Don’t be shy!  E-mail us with your comments or questions to support@myhometownpeeps.info

More On Darwin

By Travis R. McGaha

 

 

In a local newspaper, Chad Mitchell wrote a letter to the editor titled Science should not be subject to religious bias.  In this letter he commented on the need to find a “better way to sort out the murkiness of the world...science.”  He also comments that Darwin's theory of Evolution is shamed in public schools “despite there being no single shred of evidence against it.”  Unfortunately, I have yet to see Evolution “abashed” in many public schools as teachers are forced to teach it per the Tennessee State Board of Education.  In a parent-teacher conference about 4 years ago, a Newcenter School science teacher even proclaimed it to be a scientific fact. 

 

             Darwin's Religion of Evolution must be accepted based on certain assumptions or more accurately on “faith.”  One argument that has no shred of evidence FOR it is the idea that because living things have the same building blocks of life means that all life must descend from a common ancestor.  Try putting a Pinto, Mustang, Fusion, Torino, F-150 truck and Explorer into a garage and scientifically analyze the parts.  If all of these vehicle's parts have a FORD stamp on them, would it not make more sense saying that these were manufactured by the same company than saying these all descended from the same Model T.  Why is it that we can so easily brush aside the idea of a common Creator for all life in the face of similar building blocks of life when we can easily identify different auto manufacturers based on the name stamped in all of the parts?

 

             I understand that there are differing ideas of Evolution.  One idea is that species inherit traits from 1 or 2 parents and that the traits are passed down.  This is MICRO-evolution.  It is scientific and readily studied.  Mr. Miller's example of flu-viruses becoming resistant to vaccine is this example.  The viral organisms that survived the vaccine reproduce to create the exact same virus; even though, the new virus is more resistant to the original vaccine.  However this surviving virus did NOT mutate into a bacterium as a result of evolution.  If it did, it would be an example of MACRO-Evolution. 

 

             MACRO-Evolutionists assume (have faith) that genetic complexity determines ranking in evolution.  Genetically, monkeys have 48 chromosomes while humans only have 46 chromosomes.  To acknowledge this argument, we must assume that monkeys are the next step in evolutionary complexity.  Which is interesting when you think that an organism with an even higher number of chromosomes is a FERN with 480 chromosomes.

 

             Moreover, the Religion of Evolution assumes (has faith) that through “natural selection” new species are formed.  No proof has ever been provided to show that “natural selection” created a new species.  Natural selection may change the varied appearances of a given species, but at no time has a dog, through natural selection, ever reproduced into a cat.

 

             So who is this Darwin that we should buy into his magnanimous scientific declarations?  Charles Darwin was a college dropout.  He was flunking hard sciences and math.  By modern standards, he would not even be certifiable to teach modern Biology to pre-schoolers.  His wealthy father was embarrassed by his son's dropout status, so he enrolled him in a theological studies program in order to complete a college degree. 

 

             He was credited with formulating the THEORY of Evolution on the 2nd voyage of the HMS Beagle from 1831 to 1836.  He did not garner an immediate proclamation from this voyage.  His Theory was not published for another 23 years.  He returned home to arm-chair science where he reviewed and edited his notes from the voyage.  His familial wealth garnered him positions at colleges.  He courted and married his 1^st cousin, something that would have been seen as taboo in the eyes of the church.  He surrounded himself with people who were not necessarily devout Christians, such as Charles Babbage, who hated common people,  devout atheist Harriet Martineau, Thomas Malthus, who espoused the idea of population control on the poor.  Is it any wonder that this man would infuse his “bias” against God into his science.  He studied “transmutation” (the study of species changing into other species) to no avail.  He never found any evidence to prove that any single species reproduced spontaneously into another species.  His grandiose scientific studies outside of the half-philosophical pseudo-science of Evolution is The Power of Movement in Plants and The Formation of Vegetable Mould in Plants Through the Action of Worms.

 

             In studying Darwin and his Religion of Evolution, I refuse to believe that we need this manner of science to “sort out the murkiness of the world.”  To better understand the effect of Darwin's Religion of Evolution we must examine the after-effects of his published work.  Evolution gave argument to the South to maintain slavery even in the face of diminishing slave-trade in the western hemisphere.  Evolution gave rise to the nationalism that led to World War I and the countless death and destruction that war caused.  Survival of the Fittest was the justification behind vast discrepancies of wealth in the early 20^th century industrial revolution which led to the greatest era of misery, The Great Depression.  Evolution was the rallying cry of NAZI's who declared themselves the SUPERIOR race who chose to begin exterminating another group of human beings.  The argument of racial superiority led to harsh stances in favor of segregation and the rise neo-NAZISM.  Evolution was even the doctrine behind BA'ATHist imitation of the Nazi party.  Darwin's theory was even espoused the 20^th century philosopher Charles Manson.   (I know Manson is an incarcerated, deranged mass-murderer, however if we call Charles Darwin a brilliant SCIENTIST; surely, we can identify Charles Manson as a simple philosopher.)

 

             If the current news about schools, the express distinction between social classes of children and their hatred for each other, the threats of violence against other children or teachers, and improper behavior of teachers towards children is an indication of the success of Evolutionary (Survival of the Fittest) curriculum, then perhaps schools should consider teaching something else.  Unfortunately, by order of the state, our teachers must teach conformity and consensus with regard to Evolution, of which memory retention is the highest mental challenge.  We do not want our children thinking about Evolution and how inaccurate it is.  We just want them repeating the dogma of Evolution.  Our teachers from Kindergarten and forward are forced to teach why the State-Funded Religion of Evolution is correct instead of teaching actual science and how it disproves the Religion of Evolution.