August 30, 2005
The case against DarwinBy Timothy Birdnow
[Editor's note: Questioning Darwin's explanation for the origins of life has become a taboo in many quarters, the supposed mark of what the San Francisco Chronicle sneeringlycalls "the caveman club." Intelligent Design Theory, with its origins in pagan classical Greek philosophy, is denounced as a crude tarting—up of Biblical creationism. Many intelligent and educated people, including readers of and writers for this site, are uncomfortable with the entire subject, and fearful of being branded as anti—science by their associates.
But Darwinism is no more than a theory, as yet unconfirmed by evidence, in its explanation for the origins of life. The conduct of many of its defenders, demonizing and distorting those who raise legitimate questions about the scientific evidence, is highly disturbing. It is this reaction, at heart an anti—intellectual exercise supposedly in defense of science and reason, that concerns us most. The controversy provides the opportunity to examine the entire process of theory—generation and testing.]
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.
In 1905 a young Albert Einstein offered the world a direct proof of the existence of atoms . His case rested on a biological curiosity known as Brownian Motion, named for botanist Robert Brown who, in 1827 observed in his microscope small particles (called vacuoles) on pollen spores jittering about madly. At the time no one understood why these tiny particles were in such frantic motion. Einstein, pondering a way to see something which is too small to be visible, thought of an analogy; suppose you are a hundred foot giant, and you observed beach balls being knocked around by ping pong balls. You can prove the existence of the ping—pong balls by observing the motion of the beach balls. When applied to our case, we may not see the atoms, but we can observe their effects on larger (but still tiny) objects. Einstein argued that Brownian Motion was a result of these tiny Vacuoles being struck by fast moving atoms. (He would have won the Nobel Prize for this theory probably, if he hadn`t come out with his explanation of the photoelectric effect the same year!)
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.
"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.
Many defenders of evolution try to argue that entropy only applies to a closed system, and that the Earth is not a closed system. This is facetious; entropy increases when systems are mixed, and the first life forms could not have survived except under very particular conditions. They had to have a closed system, or at least a very sheltered system, initially to survive! Any way you look at it, a self—replicating entity had to gain in complexity at the molecular level despite increasing entropic pressures. There has to be a guiding principle involved. You just can`t make order out of chaos! Systems decay.
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!
Another paradox in Darwin`s theory is the lowly virus. A virus is basically a free floating strand of DNA (or RNA for the most ancient varieties like the Filoviruses which cause Ebola) which invades a cell and takes over the cell`s control functions. The virus suddenly comes to life, reproducing at a prodigious rate. After exhausting the cell, the virus returns to it`s quiet slumber.
Now, the virus must predate the cellular organisms, and yet there is no way a virus can reproduce without a host. We have no examples of self—replicating viruses, viruses which can exist on their own. What we see is reverse evolution; the virus is evolved to feed on the more complex organism.
It is possible that early viruses were able to exist without a host, and that the change in the Earth`s atmosphere killed them. Perhaps none of them could tolerate oxygen. One would still expect to find remnants of these ancient viral life forms in sheltered places. We don`t, and regular viruses require a host. The problem is that there doesn`t appear to be any way for these organisms to have flourished.
Next we come to the problems with the fossil record. Everyone has heard of the missing link; the transition creature between Man and the Apes. We`ve never really found him—in fact, we`ve never really found any link between one species and another. Scientists have found species with similarities, but the transitions are simply not there. It is inherent in Darwinism that species make a smooth, seamless transition from one form to another. The reality is that we see no such transitions in the fossil record, and evolutionists struggle to hide or explain away this embarrasing fact.
Furthermore, we don`t even see crossovers between the 5 Phylla (classes of animals) anywhere, at any time. Where are the giant mammaried mosquitos? Where are the snakes which deliver live young? I haven`t seen too many feathered fish around lately!
The species remain distinct, and they shouldn`t if Darwin is correct. Consider the Permian Triassic Extinction, the so called ``Great Dying``, 250 million years ago,in which 9 out of 10 marine creatures and 7 out of 10 land creatures died. Before the Great Dying five phylla walked the Earth; insects, mammals, birds, fish, and reptiles. After the Great Dying we had the same 5. If Darwin`s concept of Natural Selection is correct we should have seen numerous crossovers as species from all branches competed to fill in the newly vacated gaps in the ecology. That we can find no evidence of any crossover is damning of Darwin`s theory.
Another point to consider is the matter of the size of animal life on Earth. During the Jurassic, Dinosaurs grew to enormous sizes, fueled by plentiful food and a high atmospheric oxygen content. Yet we see mammals grow large during the Pleistocene, with Mastadons, giant beavers, Saber—Toothed Tigers all being larger than creatures today. This was an era of scarcity and lower oxygen, yet we witness the same response to the environment. Why? If Natural Selection is correct, the most successful creatures during the Ice Age would be the smaller ones. We see the same biological response to two radically different conditions.
Speaking of Dinosaurs, why are they all gone? Dinosaurs came in all sizes, some quite small and nimble. Birds are the last remnants of the beasts which once ruled the Earth. Why? Granted, the large ones were unfit to survive, but the small ones should have been able to adapt without having to develop flight. We should still see some of the smaller ones like Procompsognathus. They were every bit as nimble, as fit, to survive as their mammalian rivals. Yet they are gone. Why did they all turn into birds? Evolutionary theory suggests that the surviving dinosaurs should have scattered in all directions genetically after their extinction. They didn`t; they went in only one direction, while mammals evolved to fill their former niches.
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.
The fact is, as Jonas Salk pointed out to Herb Meyer, the left tries to use Darwin to fight an either/or battle over the validity of the Bible, and by extension the existence of God. It is foolish for us to get drawn into this type of debate; God is far larger than our human intellects can grasp, and is certainly larger than any criticisms which Darwinism may foster.
The Judeo—Christian view is that God is transcendent, that is, outside of nature. Even if Darwin is correct, and a monkey turned into man, at some point it was the Creator who put that immortal soul into that ape. So what if we can`t prove the Book of Genesis is technically correct? It was written for a less technically advanced people. And besides, who says that Genesis occurred here? Eden needn`t have been the physical Earth we know.
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?
Timothy Birdnow blogs at Birdblog