Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Darwin was wrong

If there is extensive evidence for a catastrophic global flood (see here and here), for advanced scientific knowledge in civilizations prior to Stonehenge (including precise knowledge of the size of the spherical earth -- see here), and for ancient crossings of the ocean several centuries before Christ (see here, here and here), then why wouldn't everyone want to investigate such evidence and become excited by the possibilities this evidence raises of an advanced ancient civilization not described in the current theories?

The answer is: Darwin.

It is no exaggeration to say that the Darwinian theory has achieved the status of a religion. It would be heretical for a potential professor seeking a position on a university faculty to openly express personal doubts about the validity of the Darwinian theory. To do so would destroy the possibility of becoming tenured (unless such doubts were kept secret until after becoming tenured, and even then expressing those views would lead to ostracism and ridicule).

In the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005), defenders of Darwinian orthodoxy took exception to a proposed statement inserted into the high school science curriculum which read that "Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence." Such statements (although true) were deemed unacceptable by those whose cult-like devotion to this theory brooks no such expressions of doubt, who used the power of the courts to have the offending phrases removed before they could poison the minds of any young high school students.

Even titling a blog post "Darwin was wrong" will set off emotional reactions in some readers equivalent to or even more powerful than would a similar phrase substituting some religious figure for Darwin.

The uniformitarian theories of geology which predated Darwin's work by about fifty years formed an essential foundation for Darwin's biological theories, and the mutual dependence remains to this day. The theory of Darwinian evolution relies upon a formula of mutation plus natural selection, plus an enormous amount of time. Uniformitarian geological theories supply this time, while catastrophic theories pose a grave threat to the idea of nearly unlimited time, because catastrophic processes do not require hundreds of millions of years.

However, extensive evidence from the geological record as well as from mankind's ancient past (including undersea ruins and mythology encoding sophisticated precessional understanding) indicates that the current uniformitarian geological theory (plate tectonics) may be fatally flawed. However, the importance of Darwinism in academia creates a tremendous bias towards uniformitarian explanations and against any suggestion of the possibility of a catastrophic event.

In fact, it would not be incorrect to assert that the entire structure of the modern American university (and hence the rest of the education system, which is controlled almost entirely by approved graduates of the universities) rests upon a Darwinian foundation. This explains the resistance any doubter entering the halls of academia will meet, as well as the vehemence with which any challenges to Darwinian theory will be attacked, as in the case of the high school in Pennsylvania.

However, just as in other areas of life in which much is at stake, failure to perform "due diligence" and examine more than one possible explanation for human origins can lead to expensive mistakes.

If the Darwinian theory is in fact wrong, then the potential mistakes we can make by accepting it anyway can include:

1. Mistaken dietary advice; much dietary advice today is predicated upon statements such as "Our ancestors consumed [. . .] and thus from an evolutionary perspective, human beings were adapted to [. . .] rather than to [. . .]."

2. The idea that humans are animals, and that "dog-eat-dog" behavior is not only natural but salutary (and similarly that sexual promiscuity is not only natural but salutary).

3. Rejection of spiritual realities that have been "proven" to be impossible by science (could a "soul" evolve over millenia in an animal that originated as a protozoa or an amino acid, given enough mutations and natural selection? to ask the question is to answer it).

The proposition that mankind already possessed sophisticated mathematical, geodetic, astronomical, and architectural capabilities before the first Sumerians or dynastic Egyptians poses a direct challenge to Darwinian assumptions. The possibility that most of the features of the earth were formed by a world-wide flood rather than by gradual non-extraordinary processes poses an even more unacceptable affront to Darwinian proponents.

Nevertheless, the Mathisen Corollary ties the evidence for both of these possibilities together, in spite of the fact that such evidence will be dismissed out-of-hand by many adherents of the Darwinian religion.

The extent of the evidence makes a strong case for reconsidering the possibility that Darwin was wrong.