and “evolution” are all presented to students as the mysteries that they are, they neither favor nor disfavor any religion and therefore do not violate the laws of separation of church and state.

However, this kind of “open-minded” thinking is not encouraged in most high school, college or university biology curricula. An overwhelming number of schools have either adopted an overt or tacit policy that bars the discussion of “Intelligent Design.”

Lowell H. Young
Author: Biodesign Out For A Walk

www.facebook.com/biodesignoutforawalk
www.biodesignoutforawalk.com
www.linkedin.com/LowellYoung
www.goodreads.com/BiodesignOutForAWalk

Yellow Jackets and Soulless Evolution?

Posted on October 27, 2014 Leave a Comment

“So you went to the Louvre:

What did you see?

After the first artist

Only the copyist.”

- Renny and Terry Russell

Excerpt: Biodesign Out For A Walk:

In the mid-fifties, a team of scientists from Cornell University filled a glass globe with ammonia gas, zapped it with a simulated lightning bolt, and created some simple amino acids. They boldly proclaimed that they were on the verge of proving how life was created.

Since that time discoveries in cellular/molecular biology have revealed that a single cell is exceedingly more complex than man has ever guessed. This has led to a growing number of biologists who appreciate the “intelligent design” of cells and that man may never be able to create one. Even if he does, however, he would merely be a “copyist.”

Rattlesnakes are occasional visitors to our property and so when I heard a buzzing sound on our back porch, I approached cautiously. Instead of a snake, however, I found a small marble-sized ball, whirling wildly and lurching out of control. I had never seen anything like it, but guessed what it was. Two of our grandchildren were working nearby on art projects and I called them to witness the drama. Their collective question was, “What is it?” I responded that I wasn’t sure, but I suspected that we were about to find out. A minute or so later, the whirling stopped and we could clearly see two yellow jackets viciously attacking each other. Yellow jackets are capable of both biting and stinging multiple times and this is exactly what these two were up to. In a few moments, however, the buzzing ceased. There was an obvious winner and loser. The winner proceeded to bite the losers head off, pick up the headless body and take flight. The corpse weighed almost as much as the victor and so she struggled a bit to gain altitude before zipping back to her underground nest to feed the others.

The little death-drama left all of us stunned. At ages 6 and 9, the kids were not quite ready to process the utter brutality of the event. I had long known that honey bees vigorously defend their hives (and beekeeper’s boxes) either killing or driving away alien visitors, however, this fight-to-death encounter was over a bit of cat food!!!

What the bees were doing is known as exerting “territorial imperative.” We don’t know what bees know, but we do know that in the mysterious world known as instinct, the bees were programmed to defend the foraging area necessary to keep their respective nests alive. There was no right or wrong, good or evil, or moral parameters to observe. It involves Darwin’s law of survival of the fittest and it is behavior like this that deeply troubled the famous naturalist. He was not alone. Their behavior deeply troubled my grandchildren too.

In light of the recent accounts of people being beheaded in the Middle East, it makes me wonder if the perpetrators have regressed back to a soulless, animalistic form of behavior.However, before waxing too elitist, I am reminded that not too long ago, Native Americans and Caucasian immigrants were involved in the brutal, heartless act of “scalping.”

I suspect that, although millions of people profess to believe in “Darwinism,” only a small percentage of them have thoroughly studied his life and work. It is tragic and unconscionable that many “scientists” have twisted his work to match their personal myopic, soulless view. Darwin not only clearly admitted the shortcomings of his theory, he was deeply disturbed that “survival of the fittest” often involved death, destruction and a “dripping-in-blood” process.

In a profound and stunning irony, Darwin wondered; what was God’s role in all of this? It is a question that every human being has the privilege of answering.

Lowell. H. Young, Author: Biodesign Out For A Walk