Why did Achan have to die?In Joshua 7 we read about the calamity when the Israelites a...
Why must we suffer?The Holy Spirit, through Paul, 'strengthened and encouraged ...
The value of hindsightIf we had the capacity of hindsight, wouldn't it have been a...
Copyright 2007 TheBook.co.za
Darwin's anti-science, anti-intellectual legacy
|Created by Gerard de Vos|
Category: Evolution related
One of evolution's strong points is advertising. This results in people buying the product without thinking. Since clear scientific evidence for evolution is lacking, one of the marketing strategies is to label all opponents as either stupid, religious or against science. To avoid being labeled as stupid, many people accept the guesses about the universe's evolutionary origin. Contrary to man's normal capacity to think, learn and enquire, all that is expected of him is to believe evolution without seeking proof. It is blind allegiance to an unfounded idea. The results for our children's scientific and intellectual discernment is catastrophic. It can only lead to the death of science if all that is required is clever conjecture/guesses.
Charles Darwin, is hailed by many people who believe evolution to be true, as the greatest scientist who has ever lived. But he bequeathed to humanity the increasing inability to discern if information is correct. Unfortunately it has lead to a corresponding loss of the human mind to think logically and coherently.
Humans, are different from animals. They have always had the ability to reason, to think, to understand. The difference between man and animals cannot be explained by science. Evolutionary similarities are just an assumption, supported by many guesses like 'chance' and 'selection'. Thus we find that many 'proofs' for evolution are not backed by science, but by smart arguments. For example, the so called evolution of the eye. An attempt to explain it was made by Prof Richard Dawkins, a professor for the public understanding of science (R Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, WW Norton and Co,1996, p 77-95). He says on p 91: "one hundred and twenty five years on (that is after Darwin's book on evolution), we know a lot more about animals and plants than Darwin did, and still not a single case is known to me of complex organs that could not have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications". Another Richard, Richard Milton, critiqued the example of the eye's evolution as an improbability (R Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, Park Street Press, 1997, p 159-163). What was Dawkins' rebuttal? Did he give a scientific treatise with concrete proofs? No, he merely attacked Milton's book as "loony", "stupid", "drivel" and the author as a "harmless fruitcake who needs psychiatric help" (Milton, Preface ix). That causes one to wonder if there are any proofs at all for his unfounded belief that all "complex organs could have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications".
As Richard Dawkins says: "For reasons that are not entirely clear to me, Darwinism seems more in need of advocacy than similarly established truths in other branches of science" (Dawkins, Preface, xv). This is to be expected, because it is not science, it is religion (P E Johnson, Darwin on Trial, InterVarsity Press, 1993, Chapter 10, "Darwinist religion"). "Darwinist evolution is an imaginative story about who we are and where we came from, which is to say it is a creation myth" (Ibid, p133).
And this is Darwin's dangerous legacy: de-evolution to the level of animals - no more brain function to reason, to ask questions and to think. And we could have expected it. Being taught that we are just glorified animals is no impetus to developing a healthy enquiring brain. (And this has further ramifications when the case for the Bible is presented. The latter is an historically based book with clear proofs of a supernatural Author. But people who believe evolution, reject it and just say "rubbish" without further investigation.)
May a small remnant remain that can think independently and carry on with the grand enterprise of real science that is such a benefit to humanity.
Related articles: Are we heading for the Dark Ages?, Has modern man lost the ability to think logically?