What Darwinists Don’t Want You to Know
The truth about Intelligent Design
By M.E. Brines
Smashwords Edition
Copyright 2011 by M.E. Brines
This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, please purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.
* * *
Despite what they’d have you believe, Darwinism is NOT about evolution within a species or “survival of the fittest.” Nobody disputes those, not even the Biblical Creationists. Darwin himself said, “I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings…” in the distant past. [From The Origin of Species.] What Darwinism is about is the origin of all life on earth from a common ancestor without supernatural intervention.
Ever since Evolution was first proposed in 1859 myriads of scientists sought to prove this but with disappointing results. Bacteriologist Alan H. Linton is quoted in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design as saying,” Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another…. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution… throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.”
Darwin himself mentioned the Cambrian Explosion [that section of the fossil record where inexplicably (at least to Darwinians) most of the major animal phyla appear together abruptly and fully formed] as a “serious” problem with his theory. Which, he declared in 1859, “At present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” Yet 150 years later Darwinians still have no answer.
Historically Darwinism has been associated with numerous hoaxes. Piltdown Man and Haeckel’s fakery of the supposed similarity between developing embryos are only two. Yet in each case the Darwinians maintain their faith in their theory in the face of all contradictory evidence, attacking ferociously anyone who disagrees. As an example Haeckel’s drawings are STILL published in biological textbooks more than seventy years after their fakery was originally revealed.
Darwinians have sued in several state courts to prevent the teaching of other theories or even of pointing out to students that “Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.” [Taken word for word from the Cobb County, Georgia Board of Education. The ACLU sued successfully to have this statement removed from textbooks. What about it do you suppose they found offensive?]
Science is supposed to be based on the search for truth by the use of the “Scientific Method” whereby a theory is proposed, and specific experiments are then conducted under controlled conditions to prove the theory. Based on the results of the experiments the theory is either accepted as true, or else discarded in favor of a new more accurate theory. The goal is revelation of truth.
The primary requirement for a theory to be proven is for the successful experiment be repeatable and consistent. If a scientific fact is true, it is always true, not just once or sometimes.
Magick, on the other hand, is based on wishful thinking elevated to a spiritual principle. This is the essence of magical thinking: thought creates therefore if you believe in something hard enough it will become true. This is illustrated by the New Age principles of Affirmation and Prosperity Consciousness.[For further explanation see my e-book Science & Magick: are they compatible?]
With the arrival of Darwinism, modern science began to abandon the scientific method in favor of a militant atheistic orthodoxy. Today “science is what is generally accepted by scientists.”[Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg testifying before the Texas Board of Education in 2003.] Notice, the scientific method no longer plays a part in this. A theory is proven by its popularity among people with the proper university connections. But why the change?
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs… because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” [Richard C. Lewontin recounting how he and Carl Sagan defended Darwinism in a debate. From The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design p69] Darwinism isn’t a scientific theory anymore; it’s an anti-religious secular orthodoxy.
We see the spread of this attitude graphically illustrated in the way evidence that does not support the human-caused climate change theory is quashed and how any scientific evidence for Intelligent Design is ignored. “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” [Quote from Nature magazine.]
Scientific data contrary to Darwinism is ignored as irrelevant or treated as an actual threat. According to Marshall Berman, past president of the New Mexico Academy of Science, the theory of intelligent design “threatens all of science and society.” Why? If it’s wrong, show us the evidence. If not, change your theory.
Ask an astronomer why the Hubble “Constant” isn’t constant. It’s a fudge factor for the red shift mathematics that demonstrates a universe only a few thousand light years across – much too small for the big bang to have occurred. But, instead of readjusting the theory and verifying that through more experiments, evolutionists throw out the evidence and deride those who want to follow the scientific method as “closed minded.”
There are serious problems with Darwinism and even they admit it. For example read the Scientific American article in the April 2011 issue, “Quantum Gaps in Big Bang Theory – why our best explanation of how the universe evolved must be fixed or replaced.” Most of Darwinian experimental “evidence” presented as “proof” is revealed on closer examination to lack repeatability or to demonstrate more compatibility with the Intelligent Design theory. Yet anyone who disagrees is shouted down, their reputation attacked, tenure denied, government grants forfeited or jobs lost. But Truth doesn’t need an inquisition to enforce it.
But is Intelligent Design true? That’s impossible to answer in few pages. But I’ll try to at least show some of the evidence and where you can find more.
“Contemporary organisms are quite complex, they have a special and an intricate organization that would not occur spontaneously by chance. The ‘universal laws’ governing the assembly of biological materials are insufficient to explain our companion organisms: one cannot stir together the appropriate raw materials and self-assemble a mouse.” [Theoretical biologist Michael J. Katz of Case Western Reserve University quoted in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design.]
There are many features in organisms, such as the eye or blood clotting, that make no evolutionary sense. They could not develop partially, a piece at a time over thousands of generations because without each separate part they don’t function. What evolutionary good is an eye that can’t see or blood with only some of the more than dozen proteins required for clotting? For Darwinism to be true the organism has to go directly from nothing to a fully working and very complex model, not something that happens by mere chance. And these are just two examples of millions of organic systems.
DNA is too complex to have evolved even in the vastness of time Darwinism demands. “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” [Bill Gates in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design p97.]
“A typical gene is several hundred bases long, so its precise sequence is highly improbable. If this is true for a single gene, it is even truer for an entire organism. Estimates of the smallest number of genes needed to make a living cell start at 250. If a minimal cell needs 250 genes, each several hundred bases long, then its gene sequences are so complex that the universe isn’t old enough for them to have plausibly originated by chance.” [from The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design p97.] And if a simple cell is that improbable what about a complex organism like ourselves?
But don’t take my word for it. The Darwinians are the ones who want to force their views unexamined onto unsuspecting students. For more complete explanations I suggest investigating:
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., Regnery Publishing, Inc. 2006
Darwin’s Black Box, the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Michael J. Behe, The Free Press, 1996
The Evolution Cruncher, Vance Ferrell, Evolution Facts, Inc., 2001
Why is a Fly Not a Horse? Giuseppe Sermonti, Discovery Institute Press, 2005
The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design, William A. Dembski, InterVarsity Press, 2004
Don’t take somebody else’s word for truth – investigate for yourself.
###
If you liked this book (or at least appreciated having your belief-system thoughtfully challenged) you might also be interested in reading:
For a more complete investigation of the power that lies behind the practice of magick, consult my pamphlet Science & Magic: Are they compatible?
For additional discussion of differences (and similarities) between religion, philosophy and the practice of magick see my pamphlet Of Myth and Magic
All of those and more are available from Smashwords by M.E. Brines
Or visit http://www.fantasynations.com/
Follow M.E. Brines on Twitter.
Or view his Facebook page.