The Darwinist Cult Conspiracy

[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

You piqued my interest in Charles Fort. I knew little of him except the word Fortean.

So I looked him up on Wikipedia.

I think I rather like all his ideas. Here is a typical one:

"Fort thought that far too often, scientists took themselves far too seriously, and were prone to arrogance and dogmatism."

In a nutshell, that's it.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

Jack,

Would I be right in thinking you support the 'Intelligent Design' theory?

[Dave Greer]

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.

Don

I'm perplexed as to why you claim modern science to be dogmatic and unyielding. Let's take Evolutionary theory as an example, or more specifically modification to Darwinism (Darwinism consisting of several theories).

Source

Date Stage Modification

1883-1886 Weismann's neo-Darwinism End of soft inheritance; diploidy and genetic recombination recognized

1900 Mendelism Genetic constancy accepted and blending inheritance rejected

1918-1933 Fisherism Evolution considered to be a matter of gene frequencies and the force of even small selection pressures

1936-1947 Evolutionary synthesis Population thinking emphasized; interest in the evolution of diversity, geographic speciation, variable evolutionary rates

1947-1972 Post-Synthesis Individual increasingly seen as target of selection; a more holistic approach; increased recognition of chance and constraints

1954-1972 Punctuated equilibria Importance of speciational evolution

1969-1980 Rediscovery of importance of sexual selection - Importance of reproductive success for selection

Doesn't sound dogmatic and unyielding to me. This applies to many branches of science, for example Cosmology. Sir Isaac Newton estimated the age of the universe at a few thousand years. Einstein subscribed to the Steady State theory. Modern Cosmologists estimate the age of the Universe between 12 and 16 billion years old.

I'm sure there are occasions, indeed very significant ones, when deeply held scientific beliefs are entrenched. For example, Einstein's admittedly big mistake when he was forced to introduce the Cosmological Constant into his theory of General Relativity to achieve a static Universe. On the whole though, I think it's missing the point to accuse modern science en masse to be as "dogmatic and unyielding as organized religion".

For me, I think the biggest problem with "Darwinism", indeed the modern Theory of Evolution, is lack of falsifiability. That does not prove it to be untrue, of course. But as far as I'm aware, comparing Darwinism as a scientific theory to, say, the theory of Electromagnetism, is in many respects an apples and oranges comparison. Many scientific theories can be tested and results verified in the lab. This is far more difficult with something as complex and lengthy as evolution.

IMHO, Darwinism/TOE has its problems (as do many modern scientific theories). I cautiously see it as the best of any competing theories (i.e. Intelligent Design).

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Having read, among others, Hawkings, Sagan and books about Einstein on the subject, I have found the best book for an introduction to Cosmos, Darwinism, DNA etc. to be Bill Bryson's - A short history of nearly everything.

It's written with great passion and enthusiasm as well as giving a sound overview of the main theories. This is done with extreme clarity.

If, like me, you find a lot of the science, dealing with these subjects, too involved; Bryson's book allows you to share with him the excitement of finding out and understanding these things. Interestingly it is noted, whilst expressing admiration, Darwin never used the term "Survival of the fittest" in any of his work!

Edited February 15, 2007 by Gary Loughran

[Dave Greer]

Having read, among others, Hawkings, Sagan and books about Einstein on the subject, I have found the best book for an introduction to Cosmos, Darwinism, DNA etc. to be Bill Bryson's - A short history of nearly everything.

It's written with great passion and enthusiasm as well as giving a sound overview of the main theories. This is done with extreme clarity.

If, like me, you find a lot of the science, dealing with these subjects, too involved; Bryson's book allows you to share with him the excitement of finding out and understanding these things. Interestingly it is noted, whilst expressing admiration, Darwin never used the term "Survival of the fittest" in any of his work!

Indeed - it was Herbert Spencer who coined the phrase in 1864.

Thanks for reminding me about the Bryson book - it was one I considered a few months ago. I may just add it to my far too small library.

[Jack White]

Jack,

Would I be right in thinking you support the 'Intelligent Design' theory?

NO. But it is superior to Darwin.

I have stated my position. Only a fool can claim to know how everything

began. Therefore I am a fool if I support any theory in which I find flaws.

Everyone can look at ALL the evidence and have opinions, but it is foolish

to claim that one KNOWS. One thing I do think I know...neither religion nor

science has yet come up with the truth.

Jack

[Len Colby]

By the way, I am not opposed to the theory on religious grounds. Religion has nothing to do with it. The theory defies logic.

Jack

VS.

The Darwin Cult promotes secularism and is anti-religious.

LOL

Is secularism, bad?

Though Evolution permits a universe with out God it doesn't preclude the possibility of his (her) existence or that of some other spirit. I’ve spoken to Orthodox Jews and fervent Baptists who accept Evolution.

Many believe it is a mind control tool of The New World Order to promote global consumerism.

Many people believe 1) Elvis is still alive 2) Bush is doing a good job 3) Saddam was responsible for 9-11 etc etc providing random quotes of the Net proves nothing nor does a few quotes from Darwin devoid of context. I wouldn’t be surprised if Galileo, Newton and Einstein had moments of doubts about their theories too, since their day science has found additional evidence backing all four men’s theories.

“Hitler advocated using Darwinism for eugenics and ethnic cleansing. So does the Bush family.”

Reliable citation for the Bushes please, not that it would surprise me or prove anything.

“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.”

Let’s see your calculations backed by data from scientific sources. Since life is believed to have begun about 4 billion years ago the number of generations since then is in the hundreds of millions

“Evolutionists have NEVER YET produced a documentable mutation of one species into another species.”

Do you mean in a single generation of over the course of millions of years? What would accept as “documentation”

“Darwin theorized that the species ALREADY EXISTED before they mutated. He does not tell us how LIFE BEGAN...”

Others since then have done so. Gallieo did explain the origin of the universe either

“Religions are even more controversial than evolution.”

Evolution isn’t controversial

Len, I suspect, introduced the thread only to be mischeivous.

Jack clearly expressed his desire to present his case. I was curious to see what sort of evidence he would present.

"The idea of a genuine debate on this rather interesting topic - a topic far less open and shut than I imagined before reading Michael Denton, Fred Hoyle and others - probably never occured to him."

Wrong again! There is no serious scientific debate Hoyle an astronomer is one of the few real scientists to express any doubts (though I won’t pretend to understand the math enough to judge the merits of his case), Denton has long since backed away from his doubts about evolution and was one of only 2 or 3 people with advanced degrees in a field related biology to cast doubt on evolution this century.

[Ron Ecker]

“Hitler advocated using Darwinism for eugenics and ethnic cleansing. So does the Bush family.”

How ironic that the family that produced George W. Bush advocates eugenics. What went wrong?

[Jack White]

“Hitler advocated using Darwinism for eugenics and ethnic cleansing. So does the Bush family.”

How ironic that the family that produced George W. Bush advocates eugenics. What went wrong?

Amen, Ron! I would condone eugenics if it would rid us of Bush and his ilk.

Mankind would be improved by removing W from the gene pool.

Jack

[Dave Greer]

“Hitler advocated using Darwinism for eugenics and ethnic cleansing. So does the Bush family.”

How ironic that the family that produced George W. Bush advocates eugenics. What went wrong?

Amen, Ron! I would condone eugenics if it would rid us of Bush and his ilk.

Mankind would be improved by removing W from the gene pool.

Jack

I feel I must protest quite strongly.

I resent the accusation that my genome, as a human being, bears any resemblance to GWBs.

[Sid Walker]

I have to admit that the existence of George Bush is a telling argument against "Intelligent Design".

[Sid Walker]

Len, I suspect, introduced the thread only to be mischeivous.

Jack clearly expressed his desire to present his case. I was curious to see what sort of evidence he would present.

"The idea of a genuine debate on this rather interesting topic - a topic far less open and shut than I imagined before reading Michael Denton, Fred Hoyle and others - probably never occured to him."

Wrong again! There is no serious scientific debate Hoyle an astronomer is one of the few real scientists to express any doubts (though I won’t pretend to understand the math enough to judge the merits of his case), Denton has long since backed away from his doubts about evolution and was one of only 2 or 3 people with advanced degrees in a field related biology to cast doubt on evolution this century.

You are perfectly entitled to start the thread, Len. Please don't imagine for a moment I am trying to stifle your free speech Perish the thought!

I should remind you - or whichever definitive source you relied upon for your devastating rebuttal of my rather modest claim the matter is not completely "open and shut" - of an irritating little detail.

For most of us, it is now a new century.

You really should update your calendar.

Or maybe it's the rest of us who must get with the times?

In this new century, since 9-11 when "everything changed", perhaps all matters are "open and shut"? There are only certainties, discussed by real people of various professions. All other discourse is just illusion.

We are therefore most fortunate on this forum, Len, to have you here, a source so close to the Oracle.

Yes, I am aware that Denton changed his views.

No, it isn't true that Fred Hoyle is "one of the few real scientists to express any doubts" (doubts, that is, about the completeness of natural selection and random mutation to account for all observed evolutionary changes to organic lifeforms).

Not unless we cede to you all rights to define 'real scientists'.

Perhaps we should?

After all, you already know which scientific questions are - and are not - worth asking.

You already know what's "open and shut" - and what's not.

So why shouldn't you get to pick 'real scientists' - just like you already arrogate to yourself the right to identify 'real historians'?

Why not imprison 'fake scientists' for good measure?

Edited February 15, 2007 by Sid Walker

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Darwin never used the term "Survival of the fittest" in any of his work!

Indeed - it was Herbert Spencer who coined the phrase in 1864.

“Survival of the Fittest”—Herbert Spencer used this term (which was never used by Darwin) to describe the results of competition in society. In revised editions of The Origin of Species Darwin wrote that the term aptly described the nature of his own theory of the evolution of SPECIES.

http://www.dlt.ncssm.edu/lmtm/docs/Darwini...sary.doc.

Edited February 16, 2007 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Scott Deitche]

Wow, this thread is surreal.

As a scientist, I guess I'm part of the Darwin conspriacy so BOO! Guess i'll be doing whatever conspiratorial things Jack thinks we all do, like calculating nutrient loadings to waterbodies and other nefarious acts.

I'll simply start by saying this. Each month there are dozens of journals that publish, on average, a dozen PEER-REVIEWED scientific experiments and papers supporting evolution each. That's been going on for decades, so while I can't do the math- you get the picture- tens of thousands of peer-reviewed science in over a dozen scientific disciplines.

ID theory has produced ZERO peer-reviewed articles, and ZERO peer-reviewed experiments. Creationism, esp, young earth, is even more ludicrous, churning out fake geologic information to advance their ridiculous theory that the earth is less than 10,000 years old (which begs the question since people have been around far longer than that, did they float in the air- maybe on a cloud city like Lando Calrissian?).

The problem with this thread, like so much anti-evolution material, is that it comes from trying to disprove evolution and tie it to the actions of lunatics like eugenic supporters. They never try to PROVE their theory, because they can't.

I'm open minded. I think panspermia is an interesting theory and as a scientist you need to be open to all theories, but the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming and grows by leaps and bounds each year.

Edited February 16, 2007 by Scott Deitche

[Evan Burton]

I have stated my position. Only a fool can claim to know how everything began.

I wholeheartedly agree. Where we differ is that I think the scientific community has developed a reasonable theory of events; they are subject to revision as new evidence is discovered.

I am glad (and not a little surprised) to see we agree that religion should remain a separate issue.