The Case Against Darwin

[boedicca]

I think buttercup in particular will appreciate this piece. The author points out the inadequacies of Darwin to explain the origin of life. The sheer improbability of RNA/DNA forming, sustaining and replicating in volatile environments lends creedence to the alternative theory of Intelligent Design.

(The author also makes the insightful observation that Liberals have used Darwin to attack Christianity and promote the Secular Religion Substitute as the Established State Religion.)

Since Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of Species in 1859, there has been a continuous ongoing debate on the validity of Darwin`s theory. Through much of the Twentieth Century the mainstream scientific community considered Evolution to be a settled matter. Yet there were always weaknesses in Darwinism which brought into question the entire theory. Serious criticisms of their particular view are slowly eating away at their intellectual monopoly.

...

What, you may ask, is the connection between Einstein`s proof of atoms and Darwinism? Darwinism argues that all life evolved from a less complex state. Following the chain of life backwards, one eventually comes to the most basic unit of life-Deoxyribonucleaic Acid (the DNA molecule). The DNA molecule is composed of the even simpler RNA molecule, and is the fundamental building block of life. It is the largest, most complex molecule in nature. According to Einstein`s theory, the original DNA (and RNA) Molecules should not have formed and survived since there are being constantly buffetted by energized atoms. The establishment of life required energy, and that energy meant that the nascent DNA was exposed to more energetic particles which should, logically, have prevented the formation of such a large and complex molecule. That this molecule not only formed but spread suggests different mechanism at work then those proposed by the Darwinists.

In fact the Second Law of Thermodynamics is squarely against the development of life, and soundly against the evolution of species as conceived by the Darwinists. The Second Law states that organization breaks down within a closed system, and that disorder naturally increases.

According to Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking in ``A Brief History of Time``:

"It is a common experience that disorder will increase if things are left to themselves. A precise statement of this idea is known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It states that the Entropy of an isolated system always increases, and that when two systems are joined together the entropy of the combined system is greater than the sum of the Entropies of the individual systems.

He continues,

"In any closed system disorder, or entropy, always increases with time"

If entropic decay is an inevitable part of any system, then the original development of life is unlikely, and it`s upward evolution doubtful. Remember, life developed from the original RNA molecules, which became DNA, which became unicellular, then multicellular life. The earliest life developed using chemosynthesis (that is, derived it`s energy from chemicals) and this meant it must have developed around volcanoes or sea vents. Such an unlikely place would be a closed system, and subject to entropic decay. We are supposed to believe that life formed under harsh conditions, and then spread into the larger system of the Earth! According to Hawking, entropy increases when two or more systems come together, therefore the newly created life forms should have died out. The reality is that didn`t happen, and instead life thrived and spread, and increased in complexity.

...

In fact, genes and chromosomes decay on a regular basis. One of the largest causes of mental retardation is called fragile X syndrome, and it is the result of chromosomal decay where one of the legs of the X has crumbled away. The Chromosome is no longer an X but isn`t a Y either, and this results in numerous problems. Mutations of genetic material happens regularly, and is rarely of any benefit to the unlucky inheritor. A benevolent mutation generally requires an increase in complexity, not a disintigration of the chromosome or gene. Disintigration generally means decay. Decay makes you sick, or dead; it does not make you grow. Evolution claims you can decay your way up!

...

Humanity, too, presents a big problem to the theory of evolution. Homo Sapiens (Man the Wise) first appeared in the rift valleys in south east Africa around 150,000 years ago, and he stayed there for thousands of years with little change. Suddenly modern Man began migrating, and in just a few thousand years had settled most of the Planet. Man was exposed to enormous evolutionary pressure, yet we see little physical difference between people. If Natural Selection is the driving mechanism behind Evolution, then we should have seen Mankind begin dividing into different species. That hasn`t happened.

But it should have, according to Darwinian theory, and it was that devotion to this theory which lead to the horrors of Naziism. Social Darwinism was a 19th Century concept which argued that races were more or less advanced, and that there was a pecking order to Mankind. White Northern Europeans occupied the top rung of the evolutionary ladder with other Caucasians below them, followed by the red and yellow races, and with the black Africans at the bottom of the hill. If Mankind was ever going to amount to anything, He must be freed from the rubbish in the gene pool, the thinking went. That is why Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood. She sought to reduce the birthrate of the "inferior races" through abortion and contraception. That was why Hitler sought the ``final solution`` to the problem of non-Aryans diluting the purity of Germany. That was why Joseph Stalin felt free to starve millions of Ukrainians to death.

Darwinism has twisted the fabric of Western Society for over a Century. Darwinism has was used to justify the ``free love`` movement of the late 19th and early 20th century, which has led to the corruption and degeneracy we see today. Broken families and illegitimacy have done enormous damage to the West, and the justification for this went back to Darwinism and the mechanistic arguments used to defend Darwin. Darwinism has been used by atheists to attack Christianity, with the end result that the West has become antithetical to God.

Everyone remembers the play and later film Inherit the Wind (remade no less than three times since it was released in 1960), in which Clarence Darrow, defending the brave and honest schoolteacher, gets William Jennings Bryant on the stand and has him ranting hysterically. Little of that play is true; Bryant`s prime argument was that education was a State and local matter, and that the courts had no jurisdiction, and the brave and noble schoolteacher was there because he was getting paid to challenge the law. Liberals have reconstructed the Scopes trial (Scopes lost, by the way) to turn it into a triumph for Darwin and nihilism, and Darwinism has been a pillar of liberalism`s anti-Christian rhetoric ever since.

...

Any way you look at the issue, Darwinism is on the ropes. The supporters of Darwin have resorted to frauds in the past to prove their theory-Piltdown Man was a combination of human and ape remains. Remember the famous Moth hoax where evolutionists claimed they had found moths in London which had changed from white to black because industrial soot had made being black safer? Turns out they faked their evidence. Now the evolutionists are trying to silence any competing theories through scholastic bans and mockery. They seem desperate.

I wonder why?

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...rticle_id=4776

[Java_man]

faulty premise(s) and bogus conclusion(s)

[boedicca]

Yes, that is exactly what Darwinism is: based upon faulty premises and drawing bogus conclusions.

[CowPunk]

No, Darwinism is based on observable phenomena and verifiable assumptions, as anyone who's been to a natural history museum understands.

The following is particularly inane:

In fact the Second Law of Thermodynamics is squarely against the development of life, and soundly against the evolution of species as conceived by the Darwinists. The Second Law states that organization breaks down within a closed system, and that disorder naturally increases.

According to Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking in ``A Brief History of Time``:

"It is a common experience that disorder will increase if things are left to themselves. A precise statement of this idea is known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It states that the Entropy of an isolated system always increases, and that when two systems are joined together the entropy of the combined system is greater than the sum of the Entropies of the individual systems.

He continues,

"In any closed system disorder, or entropy, always increases with time"

If entropic decay is an inevitable part of any system, then the original development of life is unlikely, and it`s upward evolution doubtful.

Apparently, the demented individual who wrote this laughable drivel is unaware of the great big shiny Sun up in the sky showering down solar energy onto us.

[CowPunk]

Humanity, too, presents a big problem to the theory of evolution. Homo Sapiens (Man the Wise) first appeared in the rift valleys in south east Africa around 150,000 years ago, and he stayed there for thousands of years with little change. Suddenly modern Man began migrating, and in just a few thousand years had settled most of the Planet. Man was exposed to enormous evolutionary pressure, yet we see little physical difference between people. If Natural Selection is the driving mechanism behind Evolution, then we should have seen Mankind begin dividing into different species. That hasn`t happened.

- This is an example of an ACTUAL faulty assumption: for one, there are observable differences between population groups, obviously.

For another, the reason man hasn't evolved into other species is that we possess the mother of all evolutionary adaptations - reasoning ability and the ability to use tools. Because of them, we've been able to adapt the ENVIRONMENT to us instead of having to adapt to our environment.

That has meant we've been able to side-step numerous evolutionary pressures instead of changing to submit to them.

[h2g2Fan]

what's that about nazism?

[CowPunk]

Godwin's law applies here.

The Nazi's eugenic social Darwinism had nothing to do with the actual theory of evolution.

[Java_man]

If entropic decay is an inevitable part of any system, then the original development of life is unlikely, and it`s upward evolution doubtful.

I dont have much time now ... but I will joyfully prove all his points wrong later

this is one is a great example of how the religious right creationists misuse and defile science to futher thier long term agenda of converting the US into a christian theocracy

1st his premise ... entropy is NOT an inevitable part of any system ... that is pure BS ... entropy effects closed systems (the universe as a whole) and the earth is NOT a closed system.

2nd his conclusion ... based on the faulty premise ... is wrong too.

These people I suspect know better ... but they continue to spew these kind of lies because it sounds "scientific" so most folks are either confused or taken in by the BS

[jojo]

Originally Posted by CowPunk

For another, the reason man hasn't evolved into other species is that we possess the mother of all evolutionary adaptations - reasoning ability and the ability to use tools.

Wouldn't an evolutionist perhaps argue that not enough time has gone by for man to evolve into another species and that there are in fact different types of "man" (ex: neanderthal, cromagnon, etc.) throughout the course of mans existence? Don't scientists say that modern chimpanzees make and use tools?

Because of them, we've been able to adapt the ENVIRONMENT to us instead of having to adapt to our environment.

Isn't adapting the environment to us a creative act? What kind of species is man to create things that are not in any way shape or from like things that might be created by other species?

[Bear Stories]

Originally Posted by boedicca

.....

(The author also makes the insightful observation that Liberals have used Darwin to attack Christianity and promote the Secular Religion Substitute as the Established State Religion.).....

I am so sick of you, (notice I said "you", not the right, not the right wing zealot Christian Conservative movement, but you, one single person), attempting to make everything about an us vs. them conspiracy. I am so tired of this, "them", and "they".

Please, Bo, find a new whipping boy.

[Battletoad]

The author points out the inadequacies of Darwin to explain the origin of life.

I see. And of Darwin’s theories, his explanation for the origin of life was his most acclaimed as well the theory he most extensively studied?? So this “case against Darwin” the author speaks of is really a case against his explanation for the origin of life, which he never made. Wonderful. An American thinker indeed; “I haven’t read much on Darwin, and recent research may or may not confirm his theories but you religious folk sure seem to have figured it all out, so when you talk of chemosynthesis and thermodynamics….ooooh a nice shiny object!”.

Out of curiosity, Boedicca, what should be done with current research on polymerization and emerging hypercycles? You don’t even have to know what these terms mean; only that they are proposals for explaining the origin of life.

Cuz see…I was under the impression that Intelligent Design was a theory of proactive ideas (or ones with evidence) and not theories based on incredulity or ones founded upon on the weakness of others (Darwin’s in this case). As the article states, “That this molecule not only formed but spread suggests different mechanism at work then those proposed by the Darwinists.” What ****ing mechanisms? I asked this of ID supporters in another thread, and…as none seem to have an answer, I’ll ask it again: what mechanism exists to perpetuate intelligent design? Veeery simple question. Almost as important as: If evolution is a religion, why can’t we have lessons on retroviral insertions and their relation to human evolution amongst the priest’s sermon on Corinthians, chapter 2?

More from the article...

If entropic decay is an inevitable part of any system

According to the second law of thermodynamics, entropic decay is not a part of any system. Only closed systems. Is life a closed system? If you answered “no” then you’re already several IQ points ahead of the author. And you don’t appear to get your scientific information from the authorities of the priesthood. Kudos to you my good secular anti-christian moonbat.

Darwinism has twisted the fabric of Western Society for over a Century.

I hate it when people scream bias as an argument before deciding whether or not the claims that are made are valid or invalid. Good thing we've already seen how full of **** the author is. But this quote does a good job (in no small part to the words of the author) of exposing the author's motives. If he/she believes Darwin is responsible for the disintegration of the family unit, what level of respect could they possibly have for his theories? Good job selecting reasonable criticisms from a reasonable source boedicca.

Liberals have reconstructed the Scopes trial (Scopes lost, by the way) to turn it into a triumph for Darwin and nihilism

Are they one in the same or something? Or was it Darwin's fault for the rise of nihilism? Just wondering the answer to a question that is sure to offer loads of insight into Intelligent Design and whether or not it's good science, and the "faulty premises" Darwin built his theory of evolution on to draw his "bogus conclusions".

The supporters of Darwin have resorted to frauds in the past to prove their theory-Piltdown Man was a combination of human and ape remains.

The supporters of Darwin also exposed Piltdown Man as a fraud, and recognize it as such. How about concentrating on evidence that has not been proven fraudulent, and continues to exist as well-established and supported by the scientific community?

Remember the famous Moth hoax where evolutionists claimed they had found moths in London which had changed from white to black because industrial soot had made being black safer? Turns out they faked their evidence.

Famous Moth hoax? Nope. Informed readers do, however, remember Jonathan Wells (the man who originally made this criticism) and his detachment from reality and honest discourse; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#moths

[Battletoad]

In fact, genes and chromosomes decay on a regular basis. One of the largest causes of mental retardation is called fragile X syndrome, and it is the result of chromosomal decay where one of the legs of the X has crumbled away. The Chromosome is no longer an X but isn`t a Y either, and this results in numerous problems. Mutations of genetic material happens regularly, and is rarely of any benefit to the unlucky inheritor. A benevolent mutation generally requires an increase in complexity, not a disintigration of the chromosome or gene. Disintigration generally means decay. Decay makes you sick, or dead; it does not make you grow. Evolution claims you can decay your way up!

I just read this and I can't tell whether or not it's an inadvertent criticism of intelligent design and thus possibly satire, or simply more garbled bull****? Maybe this guy would have some answers- http://venganza.org/.

[CowPunk]

Originally Posted by jojo

Wouldn't an evolutionist perhaps argue that not enough time has gone by for man to evolve into another species and that there are in fact different types of "man" (ex: neanderthal, cromagnon, etc.) throughout the course of mans existence?

That's also perhaps true as well, but the objection stated was that we haven't as homo sapiens evolved into a different species.

There's also no predictor function for evolution or definitive time scale.

Don't scientists say that modern chimpanzees make and use tools?

- Obviously not to the extent that we do.

Isn't adapting the environment to us a creative act? What kind of species is man to create things that are not in any way shape or from like things that might be created by other species?

- Sure, but how is that related to the question? Our physical adaptation to the environment has been slowed by our ability to adapt the environment to us.

That's forestalled our development into a new species by easing environmental pressures. That creative ability is certainly a defining characteristic of our species, there's no doubt.

[Banana-King]

Originally Posted by boedicca

The sheer improbability of RNA/DNA forming, sustaining and replicating in volatile environments lends creedence to the alternative theory of Intelligent Design.

Evidence against evolution is not evidence for "intelligent design".

I didn't read that massive bulk of text. The theory of evolution is disconnected from Darwin. What the hell is "Darwinism"?

[BooRadley]

Originally Posted by boedicca

The sheer improbability of RNA/DNA forming, sustaining and replicating in volatile environments lends creedence to the alternative theory of Intelligent Design.

The improbability of RNA/DNA forming, sustaining, and replicating has to be at least a little bit higher than the probability of a flying monster in the sky casting spells on dirt to turn it into people. That's not a scientific observation, though, just an opinion.

It also completely fails to explain what created the creator. In order to answer the question of creation, he has to address that, too. All he's done is try to stick an extera step into it.

Originally Posted by boedicca

(The author also makes the insightful observation that Liberals have used Darwin to attack Christianity and promote the Secular Religion Substitute as the Established State Religion.)

It shows he has an agenda, and shows nothing else. His argument fails regardless of what "liberals" do or don't do.

Also, it's impossible to have a "secular" "religion". The concepts contradict one another. That's just a bunch of hysterical right-wing propaganda to give ditto-heads something to feel persecuted over.

[jojo]

Humanity, too, presents a big problem to the theory of evolution. Homo Sapiens (Man the Wise) first appeared in the rift valleys in south east Africa around 150,000 years ago, and he stayed there for thousands of years with little change. Suddenly modern Man began migrating, and in just a few thousand years had settled most of the Planet. Man was exposed to enormous evolutionary pressure, yet we see little physical difference between people. If Natural Selection is the driving mechanism behind Evolution, then we should have seen Mankind begin dividing into different species. That hasn`t happened.

Originally Posted by CowPunk

That's also perhaps true as well, but the objection stated was that we haven't as homo sapiens evolved into a different species.

What exactly are these so called "evolutionary pressures"? Aren't these things or matters of mere nature?

Where do these grand members of the scientific community get off in describing homo sapiens as "Man the Wise"? It sounds as if they are attempting to moralize their own view of prehistory.

Sure, but how is that related to the question? Our physical adaptation to the environment has been slowed by our ability to adapt the environment to us.

It clearly shows elements of humanity that go beyond mere naturalism. It also shows the limitation of Darwinian evolution as a theory.

That's forestalled our development into a new species by easing environmental pressures. That creative ability is certainly a defining characteristic of our species, there's no doubt.

And where exactly do the scientists, the champions of natural selection, the mighty Darwinian evolutionists, describe this creative ability and its origins?

Describing a part of man that falls outside the bounds of nature and claiming it as an element of his "species" is nothing short of a mentally retarded act.

[Banana-King]

Originally Posted by jojo

Darwinian evolutionists

Darwinian evolutionist?

Are geologists who accept plate tectonics called "Le Pichonian plate tectonicists"?

If you want people to read what you write as garbarge then continue to use garbarge terms.

[Battletoad]

I didn't read that massive bulk of text. The theory of evolution is disconnected from Darwin. What the hell is "Darwinism"?

It's a term used by learning-impaired creationists so as to reduce an issue of complexity to tabloid-level themes; using "Darwinism" in place of the terms "evolutionary biology" make said theory look religious, thus less deserving of its place unde the rubric of science. Duh!

[lilnymph]

*gets a baseball bat ready for the next person who tries to use the second law of thermodynmics in a non closed system*



hugs

lilnymph

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Banana-King

If you want people to read what you write as garbarge then continue to use garbarge terms.

I'd like only you to continue to read my posts as garbage.