I often encounter a significant quantity of disapprobation from intellectuals, academics, and even one highly respected bus mechanic about my belief in Creationism. Invariably, these disciples of Darwinian’s theory on origin of species will explain to me, in the manner one would speak to a severely mentally challenged child, that Darwinian evolution is the only educated, enlightened, credible, and most importantly “scientific” principle available. Their eyes filled with compassion for the poor boy who has been misguided by fairy tales of God sitting on a mountain, or in the clouds, or someplace, somewhere, out there.
It’s not that I don’t recognize a back-handed insult when I have been slapped with one, but this is when I start smirking in a nearly futile attempt to hold back hysterical laughter. I do this out of respect, because I know that they have spent a great deal of time, money, and effort in the accumulation of knowledge, however erroneous it may be, and I do not wish to offend their fragile sensibilities. My silent reaction are often misinterpreted as an open door through which the concerned evolutionist can begin shoveling more of their erudite concepts. Perhaps the will assume the worst of me and begin with something like,
“You do realize that there are more than four basic elements of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water, right?”
“Well, of course I do! There are your solids, liquids, and gases which make up the seven food groups! I can read the sides of the cereal boxes too as I ‘m drooling back into my bowl of Captain Crunch”.
My tactic of ignorant indignation cannot hold up and I give myself away here every time.While I am relieved that they did not begin with,
“Do you believe in Zeus, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Clause as well?”
To which my only recourse is to act out wildly tearing at my clothes and screaming, “Blasphemy! Blasphemy! Blasphemy!” Needless to say, I’m a lot of fun at symposiums after a couple cocktails, or at least was until they took my name off the guest lists in 11 states and Canada. The scientific community is highly educated to the point of elitist, this vast intellectual burden makes relating to those of us who possess merely average comprehension a tedious bunch with which to communicate. Imagine the frustration of trying to instill the concept of equality in a pack of sled dogs whose every instinct runs counter to an egalitarian system. The scientist would avoid such a foolishness endeavor, while I might give it a try. After several hours of aggravation and disgruntlement the dogs will lose patience with my baffling antics allowing me the respite to delude myself into the illusion of having made progress.
Speaking of progress, the theory of Darwinian evolution is based on the twin pillar hypotheses of universal common ancestry and natural selection. Darwin describes the his hypothesis of universal common ancestry, the theory that all life on the planet originated from a single or very few primordial life forms in his On the Origin of Species in this way,
"There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one" [1]
Personally, I see no conflict what so ever between and great harmony within much of Darwin’s assertion and that of the Genesis account aside from the mater of quantities. I would go so far as to say that Moses, assuming that Moses is in fact the author of Genesis, could not have described Creation better in a single sentence other than the one the author used,
“And Jehovah Elohim formed Man, dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Man became a living soul.” [2]
Darwin never addresses the existence or absence of a deity which, “…originally breathed into a few forms or into one.” Darwin is describing the process to the best of his understanding at the time, which is no more advanced, educated, enlightened, credible, or scientific than the description found in the Genesis account. Now, who is acting out wildly tearing at their clothes and screaming, “Blasphemy! Blasphemy! Blasphemy!”
Darwin was a credit to science in that he was far more open to reason than most of the scientific community and other religious zealots, who cannot for a moment entertain that there theory on Creation of life on this planet may not be complete or even remotely correct. Several times over he presents his theory being incomplete and at points leaves open critical flaws that would discount his theory all together. One such point is his addressing the question posed by the sudden (rather than evolutionary) appearance of life in the Cambrian,
“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. To show that it may hereafter receive some explanation, I will give the following hypothesis. From the nature of the organic remains which do not appear to have inhabited profound depths, in the several formations of Europe and of the United States; and from the amount of sediment, miles in thickness, of which the formations are composed, we may infer that from first to last large islands or tracts of land, whence the sediment was derived, occurred in the neighbourhood of the now existing continents of Europe and North America. The same view has since been maintained by Agassiz and others. But we do not know what was the state of things in the intervals between the several successive formations; whether Europe and the United States during these intervals existed as dry land, or as a submarine surface near land, on which sediment was not deposited, or as the bed on an open and unfathomable sea.” [3]
There has yet to be a satisfactory answer to the inexplicable case life suddenly appearing in wide diversity and without evidence of the simpler progenitors required by natural selection or the interim species . However, the ability to present a valid argument against the evolution, universal common ancestry, or the process of natural selection has been silenced as blasphemy. The hypothesis of evolution called a theory is taught as a law of science and all else is discounted as primitive mythos. However science works by some very specific definitions and anything that does not conform to these definitions is NOT science…
| Fundamental Definitions Used in Science [4] A hypothesis - A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation A theory - A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained Law - A statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present: the second law of thermodynamics. |
True science is the endless asymptotic pursuit of the truth. True science does not summarily dismiss a theory or hypothesis because a scientist does not wish it to be true, or disapproves of the implications incumbent with the theory or hypothesis. True science does not promote that which is theory or hypothesis as being more than theoretical or hypothetical.
A few hundred years ago the unexplored edges of mariners maps were marked with a stark warning “Here Be Dragons and Sea Monsters” along with a graphic illustration to impress upon the imprudent or illiterate sailor the dreadful disemboweling he was in for should he continue on his ill advised course.[5] It is the purview of science to boldly venture on course in spite of the warnings, fears, and inherent disemboweling no matter how dreadful. When the scientific community acts to stifle the diligent and unbiased exploration of the unknown, the constituent members cease to be scientists and become dogmatic zealots.
When science acts on consensus, collusion, and conspiracy as tools to curtail the full realm of possibilities rather than explore them, it ceases to be science and becomes unreasoning fanaticism based on irrational fears. This is the antithesis of science. One need only look to the very recent history in the educated, enlightened, credible, and most importantly “scientific” principle of global warming being driven by CO2 emissions to illustrate the potential for abuse. So many distinguished academics and researchers holding impeccable credentials agreeing on a thoroughly examined and exhaustively documented theory were invariably wrong in their initial premise. In the past CO2 has never been a determining factor in temperature change, and there is no evidence to support that it is now. [6]
The Vice-President and former Presidential candidate Al Gore was, and probably still is, convinced that the “Dragons and Sea Serpents” of global warming were just ahead when he said,
“Two thousand scientists, in a hundred countries, engaged in the most elaborate, well organized scientific collaboration in the history of humankind, have produced long-since a consensus that we will face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming.” [7]
We must compile our understanding of the Universe from ALL the evidence at our disposal without prejudice. We must remember that science is not THE TRUTH, but the endless pursuit of it. History, is filled with well established scientific principles found to be without basis. Aristotle and Ptolemy (scientists and academics by any definition) were the proponents of the theory that the Earth was the center of the solar system, yes, even the universe and provided a myriad of calculations and circumstantial evidence to prove their assertions. The Catholic church later adopted the theory widely endorsed by the most learned minds of the day. Head he lived in Aristotle’s and Ptolemy’s time rather than ours, Mr. Gore would conclude “…they have produced long-since a consensus that the Earth is the center of the solar system.”
Very few today recall that Aristotle’s and Ptolemy’s geocentric solar system was all but universally accepted by the scientific community of that time. However, many recall that the Catholic Church’s inhumane treatment of those who did not agree with the accepted, yet fatally flawed, astronomy laid down by the Ancient Greek philosophers. Many forget that the at the time the Catholic Church acted far more as a government and political entity than a Christian denomination. In a hauntingly familiar way that government agencies, environmental groups, and the mainstream media across many countries for over a decade issued reports and documents stating that there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming. Opponents who disagreed, were ridiculed, censured, had their funding cut, or were dismissed from their positions. This is the modern academic equivalent of an old fashioned witch burnings. We think ourselves so technologically advanced, so enlightened, but even today we certainly behave like the hairless descendants of apes that a consensus of science would have us believe.
References, Notations, and Other Accoutrements
- Darwin, C., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life", London, John Murrary, (1859) p. 490
- Darby Bible Translation, Gen. 2:7
- Darwin, C., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life", London, John Murrary, (1859) p. 361
- New Oxford English Dictionary © Oxford University Press 2005,2009
- The sea serpents thoughts are conjecture based solely on my own wild speculation
- “Climate chaos? Don't believe it”, Christopher Monckton, Sunday Telegraph, 05 Nov 2006
- Al Gore, speech at National Sierra Club Convention, Sept. 9, 2005
