The Purpose of Life: Essays On The Complexity Of The Simplicity Of It All Purpose of the Universe: The Existence of Existence and the Science Fraud
“I think, therefore, I am.”
~ Descartes ~
“Falsehood can make a trip around the world before truth can even get its boots on.”
~ an old proverb ~
What does existence mean? That I exist? I do (or did), that’s evident. (I hope). So why do I exist? When I die, is that it? And if that is it, then would that not make my life immaterial and everything I ever did or said a puff of hot air and pointless use of energies? Surely it has meaning in the moment, but why would we study history? The dead are dead. They can’t help us. If this life is it, then the present will not matter in the future. If the present does not matter, what does? If what I did then has no meaning, what I do now has no meaning and if I never do anything of any significance, do I have a meaning? Can a purposeful existence exist without meaning? And if there is no meaning then why do we search so ardently for one? Why does our soul ache for one? If there is no meaning, why would the word exist? It defines itself!
The professors say we are to make our own meaning, but if our meaning is as menial as something that we don’t know that seems to be different from person to person, what willful purpose could ever exist? What else would that your purpose in life is to fulfill whatever passions you have. Forget trying to figure out where those passions came from. Talk about a change of definitions! Since when could passions define purpose? If passions make our purpose, then our purpose will change as fast and as many times as our passions do. If our purpose can change so intermittently, does that definition not fit everything and thus nothing? It’s counterintuitive to the definition of a purpose. A general definition of a purpose is: the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. THE Reason. Doesn’t sound subjective to me. If I eat something, it is not because I am thirsty, but because I am hungry and no matter what I say, I eat because I am hungry. If I eat because I am thirsty, or for any other reason, then that would more than likely mean there is something wrong with me. Your body reads the nutrient levels in your body and tells your body what it needs, and it thus creates the cravings for such food. Reaction. System. Purpose. If my existence has purpose, it is not because I have passion, my passion comes from the essence of existence, not the other way around.
If my existence has purpose, then it cannot come from myself, for my existence is finite. Just as the nervous system tells me when something is hot or cold, their purpose is not found within themselves (ie. the nervous system), but to serve the body as a whole by relaying vital information to the brain. If our whole body is made of individual systems and divisible proponents that work together and have separate purposes not inherent from themselves individually, how can we say that I, as a whole, have a self-derived purpose? You may want to say that separated, these systems cannot find purpose within themselves, but they are there to keep us running, so who is to say that we cannot find purpose in us as a whole? The problem is, that creates a secondary question that is even harder to answer: If that is so, what is it that keeps the systems linked together? Why does it work that way? The problem with that thinking is that it attempts to make two wrong turns in an expectation of making a right one. If you have one leaky bucket, you can’t fix the problem by putting another leaky bucket underneath that one, it will leak through both of them; and even if you keep putting layers upon layers of leaky buckets, one inside the other, it won’t matter, it still won’t hold the water. None-the-less, In our body, we see a vast amount of systems, parts and mechanisms, all of which are separable, all of which have a purpose to it’s existence. I can will my hands to work like feet, but they weren’t built to do that. I can eat when I’m thirsty, but it wasn’t meant to have that effect. Everything that makes us us seems to have this inherent purpose to it’s existence in attachment to us. If we are made of separable purposeful parts (for lack of better word), why should we not assume that we as a whole have an objective purpose like the rest of us does? (Unless the ultimate conclusion to believing this brings about thoughts that are volatile to what you want to believe....i.e. God.)
We also see this inherent purpose in things we have created. If you stick a book into the toaster, it will burst into flames. Water will ruin it, and plastic will melt into it and again, ruin it. Not only does the toaster work best when you put bread into it, but that is why it was created. Specifically to make toast; just as a bread maker wasn’t made to make pie. It’s purpose is found in the reason it was created. A printer was made to print paper. A car was made to help us move from place to place faster. Some cars were purposefully engineered to go faster than other cars for the purpose of racing, etc. etc. A race car can be used for other purposes though, but none the less, it was created for a certain purpose (if you would ask the engineer) and simply because it can be used for a different purpose (a different function) does not change the purpose of it’s existence; to get people from one place to another faster - whether it is to the market place or to the finish line does not change that. The car cannot and never will be able to derive it’s purpose from itself. We are made up of parts that work together in very specific ways to form our body and allow us to work properly; none of which derives it’s purpose from itself. All of the known world and universe seems to work this way - even gravity has it’s purposes and cannot exist nor have purpose within itself. Could you imagine, walking along and suddenly fall on your face and not be able to pick yourself up. “Oh, gravity’s a lot heavier here than over there!” Or walking along and suddenly you start floating off? “Oh my! I found a low-G pocket!” It’s preposterous. It would be fun, floating around for a while, but I’m sorry to say, it will never happen. Gravity exists and can be determined through science and mathematical equations. It does not create itself, nor does it do willy nilly whatever it wants. It is proportional and restricted to the scientific adages respecting the quantitative value of a substance’s mass. In that same way, to put it into perspective, We can’t fly. (ie. we can’t fly without the help of some contraption.)
What if we exist to exist? If our purpose is to simply exist? (Well, for one that is a survival instinct. It’s an instinct, not a purpose; and if it is an instinct, then why should it be inherent? Well, it’s common sense, but what makes common sense common? It all leads one way. Purpose, and thus created for such a purpose, but now I am getting ahead of myself.) If I were to exist just to exist, why would I do anything other than the subsistent level of effort to survive? If my purpose is simply to exist, then gee, I’m going to fail miserably. Humanity has a tendency to have a 100% death rate. Everyone dies eventually. Well, then it’s to exist for as long as we can. What, is this some kind of macho-man contest? See who can stay alive the longest? If I exist only to exist, then after I cease to exist how long I did exist won’t matter a wanton speck. There must be some purpose out there... we can see it’s effects as we see the effects of gravity. We can’t quite measure it like we can gravity, but surely we can know it exists. Such an ordered world demands as such, doesn’t it? Well, if we do have a purpose.... where do we start?
Descartes gave a six part meditation on epistemology while trying to prove God exists through philosophy. He starts out by saying; for the foundation, we have to discard anything that can or could be doubted. Right off the bat, he discards everything physical that comes through the five senses. Why? Because we can’t know if we are really awake or dreaming, and of course your senses can deceive you. Then he discounts reason because - what if there was an evil genius (ie. what if God was evil) and his sole purpose was to deceive me...then 2+2 may not actually equal 4, but it may equal 5! Then in the second meditation, he goes on to say the one thing that he Can know for 100% certain “I exist.” (Notice that in his ‘famous’ quote it says “I think, therefore I am”, but in his meditations, he actually shows that he derives his existence and then asks: since I exist, what am I. THEN he says, well, I am a thinking being.) So where did he get that he actually exists? From reason, which he discarded the meditation before. He just cut his head off before he got off the ground. Anyway, even if you do separate this knowledge somehow from reason, is it truly undoubtable? What if you are actually a schizophrenic illusion and “you” are actually not Joe, but your best friend Sally? (I’d say that’s about as preposterous as say living in the Matrix or “living” in a dream, or even the Evil Genius scheme.) And what about the Evil Genius scheme? It is an inevitable circular failure to think in such terms. Think about it. If God’s pure purpose is to deceive us (which is what Descartes suggested to discount reason); then if we trust our senses, or our reason, then we are to be deceived by the Evil Genius, but whose to say that if we distrust our senses and our reason that we are also there not deceived by the Evil Genius??? Why do I go into this? One, because a lot of people have a misunderstanding or mis-use Descartes famous phrase “I think, therefore I am”, and secondly because in Descartes approach to proving God through philosophy, I think he approached it the wrong way. He says to start by discounting everything which is doubtable, which leaves everything to a persons confidence which can be fickle and different from person to person, and which inevitably leaves nothing at all. But then at the end of his six meditations he goes ahead and rejects the doubtability of what he had rejected in the first meditation, pretty much destroying the basis for the foundations of his whole argument. (The premise was what if we are living in a dream? So we can’t trust our senses - not even speaking of the Evil Genius which he never discounted but assumed as opposite) In the end, he says that there is no doubt that we are not living in a dream for there are markers and tellers that can tell the difference between the two - for while in a dream, our minds may not be functioning at the level of awareness to be able to tell us that we are dreaming, while we are awake we are most assuredly able to tell that we have just woken up and are now living (not dreaming.) Take it from someone who has realistic dreams, so much that I can get confused over which memories are from my dreams and which one’s are from reality! There is a difference. But the senses still can deceive you...and so can your reasoning when it is of erroneous thinking. Does that mean we cannot accept any reality coming from them? I don’t think so. You can’t live there. If you truly don’t believe that chair exists, you would not be sitting in it. So in everything; physical, mental, etc. - a measure of faith is used. You cannot get away from the inevitable “trust” that must accompany any and all beliefs. Even in language you must trust that what is coming out of your mouth is actually something others can understand as meaning what you mean for it to mean. Experience makes it easy for us to do so, but you still have a measure of trust in doing so. If you take Descartes approach, then everything is doubtable, meaning to believe in anything requires a certain amount of faith. Even in your existence. That is the only application we can take from Descartes. Faith is not something only the religious do. Everyone must have some measure of faith and trust in reality. Some would say that people see different realities, or see reality differently, but I would say yes, they SEE reality differently, but most of the time it is either circumstantial differences, a mistake on part of the individual, or a mistake on part of the masses (mostly circumstantial differences, I would say). Some would say further that to say that the masses are wrong would be presumptuous, but if you think about it, in a gross generalization, about thirty percent of the world would call themselves Christians, thirty percent of the world would consider themselves Muslim, thirty percent would call themselves by some other religion, and the remaining ten percent would consider themselves Atheists. (these are extremely rough estimations and not to be taken as statistics but simply an example). So if you think about it, any way you cut it, fifty percent or more of the population of the earth is wrong. Either Atheism is right, which makes the other ninety percent wrong; one of the other religions is right making much more than seventy percent of the world wrong; or either Christianity or Islam is correct, making the other seventy percent wrong. So I would say that to say that the masses are never wrong would be the presumptuous statement. Not saying they can’t be right, I am just saying they can most definitely be wrong.
So then, where do we start? If we cannot know anything with certainty, how DO we find that sole purpose supposedly driving everything? It all depends upon the origin of life. Think about it, when you build a bridge, you have the purpose in mind before you build it. Would it not make sense that the origin of our purpose resides in the origin of our existence? Only two options appear when looking at the origin of life - Created or Evolved. We will take a look at Evolution to start with - the gem of the sciences (so called...). To clarify, before we start, since our talk is over the origin of life, we shall be talking about that part of evolution which correlates with it’s importance. Never, in this whole essay will I ever speak of evolution in line of micro-evolution - I could not ever doubt the evidence nor fact of genetic alterations. Micro-evolution is the changes which happens on the micro level (why I look different from you), while Macro-evolution is changes which happens on the Macro (or seeable) level (i.e. man from apes). Micro is DNA and genetic differences, while Macro is change from species to species. Micro is a given fact in all spheres, while Macro is contested in many and I would say is more religious than scientific in that it has no real substantial evidence for it nor is it testable empirically. This I will go into great detail later on. But I wanted to lay down this disclaimer: any time I speak on evolution in the following discourse I am purely talking about Macro-evolution unless specifically qualifying it as being Micro.
Ask a scientist today what the origin of life is, and if they give you the kosher line, they will reply with some sort of evolutionary statement - First of all, the universe -“All the matter in the universe existed within a cosmic egg, smaller than the smallest atom known to man, which exploded, of which formed all that we know.” - But what about life - “Why my dear, we evolved from goo.” or “Life originated in space and was carried to the earth by meteors”, or “Aliens, vastly more advanced than we are planted life on earth.” or even “Atoms piggy-backed on diamonds and through some atomic mistakes (which sometimes happens on crystals), the first living organism came to being.” All these I have heard from leading evolutionists (paraphrased).
This is science? I thought they told me that science and religion were incompatible?! I would contend that it takes more faith to believe those “scientific” answers than to believe that a transcendental God created it all. You see, once evolution has an atom or a living cell, they claim evolution takes it the rest of the way. The problem they have is how that atom or living cell first got there. They cannot claim it’s always been there: not only does the scientific evidence claim that the universe had a beginning, according to the big bang theory (without the “cosmic egg” jargon which is complete guess work and not science theory) but it is also a mathematical impossibility if it hadn’t. If the atom had always been here, then in sense, there would be an infinity of time behind us, how could today ever come to be? Let me explain. Can you count to infinity? No? Why not? Because it keeps going?! Well, what about negative infinity? No? Same reason? Well, how about this, can you start at infinity and count down to one? No? Why not? You can’t even start?! Then how can we say that the atom has existed for all eternity, because if it had no beginning (negative infinity), you cannot count the days up to today. Try it. What is infinity + 1? Infinity! You can never reach the present with infinity behind you. There has to be a beginning to start from. And that is where they have their worst problems - in the beginning.
Who cares how it all started? How it started has everything to do with what our purpose is here on earth. If we came from primordial goo, what does that say about our purpose here today? That we are no better than the mud beneath our feet. We have evolved, yes. But we came from that mud. We are no more and no less very special, very advanced mud (well, perhaps less.) If we came around by mere happenstance, pure chance; what does that say about our purpose? Why, that we don’t have one. It was the role of the dice, a lucky draw. (I wonder why there wouldn’t be more chaos than there is, though......) Even more so, if we can induce our origin from a catastrophic atomic mistake, not only do we not have a purpose, but if there was one, being a mistake - we would be the antithesis of the original intent. No matter where you turn, evolution can give no purpose for life - to the opposite, evolution demands a purposeless existence formed by pure chance.
(To say aliens planted life here is a cop-out displacing the burden of the question of origin from us to a non-entity. In sense, they claim life began somewhere else because they cannot find the evidence for life produced by chance on this earth - in fact the evidence strongly contradicts that, these scientists answer the problem of origin by saying it came from aliens, subverting the question and forcing the opponent to ask a non-sensical impossible question - if our life came from some other life, where did that life come from? Aliens... It’s a nonsensical statement that cannot be proven nor disproven, doesn’t answer the question at hand and cannot help either side with this deep fundamental question of human origin and character of the universe).
What about the theistic evolutionists? Can’t they derive purpose from a God who merely used evolution to create life? Well, I would have to split that into two different groups to clarify - Deists, and pure Theists. Deism - meaning God created it, then left it be - like winding up of a clock. Theists would be the ones that believe that God still interacts with His creation today. Deists run into many of the problems Atheists run into. If God does not interact with His creation, if He leaves it alone to run it’s course, if God then in sense becomes immaterial to our daily life; if God is some far off unknowable entity, then the purpose that we are supposedly supposed to derive from God becomes similarly unknowable. Our foundation for morality becomes porous and just as distant if not non-existent because if you now have a God that is apathetic in sense, then you now have no foundation for justice here on earth because God does not interact with His world that He created and thus does not care to punish evil or condone good. Our foundation for relationships crumbles into preference as does our sexual identities. Our belief in a God becomes inconsequential in every practical area of life when our belief in His existence becomes dependent upon our need to rationalize our origin through evolution. Deism is, simply put, a stepping stone to Atheism for those who are not ready to reject outright that the God of the universe is dead - that there was and is and will continue to be no God.
On the other hand, if God is a God who still interacts with creation, thus wishing to be known, why would He create us in such a way as to create doubt of His existence? I do have to concede though, that you can be a pure Theistic evolutionist and have some foundation for purpose, but this purpose cannot and never will be derived from the evolutionary standpoint. In fact, in my, given limited, experience, people who claim to believe both in an interactive God and evolution are at a painful contradiction. They either only believe in evolution because science says so and tries to fit it into their beliefs, or they are not true evolutionists in the full scientific sense of the word. Most, from what I have found, feel obligated to believe evolution for fear of being seen as ignorant or stupid. Indeed, Oxford professor Richard Dawkins, a leading voice for modern evolutionists and Atheists said, “...if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but i’d rather not consider that).” I’d rather not consider that either. So let’s look into the data to see what it says.
Philosophically, as we’ve seen, it’s suicide to believe in evolution: Who is man? an animal at worst, a mistake at best. No point. No purpose. No truth outside of preference. No morality outside of preference. Only the strongest survive. Hope is an illusion. Faith is an illusion. Evolution gives no foothold for philosophy to even hope. But why would that be? Isn’t philosophy simply an old science division that dealt with meta-narratives? If the branch of study called philosophy simply branched out of the sciences, why wouldn’t they match up? Perhaps a look into some of the sciences will explain this.
First, let us look at the supports of evolution. Some of the famous “proof”s, or “Icons of Evolution”. Mind you, all of these have been and are still in nearly every high school and/or college biology text book in the nation (Even though these facts have been known for quite some time now....).
In the beginning.....Stanley Miller’s Experiment. The thought came from a French scientist who discovered that heated inorganic mineral crystals can produce organic chemicals when cooled. Later, in 1922, (the year the Russian civil war ended, leaving Russia in the hand’s of atheistic communists), a Russian scientist by the name of A. I. Oparin came up with a theory that cellular life came from chemical evolutions. These chemicals would have arisen long ago in conditions far different from what we have today. Then finally in 1950 Stanley Miller did his famous experiment. He took what was thought to be an ideal primordial (in the beginning) atmosphere (from the study of modern volcanic eruptions) and discharged electricity through it. From this experiment he was able to form a few amino acids (building blocks of proteins which are building blocks of cells, which are building blocks of everything living.)
The problem with Miller’s experiment is that it used a “trap” to remove the products of his experiment, preventing a continuous exposure to the energy source. The reason this is a problem is that the rate of destruction of all organic materials (i.e. amino acids and the such) are much higher than the rate of formation by natural means (such as ultraviolet light and electricity). So even if Miller’s experiment was a success, it does not show how these amino acids somehow flourished when more of them are being destroyed than are being made. Miller was only able to find the amino acids because of the trap; so what if a “trap” of sorts existed in primordial earth....overlooking how such a trap would exist, it would be fatal within itself to the formation of life because if all the available energy to create amino acids were “trapped”, the amino acids taken away from the picture, where would the energy come from to perform the rest of the evolutionary process?
Even if these problems are overlooked, you then have to work with all of the assumptions running around the experiment. The idea is that the first living organism originated soon after the earth cooled from being formed. That means (they theorize) that there would have been lots of volcanoes and lots of massive eruptions still going on. They also conclude that many great storms of which strength we have never seen come close to today happened back then. Massive storms with lots of lightning. Thus by Miller’s experiment, the oceans were merely a “soup” of organic materials. Did you see what they did? Can you count the assumptions? First life came after cooling (1), lots of volcanoes (2) - and if you think about it, this includes the third assumption that primordial earth conditions can be based off of volcanic eruptions (3), strong storms with high electricity (4), then they add these four assumptions to Miller’s experiment which is questionable in the first place to the last assumption, the primordial sea was a “soup” of organic materials (5). That’s a lot of assuming.
Overlooking all of this, Miller’s experiment and what it represents still does not prove life came from chemicals. It only proves that amino acids could have existed through this process which heightens the chances of spontaneous life occurring. I will go into this problem later, but to prove life came from this process they would have to show a plausible circumstance in which amino acids would come together to form proteins and how proteins would form the parts of the cell (which is a very complex piece of natural chemistry) and so on from there. Not to even mention the replication of such processes.
Links - The Fossil Record. Charles Darwin said over 150 years ago that, “an interminable number of intermediate forms must have existed linking together all the species in each group of gradations” It is interesting to note that he also told us where we should find these inumerable links; under the Cambrian layer there would be “a strata rich in fossils”, and indeed there should have been (if you assume evolution is correct), because the Cambrian layer is a strata rich in fossils. The scientists call it the Cambrian explosion, a lot of the biology text books don’t talk about it much because it makes little sense in evolution. (Thousands of species crop up in this time period, all fully formed, with no transitions prior nor can they count as links to later species. In lou of this, only logic (in following evolutionary thought) would tell you that below this level would be the links and other such fossils of which the Cambrian came from. But for the very reason it is called the Cambrian explosion, no strata rich beds were found. No links, even though the evidence should point towards it (and the soil of the pre-Cambrian would be ideal if such plethora did exist).
The Cambrian layer is in fact the largest layer for findings of invertebrates (such as sponges, clams, snails, trilobites, jellyfish, brachiopods, worms etc.) It would only make sense for finding a link in the pre-Cambrian layers of a link between all of these invertebrates (to a common ancestor) or even links between the different invertebrates. There is none. In fact, the pre-Cambrian layer, a layer qualified and suitable for finding fossils has been the site of fossils of soft-bodied single-celled organisms like bacteria. If there was any links there, we should have found them. (No less the innumerable other links that should have existed.) The answer to this problem (in their standpoint) is ever the same - we haven’t dug enough. If it is not there it is because we haven’t searched enough for it, dug down enough for it, it’s only because we haven’t found it Yet. The quintessential answer that is impossible to argue because it claims ignorance, plays on doubt and demands faith. It cannot be argued against because it proves nothing, and that is about as much help I deem this answer will bring us. Nothing. Fine. If we cannot talk about the Cambrian because we don’t know enough about this “explosion”, then let us talk about the links of those close to us. They claim the path of the “tree of life” goes from invertebrates to vertebrates; amoebas to small creatures, to fish, to reptiles, to birds, to mammals, to humans; in a broad very general sense. We have thousands of fossils of invertebrates, should we not have the links between them and vertebrates? We have thousands of fish fossils, should we not have the links between them and reptiles? So on and so forth? There are no links.
What about the Archaeopteryx? Seeing that even the ardent die-hard evolutionists are arguing over this one, I don’t think we should hang the credibility of evolution on this one... Unfortunately the only thing they have there is that the bird has a long tail and can be recreated to look like a reptile. Beside the tail, there is not much difference you could argue between the Archaeopteryx and modern carnivorous birds (other than it’s extinction and it’s age). Even if we give them this one link (which is arguable), we run into the same problem that the Archaeopteryx appears in the fossil record fully formed, and leaves the fossil record fully formed. There is no links between the Archaeopteryx and “more” modern birds, or links between reptiles and the Archaeopteryx even though we have both the reptile fossils and the bird fossils to fit the beginning and the end, the middle has fallen out. This is the problem of evolution throughout the fossil record. They all appear fully formed, and disappear fully formed.
What about the closest and latest “evolution”? Humans....from apes. Let us look at some pretty sketchy history and then let us see where that has led us. Being the supposed latest evolution, you would think that it would have the most evidence for it right? Indeed, they have claimed many links in this case. Ramapithecus, Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Java man, Neanderthals, and australopithecus afarensis (“Lucy”). Unfortunately Ramapithecus ends up being the equivalent of a modern orangutan, Piltdown man was the jawbone of a modern ape, a few teeth, and a human skull treated with chemicals to age it, then buried in a grave; planted to be “discovered”. Nebraska man was a pig’s tooth, The Java man was originally found with two other skulls found in the same area in the same era. The other two skulls were hidden and kept secret for near thirty years - both of which were unquestionably fully human Not to mention that Eugene Dubois, the one who found the three skulls, claimed that the java man was nothing but a very large gibbon. Not a link at all. Neanderthals are now classified as homo sapiens (fully human) and Lucy and her kind did not walk upright (as they had claimed at first) were not intermediates between species and were most definitely not of human ancestry. Doesn’t look too good for the evolutionists. I am surprised they have gotten away with so many fabrications without losing the publics faith completely. What will happen if we continue to heed the boy who cried wolf? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me...
Now let me talk about some similar questionable tactics. Many claim evidence of evolution (indeed the best witnessed evidential proof) is Darwin’s finches. To a certain extent they are correct. Darwin’s finches are perhaps the best example of microevolution. But Not macroevolution. Darwin found lots of different species of finches on the islands of Galapagos. He hypothesized that the different eating habits of the finches caused the differences in species. But the greatest find in those finches was that during a famine, the average finch beak grew in size; inversely, when food was in over-abundance, the average finch beak shrunk in size. What they usually fail to mention is after these times of famine or over-abundance, that the finch beaks return to normal. So they hypothesize that perhaps if one famine on top of another, etc. consecutively hit, then perhaps the change would be permanent. That is, unfortunately, not quite logical. To explain, the size of a finch beak is controlled by the genes. The genetic differences thrived in different circumstances...There are superior and inferior genes in most cases, determining differences (for instance, red hair is an inferior trait to say black hair). So if you breed pure red hair with pure red hair, you get pure red hair, but if you then breed red hair with pure black hair, you get black hair instead. But, you argue, the finch changes seem to be connected to their food surplus (or lack thereof), not their genes.
Let me explain it with another example of microevolution that evolutionists love to use to “prove” the macro. Drug-resistant bacteria. You have ordinary bacteria, you then introduce a drug to kill the bacteria, but then (they say) the bacteria “evolves” and a new strand of drug-resistant bacteria crops up. Unfortunately, what they don’t tell you is that the drug-resistant bacteria existed before the drug was introduced. They have no evidence that it could be to the contrary. They introduce the drug to the bacteria, and all the bacteria that is not resistant dies. But say that one out of four billion is resistant, that one remains and begins to reproduce itself; and now you have a “red hair” colony. The biggest problem with the bacteria is their fitness cost. In other words, what is the cost of change outside the testing tube with survival of the fittest. Scientists have shown that when you take a strain of drug-resistant bacteria, remove the drug, and introduce the original wild bacteria (the control), within a short time frame, the drug-resistant bacteria disappears, due to being out-competed by the original. In fact, the drug-resistant bacteria turns out to be defective, a mistake in it’s information processing system. The equivalent of having a birth defect (such as a crippled hand) or such other genetic diseases (such as Down Syndrome). So there ends up being a negative fitness cost to the drug-resistant bacteria. When evolutionists use this as an example of macroevolution, they are using a change in genetics that is harmful to the species. It has a negative impact on evolution, it is not a beneficial change.
The same example can be used on the four-winged fruit fly. The four-winged fruit fly only exists in laboratories and are labeled as an example of successful evolution. Unfortunately, the fruit fly, like the bacteria, is perhaps the worst example you could give. The four-winged fruit fly is a mutation that utterly fails in it’s fitness cost. The two extra wings actually hurt the fruit fly and damages it’s abilities to fly. Why? Because even though the wings are there, the muscles that should be attached to these wings did not “evolve” with the wings, and so they are simply dead weights. Another cripple that will only exist and survive in the laboratory.
Hopefully you know that the famous English Peppered Moths are fabricated. The famous picture of those peppered moths stuck to the tree trunk, some white, some black (showing how the moths “evolved” due to the pollution in the air so they would more easily blend in), is a fake. They tacked the moths onto the tree trunk two different types of peppered moths, one white and the other black, the moths didn’t evolve, but were of different breeds of peppered moth.
These examples are detrimental to the evolutionists because of their idea that macroevolution occurs through microevolution. That through thousands of small, beneficial changes in the genetic code, one species turns into the next. Be careful, next time you read a science text book, because the majority of them assume that this is true, they have yet to prove it (in fact almost all plausible changes they have tried have ended with negative fitness costs). Microevolution should never be used as a proof of macroevolution without scientific proof that one can and has been seen to form the other. The two are diametrically opposed to each other (until proven otherwise). Throughout all scientific studies, throughout all time as far as we have seen, a dog is still a dog, a finch is still a finch, a fly a fly and bacteria bacteria. No net change has been made and in no way has macroevolution ever been seen.
Another tool evolutionist love to assume is homology. If one frame is like another, they must have had similar ancestors. Unfortunately they have failed to prove this also. It is the equivalent of saying a computer is like a calculator, so it must have been invented by the same person. A common example in text books is the picture of a bat’s wing, a whale’s flipper and a man’s hand. It would say that because the structures are similar in bone pattern and structure, that this proves they evolved from similar ancestors (using another beloved icon, the tree of life). The problem is, that if this is true, then they should also be built in the same way genetically. (i.e. for evolution to be true through homology, they must have evolved in the same way, not just “look” the same.) Unfortunately, scientists are now finding that homologous structures can be produced by different genes and their development is completely different. (Ex. the bodies of fruit flies and wasps seem to be homologous. Darwinism would hypothesize that this similarity is due to the same gene - through the same ancestor. But in research, scientists have found that these similarities crop from entirely different genes. In further example, if a homologous structure comes through evolution, not only should it be from the same genes, but they should develop similarly also, for instance the development of the gut in invertebrates. But in sharks, the gut is developed in the top of the embryonic cavity, Lamprey’s develop their guts in the bottom of the cavity, and frog’s develop their guts in both the top and bottom. All three of these have “homologous” gut’s, but all three come from completely different patterns of development to form nearly the same structure. That makes it very very hard to reconcile homology to evolution.)
That takes out another icon of evolution, the tree of life. But not only that, I find it humorous that the Cambrian explosion in fact also seems to point in the opposite of the tree of life. The tree of life starts with one organism and goes to many, while the fossil record, (with the Cambrian explosion) seems to put the tree on it’s head. Life seems to start with the major differences, not end with them.
Haeckel’s embryo’s is another icon used actually to prove homology ties into evolution. It is a picture of different embryos at a certain early stage of development.. Unfortunately, Haeckel faked his drawings, and scientists have know it for a long time, yet many biology text books still have them. Even Stephen Jay Gould, another leading voice of evolutionists, says that Haeckels embryos were bad science and smudged drawings. The embryos actually look quite different from the drawings. Another problem with the drawings is that what Haeckel calls the “first” stage of embryonic development (the ones which he shows in pictures) is actually a mid-stage of development. I have never seen the earlier stages of development in any text book, and yet that is the main reason the embryo’s are in there, to show that the embryos start out, in the beginning, as homologous structures, and then slowly evolved to the different species. Unfortunately, the earlier the stage, the more different the stages look. True, some text books use real pictures of the Mid-stage embryos (the same as Haeckel’s), but they pick and choose the one’s that look the most similar and don’t show the ones that are actually quite different, nor do they show earlier stages.
What about embryonic recapitulation? Embry’ reca-what? Well, it’s what Haekel’s embryos attempted to claim. “The idea of an embryo of a complex animal goes through stages resembling the embryos of its ancestors is called Biogenetic Law.” This part of the “Law” is the idea that human fetuses have gill slits within a certain part of development. This is thoroughly discredited. The recapitulation theory is no longer seen as plausible.
Vestigial organs...no longer exist. Vestigial organs was an idea of left over organs from evolution that are no longer helpful to us. Organs we thought had no purpose. There used to exist a list of over 100 vestigial human organs. Today, that list of vestigial organs has dwindled down to nothing. With a closer look at such organs as the larnyx, the adenoids, the thyroid and other such organs; we find purpose. We find they are far from useless. So leaving “junk” organs behind, they tried a new tactic - junk DNA. DNA that simply doesn’t do anything. More recently, this also has been thoroughly discredited. So what’s the new thing? Junk RNA. What bunk. They’re running. “Junk” is an easy way for them to take what They don’t know and claim it helps their belief in evolution. Sounds more like junk science to me.
Do they have anything for their name? Does evolution have any substantial evidence that is not steeped in faith? Faith in what Might have been or faith in what we Might find? Why do they still cling to many of the fabrications and bad science of yesterday? And why do they attack anyone who questions evolution as stupid, insane, or wicked? Teachers have lost their jobs just for being fair to their own doubts about evolution in the classroom. And why is it that when someone starts to question evolution, the first attack is an ad hominem (logical fallacy that attacks the person rather than the argument)? The most common attack you hear against creationists and intelligent designers (which are different), is that the only reason they are attacking evolution is because of their religion affiliation. I am religious. You should know this already if you have read anything else in this booklet. But let me ask you something, if you would bring this charge against me, From the second I started talking about evolution, can you take one argument I have made so far and show me how it comes from my religious faith? Please, don’t attack me for my faith on this topic. If you disagree with me, prove my arguments wrong; but don’t discount my arguments simply because I am religious. (As I said before, religion and science are compatible; it’s just evolution that is not compatible to science.)
Now, let us look at some more science, but this time, let us look at science that seems to work against evolution.
First and foremost - the contradiction between evolution and one of the most well established laws in nature. The Second Law of Thermodynamic. (Evolution is JUST a theory now...remember,.... or is it?) The Second Law says that in an isolated (closed) system things can only become less organized, less ordered, less complex; never in the reverse. We see this in the depletion of kinetic energy, depletion of natural resources, to even things as simply as an unkept bedroom. The law of increasing entropy. The evolutionists invariably make a special pleading on behalf of evolution. They claim this well established LAW does not affect evolution due to processes happening only in the beginning of time (such as solar energy) unfortunately, to use this logically, they must also prove how such solar energy (without a ozone layer) would cause more construction than Destruction or how (with an ozone) solar energy would give any more or less than it does now in which we all agree the Second Law of Thermodynamic is at work. The Second Law declares it goes from order to disorder within a closed system, while evolution not only says that it goes from disorder to order, but in fact from nothing to something to something more and more complex and ordered. Why would science contradict science? (Unless one of them isn’t really science.....)
Questionable beginning.... With their best guess analysis of the probable primordial (beginning) earth conditions; they estimate the oxygen levels would be nearly zero (or at least no excess oxygen) because if there was extra oxygen, all organic molecules would simply oxidize into simple gases and there would be no life. However, there is no evidence that the oxygen levels here on earth have ever been anything else than what it is now. 21%. On the other hand, if they are right and there was extremely low amounts of oxygen, then at the same time you have to deal with the problems of having no atmosphere. The ultraviolet light of the sun would destroy any potential for life on earth. So if they are right, which is doubtable in the first place, they not only have to show how life started from nothing but also how it survived under such destructive forces such as ultraviolet light. They can claim that the formation of life came at the bottom of the ocean, away from the destructive forces of the ultraviolet light, but then they run into the problem of where did all that water come from? Especially in lou of all the volcanic action they assume with the formation of the new planet. Meteors. that is their answer. It came from outer space. It's the only logical explanation they can give. To bad it is a cop out.
Even if we give that to them, a thermodynamic barrier exists to spontaneous formation of large macromolecules (such as proteins, DNA and RNA). So even if you get past the problem of low oxygen levels and ultraviolet light, now you have to contend with this barrier that only living things have the metabolism to overcome. In comparison, this would be like a newborn baby climbing the 3000 foot sheer granite cliff of El Capitan in Yosemite Valley. (Virtually Nil).
The Law of Probability. The average protein has 400 amino acids of 20 different kinds arranged in a precise sequence to make a protein. Even if you take one-fourth of the amino acids (110 amino acids of 20 different kinds) this can be arranged 20^100(10^130) different ways. Now they say that there is approximately 10^80 particles in the universe (to put that in perspective). The probability of one single protein occurring from chance is 1 in 10 to the 260th power! If you take that and apply it to the number of particles in the universe, that means that if you filled the entire universe up with little blue marbles, and threw one single red marble out there, mixed it up, and sent someone out to find it blindfolded; the probability of one single protein coming into existence through evolution is like that blindfolded man finding that one red marble on his first attempt, three times in a row. The ocean containing 355 million cubic miles of water. For evolution to be even slightly plausible, it would require billions of tons each of hundreds of different proteins molecules and hundreds of different DNA and RNA molecules (which I have not touched on yet). Evolution is scientifically sound?
So there is three scientifically proven principles - Kinetics (The Second Law), Chemical Thermodynamics, and Probability. But I’m not done yet..... I’m just getting warmed up.
This has probably been asked way to many times, but which came first? The chicken or the egg? Evolution encounters such problems, but fowls are the least of their worries. Is it the DNA that holds the information, or the RNA which receives the information and is the tool to reproduce it (of course, not even speaking about how information no less an organic information machine that surpasses our modern technology by light years could have come from nothing....). DNA cannot survive without RNA and RNA cannot exist without DNA, so you would have to assume that both “evolved” at the same time. DNA and RNA are what they call macromolecules. They are called that for a reason. They are large molecules. Much much larger than a protein. So the probability of DNA occurring by chance is even more remote than a protein occurring by chance, no less the remoteness is more than doubled because both DNA and RNA must of necessity have evolved at the same time. It’s called irreducible complexity.
Irreducible complexity is where you reduce something to it’s simplest form, and yet it is still complex; where you cannot simplify it anymore without destroying it’s productivity. Computers, engines, batteries, mouse trap.... anything with a function may have irreducible complexity. You may be able to reduce a computer, but after a while you will get to the point where you cannot reduce it any longer without destroying the function of the computer, and yet at that same point you cannot simplify the computer to one component, it must have many smaller parts to work. Blood clotting is a good physical example of this. For a blood clot to form a complex system of factors must be in place. Blood clots are formed with platelets and fibrin but fibrin must first be created by fibrinogen with thrombin which in turn must be created from prothrombin by a complex and numerous factors and proteins that combine to create a cascade of proteins and the like that starts this process. The reason for this is that prothrombin and fibrinogen are readily in the blood. If it reacted whenever, you would get blood clots within your body when you do not have a cut and that could be potentially deadly if it clots in the wrong place. (ie. blood clots are dangerous). Yet without blood clotting when you get cut, you would simply bleed out and die. The balance is uncanny and the complexity is astounding. DNA structure is another example of complexity. Each strand of DNA has enough genetic information to fill volumes and volumes of encyclopedias.
In reality, there is a lot in nature that is irreducibly complex. Sight, Cellular life, immune system, hearing, proteins, and the list goes on and on. The point in irreducible complexity and why it is so detrimental to evolution is because evolution demands that everything evolved slowly through thousands of small genetic changes over time. What Darwin himself saw and stated was that if something is complex in it’s simplest form, then his theory absolutely falls apart because, like the four-winged fruit fly, what good is an extra set of wings if the muscles attached to it didn’t “evolve” with it? It is useless, and natural selection would select it for extinction. (I think it is funny though, speaking of natural selection, that humans are so passionate, charitable and personal, you would think natural selection would by survival of the fittest have selected that out as weakness, but not only that, but we make a big deal about endangered animals....perhaps natural selection is not the only deciding force.....maybe....).
Another similar argument can be made on the seemingly perfect conditions needed for life to exist even here on earth. The depth of the atmosphere, the size of the moon, the size of the sun, the size of the earth (determining gravity), the distance between the earth and the moon, the distance between the earth and the sun, the list goes on. If any one of these were off, just a little, life would not exist on earth. If the earth was just a little further from the sun, the water would freeze, just a little closer, and the water would evaporate. If gravity (universally) was stronger, the stars would burn out too fast to sustain life, if gravity was weaker, the stars would last long enough, but there would be no planets for none of the heavier elements necessary for the formation of a planet would be available. And what exactly is it that seems to set the controls of the universe? Why is gravity what it is? What is the connection of magnetic opposites? Why doesn’t the earth revolve around the sun in a perfect circle? (Not how would it, but why.....if by chance, why?) If there was any less oxygen in the air, we would suffocate, if there was any more, it would be volatile (flammable). Wherever science looks, there is a control, a seemingly perfect condition that if it would be just a little off, would be a severe detriment to life. (Please don’t take my argument wrong, I’m not trying to say there must be a Creator because the earth is seemingly perfectly conditioned to hold life, but I am saying that on top of everything else, the conditions that could effect the existence of life on our planet are so delicate that it makes it even more implausible for the mere chance of evolution to have created it.) In fact, if gravity was off by a mere 1 x 10^100 (that is one followed by one hundred zeros), life would not exist.
On a side note, make sure you note when you hear nature being personified. Check to see whether they put human qualities on nature to explain something they can’t logically do or if it is simply a luxury to make it simple. Because it is a simple trick to personify an object to make it more acceptable to a person. (Personify, as in put human characteristics on something not human. Like Mother Nature. Who is she?) Have you ever thought about how they talk about the way the Giraffe got it’s long neck? It had too much competition from other animals, and so they grew their long necks to get to the upper leaves on the tree that the other herbivores couldn’t get. Somehow nature knew they needed longer necks or go extinct through being out-competed. Did he...she....it really? How did it know? But that is how the text books explain natural selection and evolution to our kids... A species comes up against perhaps even the threat of extinction, and by force of the threat, they adapt and evolve to compensate. How did it know how to? It is so bizarre if you think how they have personified evolution. But it must have....because we are here today.......right? They assume evolution, so the only way they can explain it plausibly to our kids and to us is to personify it. What a trick!
Sir Fred Hoyle and Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe, both once strong evolutionists and Atheists, went out to study the beginning of life. They made several generous assumptions in their studies to see what the probability of life on earth by evolution would be. The chances of the amount of proteins needed to come into being by chance for evolution to work. Their conclusion was that the chances were one out of one followed by 40,000 zeros. Otherwords, Zero! Then they took it further and asked....what about the universe? They again gave generous assumptions.....if every star in the universe (so far discovered - meaning within the range of our telescopes, there are about 70 sextillion stars in the universe!); they each had a planet like earth (ideal for life), and that the universe is 20 billion years old. Their conclusion did not change. Zero! To put it in understandable terms, Sir Fred Hoyle made an analogy of the chances - the probability of a tornado hitting a junk yard and leaving a fully functioning, fully upholstered Boing 747 would be the probability of evolution creating life. Wickramasinghe and Hoyle are Theists now (perhaps not biblical Theists, but they believe their work demanded the existence of a Creator).
Some evolutionists try to get around these terrible probabilities and statistics by suggesting that there is a multi-verse. Meaning our universe is not the only universe, but there are perhaps billions upon billions of parallel universes, and with all these universes, life is simply the role of a very large dice. The exact right conditions for life would have to land somewhere, and that somewhere, of course just ended up being our universe (and whose to say we are the only ones....). My reply to that is nothing. This is not science. This is on par with Descartes evil genius. (Or even worse, Descartes never believed in the existence of an evil genius....) There is no need for me to attend to this hypothesis any more than I need to attend to the existence of the boogie man. I cannot attack their faith in the multi-verse in scientific terms, nor can they defend it in scientific terms. It is faith alone. And if they are okay with that, then let them label evolution as a religion and take it out of our schools.
I have skimmed over these arguments, simply touching on them and then moved on. And of course this is not a complete list; the extensive works from scientists doubting and challenging evolution is staggering, and the list of arguments seems to be growing daily. I will make one more small point, add some quotes, and then close with the many implications of evilution.
Trilobites. This would be very interesting to hear a plausible explanation for. The trilobite is one of the oldest fossils we have. In the text books, the Trilobites are always the lowest (oldest) ones on the charts. The problem, is that the trilobite had a more complex eye than we do! ....if evolution starts simple and becomes more complex......? Just a thought.....
Here’s some more food for thought.
“He must be a dull man who can examine the exquisite structure of a [honey] comb, so beautifully adapted to its end, without enthusiastic admiration. We hear from mathematicians that bees have practically solved a recondite [hard] problem, and have made their cells of the proper shape to hold the greatest possible amount of honey, with the least possible consumption of precious wax in their construction.” ~Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, Vol. 1, p. 342
(Controversial - from a interview with “Lady Hope” during Darwin’s last days.)
“I made some allusions to the strong opinions expressed by many unbelievers on the history of the creation and then their treatment of the earlier chapters of the book of Genesis. He seemed distressed, his fingers twitched nervously and a look of agony came across his face as he said, ‘I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything. And to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.”
“When they put that feathered dinosaur on the cover last year, I threw 30 years’ worth of magazines out of my house. National Geographic’s journalism is a joke......the hair-like filaments that accompany some fossils come from beneath the skin. I can duplicate the effect by skinning the tail of a modern lizard.” ~Allen Feducia, The Report Magazine, Dec. 6, 1999
“The more I study science the more I am impressed with the thought that this world and universe have a definite design - and a design suggests a designer. It may be possible to have design without a designer, a picture without an artist, but my mind is unable to conceive of such a situation. Evidence of design are everywhere around us..... The greatest aspect of design visible to us is in the ordered movement of the stars and planets in this solar system.... a design almost incomprehensibly large.” ~Paul Amos Moody, Introduction to Evolution, p. 497, 498.
“According to Richard Milton, who wrote Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, the chances of forming protein and self-replicating DNA randomly are as likely as ‘winning the state lottery by finding the winning ticket in the street and then continuing to win the lottery every week for a thousand years by finding the winning ticket in the street each time’ (in other terms, one chance in 10 to the 65th power). The human body develops from an ovum the size of a dot, yet this speck of biological material contains vast encyclopedias of information - huge dictionaries defining every molecule and convoluted recipes to make every chemical moiety, or component. Conception sets in motion domino-like changes in this speck so that it becomes a human being - a multi-trillion cell organism with 200 different kinds of cells that make five million different proteins.” ~Geoffrey Simmons, What Darwin Didn’t Know: A Doctor Dissects the Theory of Evolution, p. 307
“Creationists are not anti-science. It is just that someone has snuck in during the middle of the night and changed the definition of science. It used to be the search of knowledge, now it is a search for naturalism and only naturalism. I believe this was purposely done to exclude any mention of creation or intelligent design in the classroom.” ~Dave Nutting
If you don’t believe this last statement, how about some quotes from the mouth of the evolutionists themselves....
“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” ~Dr. Scott Todd, correspondence to Nature 410(6752):423 (September 30, 1999)
“We don’t need evidence. We know it [evolution] to be true.” ~Richard Dawkins, Quoted by World, March 22, 1997)
“There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose: Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God....there is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that leaves us with only one other possibility...that life came as a supernatural act of creation of God, but I can’t accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution.” ~George Wald, “The Origin of Life”, Scientific America, Vol. 190, pp. 46-50
(That last quote cuts it to the quick. What a revealing quote from the 1967 Nobel prize winning scientist.)
Now in conclusion let us look at the impact of this small innocent idea and what it has cost us. For just like priorities, faith is set by the mind, but it is realized through your actions. And as far as this idea goes, it appears more as a pandora’s box.
“Social Darwinism”. The idea that Darwin is correct in his biological hypothesis, and thus evolution is reality. If evolution is reality, then evolution is applicable to every area of life. In social darwinism, the strong should survive and flourish, and the weak should be allowed to die. This idea began in the 1950’s from proponents like Herbert Spencer. This idea likewise gave rise to other ideas (on implementation).
Eugenics movement. It started in America. That’s right, right here in the US of A. It was supported by none other than main stream science. The professors and scientists of most of our prestigious colleges (Princeton, Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, etc.) along with prestigious organizations such as The National Academy of Sciences, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science leading the way. For decades, Eugenics was the consensus view of the scientific establishment. Some say it started in 1899 with the experiments of Albert Ochsner, to be professor of Surgery at the University of Illinois, with criminals and his publication of “Surgical Treatment of Habitual Criminals”. So really it started before that, in his experiments for which he used for his book, but that’s inconsequential. What was eugenics? One word. Sterilization. You know when you go get your pet fixed, so you won’t get little puppies running around... With eugenics I am talking about forced vasectomies and the like. Eugenics in America also tried to restrict those who could marry, and limit immigration from countries of so called lower humans. Why? Sir Francis Galton, said to be the founder of eugenics (who merely termed the phrase eugenics in 1883), said the purpose of eugenics “is to express the science of improving stock, which is by no means confined to questions of judicious mating, but which especially in the case of man takes cognizance of all influences that tend in however remote a degree to give the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing over the less suitable than they otherwise would have had.” Do you hear the logic? We breed animals, why not humans? But in the case of humans, we don’t want to breed the imbeciles....
In 1927, a Virginia eugenics law was challenged and sent to the supreme court. Buck Vs. Bell. The case was a “mentally subnormal mother and daughter”. This was what the court had to say, “public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives [in war]. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the state for these lesser sacrifices [speaking of sterilization], often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence....Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” (quote by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes). The movement peaked in the 1930’s and continued on till it slowly died out in the 1960’s. By the end more than 60,000 people were sterilized. Against their will, and many wouldn’t even find out they had been sterilized till years to come. Now think about the motto of the Second International Eugenics Conference of 1921: “Eugenics is the self direction of human evolution.” The eugenics movement looked at man as an animal, as would be assumed in evolution, and took psychology to the extreme - all nature, no nurture. And of course it was okay to force sterilization because this was survival of the fittest (might makes right). Darwin himself believed in eugenics. This is a quote from his book “The Descent of Man”.
“With Savages, the weak in body or mind, are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. We institute poor laws, and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumb to small pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals would doubt, that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worse animals to breed.” ~Charles Darwin
That, Darwin would argue is the crime. The descent of man. Charity. Compassion. Weakness. Some scientists would say that eugenics and social darwinists took Darwin’s theory to an extreme and distorted it. But from this quote, I would have to say that perhaps social darwinism has a point. If Darwin’s theory of evolution is correct, then nature is all there is, and the law of survival of the fittest rules not only the animal kingdom, but us (because we are of the animal kingdom.) If this is true, then what Darwin says makes sense. Compassion and charity is counter-intuitive to the species. It is counter-evolutionary; it would slow the evolutionary process down considerably, keeping the weak alive, not allowing change to occur in the truly exceptional. This make evolutionary sense. Evolutionarily speaking, we are merely slightly more advanced animals, why not breed humans as we do animals? And indeed, this is just the first step. This is called negative eugenics (stopping the weak from propagating). Positive eugenics (encouraging the propagation of the strongest) was championed by Hitler, who also took negative eugenics to the next level. Extermination of the weak.
The Aryan race. You doubt the connection? Just read Mein Kampf! It is full of eugenic ideals and survival of the fittest. Hitler firmly believed that the inferior races should be ruled by the superior race (the Aryan), and the purpose in existence of the weak was solely to serve the Aryan race. And once he was put into power, he exercised that belief. Take this quote from Darwin, and see if it does not have anything to do with Hitler... “the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life.” (emphasis added) (The subtitle of Darwin’s book ‘Origin of Species’.) How close does this sound to Hitler in his own book; “Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially lower parent, but not as the higher one. Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life. The precondition for this does not lie in associating superior and inferior, but in the total victory of the former. The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (evolution) of organic living beings would be unthinkable......Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.” Here is some other quotes from Hitler: “Struggle is the father of all things. It is not by the principle of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve himself above the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle.” “I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature.” What most people do not know is that Hitler killed over 250,000 people before the holocaust began: the aged, infirm, senile, mentally retarded, defective children... And even during the holocaust, the Jews were not the only ones: gypsies, Poles, Asians, black Africans, POW’s.....
Take the words of Reverend Martin Niemoeller. “First they came for the Jews, I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the communists. I was silent. I was not a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one left to speak for me.” Wait a second... Hitler came after the clothe? I thought he claimed to be a Christian! In the words of Albert Einstein,
“Being a lover of freedom, when the [Nazi] revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks..... Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.”
Roland H. Bainton wrote “Some four thousand Protestant ministers, led by Karl Barth and Hans Asmussen, formed the Confessing Church, which at Barmen in 1934 declared that no human Fuhrer could stand above the Word of God. The Confessing Church lost its properties, its seminary was suppressed, its journals were prohibited, and when war came the members of its clergy of military age and not in prison were assigned to positions of greatest danger, while the older leaders were sent to concentration camps.” The Church resistance started with “some four thousand Protestant ministers”. Another historian, Arthur C. Cochrane said that indeed, by January 15, 1934, the members of the pfarrernotbund (Pastor’s Emergency League) was up to 7,036. Mind you we are talking about leaders. Pastors; not laymen and congregations, but over seven thousand pastors!
So what did Hitler really believe about evolution? “From where do we get the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning what he is today. A glance in Nature shows us, that changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals. But nowhere do we see inside a kind, a development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, if he supposedly has advanced from an ape-like condition to what he is” This was from a conversation with a colleague - in which it seems that he doesn’t doubt animal and plant change, but only doubts the evolution of man. But does this “off-the-cuff conversation”, as Richard Weikart (California State Professor) called it, explain his views sufficiently?
What about Hitler’s writings? What do they say?
“It is idle to argue which race or races were the original representative of human culture and hence the real founders of all that we sum up under the word ‘humanity’. It is simpler to raise this question with regard to the present, and here an easy, clear answer results. All the human culture, all the results of art, science, and technology that we see before us today, are almost exclusively the creative product of the Aryan. This very fact admits of the not unfounded inference that he alone was the founder of all higher humanity, therefore representing the prototype of all that we understand by the word ‘man’.....Exclude him-and perhaps after a few thousand years darkness will again descend on the earth, human culture will pass, and the world turn to a desert. If we were to divide mankind into three groups, the founders of culture, the bearers of culture, the destroyers of culture, only the Aryan could be considered as the representative of the first group. From him originate the foundation and walls of all human creation, and only the outward form and color are determined by the changing traits of character of the various peoples. He provides the mightiest building stones and plans for all human progress and only the execution corresponds to the nature of the varying men and races.” What!? Aryans were the foundation, and the mightiest. Execution corresponds to the rest. Might makes right. Sound a little like eugenics?
“No more than Nature desires the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, since, if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, might be ruined with one blow.....To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the eternal creator.” Why does he equal the disruption of nature with a sin against the will of the creator? Because the creator created nature as he did, and thus he created natures law, and if you break natures law, you break His law. Or that is the logic. The Law of Nature used to mean that, not necessarily Hitler’s logic, but to say Nature, or Nature’s Law was to speak of the laws that God had put into place (but perhaps I will go into that further in another essay.) So where did this idea of nature breeding higher and lower beings, weaker and stronger humans; and this ever present struggle come from? Survival of the fittest. I guess Darwin’s friend, Professor Adam Sedgwick was right when he said of Darwin’s “Origin of Species”, “if his book were to find general public acceptance, it would bring with it a brutalization of the human race such as it had never seen before.”
Hermann Rauschning quoted Hitler in his book “Hitler Speaks” saying, “Creation is not finished. Man is clearly approaching a phase of metamorphosis. The earlier human species has already reached the stage of dying out... All of the force of creation will be concentrated in a new species...[which] will surpass infinitely modern man...Do you understand now the profound meaning of our National Socialist movement?”
Why the Jews? Hitler said of them.... “The mightiest counterpart to the Aryan is represented by the Jew. In hardly any people in the world is the instinct of self-preservation developed more strongly than in the so-called ‘chosen’......What an infinitely tough will to live and preserve the species speaks from these facts!” Then why did he hate them? Competition. “If we pass all the causes of the German collapse in review, the ultimate and most decisive remains the failure to recognize the racial problem and especially the Jewish menace.” Might makes right. (And the great struggle).
This is a very controversial topic. Many, for a good reason, argue that Hitler was not an evolutionist, but was inspired only by Christianity; despite the facts above. But they are correct in that Hitler filled his book and speeches with talk of God. But to put this to rest, I need to address whether Hitler was indeed a Christian (in his own mind) or was it simply a front to protect him from the Christian majority in Germany.
There is quite a bit of evidence out there that Hitler was deep in the occult. Particularly, he was infatuated with ancient Nordic religion. The swastika, the German eagle, the red/black/white color scheme of the flag, and ancient Nordic runes were all adopted from the occult. A Nordic rune was actually used to make the insignia of the SS. Hitler’s history, seeming fascination with Nordic mythology, and documentation of the Third Reich and Hitler gives evidence toward this. Regardless, Hitler’s claim to Christianity, as we saw in the last essay, has no claim on what Christianity is really about. Whether Hitler was truly a Christian, impossible to say, but for very solid reason, a possibility I seriously doubt.
Hitler once said that Christianity “only added the seeds of decadence such as forgiveness, self-abnegation, weakness, false humility and the very denial of the evolutionary laws of survival of the fittest,” - “Conscience is a Jewish invention. It is a blemish, like circumcision....There is no such thing as truth, either in the moral or in the scientific sense. The new man would be the antithesis of the Jew.” According to an article by H.P. Blavatsky, “Not only did Hitler regard Christianity as a defective, failed enterprise, he saw himself as replacing both its God and its Christ. At one of the huge Nuremburg rallies hung a gigantic poster of himself, with the caption stolen from the Christian gospel of John: “In the beginning was the Word.” German youth were indoctrinated from infancy to pray to Hitler, who they were taught was sent from heaven to protect them. Nazi-approved sermons in German churches proclaimed, “Adolph Hitler is the voice of Jesus Christ.”....the statement is clarified to leave no doubt: “If Jesus Christ, his son....He [Jesus] certainly lacks those characteristics which he would require to be a true German. Indeed, he is as disappointing, if we read the record carefully, as is his Father.” Hitler replaced Jesus? Let us look at some words from Hitler supporters....
“God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith, deep and unshakeable faith, that he [Hitler] was sent to us by God to save Germany.” ~Hermann Goering.
“How shall I give expression, O my Fuhrer, to what is in our hearts? How shall I find words to express your deeds? Has there ever been a mortal as beloved as you, my Fuhrer? Was there ever belief as strong as the belief in your mission.” ~Hermann Goering
“You take an oath to a man whom you know follows the laws of providence, which he obeys independently of the influence of earthly powers, who leads the German people rightly, and who will guide Germany’s fate. Through your oath you bind yourselves to a man who --that is our faith -- was sent to us by higher powers. Do not seek Adolph Hitler with your mind. You will find him through the strength of your hearts!” ~Rudolph Hess
“I swear before God this holy oath, that I shall give absolute confidence to the Fuhrer of the German Reich and people.” ~Heinrich Himmler (emphasis added)
“You Einsatztruppen [task forces] are called upon to fulfill a repulsive duty. But you are soldiers who have to carry out every order unconditionally. You have a responsibility before God and Hitler for everything that is happening. I myself hate this bloody business and I have been moved to the depths of my soul. But I am obeying the highest law by doing my duty. Man must defend himself against bedbugs and rats -- against vermin.” ~Heinrich Himmler
“Catastrophe was only narrowly averted. It was all due to the faith of one man! Yes, you who called us godless, we found our faith in Adolph Hitler, and through him found God once again. That is the greatness of our day, that is our good fortune!” ~Robert Ley (Reich Organization Leader and head of the DAF [German Labor Front])
“If the danger of the reproduction of that curse of God in the Jewish blood is finally to come to an end, then there is only one way -- the extermination of that people whose father is the devil...” ~Julius Streicher
“Hitler is lonely, so is God. Hitler is like God.” ~Reichminister Hans Frank
“Adolph Hitler to thee alone we are bound. In this hour we would renew our solemn vow; in this world we believe in Adolph Hitler alone. We believe that National Socialism is the sole faith to make our People blessed. We believe that there is Lord God in heaven, who has made us, who leads us, who guides us and who visibly blesses us. And we believe that this Lord God has sent us Adolph Hitler, that Germany might be established for all eternity.” ~Schlulungsbrief, April 1937
“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. The way has been shown to us by the Fuhrer.” ~Dean Eckert
“God says as Hitler does: I do not need your assent for my own sake. I need no support. I am firmly in the saddle. God does not need your assent for His own sake, does he? He never needed it from all eternity. God says, as Hitler does: Give me your Aye. He does not need it, but we are lost without this Aye, just as everybody in the German lands is lost if he does not give Hitler his Aye.” ~Johann Lohmann (emphasis added)
“In a certain sense National Socialism is religion, for it does not require its partisans to be convinced of the rightness of its teachings but to believe in it.” ~Professor Paul Schnabel
“Adolph Hitler is the true Holy Ghost.” ~Hans Kerrl
The Nazi’s were known for their propaganda, but to this extent is tremendous! The religious implications of these quote are gigantic. Hitler is Christ, God and Hitler are on par with each other. Hitler is the savior, Hitler is the way, the only way, Hitler is the Holy Sprit! Don’t be confused with all this religious talk, it couldn’t be further from the truth. This is all propaganda, making a man into a god.
What’s the point in all this? Darwin introduced an interesting theory called evolution; his followers applied that to reality. Part of that reality was the Survival of the fittest and Natural selection. Hitler took this survival of the fittest idea and applied it to government, using it to boost his own power and giving him rationale for unthinkable acts. Darwin’s influence on Hitler is very controversial, none-the-less, even if you exclude the quotes by Darwin and Hitler on superior races and natural selection/survival of the fittest, simply the idea of Evolution leaves no room for condemnation of Hitler. For one, on a pure naturalistic standpoint, if we are nothing but animals, and we evolved from nothing, then there is no morality but might makes right. For chance affords no morality. So morality would end up being subjective, thus in accordance with whoever be in charge - might makes right. And the argument has unbelievably been made that in a survival standpoint, Hitler could be commended for we will one day have to deal with over-population, so the genocide of the weak would be an act of heroism. You would be surprised just how many people are saying we can’t judge Hitler as evil for what he did, nor his actions as wrong.
“A number of years ago two intelligent students surprised me in a class discussion by defending the proposition that Hitler was neither good nor evil. Though I kept my composure, I was horrified. One of the worst mass murderers in history wasn’t evil? How could they believe this? How could they justify such a view?” (~Professor Richard Weikart)
That covers positive and negative eugenics. Or does it? At Wichita State University, there is a monument for heroines. And in this monument there is a plaque for Margaret Sanger. Mother of Planned Parenthood and fighter of woman’s rights (i.e. woman’s rights to contraceptives, abortions and the like....) The plaque has a quote by her that says no child should ever go unwanted. It sounds humanitarian, compassionate and such a great quote. Unless you know who Margaret Sanger is. What the quote unfortunately would have concluded was that if a child is not wanted, then it should not be. Margaret Sanger, a strong believer in eugenics, believed woman should be free. Free sex, free condoms, and abortions to free them from unwanted children. This is what Edwin Black said about Margaret Sanger, “Like other staunch eugenicists, Sanger vigorously opposed charitable efforts to uplift the downtrodden and deprived, and argued extensively that it was better that the cold and hungry be left without help, so that the eugenically superior strains could multiply without competition from the ‘unfit’. She repeatedly referred to the lower classes and unfit as ‘human waste’ not worthy of assistance, and proudly quoted the extreme eugenic view that human ‘weeds’ should be exterminated.’” (“War Against The Weak: Eugenics And America’s Campaign To Create A Master Race.”) I will go into the mechanics and evil of abortion in a future essay, but it should suffice to say for now that if it is not a baby in the mother’s womb, what would you say it was? A fetus? Well, I’m glad you agree with me. The word fetus comes from the Latin word for baby/unborn baby (they were synonymous). And the murder of more unborn babies than lives taken by Hitler and Stalin combined is a staggering statistic of horrendous proportions.
How does abortion fit into evolution? It is more subtle, but it goes with eugenics and survival of the fittest. The rationale was an unwanted child will be weak from lack of upbringing; thus if it was not wanted, it was not worth having live. (Not to mention might makes right). Here are some quotes from Margaret Sanger.
“Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality of large families, but since there is still an abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old-fashioned ideas to the facts. The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
“Or failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying....demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism... [philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them a menacing degree dominant... We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.”
“Today eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.”
“I think you must agree... that the campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics... Birth control propaganda is thus the entering wedge for the eugenic educator.” [And of course Abortion is the ultimate birth control option...]
“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”
“There is only one reply to request for a higher birthrate among the intelligent, and that is to ask the government to first take the burden of the insane and feeble-minded from your back. Sterilization for these is the answer.”
The beginning of abortion has it’s roots in evolution and eugenics. According to Nathaniel C. Nash, “Joseph Mengele, the Auschwitz death-camp doctor known as the ‘Angel of Death’ for his experiments on inmates, practiced medicine in Buenos Aires for several years in the 1950’s. He ‘had a reputation as a specialist in abortions,’ which were illegal.” It should not be surprising that the two go together, Nazi mutilator, abortionist. Carl Sagan once said that we “must decide what distinguishes a human being from other animals and when, during gestation, the uniquely human qualities - whatever they are - emerge.” Sagan gives an implicit example of the connection, using the evolutionary idea of embryonic recapitulation as rationale for abortion... “something like the gill arches of a fish or an amphibian... become conspicuous, and there is a pronounced tail....reptilian... (then) somewhat pig-like.....resembles a primate’s but is still not quite human.” (On speaking of the development of a human embryo.) As we have seen, birth control for the mother of Planned Parenthood was “nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit.” Margaret Sanger assumed evolution and said “intelligence of a people is of slow evolutional development.” Her goal was to bring about an era in which mothers would refuse “to bring forth weaklings.” One which “withholds the unfit brings forth the fit.” And the “lack of balance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit’...the greatest present menace to civilization.’” Sound like anyone? Unlike Hitler, Margaret Sanger’s work still lives and continues. Around 3700 abortion happen in America each day! That means every three seconds, another abortion happened here in America. Is this happening because of evolution? Are we getting so many abortions because of eugenics? No. “Woman must have her freedom, the fundamental freedom of choosing whether or not she will be a mother and how many children she will have...” (Margaret Sanger) People have abortions because they choose not to have a baby, even though responsibility would warrant them to. (But that is for another essay). The point, is that without evolution, it is highly doubtable that abortion would have the preeminence it has today, no less if it would even exist at all today. It is evolution that gives abortion a lot of it’s rationale.
The same rationale was made for the old and senile. As Darwin said, “ We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for.....the sick.” Survival of the fittest - if one is going to die anyways, and is simply draining strength from others with no contribution....euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Oregon, the Netherlands, and Belgium all have legalized euthanasia (in Oregon only physician-assisted suicide). Indeed in Belgium, I heard about a lady whose mother was recovering from a heart-attack, and she was euthanized for her bed space. The point in this, abortion and euthanasia (which I will also go further into in another essay) is to show how evolution has diminished the importance of human life, equating it with animals. Evolution destroys the idea of the sanctity of life. We are no more than advanced animals and plants, survival of the fittest reigns; if you die, so what... you were just too weak. Too bad. I imagine the only solace evolutionist could give you is, since there is no afterlife, it won’t matter anyhow.
Some people, instead of devaluing humanity, overvalue animal lives to compensate. What I would call radical environmentalists. I am all for preservation and the environment, we are stewards here on earth, and should take care of it, but there is a line of importance, and what I would call these radical environmentalists cross the line. Let’s see if you agree, here are some of their quotes.
“In subsequent history, the twentieth century may be called either the century of the world wars, or the century of the population plague.” ~Kingsley Davis (his plan for population reduction was “promoting the breakdown of the family, very high divorce rates, homosexuality, pornography, and free sexual unions with easy access to abortion.” His plan is well on it’s way to completion.)
“The Animal’s Agenda” “For an animal right’s activist, it’s easy to become disgusted with humankind. Humans are exploiters and destroyers. Self-appointed autocrats around whom the universe seems to revolve. It’s often hard to find compassion for humans in their pain and fear as they brutalize other animals. In the face of speciesist rationalizations for animal exploitation which framed the issue in terms of animal suffering or human suffering, it’s hard not to take sides and fight for the animals.” ~Sydney Singer (emphasis added)
“Six million people died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughter houses.” ~Ingrid Newkirk (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)
“We in the green movement aspire to a cultural model in which the killing of a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of six year old children to Asian brothels.” ~Carl Emery (emphasis added) (The West German Green Party)
“Man is the most dangerous, destructive and unethical animal on earth.” ~Michael W. Fox
(Considered other people’s children as pollution and therefore an environmental concern,) “Child-bearing should be a punishable crime against society. Unless the parents hold a governmental license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing the antidotes to citizens chosen for child-bearing.” ~David Brower
“The hopeful alternative extinction of one species; homo sapiens. Us. When every human makes the moral choice to live long and die out, earth will be allowed to return to its former glory. Each time one of us decides not to add another of us to the burgeoning billions already squatting on this ravaged planet, another ray of hope shines through the gloom. A baby condor may not be as cute as a baby human, but we must choose to forgo one, if the others are to survive.” ~Les Knight (VHEMt - Voluntary Human Extinction Movement)
“Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn’t true. Somewhere along the line, at about a million years ago, or maybe half that, we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the earth. Until such time as homo sapiens decide to rejoin nature, some can only hope for the right virus to come along.” ~David Graber
“Speciesism is to animals what racism is to racial minorities, sexism to the opposite sex, and anti-semitism to the Jews. An unjustifiable prejudice against those unlike oneself.” ~Peter Singer
“We have wished, we eco-freaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into the stone age where we might live like Indians in our valley with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our home-made religions; guilt free at last.” ~Stuart Brand
“We commonly use the word animal to mean animals other than human beings. This usage sets humans apart from other animals implying that we are not ourselves animals, an implication that every one who has read elementary lessons in biology knows to be false. In the popular mind, the term animal lumps together beings as different as oysters and chimpanzees, while placing a gulf between chimpanzees and humans, although our relation to these apes is much closer than the oysters.” ~Peter Singer
That last quote about sums it up doesn’t it? I have more quotes, but I figured that was enough. Why would I put so many quotes here? Because my dialog would never be as good as their own words explaining it for me. But don’t they have something there? Aren’t we causing global warming? No! There is another example of junk science. “If you tell a big enough lie often enough, people will begin to believe it’s the truth.” ~Adolph Hitler.
First of all, there has never been a consensus view for human cause of global warming. Historically, our environment has oscillated between warming and cooling. Out of a survey of 530 climatologists, only 9.4% strongly agreed that global warming was caused by man while 9.7% strongly disagreed. The original source for “the consensus” on global warming came from Naomi Oresky’s study, whose search of databases of scientific publications supposedly showed an unanimous consensus in favor of this notion of human causation for global warming. In searching that same database, only one percent endorsed this consensus view. Three times as many outright rejected or doubted it.
Today over 19,700 scientists have come out saying there is no convincing evidence for man made global warming. If the Greenhouse effect, or infrared gases which keep the earth warm, did not exist, the average temperature on earth would be well below zero F. Water Vapor accounts for 95% of all infrared absorption. Carbon Dioxide is a far second at 3.6%. (Carbon Dioxide, the main problem of global warming ........). But if there was no offsetting effect to these greenhouse gases, the average temperature would be around 140% F. This offsetting effect is weather. (Wind, evaporation, precipitation, storms, etc.) Both the greenhouse and the offsetting effect must be taken account of to see the real impact of human influence.
Human burning of fossil fuels adds 7 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. That may sound like a lot, but think about this, the biosphere (nature - other than us) sends 1,900 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, and on top of that, the oceans sends 36,000 gigatons of CO2 into the atmoshere every year. That puts our impact on CO2 contribution at about one-tenth of a percent. The total warming effect is about 99.7% natural and at most 1/2800th % man-made, and they say we are to blame for it? But then we must add the offsetting effect to really see how much our impact has on the environment itself. Weather eliminates 58% of the warming effect of all green house gases, bringing our contribution down to at most 1/67,000th % (less than one 700th of one degree F.) So where does this global warming come from? Variations of solar winds could account for 75% to nearly all observed warming. But how I am not as much concerned, we have survived an ice age, we can survive a heat wave. (If we encounter one)... The question I would rather answer is how could they lie to us and how could we let them deceive us so easily? Listen to their own words again. (Both of these quotes come from Green Party members...if that means anything...)
“For the sake of promoting the environmentalists agenda, scientists have to offer up scary scenarios, making simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we might have, cautiously deciding the right balance between being effective and being honest. I hope that means both.” ~Steven Schnider
“In the past, action usually awaited the confirmation of theory by hard evidence, now in a widening sphere of decisions, the cost of error are so exorbitant that we need to act on theory alone, which is to say on prediction alone. Scientists must disavow the certainty and precision they normally insist on. Scientists need to become connoisseurs and philosophers of uncertainty. The incurable uncertainty of our predicament far from serving to reassure us, should fill us with unease and goad us to action.” ~Jonathan Shell
Leave evidence behind for predictions alone? Act on theory alone? Since when did theory abandon reason? I hope this is as frightening and despicable to you as it is to me. Scary scenarios and simplified dramatic sentences, leaving out any doubt we might have...Why? For money grants? To beguile the public to your whims and faith?
I must say, we must try our best to keep from both extremes; the cheapness of humans, and the equality of animals. We are not animals. We have not evolved from them. If you want to believe that, that would be faith, for science has nothing to do with evolution. We must keep from both extremes for sanity’s sake. Human life is indelibly sacred, and we are to take care of this earth. Stray too far to one side or the other, and you get loopy. (As Hitler and these radical environmentalists have, I hope, well established.)
The next ..... link. Marxism. (Communism). Karl Marx. Father of communism and the author of The Communist Manifesto. How does this fit? Marx applied evolution to history. As evolutionists would view the fossil record, Marx applied to human history. “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” (“class struggle”, sound familiar? .....But Hitler hated communism! - that’s perhaps because “class struggle” isn’t an original idea to Marx...but Darwin.) Marx would say that just as Anarchy gave way to Monarchy, Monarchy to Capitalism, Capitalism will give way to Communism, the next evolutionary link in man’s history, in nature’s pathway. While very few people would argue the link between Marx and Darwin, there are those who would debate on Stalin. The qualm is that Stalin was not a Darwinist, but believed in Lamarckism (characteristics of an organism can be passed on to its offspring in it’s lifetime), which is true. The problem is that Lamarckism does not change, fundamentally, what evolution means in application, only the form it comes in. (Needless to point out Lamarckism was disproven long ago.) So although the form was different, the implications stay the same. The civil war that put Stalin in power killed 9,000,000. Stalin killed around 20,000,000 of his own citizens. Mao Ze Dong, communist leader of China, killed around 40,000,000 of his own citizens. On top of that, the civil war that put him into power had 2,500,000 casualties. Numbers like that lose their meaning. It becomes a statistic. Cold and calculated. Put it into a little perspective, The total casualty rate on all sides for World War II is around 55,000,000. That number includes the holocaust, Russian, German, Italian, American, French, British, Chinese, Japanese, etc. (The Holocaust accounts for about 6,000,000 Jews). World War I took 15,000,000 total. The American Civil War (highest casualty rate for any war America has been in, even more than both the World Wars put together) only took 623,026 casualties. Even these comparisons don’t due justice, because these were wars, what Stalin and (Mao) did was genocide on their own people. Arguably, many of these deaths were not interconnected specifically to the evolutionary process, but by implication of communism, whether rightfully or not, these tragedies were allowed to exist. Not only is it unlikely that without evolution’s ability to be used as a rationale that this or any of the examples so far used (Hitler, Eugenics, etc.) would have come to pass (not saying that evilution was the only cause, or even the main causes, but was a large factor), but otherwise, it is hard to think about the implications of evolution without thinking about these type of things happening, or at least under plausible possibility.
Again, I would like to look a little more in depth on the implications of this theory called evolution. Naturalism is the idea that there is nothing except that which is consistent with matter. (Other words, nothing but the materialistic world. - “...naturalism - naturalism alone” ) You cannot take survival of the fittest out of Darwinian evolution any less than you can take Jesus out of Christianity. Will Durant explained the implications of natural selection beautifully, (and truthfully,) “If life is a struggle for existence in which the fittest survive; then strength is the ultimate virtue, and weakness the only fault. Good is that which survives, which wins; bad is that which gives way and fails.” This is evolutions answer to the problem of pain. What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, and those who die deserve it. The ultimate struggle of life. Those who wish to truly live, let them fight. The weak will perish; the strong will prevail. (Sound familiar?)
This is the mantra of The Darwin Awards, “Honoring those who improve the species...by accidentally removing themselves from it!” Years ago the word “humorous” was an added description to the motto. Here are some others favorite phrases; “Chlorinating the Gene Pool Darwin Awards”, “What would Darwin do?”, “Evolution in Action.” , “The Shallow End of the Gene Pool.”, “Population Control Volunteers”, “The Tree of Life is Self-Pruning.” Sheer chance sure did create irony when it made humans with compassion. One man was awarded the Darwin Award (post-humorously, of course) when he attempted to hang himself over a cliff that had a river running under it. Just to make sure it was quick (and successful), he drank poison, lit himself on fire, and took a gun along for extra insurance. He them jumped off the cliff. He was about to shoot the gun when the rope around his neck went taut. The gun jerked just as it went off, cutting the rope. The man fell into the water below, dousing the flames, and the sheer impact of the fall made him vomit up all the poison. He was found hours later, and airlifted to the hospital where he died a little over a week later from hypothermia. So they give him an award for it. ‘Thank you sir!’ They say, ‘For saving us from your stupidity.’
People laugh at the circumstances of the poor man’s death, and don’t think about why he was trying to commit suicide in the first place. In Holland, euthanasia is so pervasive and free that any depressed person of any age, teen or adult, can apply for it. Clinical depression, which is treatable universally, is a death sentence in Holland. All because people should have the choice. There is no accountability, no point, and no reason not.
Another Darwin Award was for a man who kept his handgun on his bed stand, next to the phone. One night the phone rang and his wife woke up to the sound of a gun shot. Another was for a “bright” lawyer whose office was high up on a skyscraper. He had some interns visit his office, and he decided to show them how durable the windows were by running head-long into it. That was the last time he showed anyone anything. A man lit a match behind a cow with his tail raised, methane caught and the cow exploded, killing the man. A man fell asleep in a room with poor air circulation and never woke up. The cause of death was beans and broccoli. A man beat his dog with the butt of a loaded gun. A man strapped a jet engine to the back of his car; ended up as ash on a cliff. Hundreds upon hundreds of stories. You would figure the species would be getting smarter by now.
“If chance be the Father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky, and when you hear; State Of Emergency! Sniper Kills Ten! Troops On Rampage! Whites Go Looting! Bomb Blasts School! It is but the sound of man worshipping his maker.” ~Tim Lahaye
With evolution’s survival ethics, what else can or should support man’s morality? ‘Might makes right’ of the survival of the fittest philosophy covers everything according to evolution. Any more than the reign of the ruler comes down to preference, because there is no ultimate consequence of such immorality. Except, with no moral truth but pure chance, to say something is immoral would be right only if it is enforceable. If something is not enforceable, it is free game. That is not to say that an individual cannot live to a high moral value within the evolutionary complex, but it is to say that any more does not matter and is not so much morality, but mere preference. And even that which is enforceable, it cannot be said it is absolute morality because if one can get away with immorality, by chance’s rule, it would not only be immaterial but even respectable in that might makes right so what ever you can get away with, do. In evolution, where all that exists is by definition chance, all morality comes down to is a mobocratic law that only the powerful, or pure lucky, can rightfully transcend; this “moral” law changes with the might. This means Hitler was not wrong, but indeed exemplary. Saddam was not wrong to use chemical weapons on his own people, nor to try to take Kuwait, but neither is America wrong for ousting him for what he did. This contradiction of changeable morality is the moral entropy that evolution demands on the universe. In the words of C. S. Lewis, morality would be a “word without meaning.” Any moral means of an individual ends up being subjective, purely individualistic. About as important as the color of the shirt your wearing.
Just as evolution connotates, but does not demand no absolute morality; it connotates, but does not demand no transcendent God. Atheism can and has existed without evolution just as Theism can and has existed within evolutionary thought. Darwin himself was a theist. (Though a bit of a deist.) So I by no means am saying that you cannot believe in evolution and God, but I am saying that without preconceptions, evolution tends towards an explanation for the Atheist. In the words of a leading evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, (author of “The God Delusion) would say that his Atheism indeed stems directly from his belief in evolution and if called to a court to testify to this, he would indeed claim such. And the first attack on the creationist is inevitably an attack of religious influence? Talk about double standards and special pleadings. Take the words of creationist Ken Ham,
“A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’ The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations - such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason....On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.”
If everything is by evolution, pure chance, then even the foundation for meaning is lost. Even the language of the words of this page are of random incoherency only chance has decoded. The fabric, paper, and ink on these pages are simply a mesh of pure chance? No. Like morality, truth, cause and effect, science itself would be “a word without meaning” in a world of chance. Hear Lewis’ full quote.
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God would collapse too - for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.” ~C.S. Lewis
Do you hear his reasoning? His argument was against the existence of God because of the problem of pain, but without God, he found he had no foundation for what is good, and what is bad. What is “cruel and unjust”. But he found a principle that also applies here. Pure chance has no meaning, it is chance. When you roll the dice, there is no reason that the first roll is a 6, or a 2, or what ever it is. It is pure chance. And just as if there is no meaning, we should never have found out, being a word with no meaning; evolution, if true, then truth, morality, right, wrong, good, evil, justice, humanity, decency, menace, tragedy; these would all be words without meaning. Language would be a joke, if chance is ruler of all. (Not to mention nature, science, anatomy, etc.) Chance, I hopefully have shown in this essay, is the joke. Evolution is the junk science. History has said that Lamarck of Communist Russia held Russian science back for over half a century, it has yet to see how a bigger fish, Darwin’s Evolution, has held back science for over two centuries. Why? Because it is still holding it back.
No matter where we look, evolution fails us and destroys everything at it’s touch. There is an appropriate joke, I think, to give us a picture of what evolution is. (To those of you who are blond, please take no offense, I am not making a statement about you, simply a form to show evolution colors....)
The blond explained to the doctor her predicament, “I have broken every bone in my body! Everywhere I touch, I hurt.” The doctor asked her, “Does it hurt here?” “Why, No!” “How about here?” “No.” “Here?” “No” The doctor finished his diagnostic and the blond asked, “What’s wrong with me doctor?” He replied deftly, “Your finger is broken.”
Perhaps when we look at the trail of destruction evolution has left in it’s wake, the junk science and the scientific qualms against evolution, all we are seeing is the brokenness of evolution itself. Perhaps we should realize evolution is a bankrupt theory and go ahead and bury it, move on. Instead of trying to discover truth with a broken finger, let’s fix our finger so we can discover again.
Not only is evolution science’s broken finger, but all implications and any plausible application of evolution aptly fails also. Putting any section of evolution under the microscope seems to only crumble the delicate fabrication that is evolution. Hans Christian Andersen has another, I think, appropriate story to further give illustration of Evolution’s blindfold over science.
“Many years ago there lived an Emperor, who was so excessively fond of grand new clothes that he spent all his money upon them, that he might be very fine. He did not care about his soldiers, nor about the theatre, and only liked to drive out and show his new clothes. He had a coat for every hour of the day; and just as they say of a king, “He is in council,” so they always said of him, “The Emperor is in the wardrobe.”
“In the great city in which he lived it was always very merry; every day came many strangers; one day two rogues came: they gave themselves out as weavers, and declared they could weave the finest stuff any one could imagine. Not only were their colors and patterns, they said, uncommonly beautiful, but the clothes made of the stuff possessed the wonderful quality that they became invisible to any one who was unfit for the office he held, or was incorrigibly stupid.
“ “Those would be capital clothes!” thought the Emperor. “If I wore those, I should be able to find out what men in my empire are not fit for the places they have; I could tell the clever from the dunces. Yes, the stuff must be woven for me directly!”
“And he gave the two rogues a great deal of cash in hand, that they might begin their work at once.
“As for them, they put up two looms, and pretended to be working; but they had nothing at all on their looms. They at once demanded the finest silk and the costliest gold; this they put into their pockets, and worked at the empty looms till late into the night.
“ “I should like to know how far they have got on with the stuff,” thought the Emperor. But he felt quite uncomfortable when he thought that those who were not fit for their offices could not see it. He believed, indeed, that he had nothing to fear for himself, but yet he preferred first to send someone else to see how matters stood. All the people in the city knew what peculiar power the stuff possessed, and all were anxious to see how bad or how stupid their neighbors were.
“ “I will send my honest old Minister to the weavers,” thought the Emperor. “He can judge best how the stuff looks, for he has sense, and no one understands his office better than he.”
“Now the good old Minister went out into the hall where the two rogues sat working at the empty looms.
“ “Mercy on us!” thought the old Minister, and he opened his eyes wide. “I cannot see anything at all!” But he did not say this.
“Both rogues begged him to be so good as to come nearer, and asked if he did not approve of the colors and the pattern. Then they pointed to the empty loom, and the poor old Minister went on opening his eyes; but he could see nothing, for there was nothing to see.
“ “Mercy!” thought he, “can I indeed be so stupid? I never thought that, and not a soul must know it. Am I not fit for my office? No, it will never do for me to tell that I could not see the stuff.”
“ “Don’t you say anything to it?” asked one, as he went on weaving.
“ “O, it is charming - quite enchanting!” answered the old Minister, as he peered through his spectacles. “What a fine pattern, and what colors! Yes, I shall tell the Emperor that I am very much pleased with it.”
“Well, we are glad of that,” said both the weavers; and then they named the colors, and explained the strange pattern. The old Minister listened attentively, that he might be able to repeat it when the Emperor came. And he did so.
“Now the rogues asked for more money, and silk and gold, which they declared they wanted for weaving. They put all into their own pockets, and not a thread was put upon the loom; they continued to work at the empty frames as before.
“The Emperor soon sent again, dispatching another honest officer of the court, to see how the weaving was going on, and if the stuff would soon be ready. He fared just like the first: he looked and looked, but, as there was nothing to be seen but the empty looms, he could see nothing.
“ “Is not that a pretty piece of stuff?” asked the two rogues; and they displayed and explained the handsome pattern which was not there at all.
“ “I am not stupid!” thought the man; “it must be my good office, for which I am not fit. It is funny enough, but I must not let it be noticed.” And so he praised the stuff which he did not see, and expressed his pleasure at the beautiful colors and charming pattern. “Yes, it is enchanting,” he told the Emperor.
“All the people in the town were talking of the gorgeous stuff. The Emperor wished to see it himself while it was still upon the loom. With a whole crowd of chosen men, among whom were also the two honest statesmen who had already been there, he went to the two cunning rogues, who were now weaving with might and main without fiber or thread.
“ “Is not that splendid?” said the two statesmen, who had already been there once. “Does not your Majesty remark the pattern and the colors?” And they pointed to the empty loom, for they thought that the others could see the stuff.
“ “What is this?” thought the Emperor. “I can see nothing at all! That is terrible. Am I stupid? Am I not fit to be Emperor? That would be the most dreadful thing that could happen to me. O, it is very pretty!” he said aloud. “It has our highest approbation.” And he nodded in a contented way, and gazed at the empty loom, for he would not say that he saw nothing. The whole suite whom he had with him looked and looked, and saw nothing, any more than the rest; but like the Emperor, they said, “That is pretty!” and counseled him to wear the splendid new clothes for the first time at the great procession that was presently to take place. “It is splendid, excellent!” went from mouth to mouth. On all sides there seemed to be general rejoicing, and the Emperor gave the rogues the title of Imperial Court Weavers.
“The whole night before the morning on which the procession was to take place, the rogues were up, and kept more than sixteen candles burning. The people could see that they were hard at work, completing the Emperor’s new clothes. They pretended to take the stuff down from the loom; they made cuts in the air with great scissors; they sewed with needles without thread; and at last they said, “Now the clothes are ready!”
“The Emperor came himself with his noblest cavaliers; and the two rogues lifted up one arm as if they were holding something, and said, “See, here are the trousers! here is the coat! here is the cloak!” and so on. “It is as light as a spider’s web: one would think one had nothing on; but that is just the beauty of it.”
“ “Yes,” said all the cavaliers; but they could not see anything, for nothing was there.
“ “Will your Imperial Majesty please to condescend to take off your clothes?” said the rogues; “then we will put on you the new clothes here in front of the great mirror.”
“The Emperor took off his clothes, and the rogues pretended to put on him each new garment as it was ready; and the Emperor turned round and round before the mirror.
“ “O, how well they look! how capitally they fit!” said all, “What a pattern! what colors! that is a splendid dress!”
“ “They are standing outside with the canopy, which is to be borne above your Majesty in the procession!” announced the head Master of the Ceremonies.
“ “Well, I am ready,” replied the Emperor. “Does it not suit me well?” And then he turned again to the mirror, for he wanted to appear as if he contemplated his adornment with great interest.
“The two chamberlains, who were to carry the train, stooped down with their hands towards the floor, just as if they were picking up the mantle; then they pretended to be holding something in the air. They did not dare to let it be noticed that they saw nothing.
“So the Emperor went in procession under the rich canopy, and every one in the streets said, “How incomparable are the Emperor’s new clothes! What a train he has to his mantle! How it fits him!” No one would let it be perceived that he could see nothing, for that would have shown that he was not fit for his office, or was very stupid. No clothes of the Emperor’s had ever had such a success as these.
“ “But he has nothing on!” a little child cried out at last.
“ “Just hear what that innocent says!” said the father; and one whispered to another what the child had said.
“But he has nothing on!” said the whole people at length. That touched the Emperor, for it seemed to him that they were right; but he thought within himself, “I must go through with the procession.” And so he held himself a little higher, and the chamberlains held on tighter than ever, and carried the train which did not exist at all.”
“...a beggar’s kingdom is better than a proud man’s delusion.” ~Donald Miller
“The Emperor’s New Clothes.” His birthday suite. A sham. And anyone who could not see it, a fool. “...ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but i’d rather not consider that)” But evolution is different. Yeah. “We don’t need evidence. We know it [evolution] to be true.” What ever plausibility evolution has had in the past died a long time ago. The two rogues have been found out as rogues, but it has been kept a secret for a long time. But the secret is getting out, slowly, and the word spoken by the child is getting around the crowd, even to the king, who realizes, and knew it to be true. “....I can’t accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution.” Evolution has had it’s etchy place in history and in science (as a degenerate), but as such, being a bankrupt theory, it is past time to heal the truth of science, eradicate this rogue, and put real clothes back on.
“He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all it’s good dispositions.” ~Thomas Jefferson.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. How long can we stand and watch while not only we are being fed lies, but our children are being fed lies?
Covering the science fraud and it’s many implications for us, let us come back to our main search. purpose. Existence. The other alternative....
Words, syllables, sentences, messages, every word spoken, language as a whole, every action made, every move, flex, twitch, the words on this page, the material you are looking at, the order of the symbols on this page, the very message you are reading, even the words of the critics. They all have meaning and have specific purposes. There is nothing under the sun without a purpose. Is it not logical to assume all life has a purpose? Purpose is literally everywhere we look. Is it illogical to look for something or someone driving this purpose? For which all this purpose serves? The nihilist would point out that there is no purpose and try his best to prove so, but whatever he does, he refutes himself in the process by purposefully trying to prove that proof does not exist and purpose is illusionary. Not only does he contradict himself, but we see all else tends to refute him likewise. Purpose stands up against chance, and shows it’s true colors. Purpose is inherent, and chance is in fact the illusion. Chance only exists in our limited knowledge, but neither does the universe fit into our limited extent of knowledge; but what we can observe, chance has nothing to do with it.
What is a life worth living? Is it not illogical to say that meaning has no meaning? To say no absolutes exist is self-refuting, to say there is no absolute (or universal) morality is to say there is no definition of right and wrong. Time is simply a vector. If there is nothing but naturalism; nothing after death but nothingness, if all we have is this life, if there is no creator, no purposeful life, nothing we do is of importance or of value. If you die now, nothing happens. If you die in twenty years, nothing happens. Everything disappears in both instances and nothing changes between the two. If there is nothing after death, then Holland is right. Depression should be a death sentence. Because why suffer when you can finish now what is inevitably going to happen? But they are wrong. Something does not come from nothing, and a purposeful world of laws and order does not come from disorder and chance. If faith is evident in all we do, then what we put our faith in is essential. If we place our faith in a lie, where does that lead us? Have we not seen a few examples of such? So truth is now fundamentally what we seek. Because no one wants to believe in a purpose that is a lie. To find our purpose, we must find truth. The truth of our origin, the truth of what Is, the truth of who we are meant to be, the truth of who God is. And there I have said it. Atheism is a drought of sense. It is illogical in the face of life’s existence by itself. Evolution, atheism’s pet project has failed, and all that keeps it up is blind faith. But even with that, atheism destroys the very basis for purpose, meaning, communication, logic, relationship, and morality. God must exist. Not because I say so, but because it is evidently so. Now it is only a matter of who this God is. What is His character? Who is He/She? Is God still alive? Our purpose, being incapable of deriving from itself it’s purpose, must come from God, thus ‘What God?’ is the next big question we must tackle to figure out this thing called my purpose.