PDA

View Full Version : Making a Monkey Out of Darwin


opinionator
06-30-2009, 07:38 AM
Making a Monkey Out of Darwin
by Patrick J. Buchanan
06/30/2009


"You have no notion of the intrigue that goes on in this blessed world of science," wrote Thomas Huxley. "Science is, I fear, no purer than any other region of human activity; though it should be."

As "Darwin's bulldog," Huxley would himself engage in intrigue, deceit and intellectual property theft to make his master's theory gospel truth in Great Britain.

He is quoted above for two reasons.

First is House passage of a "cap-and-trade" climate-change bill. Depending on which scientists you believe, the dire consequences of global warming are inconvenient truths -- or a fearmongering scheme to siphon off the wealth of individuals and empower bureaucrats.

The second is publication of "The End of Darwinism: And How a Flawed and Disastrous Theory Was Stolen and Sold," by Eugene G. Windchy, a splendid little book that begins with Huxley's lament.

That Darwinism has proven "disastrous theory" is indisputable.

"Karl Marx loved Darwinism," writes Windchy. "To him, survival of the fittest as the source of progress justified violence in bringing about social and political change, in other words, the revolution."

"Darwin suits my purpose," Marx wrote.

Darwin suited Adolf Hitler's purposes, too.

"Although born to a Catholic family Hitler become a hard-eyed Darwinist who saw life as a constant struggle between the strong and the weak. His Darwinism was so extreme that he thought it would have been better for the world if the Muslims had won the eighth century battle of Tours, which stopped the Arabs' advance into France. Had the Christians lost, (Hitler) reasoned, Germanic people would have acquired a more warlike creed
and, because of their natural superiority, would have become the leaders of an Islamic empire."

Charles Darwin also suited the purpose of the eugenicists and Herbert Spencer, who preached a survival-of-the-fittest social Darwinism to robber baron industrialists exploiting 19th-century immigrants.

Historian Jacques Barzun believes Darwinism brought on World War I: "Since in every European country between 1870 and 1914 there was a war party demanding armaments, an individualist party demanding ruthless competition, an imperialist party demanding a free hand over backward peoples, a socialist party demanding the conquest of power and a racialist party demanding internal purges against aliens -- all of them, when appeals
to greed and glory failed, invoked Spencer and Darwin, which was to say science incarnate."

Yet a theory can produce evil -- and still be true.

And here Windchy does his best demolition work.

Darwin, he demonstrates, stole his theory from Alfred Wallace, who had sent him a "completed formal paper on evolution by natural selection."

"All my originality ... will be smashed," wailed Darwin when he got Wallace's manuscript.

Darwin also lied in "The Origin of Species" about believing in a Creator. By 1859, he was a confirmed agnostic and so admitted in his posthumous autobiography, which was censored by his family.

Darwin's examples of natural selection -- such as the giraffe acquiring its long neck to reach ever higher into the trees for the leaves upon which it fed to survive -- have been debunked. Giraffes eat grass and bushes. And if, as Darwin claimed, inches meant life or death, how did female giraffes, two or three feet shorter, survive?

Windchy goes on to relate such scientific hoaxes as "Nebraska Man" -- an anthropoid ape ancestor to man, whose tooth turned out to belong to a wild pig -- and Piltdown Man, the missing link between monkey and man.

Discovered in England in 1912, Piltdown Man was a sensation until exposed by a 1950s investigator as the skull of a Medieval Englishman attached to the jaw of an Asian ape whose teeth had been filed down to look human and whose bones had been stained to look old.

Yet three English scientists were knighted for Piltdown Man.

Other myths are demolished. Bird feathers do not come from the scales of reptiles. There are no gills in human embryos.

For 150 years, the fossil record has failed to validate Darwin.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontologists," admitted Stephen J. Gould in 1977. But that fossil record now contains even more species that appear fully developed, with no traceable ancestors.

Darwin ruled out such "miracles."

And Darwinists still have not explained the origin of life, nor have they been able to produce life from non-life.

The most delicious chapter is Windchy's exposure of the Scopes Monkey Trial and Hollywood's Bible-mocking movie "Inherit the Wind," starring Spencer Tracy as Clarence Darrow.

The trial was a hoked-up scam to garner publicity for Dayton, Tenn. Scopes never taught evolution and never took the stand. His students were tutored to commit perjury. And William Jennings Bryan held his own against the atheist Darrow in the transcript of the trial.

In 1981, Gould had this advice for beleaguered Darwinists:

"Perhaps we should all lie low and rally round the flag of strict Darwinism ... a kind of old-time religion on our part."

Exactly. Darwinism is not science. It is faith. Always was.

bluejunk44
06-30-2009, 09:53 AM
The notion that religion is right and evolution is a faith is absolutely ridiculous. It's so ridiculous that it barely needs responding to, but here in the USA we have people wanting to teach religion as fact. Well, they do that too in other countries. Especially with Islam.

Most people in the USA are christians. This is a religion that is provably wrong. There's no guesswork. There's no leaps of logic. It is wrong and can be proven wrong. So to base your notion of creation on the bible is a mistake.

On the other hand, when Darwin first got going there was a limited amount of what he knew and what could be proven. Since then, scientists have built on that. We know a hell of a lot more now than we ever did. There's tons of evidence.

So to say that science can't explain everything right now does not validate a god or a religion. It simply means we don't know yet. That's all there is to it.

disrupter
06-30-2009, 02:00 PM
Religion ASSUMES connection to deity.

ASSUME - making an ass out of u & me

Science, however potentially imperfect does not make that initial mistake that religious zealots do.

So science is forced to make its own, real path, based on evidence & formulating theories that both fit the data & begin to make accurate predictions based on a given theory.

Science does the math,
Religion does voodoo.

You want to live with correct math or voodoo?

opinionator
06-30-2009, 11:52 PM
Both 'theories' require belief. Neither are provable.

We can say that we 'came from monkeys' no more accurately than we can say we were created.

As unshakable as the faith of true believers is the hostility of many liberals toward them.



.

Independent Harry
07-01-2009, 11:23 AM
Both 'theories' require belief. Neither are provable.

We can say that we 'came from monkeys' no more accurately than we can say we were created.

As unshakable as the faith of true believers is the hostility of many liberals toward them.



.

You sir, are retarded...

Smurf-Herder
07-01-2009, 11:33 AM
The real question should be .....

what exactly re-programs the DNA of everything, that allows for the species changes which we call evolution?

mwillman
07-01-2009, 11:51 AM
The real question should be .....

what exactly re-programs the DNA of everything, that allows for the species changes which we call evolution?


Its called natural selection, trying to put God into the equation is just another way of trying to force religion into science. If you want to beleive in intelligent design thats your business but it is nothing more then the imaginings of the religious and has nothing to do with reality.

Independent Harry
07-01-2009, 12:12 PM
The real question should be .....

what exactly re-programs the DNA of everything, that allows for the species changes which we call evolution?

It could simply be instinctive. The body knows it has to reprogram DNA to change according to the outsie influences. That would satisfy Occam's Razor...

The_Limit
07-01-2009, 01:04 PM
Both 'theories' require belief.



Wrong.

Science is not a 'theory' as you have erroneously postulated.

It is a method.

You must been asleep in grade one science class.

mwillman
07-01-2009, 01:09 PM
Nothing programs DNA, it is changed by mutations that occur randomly based on various natural effects. Most of the mutations are detrimental and the organism dies or if the mutation is helpful to the organism it has a better chance to survive and the change is pasted on to its progeny.

When this happens over billions of years we end up with the world we live on.

God is a man made idea with nothing but years of sophistry to support it.

Smurf-Herder
07-01-2009, 06:02 PM
Nothing programs DNA, it is changed by mutations that occur randomly based on various natural effects. Most of the mutations are detrimental and the organism dies or if the mutation is helpful to the organism it has a better chance to survive and the change is pasted on to its progeny.

When this happens over billions of years we end up with the world we live on.

God is a man made idea with nothing but years of sophistry to support it.

So, where are all these multiple mutations, only a few of which actually end up being wings, or eyes, etc.

Remember, originally everything was just rocks and gas.

What's presently mutating? Other than cancer cells, that is.

Where do we see things physically mutating for the better?

Smurf-Herder
07-01-2009, 06:05 PM
It could simply be instinctive. The body knows it has to reprogram DNA to change according to the outsie influences. That would satisfy Occam's Razor...

What exactly is this subconscious "knowing"?

Whatever it is, it goes down to the level of one-celled organisms ............ in fact, it originally started from inorganic material.

Logically, life itself shouldn't exist. At least not without the "will" for something to be alive.

What is life, itself?

mwillman
07-01-2009, 06:17 PM
So, where are all these multiple mutations, only a few of which actually end up being wings, or eyes, etc.

Remember, originally everything was just rocks and gas.

What's presently mutating? Other than cancer cells, that is.

Where do we see things physically mutating for the better?

They are all over the place, Darwin came up with his theory becuase he was able to see those mutations at work in his studies. If you want to see evolution at work you can go to Hawaii where the changes on the big island becuase of the volcanic eruptions have created the small islands of habitation where the animals and insects have mutated to fit the new environment.

If you actually bothered to learn about the modern study of evolution you wouldn't ask such stupid questions becuase biology has all kinds of examples of random mutation.

Whats sad is you havent even bothered to learn about what you so easily dismiss.

Smurf-Herder
07-01-2009, 06:42 PM
They are all over the place, Darwin came up with his theory becuase he was able to see those mutations at work in his studies. If you want to see evolution at work you can go to Hawaii where the changes on the big island becuase of the volcanic eruptions have created the small islands of habitation where the animals and insects have mutated to fit the new environment.

If you actually bothered to learn about the modern study of evolution you wouldn't ask such stupid questions becuase biology has all kinds of examples of random mutation.

Whats sad is you havent even bothered to learn about what you so easily dismiss.

They've adapted. They haven't mutated to a completely different species.

Remember, were talking about going from sterile rocks to human beings.

My main point is, life itself and all mutations must have the "intent" on becoming a viable higher form of existance. It doesn't make sense for it to be a series of "random" mutations - originally coming from dead rocks.

DNA itself has a pattern that cannot be a "random" event. And DNA is the "programming" in every life form.

mwillman
07-01-2009, 07:46 PM
While its true that we do not know exactly how every aspect of evolution has occurred its also true that there is far more evidence for evolution then there is for God.

We do see changes over time in species and they do become new species but a butterfly does not turn into a bird becuase they are very far apart in there own evolutions. Again its your total lack of knowledge about evolution that makes you arguments so very weak.

Dont try to throw out that old argument about how the chemistry of life first formed just becuase we do not know the exact formula doesn't mean it doesn't exist. They have made big steps in forming the building blocks of life with just chemistry and my guess is we will have that recipe before to long. We can already make DNA the recipe I speak of is the one that occured naturally that formed the first viruses and then bacterium, and then everything else that has followed.

When you have an argument that isn't just GOD let me know otherwise why don't you go read a few good books on evolution and you might just learn something.

disrupter
07-01-2009, 07:51 PM
One theory gathers & tests itself against evidence.

The other is superstition.

Voodoo or science? which will serve you better?

Smurf-Herder
07-01-2009, 08:28 PM
While its true that we do not know exactly how every aspect of evolution has occurred its also true that there is far more evidence for evolution then there is for God.

We do see changes over time in species and they do become new species but a butterfly does not turn into a bird becuase they are very far apart in there own evolutions. Again its your total lack of knowledge about evolution that makes you arguments so very weak.

Dont try to throw out that old argument about how the chemistry of life first formed just becuase we do not know the exact formula doesn't mean it doesn't exist. They have made big steps in forming the building blocks of life with just chemistry and my guess is we will have that recipe before to long. We can already make DNA the recipe I speak of is the one that occured naturally that formed the first viruses and then bacterium, and then everything else that has followed.

When you have an argument that isn't just GOD let me know otherwise why don't you go read a few good books on evolution and you might just learn something.

Stop pegging me as this "man with a white beard on a throne" zealot type.

And bullshit about my being an idiot on evolution. You're just automatically accepting some fundamental concept of "no order" to anything, because you're so paranoid of a "God" somewhere.

Well I'm not talking about that old man looking over your shoulder. I'm saying there's a basic organization underlying everything, that strives to evolve. And we can't know the exent of how involved that might get from our vantage point, by putting it in a glass jar and measuring it.

Your concept of reality is limited.

mwillman
07-01-2009, 09:21 PM
I dont care how you define your all mighty, What I care about is evidence and you have none.

Mr, gone
07-02-2009, 02:03 AM
The 'belief' in a god requires dogma. I prefer to use the analogy of human's evolvution as being similar to the industial revolution. Just like in biology, science and technology move foward in a similar manner - slow progress followed by a large shifts in a short period of time.

Science evolves... Constantly proving or disproving inital theories based on an ever advancing set of tools. Example: The world community for centuries thought the world was flat. It was only after the ability to view other planets with a telescope that this 'belief' was understood as just another false theory.

Dogma will always stifle the advancement of humanity. IMO, if it were not for structured religion, we would all be living in a much more enlightened and fullfilling environment.

disrupter
07-02-2009, 03:01 PM
Magic, religion & other superstitions are fabricated illusions of the mind.

Allowing these illusions to deny humanity advancement is an obscenity.

Magic is absolutely uniary. It only exists in denial of aggregate, observable reality.

The mind's imagination should be a tool of human advancement, not a blockage against it.

Religion exists as a projection 'for then', forestalling the present evidence to the diametric contrary, but it can never hold up to the onslaught of aggregate temporality. It just dissolves, evaporates & sublimates. But sometimes just not fast enough for humanity's survival.