So I decided to reread Darwin's On Origin of Species. Not sure why, it's a brutally dry read and so full of 19th Century empiricism and rationalism, a person could choke on it even at a distance. The most coherent thing that I can pull from the last Chapter (14) of
Origin of the Species is a convoluted explanation for sterility in female caste
ants in their colony. It is overly wordy and comes off as pretentious and at
times, rambling, like a man possessed. Perhaps he was? Perhaps this is why I put
it down the first time when I tried to read the entire thing twenty years ago
(boooooring).
Darwin then goes on to describe in detail the potential
shortcomings of his theory by stating them. The foremost being the complete
lack of intermediate forms or what are now called transitional fossils/forms.
He acknowledges at the time of publishing of Origin of The Species (1859) that
there appeared to be a substantial lack of sources of transitional forms and
unequivocally posits the rhetorical question that even if we as humans did find
them, “What would keep us from finding them so distinct that they would be
viewed as another distinct species and not a transitional or intermediate
form?” He makes elaborate excuses for why intermediate forms would be so
difficult to find. Case in point: He states that perfect scenarios/circumstances
would need to unfold to fossilize these intermediate forms and then probably,
even on the sheer scale of time that he allows for…the discovery of them would
be minimal if not impossible. It’s as if he is making “scientific excuses” for
why they won’t be found even though he is convinced they existed. That is like
saying, “They existed, I’m sure of it but they don’t anymore and you won’t find
proof.” How this any different than saying, “They never existed because they
can’t…because evolution isn’t true.” Again we see an impressive intellect
framing the argument so that no matter how its approached, it will be hard
to refute or argue because you need to work within the framework laid out by
the one who sets the criteria for what the truth is or what the possible end
results or answers could be. To me this is no different than what David Hume
did in his argument against miracles. It’s called “excuses for human
inadequacy”. Hume narrowly defined criteria of how to view and assess miracles.
So narrowly that he practically made the supernatural only explainable through
means he found acceptable which in itself—was horribly biased. In Hume’s case he wants a posteriori experience or posits a need
to have people or witnesses of the miracle and they had to have been
“educated" and "honest" men by Hume’s definition. Like Darwin, Hume
demands a proof that is unattainable by the criteria set up. Darwin by saying
that the fossil record would be too infinitesimal is making excuses for why
these intermediate forms will not (or cannot) be found. He then compounds the
impossibly/improbability by saying that even if we found them, we probably
wouldn’t recognize them as transitional fossils but rather completely distinct
new species. How convenient for evolutionists.
Along the way he makes what appears to be leaping assumptions such as, “If
we look to long enough intervals of time, geology plainly declares that all
species have changed; and they have changed in the manner which my theory
requires, for they have changed slowly and in a graduated manner. We clearly
see this in the fossil remains from consecutive formations invariably being
much more closely related to each other, than are the fossils from formations
distant from each other in time. Darwin has drawn the false assumption here that things have to
have been laid down in strata in a uniform manner and because it appears it has
always been done in this manner, it would continue to so, both in time and within the ecological
systems of which he refers. This is an adherence to Uniformitarianism. Too bad Stephen Jay Gould came along as an
evolutionist himself and added a further theory to an existing flawed theory (evolution)
called Punctuated Equilibrium. This theory generally states that evolutionary
change occurs rapidly and then
alternates with long periods of evolutionary stability or stasis (i.e.: non-uniform).
Ironically, this sounds strangely akin to theistic evolution and if I dare say
it…progressive creationism. Unfortunate for Darwin, it flies directly in the
face of his foundational theory which states in the summary that, “As natural selection acts solely by accumulating
slight, successive, favorable variations, it can produce no great or sudden
modification; it can act only by very short and slow steps. Hence the canon of
`Natura non facit saltum”. What’s this all mean? It means the very theory the
Gould bases his modified theory on directly contradicts the tenants of his undergirding
or supporting theory. He nicely “shoots himself in the taxonomic foot (or fin)”
…so to speak. This violates the Law of Non-contradiction. Tut-tut Mr. Gould you
committed a fallacy of logic that any first year philosophy student would know
to avoid.
This being said I offer a short abbreviated Christian blurb as a point of commonsense and contrast from a site called: biblicalcreation.org.uk. It alludes (rightfully) that science since
the time of Darwin has purposefully and narrowly defined what is acceptable (and
not acceptable) right down to terminologies (just as Hume did with miracles). Much
of what we pull from Scriptures is dependent on terms. If science or humanistic society is
successful in redefining them or deconstructing them, they can change people’s
minds by obfuscating truth and bending meanings. This is exactly what
biblicalcreation.org points out in a succinct prose. They mention that plants
and animals reproduce after their “kind”.
As such there are not rigid rules in the norms of language in the Bible
that says these “kinds” are species per se. This is a modern imposition on the
text. This site then rightfully concludes that the Bible does not preclude
speciation which is a false assumption by evolutionist and sadly, many
creationists. This is all because of an improper or deliberate reframing of the
argument and twisting of meanings.
What neither of these sites
speak to very much is the issue of the soul unless you dig on the Christian
sites. Darwin doesn’t seem to mention it. It is interesting that Darwin never
took a thing like the soul into consideration in his theory. This also brings
up the interesting question of what makes the difference between man’s
self-consciousness and animal’s lack of it. Why are human’s different if we are
nothing more than a more evolved primate? To me this is a glaring oversight or
act of intellectual ignorance/arrogance in the case of Darwin and continues to be for all
those that adhere to the tenants of his godless faith in evolution that cannot
even account for something as obvious as his own human cognizance as anything
more than a sum result of evolution and chemistry.
What I found truly
interesting is the article on Darwin himself on christiananswers.net concerning his “free thinking” background with
his parents. He himself seems to have been a victim or outworking of his own
theory in a warped and twisted way. Darwin appears to have indeed been shaped
by his environment in his youth by his father and grandfather and “adapted”
accordingly by apostatizing and assimilating into agnostic surroundings he grew
up in. He took on the “traits” within his own family or “species” of unbelief.
Sad. Due to the mental devolution of one man a permanent detrimental mutation has now propagated to millions. He had a chance to select the right path, he chose the wrong one. Just as many who have followed him down a path of man-centered worship.
No comments:
Post a Comment