The Darwinist Cult Conspiracy

[J. Raymond Carroll]

The Darwin Cult promotes secularism and is anti-religious.

It could be argued that all scientific work promotes secularism. Catholics do not consider DARWIN'S theory anti-religious, witness JFK (or was he part of the plot also?)

Govt rulings that it must be taught in public schools have no scientific basis. ... The objective

of the "fittest surviving" and the "elimination of the weakest" is a policy tailored to

rich and ruling classes.

According to the ever-logical Charles Sanders Peirce, Darwin's theory does not refer to the survival of the fittest individual or group, rather it refers to the fittest species. The following is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"According to Peirce, the most fundamental engine of the evolutionary process is not struggle, strife, greed, or competition. Rather it is nurturing love, in which an entity is prepared to sacrifice its own perfection for the sake of the wellbeing of its neighbor. This doctrine had both a social significance for Peirce, who apparently had the intention of arguing against the popular socio-economic Darwinism of the late nineteenth century, and a cosmic significance, which Peirce associated with the doctrine of the Gospel of John and with the mystical ideas ofSwedenborg and Henry James. Peirce even argued that being logical in some sense presupposes the ethics of self-sacrifice. The sort of social Darwinism and related thinking that constituted a supposed justification for the more repugnant practices of unbridled capitalism Peirce referred to as "The Gospel of Greed."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/#anti"

The Gospel of Greed has no logical connection to Darwin's theory, as Peirce points out.

There is of course a widespread movement to promote the Gospel of Greed and the hoax being perpetrated is the BIG LIE that Darwin's theory of evolution justifies the Gospel of Greed.

Edited February 14, 2007 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Norman Pratt]

Three of my best friends deny evolution. That, and a recent encounter with an OFSTED Inspector who also denied it, have led me to take this issue seriously – seriously.

I have evidence that this issue is hotting up. In Terry Pratchett’s ‘The Science of Discworld’ (1999), the Wizards of his completely flat world carried out an experiment (in a squash court) creating a miniature universe, whose earth turned out to be remarkably like our own. Here and in other books Terry Pratchett has had fun describing the motivation of those in Discworld who went on claiming (against all available evidence) that their world was a globe with a fairly small sun orbiting around it. ‘The Science of Discworld lll Darwin’s Watch’ (2006), on the other hand, has two very detailed chapters by Pratchett’s collaborators on the subject of William Paley’s arguments concerning the discovery in a field of a stone, and then a watch, and what they suggested about how life came about. What is striking is the almost bitter and humourless tone of what I had mistakenly thought was going to be a funny book, as we follow a detailed argument on how such a complicated organ as the eye evolved and didn’t have to be specially created.

Can we resolve this issue, please, being careful, as has already been pointed out, to define terms? And perhaps Terry Pratchett will be able to get back to being funny again.

[Ron Ecker]

Darwin had nothing to do with "social Darwinism" or various other ills of the world for which he has been blamed. Those who are going to attack Darwin's theory should do so on scientific grounds, instead of bringing up stuff like eugenics and MK-ULTRA, which have nothing to do with the theory of descent with modification by natural selection.

As for logic, the theory is so exquisitely logical that when he read Darwin's book the prominent naturalist Thomas Huxley kicked himself, saying, "How stupid not to have thought of that."

What Darwin's theory lacked, as Darwin admitted, was the source of variation, upon which natural selection acts. This mystery was not solved until the 20th century with the science of genetics, the result of which was to make Darwin's theory more powerful than ever.

While many mysteries about evolution remain, there is a reason for the theory being the cornerstone of modern biology, and it has nothing to do with some global conspiracy.

[Jack White]

"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77.

[Jack White]

Darwin doubts Darwin:

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

[Ron Ecker]

a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77.

Jack,

Did you know that Denton is now an evolutionist? I guess the logic finally got to him.

[Ron Ecker]

Darwin doubts Darwin:

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

Fossils in general are rare, many fossils may exist that will never be found, and fossils of transitional forms would be the rarest because those forms were the most shortlived.

The rarity (not the absence) of transitional forms is addressed by the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

[Sid Walker]

- duplicate post -

Edited February 14, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Sid Walker]

Three of my best friends deny evolution. That, and a recent encounter with an OFSTED Inspector who also denied it, have led me to take this issue seriously – seriously.

I have evidence that this issue is hotting up. In Terry Pratchett’s ‘The Science of Discworld’ (1999), the Wizards of his completely flat world carried out an experiment (in a squash court) creating a miniature universe, whose earth turned out to be remarkably like our own. Here and in other books Terry Pratchett has had fun describing the motivation of those in Discworld who went on claiming (against all available evidence) that their world was a globe with a fairly small sun orbiting around it. ‘The Science of Discworld lll Darwin’s Watch’ (2006), on the other hand, has two very detailed chapters by Pratchett’s collaborators on the subject of William Paley’s arguments concerning the discovery in a field of a stone, and then a watch, and what they suggested about how life came about. What is striking is the almost bitter and humourless tone of what I had mistakenly thought was going to be a funny book, as we follow a detailed argument on how such a complicated organ as the eye evolved and didn’t have to be specially created.

Can we resolve this issue, please, being careful, as has already been pointed out, to define terms? And perhaps Terry Pratchett will be able to get back to being funny again.

Interesting post Norman.

As part of better defining our terms (and using better-defined terms), may I suggest we DON'T get snagged in THIS discussion by that tired old 'DENIAL' fallacy.

You wote: "Three of my best friends deny evolution"

Well, perhaps so.

But I don't. And it's not a position I''d argue. The vast fossil record seems to me comprehensive and compelling evidence that there has been change over time in organic life forms on this planet.

The issue is how we account for these changes.

Darwinists propose the twin 'forces' of random mutation and natural selection have sufficient potency to account for all the observed changes, including very substantial macro-evolutionary leaps.

They also typically have a quite geocentric view of organic life - and have been resistant to the notion that organic life that is similar to organic life on earth permeates the universe and did not necessarily originate on earth.

I don't believe the major problems of macro-evolution have ever really been 'solved'. Perhaps that's the nature of the beast. It may not be possible to demonstrate how a giant evolutionary 'leap' occured long in the past.

However, those who say Darwinism is a 'proven fact' are, IMO, greatly overstaing the case.

To describe doubts that Darwinism is a correct and full description of the process of evolution as a tendency to 'deny evolution' is not helpful, IMO.

It reflects a misuse (not for the first time in public debate!) of the concept of 'denial'.

Edited February 14, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Jack White]

Three of my best friends deny evolution. That, and a recent encounter with an OFSTED Inspector who also denied it, have led me to take this issue seriously – seriously.

I have evidence that this issue is hotting up. In Terry Pratchett’s ‘The Science of Discworld’ (1999), the Wizards of his completely flat world carried out an experiment (in a squash court) creating a miniature universe, whose earth turned out to be remarkably like our own. Here and in other books Terry Pratchett has had fun describing the motivation of those in Discworld who went on claiming (against all available evidence) that their world was a globe with a fairly small sun orbiting around it. ‘The Science of Discworld lll Darwin’s Watch’ (2006), on the other hand, has two very detailed chapters by Pratchett’s collaborators on the subject of William Paley’s arguments concerning the discovery in a field of a stone, and then a watch, and what they suggested about how life came about. What is striking is the almost bitter and humourless tone of what I had mistakenly thought was going to be a funny book, as we follow a detailed argument on how such a complicated organ as the eye evolved and didn’t have to be specially created.

Can we resolve this issue, please, being careful, as has already been pointed out, to define terms? And perhaps Terry Pratchett will be able to get back to being funny again.

Interesting post Norman.

As part of better defining our terms (and using better-defined terms), may I suggest we DON'T get snagged in THIS discussion by that tired old 'DENIAL' fallacy.

You wote: "Three of my best friends deny evolution"

Well, perhaps so.

But I don't. And it's not a position I''d argue. The vast fossil record seems to me comprehensive and compelling evidence that there has been change over time in organic life forms on this planet.

The issue is how we account for these changes.

Darwinists propose the twin 'forces' of random mutation and natural selection have sufficient potency to account for all the observed changes, including very substantial macro-evolutionary leaps.

They also typically have a quite geocentric view of organic life - and have been resistant to the notion that organic life that is similar to organic life on earth permeates the universe and did not necessarily originate on earth.

I don't believe the major problems of macro-evolution have ever really been 'solved'. Perhaps that's the nature of the beast. It may not be possible to demonstrate how a giant evolutionary 'leap' occured long in the past.

However, those who say Darwinism is a 'proven fact' are, IMO, greatly overstaing the case.

To describe doubts that Darwinism is a correct and full description of the process of evolution as a tendency to 'deny evolution' is not helpful, IMO.

It reflects a misuse (not for the first time in public debate!) of the concept of 'denial'.

Very good, Sid...I agree with most everything you say. The mathematics alone of

RANDOM MUTATION causing every existing form of life from a single random cell

which somehow came into being is staggering. The chance that a single random cell

somehow came into being FROM NOTHING and then proliferated by mutation into

EVERY SPECIES OF KNOWN LIFE, PLANT AND ANIMAL is in the megazillions.

It ignores modern discoveries of DNA and everything involved in this genetic code.

How was DNA created? What caused it to come about? Nobody knows.

Evolutionists have NEVER YET produced a documentable mutation of one species

into another species. Science demands that THEOREMS be proved through documentable

REPLICATION...yet no evolutionist has ever produced proof of Darwin's theories by

changing pigeons into peacocks nor kittens into cougars...much less elephants into

mice.

Darwin theorized that the species ALREADY EXISTED before they mutated. He

does not tell us how LIFE BEGAN...except that it somehow occurred. He does not

tell us how something was created from NOTHING. If so, good science demands

that experiments replicate this process...but nobody can. The reason? Only a fool

will say he knows where life came from. Nobody knows.

What elements were used to create life? Where did these elements come from?

Can organic life be created from INORGANIC elements? If so, how? Name any

scientist anywhere who has CREATED LIFE from inorganic elements.

Where did the universe and all that it contains come from? Only a fool will

say he knows...because nobody knows for sure! Can science prove that

SOMETHING CAN BE CREATED FROM NOTHING? This defies logic and science.

Everything that exists, if the beginning of time was an endless void, HAD TO

BE CREATED FROM SOMETHING. But this raises the conundrum...CAN SOMETHING

BE CREATED FROM NOTHING? This produces an incomprehensible question

which has no answer...or someone would have given us the answer by now.

Science is the study of CAUSE AND EFFECT...except for evolution. Evolutionary

Theory proposes the EFFECT exists and does not bother with the cause.

This is not science...just pure theorizing without proof.

Mutations DO occur WITHIN species, thus small horses may evolve into a large

horse. But there is no chance whatsover of a horse mutating into a whale.

Jack

[Jack White]

I want to completely avoid discussing RELIGION. Religions are even more

controversial than evolution. All religions basically are just homocentric

philosophies...that is MAN thinking about things from his viewpoint.

The intellect of MAN is so inferior to the intellect which created everything

that exists, that man cannot begin to comprehend where everything came

from...and when he tries, he is far short of real understanding. The only

correct stance is IT IS UNFATHOMABLE....INCOMPREHENSIBLE...BEYOND

THE UNDERSTANDING OF MAN.

However, excluding religion does not preclude the discussion of an UNKNOWN

AND UNKNOWABLE SPIRIT. It is homocentric to call this thing GOD, which

is an invention of the human mind. That is just saying "we don't understand

it, so let's just blame the whole thing on God...yeah, that's the ticket, God

did it." That is not much different than Darwin saying, "I really don't

understand where life came from, but what if it came from a single cell

and then MUTATED into everything." Both of these are cop-outs.

Philosophers and scientists agree that some unknown "spirit" is necessary

to activate inert matter into life. Even Darwin must have agreed to this.

Name any animal, including man, and there is an UNKNOWN SOMETHING

which gives it life. For lack of a better term, many call this a SPIRIT; in

man it is often called a SOUL.

Without this SPIRIT, any animal or plant being is INERT matter. If a

flower is not alive, it cannot produce pollen and seeds. If a lion is not

alive, it cannot stalk its prey. If a man is not alive, his remains are put

in a box and buried.

Darwin's theory and his supporters fail to address this spriit CALLED LIFE.

They only address reproduction and mutation. But living things are more

complex than that. Darwinism merely scratches the surface of the origin of

living species.

Jack

[Jack White]

Darwin doubts Darwin:

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

Fossils in general are rare, many fossils may exist that will never be found, and fossils of transitional forms would be the rarest because those forms were the most shortlived.

The rarity (not the absence) of transitional forms is addressed by the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

For many years Darwinists have searched for THE MISSING LINK to any species without success.

Why do you say TRANSITIONAL FORMS are SHORTLIVED? What evidence supports this? Or is it just

theory? Tell us what transitional forms have been identified positively. I have not read of any.

A few turned out to be hoaxes or misidentification of other species.

Jack

[Jack White]

Darwin doubts Darwin:

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

Fossils in general are rare, many fossils may exist that will never be found, and fossils of transitional forms would be the rarest because those forms were the most shortlived.

The rarity (not the absence) of transitional forms is addressed by the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

For many years Darwinists have searched for THE MISSING LINK to any species without success.

Why do you say TRANSITIONAL FORMS are SHORTLIVED? What evidence supports this? Or is it just

theory? Tell us what transitional forms have been identified positively. I have not read of any.

A few turned out to be hoaxes or misidentification of other species.

Jack

Speaking of the fossil record, let's consider sharks' teeth. Shark teeth are found among the oldest

fossil records, and they are like the shark teeth of today. Apparently sharks didn't get the memo

from Darwin, and never bothered to mutate into some transitional animal. Or do you say that only

a FEW of them mutated and the rest did NOT? Did some sharks crawl onto land, become monkeys

and then people...is that punctuated equilibrium?

Jack

[Don Jeffries]

Jack,

As usual, you are not afraid to go against the grain. At least one other poster here is in your corner; imho, evolution is a complete fraud.

The wonderful iconoclastic writer Charles Fort best summed up evolution in the following definition from his "The Book Of The Damned:"

"The fittest survive.

What is meant by the fittest?

Not the strongest; not the cleverest--

Weakness and stupidity everywhere survive.

There is no way of determining fitness except in that a thing does survive.

"Fitness," then, is only another name for "survival."

Darwinism:

That survivors survive."

(Damned, pp. 23-24)

Most educated and successful people today respond to naysayers doubting the divinity of evolution in, ironically, much the same way that educated and successful people first reacted to the theory of evolution in the nineteenth century. Evolution is a totally incomplete theory, with a missing link that has never been found, but somehow doesn't matter. Modern science is as dogmatic and unyielding as organized religion; from time to time, we've all read reports of ancient batteries being discovered, or bullet holes found in the skulls of dinosaurs or cavemen, for instance. Science resolves these incongruities by ignoring them, which is what they've always done to data they can't explain. They also ignore the numerous accounts of phenomena like fish, blood, rocks, frogs and other nonsensical objects falling from the sky, which Fort documented in his writings. This is much the same way that organized religion first reacted to the discovery of dinosaur fossils. All the sciences, from medical science to astronomy, are dominated now by entrenched, dogmatic true believers, who will not brook any dissent and are just the kinds of people who persecuted Gallileo and Coopernicus.

I would urge everyone here who is interested in this subject matter, or who just wants to read a superbly original, extremely witty writer, to go to their local library and check out "The Books of Charles Fort." At the very least, you will be entertained.

[Jack White]

Jack,

As usual, you are not afraid to go against the grain. At least one other poster here is in your corner; imho, evolution is a complete fraud.

The wonderful iconoclastic writer Charles Fort best summed up evolution in the following definition from his "The Book Of The Damned:"

"The fittest survive.

What is meant by the fittest?

Not the strongest; not the cleverest--

Weakness and stupidity everywhere survive.

There is no way of determining fitness except in that a thing does survive.

"Fitness," then, is only another name for "survival."

Darwinism:

That survivors survive."

(Damned, pp. 23-24)

Most educated and successful people today respond to naysayers doubting the divinity of evolution in, ironically, much the same way that educated and successful people first reacted to the theory of evolution in the nineteenth century. Evolution is a totally incomplete theory, with a missing link that has never been found, but somehow doesn't matter. Modern science is as dogmatic and unyielding as organized religion; from time to time, we've all read reports of ancient batteries being discovered, or bullet holes found in the skulls of dinosaurs or cavemen, for instance. Science resolves these incongruities by ignoring them, which is what they've always done to data they can't explain. They also ignore the numerous accounts of phenomena like fish, blood, rocks, frogs and other nonsensical objects falling from the sky, which Fort documented in his writings. This is much the same way that organized religion first reacted to the discovery of dinosaur fossils. All the sciences, from medical science to astronomy, are dominated now by entrenched, dogmatic true believers, who will not brook any dissent and are just the kinds of people who persecuted Gallileo and Coopernicus.

I would urge everyone here who is interested in this subject matter, or who just wants to read a superbly original, extremely witty writer, to go to their local library and check out "The Books of Charles Fort." At the very least, you will be entertained.

Thanks for your interesting post and keen observations. I especially like your last line:

"All the sciences, from medical science to astronomy, are dominated now by entrenched, dogmatic true believers, who will not brook any dissent and are just the kinds of people who persecuted Gallileo and Coopernicus. "

This applies to history as well...witness JFK, 911, Apollo, and other govt lies supported

by the persecutors if today and those who represent them on forums like this,

Jack

Jack