Darwin’s theory of evolution: good science or faulty philosophy?

charles darwin

Charles Darwin (1809-1882) is considered the father of evolutionary theory but apparently it was really his grandfather Erasmus who formulated the theory of evolution. (image source)  Modern science, I was surprised to learn, seems to show that evolution cannot possibly be true.

When I was little I learned about evolution – the idea that as humans we evolved from lizards and microbes through a process of competition and violence, with the strong surviving while the weaker members of the species die off in the struggle for life.

As a child I initially found this theory depressing but then I accepted it and made it my own – I identified with it on a very deep level.

In high school I won the award for best science student in my graduating class, and later on, I found myself doing research in a genetics laboratory at a major university as an undergrad.  I was hopeful that the answers to life’s most important questions would be discovered by science someday.

After graduation, when I met people who didn’t believe in evolution, I felt uncomfortable, like I was meeting someone from another planet.  Did they use a fork and spoon to eat their food?  Did they sleep upside down?

To reduce my anxiety, I developed the attitude that ridicule, contempt and avoidance were probably the best ways to relate to non-evolution believers.

More recently I stopped running away from people who didn’t believe in evolution, and started getting curious – what would happen if I didn’t dislike or fear them?  Finally when I came across professors of biology (!) who didn’t believe in evolution, that was the last straw.

What I learned from those professors surprised me.

This article is written in an attempt to answer some lingering questions I still had about Darwin’s theory of evolution – what science has to say about it, what the theory’s effects are upon people like you and me, and then what kinds of politics surround the theory.

1. Please don’t freak out

For those of you who identify strongly with the theory of evolution, as I did, please keep in mind that disproving Darwin’s theory of evolution does not mean that a religious doctrine you once heard about on television must now become your own belief system.  It doesn’t mean there’s an old man up in the sky, oiling his tools and cleaning his workshop.  Nor does it signify that “ancient aliens” created human beings.  It has nothing to do with any of those things.  Those are separate theories which must be proved on their own merits.

I feel I have to say this because I find that when I try to talk about Darwinism with some people, their eyes glaze over and they start panicking and saying things like:

Evolution HAS to be true because the only alternative is an old man up in the sky, with a white beard.

How do you know that is the only alternative?  Who told you this?

crooked rose

Have you ever wondered why women like being given roses? I think the act of such giving symbolizes a commitment to something more than materialistic, utilitarian, factory-ized purposes and values… (source)

Instead of rushing to find a new “authoritative” dogma to swallow, we could also just:

Feel the Mystery.1

Can words and concepts fully encompass the mystery of life?  Or the mystery of Spirit?  Or of Consciousness?

I like what the poet Dylan Thomas said:

The force that through the green fuse drives the flower
Drives my green age; that blasts the roots of trees
Is my destroyer.
And I am dumb to tell the crooked rose
My youth is bent by the same wintry fever.

Okay, so I recommend that you sit back and relax while we look at some evidence and meet some scientists.

2. Meet some scientists


Michael Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, says he was not aware there were any problems with Darwinism until he was already a tenured professor.  (image source)


It’s interesting to notice that the more we know about life and the more we know about biology, the more problems Darwinism has…2

Dr. Michael Behe, Professor of Biochemistry






Colin Patterson was upset when some of his private views on evolution were made public. (image source)

Dr. Colin Patterson (1933-1998), senior paleontologist at the British Museum, was a strong public supporter of evolutionary theory – he even wrote a book on the topic.

However in 1981 he gave a talk at the American Museum of Natural History – which was tape-recorded without his knowledge – in which he said:

Most of us think that we are working in evolutionary research. But is its explanatory power any more than verbal?…

“Evolution” not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge…3


3. Darwin’s theory of evolution – why it was revolutionary


The foxhound is a breed of dog used to by the British upper-classes in the “fox hunt”.  In this ritual, the fox is outnumbered by the dogs and herded into a corner, then killed. (image source)  Anyway that’s one example of breeds and breeding.

I found it helpful to learn that Darwin’s theory of evolution is not the same thing as “natural selection” – Darwin’s theory goes way beyond natural selection.

Natural selection is simply an outgrowth of the ancient theory and practice of selective breeding.

Selective breeding is the breeding of domesticated critters such as pigeons or hunting dogs for desired traits.  Such breeding of animals and plants – also human slaves,4 I’m sorry to say – is an enterprise that goes back to early prehistory.5

Natural selection is the idea that the same thing happens in the wild. By itself, this does not have dramatic philosophical import, and so Charles Darwin may have been one of the first authors to bother to write about it.


Galapagos finch. (image source)

Let’s look at one example of natural selection.  If you have several species of birds living on some remote islands, each with different beak sizes, during a drought some of the birds with a certain kind of beak might survive better than the others.  This will shift the bird population on those islands, based on which species survived the drought better.  As one scientist put it:

Natural selection is a real process, and it works well for explaining certain limited kinds of variation – small-scale change…

Where it doesn’t work well is where Darwin thought it could, namely, the real complexity of life. We have the finch beak, and then you have the finch itself. Minor change in the structure of the beak versus the origin of the organism itself.

– Paul Nelson, PhD.6

Do you see the distinction?  Darwinism – right or wrong – proposes to explain the origin of life itself, as well as the origin of entire classes of plants and animals.

Selective breeding, by contrast, merely selects traits that are already in the gene pool – it doesn’t create new genes or turn one species into another.  Nobody has selectively bred birds and been able to get a dog as a result.

4. Science:  a quick refresher

scientific method

The scientific method: simple + elegant. (source)

As human beings, we devise theories to help us explain what we observe. But can a theory ever be proven 100% true?  Technically, no, because tomorrow’s evidence may disprove today’s theory. So strictly speaking a theory can never be “proven” – only disproven, or tentatively accepted so long as it fits the facts.

It’s like the cute man or the cute woman you had your eye on when you were single. “Does she (or he) like me?” Once you get your hands on actual evidence, you no longer have to rely on guesses or speculations, let alone your friends’ random theories.

Likewise, the history of science is filled with one theory after another either being refined or scrapped as new evidence comes in.  Theories themselves are not considered “sacred” – they are merely one part of the scientific method.

5. Common DNA sequences – do they prove Darwinism?


DNA (source)

What about common DNA – does having genetic sequences in common between humans and apes indicate a common ancestor?

I don’t know, does it?

I used to think it did, because that was the popular belief I was exposed to.

When I was a child I also thought birds, bats, and flying squirrels might be closely related, because they all had wings.  But then I found out that they weren’t.

At best, the existence of common DNA sequences could be put forward as “circumstantial evidence” for Darwinism.  However, correlation does not equal causation.

So no, common DNA sequences do not prove evolution or common ancestry – despite my lingering assumption that they do!  They merely show a commonality between different species.

6. Lack of historical evidence for Darwinism


“Piltdown Man” (a.k.a. Eoanthropus Dawsoni – “the dawn of man”)  was considered for 40 years the most important evolutionary “link” between humans and apes.  Until it was finally revealed to be a complete scam. (image source)

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties… must assuredly have existed.7
– Charles Darwin

One of the most significant findings put forward to support the theory of evolution – and the notion of a common ancestry between humans and apes – was “Piltdown Man”8, a discovery announced to the world in 1912.  Piltdown Man was alleged to be the remains of an intermediate organism, halfway between ape and man.

This news made front-page headlines across the globe.  “Darwin Theory Is Proved True” proclaimed the New York Times.  In spite of obvious indications that it was a fake, and scientific papers questioning its authenticity from day one, Piltdown Man was added to school textbooks as proof of Darwinism.9

However four decades later this discovery was publicly shown to be a forgery.

What happened with Piltdown Man was an orangutan jaw and a human skull had been allegedly discovered in a pit of gravel, stained to look old, with their teeth filed down.  This was displayed in the prestigious British Museum – with similar exhibits in museums around the world – for four decades!


In 1912, the New York Times announced “Darwin Theory Is Proved True”.  Scientific papers questioned the find but received no publicity for 41 years. (image source)

The British Museum scientists who originally validated Piltdown Man’s authenticity were considered to be either complicit in the fraud or were so incompetent as to deserve public censure.

A member of the British Parliament proposed a vote of “no confidence” in the scientific leadership of the British Museum. The motion failed to carry when another M.P. reminded his colleagues that politicians had “enough skeletons in their own closets.”10

I just did a search to see if there are any other evolutionary links between apes and humans that have been put forward in the last century or two – because I remember hearing about this stuff all the time when I was a teenager.  No – nothing credible has ever been put forward, that I could find.  What I did find was this:

Something called “Taung Child” was put forward in 1925, and given the fancy name Australopithecus africanus, but it was strongly criticized by prominent anatomists as being simply a young monkey.11  Then the Rockefeller Foundation funded the study of something called “Peking Man”12, which was announced to the world in the late 1920’s as further evidence for Darwinism, and given the name Homo erectus, but it appears that all evidence for Peking Man mysteriously “vanished” in 1941.  Then something called “Lucy” was found in 1974 and given the fancy name Australopithecus afarensis.  This looks like a chimpanzee skeleton, except for the knee bone.  When asked where the knee bone was found in relation to the other bones, Dr. Donald Johanson said it was 2-3 kilometers away and 200 feet lower in the earth.  He was then asked:  “Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?” Dr. Johanson: “Anatomical similarity.”13

Maybe it’s just me, but vanishing evidence, circular logic, jumping to conclusions, misleading people, and outright fraud just do not impress me favorably so far..?

Even people who write pro-evolution books have had the same problem finding evidence, apparently.  One author was asked why he included no evidence of “evolutionary links” in his book on evolution.

If I knew of any fossil (showing an evolutionary link between human and ape) I would certainly have included them in my book.  I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil.14

– Colin Patterson, senior palentologist at British Museum

7. Evidence that disproves evolution:  irreducible complexity


A bacterial flagellum works a lot like an outboard motor on a boat.  Only it’s microscopic.  What’s interesting is that if one tiny piece of the flagellum is altered, the whole thing stops working. (source)

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.15
– Charles Darwin

In addition to what some would say is a total lack of historical evidence for Darwinism, it seems that modern science has also been hard on the theory of evolution.

What I’m about to say is deceptively simple but for me is overwhelmingly convincing:

There are complex molecular machines found in living cells that would not work, nor serve any known useful purpose, if you changed one tiny piece16 of the molecular machine.

That’s it.  That by itself disproves Darwin’s theory of evolution as far as I’m concerned.

At the very basis of life, where molecules and cells run the show, we’ve discovered machines – literally, molecular machines. There are little molecular trucks that carry supplies from one end of the cell to the other. There are machines that capture the energy from sunlight and turn it into usable energy…

When we looked at these machines, we asked ourselves ‘where did they come from?’ And the standard answer – Darwinian evolution – is very inadequate, in my view.17

– Dr. Michael Behe, Professor of Biochemistry

I’ll try to explain further.  (Though really you should seek out a book or documentary on this topic if you want a more in-depth explanation.)

The modern theory of evolution says that living organisms happened by chance, through a series of random mutations which, over time, somehow created life in the first place, and then led to better and better organisms.

(Please note that proponents of evolution do not explain how this happens, nor can they reproduce this theory in a laboratory.)


While comic books and Hollywood movies promote the idea that mutations are likely to give us superpowers, science itself rarely finds that genetic damage improves a human being’s survival ability. (image source)

One type of molecular machine is the bacterial flagellum (a whip-like thing that helps the bacterium move around).  Let’s say you have a more primitive bacterium with no flagellum.  Then let’s say you have a mutation – a defect – in one of the bacterium’s genes.

Has its survival ability increased?

What if you have two mutations?

Oops.  Hold up.  You can’t have two mutations.  The theory of evolution says that if you have a single mutation, that by itself has to improve the organism’s ability to survive18 such that all other organisms of its type – in this case its type of bacteria – get wiped out because of the mutant’s superior ability to eat and reproduce.

Say you have a little bacterium guy.  The little guy is doing great, living and thriving and reproducing, and then something happens – a mutation.  The theory of evolution says that this one mutation, this single error – like a single bug in a piece of computer software – causes the little guy to suddenly have next-order abilities and survival powers that it never had before.

It’s like if you drop your laptop and damage a sector on the hard drive.  But you find that, instead of causing problems, your laptop now has 10 brand-new fully-functional and extremely elegant apps on it that never existed before.


“Then a miracle occurs.”  (Sidney Harris, 1977; source)

This seems irrational to me.  And statistically unlikely.

Apparently Francis Crick – the Nobel-winning scientist – would have agreed.19

Here’s the thing about mutations: they make you worse off, they don’t improve your genetics.  This is why we don’t move to Chernobyl to raise our families.

All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.20

– Lee Spetner, PhD in Physics (MIT), taught information theory at Johns Hopkins University

Going back to our example, I can imagine hiring a billion people to drop a billion laptops a million times each, but I don’t think anything miraculous would happen, in the sense of 10 new software applications appearing on the laptop that weren’t there before.  (I say “10 new apps” because a molecular machine contains multiple complex specialized components, all working together.)

This is the kind of curious logic that the theory of evolution seems to depend on: what we might call “miracles” + skipping over the scientific method + unfounded assumptions + disregarding evidence.  If I may put it bluntly.

“How can this be?” you ask.  “How can this be true if we were told Darwinism was a proven scientific fact?”

I don’t know.  We will explore some of the politics of Darwinism later in this article.

8. Evidence that disproves evolution, part 2:  the origin of DNA


“Even simple cells are made of thousands of different types of proteins.”21 (image source)

Natural selection does not explain the origin of life or the origin of DNA, so this is another problem with the theory of evolution – a problem which Charles Darwin did not address.

Without DNA, there is no self-replication.  But without self-replication, there is no natural selection.  So you can’t use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA…22
– Stephen C. Meyer

Or to put it another way, can chemicals undergoing random change create life?  I don’t know.  Here’s the opinion of one man – one of the leading chemical evolutionary theorists – who spent decades trying to prove that this was possible, but finally gave up and decided it wasn’t:

We have not the slightest chance for the chemical origin of even the simplest of cells.23
– Dean Kenyon, Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University

9. “Intelligent design”

Life (source)

Isn’t life beautiful?  Also, mysterious, symbiotic. (source)

To replace the theory of evolution, some scientists have coined the term “intelligent design”.  It’s not a theory or an explanation, as I understand it, nor is it a theological dogma.  In fact it doesn’t answer or explain anything!

All it says is life on earth seems to show evidence of intelligence in how things are put together and how they interact.  If I look at human creations – say, computer software – I notice that, well, there does seem to be less intelligence and elegance in their design compared with living things.  One famous estimate says that computer software that we use everyday contains between 15 and 50 errors per 1000 lines of code!24  (This is part of the reason there are always new security holes being discovered, like the recent “Heartbleed” vulnerability that made headlines – the idea is that software almost always has unknown flaws.)

So the concept of “intelligent design” doesn’t propose anything more than that.  It doesn’t describe classes of angels or constructor devas working to help trees grow in the springtime.  As I understand it, it’s basically a phrase that a few scientists used in some papers and books when they found that evolutionary theory didn’t match reality and yet they still were expected to use words to summarize their findings.

10. Politics of Darwinism, part 1 – “priesthood” and belief


I used to believe this kind of statement.  Deeply.  Now it feels like circular logic, even propaganda, and I can’t find the “science” part of it anymore. (image source)

Critics of Darwinism say it acts like a kind of “religion”, or cult.  Membership is based not on a relaxed inspection of evidence or logic, but on belief, herd-mentality, propaganda, and enormous social pressure.  And the failure to exhibit signs of belief, they say, is met with ridicule, slander, intimidation, censorship, even loss of employment and career.

What explains the fact that Darwinism is still so popular in some scientific circles?…

The reason is this: the theory is more an expression of a certain mentality and belief than a scientific formulation. It is a mentality that does not view evolution as a mere theory whose validity can be investigated by scientific method, but sees it as a belief that must be vindicated at all costs.25


Dr. Carolyn Crocker was expelled from her non-tenure teaching position at George Mason University after mentioning “problems with evolution” in a single biology lecture.  A documentary has been made about all the academics who have lost their jobs after mentioning questions about evolution. (image source)

One example is the displeasure that Dr. Colin Patterson, paleontologist at the British Museum, expressed when his private views about Darwinism (that evolution was “anti-knowledge”) were made public in 1981 and he thereupon came under attack.  He retreated from this position and tried to save his career.

Professor Michael Behe openly questions Darwinism, but he is required to put a disclaimer on his home page saying his university does not not approve of his views.  He said he would never be able to openly question Darwinism if he did not have the job security of a tenured professor.

If you ask yourself – as I did – why you were not taught in school that there are problems with evolutionary theory, some people say the reason is simply censorship and blacklisting – if you do not uphold the dominant belief system, you will never work in this industry again.

On a different note there’s the bumper stickers which portray Darwinism as a sort of attack on Christianity.  In one such sticker, the Jesus fish26 is shown being raped by another creature that says “evolution” on it.  If I was a Christian this would make me uncomfortable.  Also, this to me is an example of how evolution is frequently defined as something that exists in aggressive relationship to religion, rather than as something that exists in and of itself.

11. Politics of Darwinism, part 2 – does Darwinism preclude religion and spirituality?



“God is a lie. Deal with it.” source


I know some say “I believe in evolution and God.”

Nonetheless, countless people have become atheists from being taught the theory (of evolution) as “fact” – I was once one of them.27

Wow – I never thought of it this way.  And yet I know so many people who lost faith in God or spiritual discipline (I even know Buddhists who lost all interest in Buddhist discipline) seemingly as a result of their exposure to “scientific materialism” and popular media.

Darwinism says life is a meaningless accident that exists for its own sake and the purpose of life is to struggle for personal survival.  Well how can you buy that doctrine – even at a subconscious level – and still have room to be a Christian or a Buddhist or anything else?

If being a Christian means believing that life has a purpose, means embracing the seven cardinal virtues like charity and kindness and so forth – how can you possibly do those things fully and happily if you also believe that there IS no purpose to life, that the only purpose is to try to survive through greed and selfishness and so on?

Plus it’s hopeless.  You cannot struggle for personal survival and succeed.


“You can live forever… In just a few short years you could possibly dodge death, never age a day more, retain that youthful, heavenly skin, and watch your children’s children’s children grow up into their prime… The fountain of youth… is in microchips and cyberspace.”  Transhumanism is nearly upon us. (source)

Well to be honest, with my scientific background I wanted to know what science had to say about Darwinism first.  Once I became convinced about Darwinism from a scientific point of view, then I was open to finding out what its other implications were.

Here’s one perspective:

In the 20th century, the doctrine that is constantly being imparted to people is that there is no spiritual world.  It’s a myth.  It’s unreal.  It’s superstition.  And this is the real world.  And that being the case, what you have to do is… idealize this world, work toward a great “utopia”.  And so forth.

You see, what’s being reinforced is conventional, social inclinations.  People are being politicized.  Or being moved toward political activities, social activities.  Or moved to function within a social domain without causing trouble – being “benign”, productive, and so forth…

So in fact, spiritual life, and true religion then, is anathema.  It’s become anathematized.  By the new, what we might call “religion” – even though really it’s not a religion – the new doctrine of materialism.  Expressed through… this profound influence on everbody’s lives which is television, or media…

television programming


Many [people] feel unfulfilled or unsatisfied by the materialistic offerings of scientific civilization… so they go looking for something greater… And try to practice these (religious or spiritual) things… But they can’t really demonstrate a profound process that realizes anything much, that really changes anything significantly, because they are bound to the doctrines that they get through various relations, common society, TV and all the rest of it.

A point of view is constantly being reinforced in you, has been reinforced in you since you were a child, an infant even, that makes it impossible for you to presume that there is an invisible spiritual domain, that there is God, that there are spirits or invisible entities that affect life and so forth.  You are almost totally incapacitated relative to this presumption.  And you cannot (grow significantly) in the spiritual process as long as that is your limit.  It’s absolutely impossible.28

12. Politics of Darwinism, part 3: Darwinism’s social effects

On the Origin of Species

“On the Origin of Species” – creepy title page. (source)

And Raymond looked around – and up!
The long-expected Flash! and Gunning! of the democratic Neighbor-Wars began!29

The original title of Charles Darwin’s famous book was “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”.30

Wait – what’s this about “favoured races”?

I wasn’t sure what “race” meant so I looked it up:

Definition of RACE
a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock
b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics

Nothing about animals anywhere, in any dictionary I checked, nor in the etymology of the word.31 Hmm. Also the word “favor” seems fishy as well – to me in this context it suggests receiving benefits from a ruler or a ruling class in exchange for fealty.


What kind of a world would we have if everyone literally believed “survival of the fittest” was our only reason for existing? (image source)

In any case, critics of Darwinism are concerned that if one portion of society wanted to subjugate another class of human beings to benefit their own interests, or if one neighbor wanted to attack another neighbor, Darwin’s book not only appears to condone this – right on the title page! – but Darwinism as a whole seems to imply that this is why we are alive, this is our very reason for being. You could say such behavior is bestowed on us by our “Creator”. (The “creator” in this case being violence, competition, and randomness.)

Okay, let’s say this bit about “preserving favoured races” was an accident, and Darwin and his publisher did not mean to put that in the title of the book.32 It wouldn’t change the overall message of the book, which is that human beings are nothing more than animals, and we exist today thanks to a violent and competitive past – and nothing else. Whatever brutal things you do to other human beings to enhance your own survival or increase your wealth is not only justified, but it is right and natural, according to the implications of this theory as I understand them.


Human trafficking – whether for sexual exploitation, forced labor, or use of organs – is said to be a $32 billion a year industry.33  How do we, as human beings, philosophically justify this sort of thing?

As one writer put it:

The highest authority in an indifferent Universe is the creature with highest kill ratio.

Morality becomes what you can get away with.34

Whatever the cause is, this attitude can certainly be seen in the world today, whether it’s Enron scandals that evaporate workers’ pension funds, Bernie Madoff ponzi schemes, young men and women sent off to wars based on false premises, and on and on. And Darwinism – the “survival of the fittest”, the survival of the strongest and most competitive – appears to justify this behavior, almost as if contempt toward other human beings in our struggle for personal survival were demanded by Life Itself.

Then we teach this philosophy to our children in school. According to critics of Darwinism, our children are essentially taught: “you are either going to survive by dominating other human beings when they get in your way, or you yourself will be dominated. If you get dominated it will be because you deserve it. Eat or be eaten. There is no other purpose to life.”

13. Politics of Darwinism, part 4 – equating humans & animals


César Millán is a famous dog psychologist who says people frequently make their pets miserable, neurotic, even violent, by pretending that they and their pets are “equals” while depriving the animals of healthy leadership.

Are there any problems with saying that human beings are basically just animals?

Many religious people say “yes, there are”.

Here’s one perspective I found interesting:

In the Old Testament it is suggested that Man exercise dominion over beasts and growing things.  This is an acknowledgement that Man, in the form of every human individual, is not only functionally or structurally more and greater than anything else in the natural or elemental world, but that his happiness and even his survival depend on his acceptance of responsibility for everything in himself that is common to the rest of the natural world.

Thus, it is not merely that he is naturally superior to cattle, snakes, vegetables and the elements, and therefore should force all such things into degraded submission to his own aggressive and stupid will to eat and use and do everything, and wait for understanding to come in the future, while the Cosmic Parent meanwhile keeps everything in order.  Rather, the superiority of Man is in his responsibility to acknowledge that he is not merely a natural or vital creature, like the rest of the natural world…35

If he is not responsible for these (vital-physical and emotional-sexual) functions in his own case, he will inevitably deal irresponsibly and destructively with all vital creatures and the natural domain itself.

Our science, technology, politics, and social experience bear this out.36

14. Politics of Darwinism, part 5 – the origins of Darwinism


Charles’s massive and extremely influential grandfather Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802) appears to have had far more to do with creating the theory of evolution than did his sickly grandson. (image source)

I also learned that Charles Darwin did not come up with his theory of evolution as a result of visiting the Galapagos Islands, or through any other observations.

He got the theory of evolution from his grandfather Erasmus Darwin, who had already formulated the theory of evolution, in detail, decades earlier.

Almost every topic discussed, and example given, in (Erasmus’s own book about evolution) reappears in Charles’s On the Origin Of Species.37

There is less known about Erasmus than Charles, but it appears that Erasmus was one of the masters of a secret society in Scotland,38 he was said to be strongly anti-Christian, and he was once offered a job as personal physician to the king of England, which I guess he had the power to turn down.  He also weighed over 336 pounds and fathered at least 14 children, though the exact number is uncertain.39

A powerful man, Erasmus hired a massively overweight servant to walk in front of him wherever he went, so if the floor could not hold his weight, the servant would be the one to crash through!40

Erasmus Darwin founded the Derby Philosophical Society in 1783,41 which, decades later, used its powerful influence to promote the theory of evolution under his grandson’s name.  When Charles wrote to a publisher about “his” groundbreaking book, he was told the publisher would publish the book without even seeing the manuscript.42

In his early life, Charles Darwin expressed the opinion that his granddad’s ideas about evolution were not so good:

I was much disappointed; the proportion of speculation being so large to the facts given.43

Later, when he became willing to put his own name to these ideas as if they were his own, he became overwhelmed with depression, insomnia, “cyclic vomiting”, bouts of crying, fainting, and suffered from ill health for the rest of his life.44  Many scholars suggest that Charles Darwin’s health issues were at least partly of psychosomatic origin, such as repressed emotions or conflicts with his family.

In any case, the viewpoint we are left with today is that of granddad Erasmus Darwin, who expressed the opinion that our three most important desires in life are “lust, hunger and security”.  He also expressed the opinion that “the strongest… should propagate the species.”45

One could almost conclude that Charles Darwin was a kind of actor rather than a scientist and that the “role” he played was written, financed and produced by his extremely powerful grandfather.



Curiosity + fearlessness = hunting kitten.  (source)

Because this topic is so controversial I was hesitant to offer any conclusions at the end – I wanted to allow brave and curious readers to form their own conclusions and leave it at that.

However, after having people review this article prior to publication, I realized this is a disservice and that I need to spell out my own conclusions.

My conclusion is that, from a scientific perspective evolution is completely untrue.  It appears that as human beings we absolutely did not evolve from apes, and apes did not evolve from lizards or microbes or dirt.  This absolutely did not happen.

You cannot have two lizards mate and have a baby monkey be born to them with brand new genes that come out of thin air.  Natural selection and random mutations do not create brand new genes – not all at once and not through a gradual process over generations.  This has been shown to be scientifically impossible by the scientists quoted in this article, and many others besides.

Also there has never been any fossil evidence for “evolutionary links” between species – which seems to be an impossible situation if evolution were true and took place over vast periods of time.

So evolution never happened.  This is so foreign to how I have thought all my life that the implications are still sinking in – I have to keep rereading this article and discussing it with people to help me digest the implications.

What I am left with is that there IS no materialistic explanation for life.  Life is simply a Mystery.  Whether you say “God created everything” or you say life is a living, conscious opportunity to learn how to love or to work out our past karmas – no matter what, it is much harder for me to presume now that life is just a random, meaningless, accident.  Or that life resulted from chemicals unconsciously colliding.

One reviewer asked me what is the emotional core of this article.  The emotional core of this article is the section about “Does Darwinism preclude spirituality?”

My personal experience in writing this article is that I feel freed up from something that is hard to put into words.  It’s like a level of despair and hopelessness has been lifted out of me and life feels more alive and mysterious.  The desperate obsession with my own personal survival and my fear of death feels like it has relaxed somewhat because I no longer feel that life exists for its own sake, as a random meaningless accident that must be clung to and made into a desperate search on its own terms.

Does that make sense?

Anyway I encourage readers to reread the article more than once if you are like me, and allow time to form your own conclusions and let those conclusions sink in.

Also if this topic interests you I think it can be extremely beneficial to verbalize a response – for instance by posting a comment here below the article.  By expressing ourselves in words they say it helps our brain digest and process new information.  When we verbalize a response I think it both helps useful information sink in deeper and it helps prevent false ideas from getting inside us unconsciously.

By the way, folks have told me they find the comment section one of the most interesting and useful parts of this blog because of the intelligent and thought-provoking responses people have left recently.  So on behalf of many readers:  thank you to those who post comments.


    • What was your conclusion about Darwinism growing up, and what is your conclusion now?
    • While writing this article I got in touch with a memory from childhood.  When we were told in school that life on earth exists because of violence and competition and random accidents, that that is why we are here, I remember feeling deeply depressed.  Do you recall how and when you were first introduced to Darwinism, and what effect it had on you?
    • A question about “religious tolerance” and “points of view:  When someone has a point of view that differs from your own p.o.v., do you tend to look down on them, ridicule them, or try to destroy their point of view?  Or do you try to find out why they believe as they do?
    • Imagine if all your neighbors up and down your block believed that the purpose of life was their own personal survival at the expense of other human beings.  What if they literally believed this and acted it out.  How would you feel living and sleeping in such an environment?
    • Writing this article brought up a number of strong emotions for me.  Did it bring up any emotions for you?

Warm regards,
BOT Student


  1. This is a saying from the late teacher Adi Da (1939-2008).
  2. As stated in the film “Unlocking the Mystery of Life”, which is part of The Basket of Tolerance, along with some pro-Darwin material.
  3. This is quoted on many websites, including here.
  4. Slavery can be traced back to the earliest records, such as the Code of Hammurabi, c. 1760 BC, according to wikipedia.  Also, modern-day child-trafficking is said to be a $32 billion a year industry, according to the United Nations.  I mention this because later on the topic of “favoured races” comes into play in our story about Darwin.
  5. according to wikipedia
  6. As spoken by Dr. Nelson (b.1958) in the documentary film “Unlocking the Mystery Of Life”, which is included in The Basket of Tolerance, along with some pro-Darwinism material.
  7. On the Origin of Species, chapter 6.  Available online.
  8. See wikipedia entry for more info on this.
  9. See here for more details, or look at one of the books published on this topic.  The obvious evidence of fakery included file marks on the teeth, and the teeth were pointing in the wrong directions.  Also, most of the bones were not discovered by archaologists or excavators at all, but by famous proponents of evolution who “happened” to be walking by a gravel pit when they saw bones sticking out of it.
  10. R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 364., as quoted here.
  11. See wikipedia.  One critic was Arthur Keith, a Scottish anatomist and anthropologist.  Another critic was Dean Falk, a specialist in neuroanatomy.  Another critic was Solly Zuckerman.
  12. See wikipedia
  13. Cited here.
  14. In correspondence to Luther Sunderland, as quoted in “Darwin’s Enigma”, 1988, p.89.
  15. On the Origin of Species, chapter 6.  See online publication.
  16. Amino acids – the building blocks of proteins, are determined by the base-pairs of DNA.  So the amino acids are the “tiny pieces” that all have to work together.
  17. Quoted from the documentary “Unlocking the Mystery of Life”.
  18. “Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight, successive variations. She can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps.” – Charles Darwin (On the Origin Of Species, chapter 6).
  19. Francis Crick, who won a Nobel Prize in 1962 for taking credit for discovering DNA, estimated that the chance of a small protein – a specific sequence of 200 amino acids – happening by random chance was about 10 to the power of 260.  By comparison he said there were approximately 10 to the power of 80 atoms in the known universe. (Francis Crick, “Life Itself; Its Origin and Nature” New York, Simon and Schuster, 1981).  So he expressed doubts that life on earth happened by random chance.
  20. Quote from his book, “Not by Chance, Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution”, as quoted here.
  21. Stephen C. Meyer
  22. As spoken in “Unlocking the Mystery of Life”.
  23. As spoken in “Unlocking the Mystery of Life”.
  24. source.
  25. Quote found here.
  26. For what it’s worth, I’ve heard some Christians say this is not a true symbol of Christ but is actually the “eye of Ra” – an Egyptian symbol that no Christian should be using.  Please form your own conclusions, of course.  :)
  27. James Perloff, as quoted here.
  28. Adi Da, talk from 1988.
  29. From the opening lines of chapter 12 of The Mummery Book.
  30. According to wikipedia.
  31. Even the etymology, or origins of the word “race”, come from terms that have nothing to do with animals but only with humans, according to the online etymology dictionary. The Oxford English Dictionary does have one small exception – horse breeds were, prior to Darwin’s time occasionally refered to as “races”, but not animals or plants in general. So it’s a tricky use of wording there, it seems. Interesting mixed messages.
  32. This was the title of the book for the first five editions, from 1859 to 1872, according to wikipedia.
  33. Per a 2005 United Nations estimate.
  34. Quoted from “Dan”, commenter on another Darwin article.
  35. However Adi Da did have a high appreciation for all of nature, including especially redwood trees and certain large aquatic creatures.  Later in this passage, he says many of us humans living today are truly “sub-human” rather than human.
  36. Excerpt from “Love of the Two-Armed Form”, by Adi Da.
  37. King-Hele, D., Erasmus Darwin, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1963. p.88. – according to citation here.  I did not confirm the book citation.
  38. The Canongate Kilwinning Masonic lodge in Edinburgh, Scotland, according to here and here.
  39. According to wikipedia.
  40. See wikipedia article.
  41. According to wikipedia.
  42. According to wikipedia’s entry on the famous book.
  43. As quoted in Charles Darwin’s Autobiography (edited by Sir Francis Darwin), Henry Schuman, New York, p. 21, 1950.
  44. Wikipedia says his health issues may have been psychosomatic, and began just as he set sail for the Galapagos in 1831 – the expedition which would be used to justify saying that he himself had come up with the theory of evolution.
  45. According to wikipedia.
Print Friendly

Related posts:

Posted in article and tagged , .

55 comments · now closed

  1. DB   Thumb up +7

    If you keep going like this, your critical thinking skills and common sense are going to end up giving you a brilliant mind.

  2. Edu   Thumb up +6

    After reading this article, you may want to watch this:


  3. Terry Cafferty   Thumb up +13

    Best article yet!

    In the mid 70s while working as an engineer in Seal beach, CA, I attended a debate between a Darwinian evolutionist (can’t remember his name, chair of a biology department as I recall) and Duane Gish and Henry Morris (biochemist and engineer respectively), founders of the Creation Research Institute (www.icr.com). Before the debate, everyone was glibly predicting the creationists would be embarrassingly destroyed. A couple hours later, the whole room had been silenced and the Darwinian was visibly shaken. I don’t remember much except that the creationists systematically went after all the key tenets of evolution, chief among them the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.

    Darwinian evolutionary theory is supremely attractive to fearful, mortal man because it places him at the pinnacle of life, and makes it unnecessary to admit total dependence on a universal process which CANNOT be fathomed. How can words and actions of any kind unravel the mere existence of a flower?

    Evolution theory is, like so many other edifices of modern ‘civilized’ thought, merely mythology, a kind of religion, alongside the many other religions that purport to explain how and why ‘things’ are the way they appear to be.

    But neither the ‘religion’ of scientism nor any other religion or myth is capable of unraveling the incomprehensible Mystery of the apparent universe. Of what are the ‘realities’ in dreams composed? And how are we justified in presuming that the appearances and happenings in the waking state are any more or less real then those dream events? (Indeed, the Australian native cultures treat the waking state as inferior or secondary to the dream state.) And how are we even justified in presuming the existence of a separate, objective ‘world out there’, when all we ever experience are brain states? Indeed, IS there a ‘separate world out there’? IS there separation, an objective reality? And who are we, who observe all of this Mystery?

    Is it not inescapably true that there is always only an unfathomable process arising, changing and disappearing in consciousness? Does the application of language (which is the essence of abstraction itself and which uses name and number symbols to refer to modes of experience) have ANY hope of explaining how things are and how they come to be in every moment?

    The great hope was (and, amazingly, still is) that the universal application of the scientific method of language and symbols, based on the presumption that ‘matter’ (which, according to modern physics, is really energy) can be cleverly manipulated until suffering and death are eliminated, leaving everyone in a perpetual cocoon of comfort and consolation. But look around; what has been the result of all this frantic manipulation? Is it not unspeakable war, widespread sickness and suffering, species death at an unprecedented rate, global catastrophes of ever growing scale, and threatened extinction of the human species along with countless others?

    Observe non-humans carefully and you will see that humans (in general) are radically different, driven mad by fear, and seeking for relief from our own reactive refusal to accept that suffering and endings are unavoidable. The universe of life is, most obviously, an absolute Mystery.

    Even though I am not a Christian, I’m reminded of the Genesis story of Adam and Eve in the Divine garden, with access to all its given gifts of life free of striving, the single admonition being to not eat the fruits of the tree of knowledge. Seems to me that admonition has been ignored, with the most grave consequences.

    • Wow, fascinating story. Interesting about people being shocked at the creation-evolution debate you saw. :) Yeah I was pretty shocked myself at the details of these things – still am actually.

      Yes there does seem to be something “off” about the way human beings relate to the natural world. And to one another.

      I think it’s not just the “scientific method” itself but the idea that the whole purpose of our life is merely “personal survival” – that that’s all that matters. That p.o.v. can be used to justify just about anything, it seems to me, whether it utilizes science directly or tries to manipulate people through false advertising and on and on and on…

  4. Christina   Thumb up +4

    Oh my goodness….There is so much to think about here. Do I believe in Darwinism…hmmm, im not sure. But I can undoubtedly say I do believe in God, how to actually describe that, well im not sure its possible, each person has their own idea of nirvana or story or man in the sky oiling his tools, (completely loved that by the way.) There are so many perspectives…what if we are actually going in reverse, if we are a star, that has already experienced its brightest moment & now we suffer from some slow illusional death that has already taken place, going over our life, bit by bit ? What if everything we think is evolving is actually de~evolving. Maybe we are bound to become monkeys again…and that is not such a bad thing? It all seems like a reflection and that light is going somewhere…not sure I know where but it would be funny one day to see a monkey wearing pants, now that i think about that, i think its already happening. Planet of the Apes,hmmm Im thinking who was that sexy ape? LOL What a great article, I always look forward to your thoughts and ideas. Have an excellent weekend.

    • Yeah, some people think that human beings used to be more evolved / advanced long ago – not due to genetics, but due to attitude and lifestyle. With greater abilities, etc. And that now a lot of people on the earth are more like “subhuman” rather than fully human.

      It was pretty shocking to me to think that Darwinism & evolution might not be true. Now I find it kind of relieving…! Disturbing in other ways though – in terms of how these theories get to be so powerful.

      Thanks have a nice weekend yourself.

  5. Parinirvana   Thumb up +8

    As Terry has stated, Darwinian evolution and the other materialist dogmas were intended to be morally/spiritually ennervating. I feel sorry for any decent person who still genuinely believes in all of that.

    Of course, the same academic consensus of materialistic scientism that fuels evolutionary theory, also fuels allopathic medicine, and the abominable deceits that have been wrought there, including the emphasis on genetic causes for conditions and personal circumstances, whilst denying that environmental toxins, metals, et cetera, even factor in at all. Separating the genetically gifted and the less so, in the absence of a belief in an essence independent of the body, obviously lends itself to justifying fascism, racism, elitism, distinct socio-economic classes, and really, all kinds of inequality and immorality. There’s a lot of info regarding the connection between Materialism, Social Darwinism, and the Occult.

    Mysticism can be pretty nihilistic sometimes, too, though, and not incompatible with philosophical materialism. Ideas like no-self, atma as the observer only, no free will within a causeless reality, for example. It is generally contended, in the more highly regarded spiritual disciplines, that one must eventually surrender the ego completely and reside in the Unknown/Real/Love/Nirvana/Christ, to the exclusion of all desire and objective knowledge anyway, which would include the desire for an afterlife experience and all of that. Zen Buddhism/mindfulness enjoys esteem accordingly, in alternative/New-Agey circles, as the ‘purest’, dogma-free, empirical spiritual path.

    It’s increasingly difficult to explain this stuff to people, though, thanks to the engendered, slavishly dogmatic deference to mainstream ‘scientific’ consensus that has been imprinted in most through the education system. It’s also not easy to pursue the spiritual path, in an environment of social ills caused in part by this mass, blind belief in atheism/materialism (and it IS a belief, like any other).

    • Thanks for touching on a lot of subjects here that seem important but which I left out of the article to keep things simple.

      Yeah, why does every single medical problem have a “genetic” cause as they say? Doesn’t really make sense logically.

      Sometimes I almost think the world is one giant mummery…

      One of my favorite lines in the article is where the evolution-supporter says privately that evolution is “anti-knowledge”.

      Well, as far as explaining stuff to people, I tried with this article to just explain evolution to myself, so if I succeeded at that maybe the article could be useful for others as well.

    • Christina   Thumb up +1

      “Which would include the experience of an afterlife & all of that” …Yes, this is so true, and feels so incredible devastating all at once, everything in my heart says to protect all costs. Till death. To acknowledge this, remaining true to Love, learning to withhold certain painful experiences because the fruit didnt feel sweet, honest & serving enough, how to distinguish the clearest possible path which serves others and how to protect that which sets on the vine, is it just pure chance, or distinguished contemplation due to years of meditative consistency which renders the question redundant. Feeling the crap shoot of it all~ yet, knowing, (or not) at the same time the fruit and yet the recipe is so inconsistent~~~ feeling an underlying truth, & it seems faith, which a monkey cannot feel…(so far as I understand), seems true & so valuable. Its like a question, that fundamental one which carries the same weight as belief.

    • Parinirvana   Thumb up +2

      If the fabled ‘Enlightenment’ truly leads to absolute, eternal nothingness, a non-experiential state… wouldn’t most people do their utmost to actually avoid it, even despite the current pain and despair that they may be facing in this life, in the present moment?

      Maybe that’s the reason behind that particular contention. I guess when the soul matures sufficiently, the goal of freedom from suffering outstrips all, even the desire for experience.

      There are many different quotes attributed to Buddha that both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhists use to support their disparate views on life after Nirvana.

      But think on it. Does ‘God’ really control everything that happens down here? Even your manifestation itself? In the words of ‘Nisargadatta Maharaj’, if both yourself and God cannot change your world, doesn’t it imply that it is accidental?

      I personally think that Love is God, and that Love itself endlessly generates matter, lower and higher frequencies, automatically, by it’s mere presence. When the highest Love produces matter, consciousness results, which the now-conscious Love tries to organise/work through, in an infinitely expanding cycle. There are probably all sorts of laws that apply, as to what frequency of Love is drawn to what matter.

      There certainly exists subtle bodies that continue, for the average person, after death. For anyone who has experienced an OBE, that is a given. Read the accounts on nderf.org.

      But after Enlightenment, when duality is transcended and you enter the Great Heart of the universe?

      I’m sure others here ‘know’ more than I.

      But the ‘nothing is real’ schtick is just nihilistic, life-denying nonsense, and surely is itself an affirmation of knowledge, and thus duality?

      Lots to think about, eh?

    • Christina   Thumb up +1

      Hmmm. Yes, i guess it would depend on how the individual believed God was manifest, and if they could get their selves out of the way long enough to experience that union. From what i understand it is possible to completely re~build your body in 7 months. (not sure where i heard that), given the proper environment & interaction with substances on a dynamic level, this can produce the possibility of change in the most drastic & pure way. Although, considering the state of our environment, which seems to be polluted in every corner, do you think this is even remotely possible now? My feeling is that to develop the authentic self, pressure much be applied effectively~ nutritionally & neurologically & spiritually. (& I wonder is there a point where….oh never~mind!) Authentic, fresh tissue is stimulated… pushing out the old, stagnant false self which was only added as means to protect the more vulnerable parts of ourself, due to DNA or our childhood, nutrition etc, at this point the old self begins to naturally fall away & the underlying structure, the authentic form is revealed.

      Good Lord, what a discipline. I can hardly keep just that 1 cup of coffee from my lips… and Love, the fulcrum of all & beauty radiating from that point, uncontrived, and unrestricted in its authentic expression, from outside false impressions or unnatural pressure is natural & perfect in its most relaxed dynamic state. Im not sure i understand that a reflection is any less dynamic than what is being reflected? I dont understand that part. Of course it would require activity to stimulate heat & thus form in this place, that we can see & feel anyway. & I do enjoy thinking about these things, thank you. & thank you BOT Student for setting this contemplation in motion!

    • Parinirvana   Thumb up +2

      Christina, I would personally recommend reading the discourses given by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj; principally, ‘I Am That.’

      It’s widely available as a free PDF download. I loved it so much, I bought the book anyway.

      It has to be the most practical, no-nonsense, and unassailable insight I have encountered thus far.

    • Christina   Thumb up 0

      Thank you for the book recomendation. I ordered it yesterday & am looking forward to reading it~

  6. eminently reasonable   Thumb up +3

    I found interesting to discover our BOT author’s intent in writing this piece, which actually has much to do with opening a wider path into which Christians might begin to reassess their own esoteric roots, many of them incompatible apparently with contemporary scientific reductionism. That gesture of embrace is surely useful and needed.

    On that count, I’ll share a video I watched recently which I just can’t recommend enough. It’s a beautiful conversation really with the late (great) Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Rabbi David Wolpe, and Rabbi Bradley Artson Shavit. They’re debating a more abstract topic of an afterlife, but the dialog goes into many deep areas of consideration related to exoteric practitioners of Judaic/Islamic/X’n faiths coming to terms with the fallacies of their views, but also with the inherent mystical nature of their paths and approaches.

    Personally, I was quite impressed with the rabbis, and it reshaped my view of contemporary Judaism profoundly. I was also — as always — impressed by Hitchens, who also did make some very important points about intellectual honesty and the rewriting of history, something we are all often apt to indulge….

    Here it is. When you have an hour, enjoy…. I suspect it will entertain and illuminate the sophisticated readers here:


    • Dear Mr. Reasonable,

      Thank you for taking the time to read my article & share a response! I appreciate this. Means a lot to me.

      I noticed that your friend Mr. Sam Harris believes in evolution – the very topic of this article. That could make an interesting discussion.

      For what it’s worth, I have tried to be very disciplined in this article (other than the title – which was an indulgence and seemed justified). I have tried to stay on topic throughout the article, I have tried to be polite and respectful of others, and I have tried to either describe my own personal experience or describe information I found which seemed accurate and credible and for which I provided footnotes. I have tried not to manipulate the reader (other than through choosing which details to include in the article).

      Likewise I want to encourage people who post comments to stay on topic (in this case evolution) and also be polite and respectful. My hope is that if we do that, we can have useful discussions even about controversial or painful or awkward matters.

      Honestly I almost ALWAYS find it painful to disagree with someone… but I guess this is part of life.

      It’s possible my evolution article contains errors in many places. I’m open to that being the case. I would just ask people to be polite in how they point it out to me so that I can receive it easier.

  7. steve   Thumb up +2

    Well done, Mr.

    “Ignorance” is always Happy, if you let it.

    • Steve,

      Thanks for your comment. Did you find the article to be interesting or informative? Did it seem accurate? Useful?

      Not everyone agrees with the conclusions I came to, I just realized by reading another comment.

    • steve   Thumb up +2

      I enjoyed your process of consideration. I’ve read lot’s of “stories” about “evolution” since hearing or learning about Darwin, including human evolution impacted consciously by other non human- “advanced species” from “somewhere else”.

      But I care less how we got here that where we are right now, in this moment. And whatever narrative that history represents, there has been Intervention and those effects travel back in time,

  8. I wonder what the author and others think about this quote:

    “Darwinism stresses conflict and competition; that doesn’t square with the evidence. A lot of organisms that survive are in no sense superior to those that have gone extinct. It’s not a question of “better than”; it’s simply a matter of finding a place where you can be yourself. That’s what evolution is about.” Brian Goodwin

    • Mr. Tischer –

      I like this quote in many ways.

      For instance, if we look at how much survival power the Bush family has, as an example, can we say for certain that they are more highly evolved (better) than someone in a ghetto?

      Survival of the fittest is something of an illusion, in my opinion. It sounds right, but when you think about it it doesn’t seem right to me.

      As far as “being yourself” – yes, I think that’s it. Just harder to be ourselves sometimes when we drink in one too many doctrines, perhaps?

      I wonder what a Buddhist might say… if life is an accident of chemical collisions, does that leave room for some of the metaphysical doctrines of Tibetan Buddhism? Can someone brought up through modern public schooling truly embrace and take seriously all the teachings that come from someone like Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche, or is there a tendency to turn those teachings into a social doctrine, a doctrine about being “nice” – in other words, something laid on top of the orientation we already got from school…?

      just curious.

  9. Catullus   Thumb up +9

    Right on BOT Student. Here’s to the discipline of critical inquiry, so much on the wane in our culture these days…. if it is respected at all.

    “No authority, scientific or religious, has a right to make declarations and enforce belief or prevent getting to know the truth. No such right exists. No such right should be allowed to be presumed. Only, truly, the collective of mankind can decide not to be duped, and to refuse false authorities.

    Test it out. Find out. Call upon others to do so. But really find out. And then when you really find out, you tell everybody about it. And then they get to do the same thing you did to come to your conclusion and find out: “Hey. That’s right. It’s true!” That’s good science. And a right cultural method also.

    Religion needs to be that way. It’s about becoming free of false authorities. And the first one you have to get free of is yourself. That’s the guy. That’s the one I’m talking to. You’ve paid a damn lot of money for an education that isn’t worth a dime when it comes to really being able to exercise the faculty of the mind and find something out. How do you expect to find out anything without this discipline?”

    — Adi Da Samraj

  10. Edu   Thumb up +11

    Another aspect of the evolution is that the Darwinian natural selection is not at all the only force in evolution. Recently a “neutral theory of evolution” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_evolution) has being gaining more “adepts” in the scientic comunity.

    It adress the fact that most fixed mutations, that is, mutations that are passed along generations, (also known as polymorphisms), tend to be neither good nor bad, or have very slight effects, for an organisms survival in their current habitat. Their predominance in population is more related with purely ramdomic events than with the actual functionality of the gene itself.

    Deleterious mutations either kill the organism or are quickly repaired by DNA repair machinery. In fact we are continuosly suffering somatic mutations all the time, and if wasn’t for our extensive DNA repair system, we would have miserable lives, as happens in Xeroderma Pigmentosum, a mutation that knocks down our repair mechanism, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeroderma_pigmentosum . In most higher organisms for example, which have 2 copies of each gene (one from each parent), deleterious version of genes (also know as alleles) usually survive by being “masked” by a good healthy one. Their bad effect only kicks in when by a remote chance 2 bad alleles are combined.

    In fact, geneticists KNOW that real deleterious mutations are really really rare (occuring less than 0,5% of the population) see: http://www.genomesunzipped.org/2012/02/all-genomes-are-dysfunctional-broken-genes-in-healthy-individuals.php
    . Those people who blame genes on widespread diseases like cancer, diabetes and heart disease, are either uninformed or are simply lying. Those diseases are caused by ambiental factors that simply don’t fit with our organism functions, like junk food and toxins.

    Advantageous mutations, on the other hand, are simply, simply, UNLIKELY. You don’t build new things by accident, you usually break them. They happen, but are more likely to be seen in single cell organisms like E. coli, where the mutations are directly expressed by the affected cell. In higher animals, mutations can only be passed ahead when they affect either our spermatozoids or or ovules, germ cells , not the bodily, somatic, cells. The odds are even lower here.

    This leaves science mostly with neutral or slightly functional mutations, which is pretty insipid material, in my opinion, for explaining evolution, that is, the radical differences bettween batcteria, worms, herings, frogs, lizards, monkeys and man. We can point to genetic similarities between them but we are clueless how they differentiated so much. We just don’t see such extreme changes happening.

    • Yes, excellent points, sir. Thank you.

      Yeah, the idea of a mutation giving you a brand new functional capability just doesn’t make sense to me logically. I just felt I couldn’t try to explore all that in the article due to it being so long already. But I am glad you brought up these points.

  11. guard   Thumb up +4

    Matter came into being out of nothing and from matter eventually came consciousness.
    Or consciousness came into being out of nothing and from consciousness came matter.
    At first glance, why would one idea seem more or less credible than the other?

    • How do I know there was a time when “Consciousness” did not exist?

      Or when “Intelligence” did not exist – as in the phrase “Intelligent Design”?

      Or when God did not exist (for those of us who use that word)?

      I don’t know that consciousness comes merely from chemicals in the brain – another person mentioned OBE’s here in another comment. The main conclusion I came to in the article is that a materialistic explanation for life doesn’t seem valid. It’s as though matter is secondary to something else that has Intelligence…

    • Parinirvana   Thumb up +1

      At the risk of straying a bit off-topic again…

      That consciousness is relative to time/matter is an assumption. That time/matter is relative to consciousness, is your own experience. With the latter, consciousness would be timeless, therefore eternal.

      All change presupposes a changeless background of awareness.

      Now… for self-consciousness (‘I Am’), there needs to be interaction between Spirit and matter.

      As matter of varying grades is a transient appearance, and the cause of ‘I Am’, logical deduction would lead you to the idea that the Most High is an unself-conscious state of Sat-Chit-Ananda. Or call it God, or the Real, or Love or whatever you like.

      As to how such a state would generate matter out of itself, I honestly don’t know. Maybe Wilhelm Reich did.

      But it couldn’t be a conscious state in the beginning, because in the highest state, there is no self-consciousness. That can only result where matter is present, whether that matter is higher dimensional heavens, or down here in 3D.

      At least that’s how a learning-disabled (literally) guy like me sees it.

    • ufo   Thumb up 0

      Maybe, consciousness was already here always… Have you read Billy Meier?

  12. ufo   Thumb up 0

    Billy Meier contact report 217 block 82 from 8-May-1987 says that Darwin falsified his theory of evolution regarding the evolution of man from apes.


    82. That is correct because the Darwinian Theory of Evolution, that the evolutionary line of Earth human beings traces back to apes, is fundamentally wrong, for in truth, the evolutionary line of apes traces back to human beings.

    83. Darwin was a deceiver in relation to the Man-Ape Evolutionary Line Theory because he secretly worked on ape bones and ape skeletons with a filing utensil, in order to adapt them into his claim and false theory and to present it to those scientists at that time who occupied themselves with the evolution of animals and humans.

    84. At first, they were completely impressed by Darwin’s “evidence” and spread Darwin’s false claims and deceitful machinations across the globe as correct and as a true sensation.

    85. And once they discovered Charles R. Darwin’s fraud, it was already too late to correct everything again; consequently, everything took its course, and the fraudulently created evidence entered into the scientific annals as authenticity; thus, it also spread among the people, and the erroneous teaching was born that the human being is descended from the ape, which is the exact opposite of what corresponds to the truth and correctness, that the ape is descended from the line of the human being.


    The story is well-known to me. Through his wrong machinations, Darwin probably created the greatest deception and the greatest lie that a scientist on Earth has ever created. Greater deception and greater lies were probably only created by the Americans, with their made-up first Moon-landing, as well as those through which religions and sects were created.

    • It certainly does seem that Darwin’s fraud is one of the biggest deceptions ever made in the name of science.

      However my impression in reading about Darwin’s granddad is that he did not act alone.

      To suggest that the fraud was from Charles Darwin alone, or that “it was too late to correct everything” doesn’t make sense to me.

    • ufo   Thumb up 0

      Billy Meier contact report 251 from 3-Feb-1995 also mentions Darwin and man’s true origin being extra-terrestrial not of this Earth nor from the apes.

    • Edu   Thumb up 0

      I’m wouldn’t consider “extraterrestrial contacts” as well as chanelled material to be of confidence. Even if the contact is real, most people who promote this kind of material make little to no effort in actually verifying it’s authenticity or even good faith on behalf of the suposed entities.

      I mean, It would be so easy to fool people this way…

    • ufo   Thumb up 0

      @BoT Student, you are correct, neither Charles nor his grandad carry sole responsibility for this fraud. If you make the attempt to read as much of the Meier reports as possible, you will confirm this.

      Also read The Gods of Eden by William Bramley. He goes into a lot of detail on this as a general subject where man was purposely kept from evolving to the level of the ETs so that they remained as slaves. Chapter 4 pg. 50 talks about the tower of Babel as being a “sky vehicle”.

      Have you been following developments with The Electric Universe Theory and Plasma Cosmology? Have you read the works of Stephen Crothers, Wal Thornhill, Hannes Alfven, and Halton Arp. A sharp wedge has been driven by people who are breaking through all the crap in mainstream Astronomy.

      Have you read the history of Cancer research and afforable treatments that were and are still being kept under cover?

      Have you read about the 300 mpg vehicle developed in Germany that is not allowed in America?

      Have you not delved into legalese to see how people are kept ignorant and under submissive control?

      Who else but a group that is technologically and intellectually superior to be responsibe for these frauds?

  13. ufo   Thumb up 0

    @BoT Student, “how do you” explain different skin/eye/hair color? The most common explanation is evolution based on local environment Has this ever been verified over many generations?

    I knew an East Indian whose brown skin would change to a very light pink shortly after spring – lasting until late fall as a result of his commuting to/from work by bicycle every day. People would mistake him for a caucasian with a slight tan. The best explanation I could make was the oxygen content in his skin was greater than the carbon-dioxide content during the period of his regular commute. The other thing was his activity level while his body was warm was allowing his blood to deliver highly oxygenated nutrients to his body tissues and remove waste products more efficiently giving him a light reddish skin tone. During the winter, his normal color would return because he was unable to commute by bike. His eye and hair color remained the same throughout the year. In any case this observed change was temporary and not natural.

    Have always thought that planets naturally create “architypal” forms with branching as a result of evolution. The electrical environment of the planet’s solar system would also play a key role in determining the forms that result as part of evolution. Wal Thornhill has suggested that varying the electrical environment of a star would also vary the gravity of all the bodies in the system. That would affect everything from the color of the star to how DNA arranges itself.

    • This article wasn’t focused so much on the inheritance of specific traits like hair color or the size of a bird’s beak.

      It was looking into Darwin’s theory of evolution as an attempt to explain where life comes from in the first place. The actual origin of life itself. Or the origin of entire classes of animals, etc.

      I think this is made clear in section 3 of the article.

      I don’t understand where your questions come from. It’s very possible that I don’t know anything about some of the stuff you mention here, so I probably can’t help with some of that.

  14. When Nietzsche said “God is dead”, I believe he was talking about western philosophy as well….any hypothetical description of reality,
    which seems to be the tenor of this article. How can history be of any use when it is ignored? These antiquated paradigms fly in the face of current circumstances.

    Survival, at this point, seems to be the only value worth mentioning, as the human race continues it’s blind path to self destruction. The ivory towers in which speculation survives will become like Ozymandias, half buried in the sand.

    • Well “survival” is really an interesting topic.

      Today we face a world in which our survival as a species is very much in question. And yet personal survival, personal entertainment, and personal self-aggrandizement seem to be the main focus everywhere?

      It’s almost as though our emphasis on “personal survival” or indivdual “security” is causing our own destruction, causing us to be un-mindful in how we go about everything.

      One of the threads I was hoping to touch on in this article is how Darwin’s theory of evolution functions as a kind of deep seated doctrine that says that the purpose of life is personal survival and “security” at the expense of all else. Yes? When we have a world full of people who believe in this doctrine – even if only subconsciously – could this have massive effects on a collective level?

      So it seems useful to me to question this docrine of Darwinism (especially once I became convinced that the science behind it was terrible). It seems that whether one is a Christian or a Buddhist or anything else, Darwinism seems to get in the way of being open to the possibility that we continue after death and that the purpose of life is something more than just numbers in a bank balance or some other kind of presume personal “security”.

      Does that make sense?

      What does a preoccupation with “security” do, would you say, sir?

      (If you want you can reply here by replying to your own comment – it’s how this is setup at the moment, to allow multiple threads of response to the article…)

    • Tisch   Thumb up +2

      “security” implies a preoccupation with self, to the exclusion of those things seemingly irrelevant to it. No other animal experiences this function of mind. This preoccupation distorts seeing reality as it is. It discounts interdependence, therefore balance and harmony are not possible. Does Darwinism imply interdependence, or, it’s opposite?

      A balanced ecosystem implies interdependence. Animals that are motivated by instinct dance within it quite nicely. It’s humans, motivated by “security” which automatically implies being cut off from a panoramic perspective that interfere with the natural order, unless their minds are trained to see clearly beyond mental fabrications.

    • I think reality teaches us interdependence, as you say, sir.

      But Erasmus Darwin – Charles’s granddad – seems to have been a powerful man who wanted to promote the idea that “the strongest should propagate the species” and that the purpose of life is competition, lust, hunger, and security. (as it says in the quote from him toward the end of the article)

      Which of the six realms would Erasmus put us into, I wonder, if he succeeded in setting the standards for education?

      Also I think sometimes we might assume that the Darwinian explanation for life and how life actually works are both identical – we might talk about them as though they were synonymous – like the way we say “I’m going to xerox this report.” (The word “xerox” becomes synonymous with “copy”.) And I think this is because we have been so well-trained to believe in the philosophy of Erasmus and his friends, and to believe the pseudo-science they used to promote their philosophy: which seems to be a philosophy of lust, hunger, and security. But the science behind it seems to not actually be true.

      Maybe all we need to do is get a billion people to read my article about the science of Darwinism and then maybe we could talk about which of the six realms might be nicer for us all to live in, or would at least provide more breathing room..?

    • Terry Cafferty   Thumb up 0

      I appreciate your comments deeply, Tisch. All these words! Man is such a paradox, so replete with tools and so pitifully inadequate to the task of using them rightly. Trees behind my house are so much wiser. Preoccupation with security IS death.

  15. Paul Major   Thumb up +6

    Thanks, BOT Student, for another very interesting and thought-provoking posting.

    This one brought up a lot for me. My father had a number of books on “science versus religion” and “evolution versus Creation” and I got into those as a child. As you point out, I presumed at that stage that those were the only two alternatives.

    I definitely had a bias toward the science side. The very framing of the debate seemed to favor science, because the science-promoters were always trying to find evidence and come up with explanations, while the science-critics always seemed to be in the negative position of trying to find counter-examples and exposing weakness in theories and explanations – which science was supposed to include in its process anyway. So since I wanted to find out more about what was really going on, it seemed inevitable that I would focus on science, while paying some secondary attention to its critics.

    I went to university, enrolled in a Bachelor of Science degree, but in my second year I went through a big crisis in which I came to doubt my whole commitment to “science” and “rationality” as I had presumed them to be. There were lots of aspects to that, including seeing that science and rationality didn’t seem to be solving the world’s problems, and maybe weren’t even making it a better place on balance; feeling that my professors and even great scientists didn’t seem that admirable to me; and also an awareness that there seemed to be things going on that might be radically outside the domain of science, notably my discovery of astrology and confirmation of its validity, but finding it seemed to work on principles different from the cause-and-effect ones I was familiar with in science.

    I eventually concluded that consciousness was the senior principle – that this apparent world is arising in Consciousness, rather than consciousness being some kind of epiphenomenon of a material universe.

    I still think that a lot of what modern science describes as the evolutionary process is true! But I think a lot of the way the actual process has unfolded is due to a “self-organizing” principle, or a kind of inherent intelligence, in conditional manifestation – something it “inherits” from its Source-Condition of Consciousness.

    You have pointed out a lot of difficulties that a materialistic understanding, Darwinian or “neo-Darwinian” evolution, has in explaining the complex and flexible adaptiveness of life.

    And also the “tribalistic” defensiveness of “scientists” opposing themselves to “religionists”.

    I think that you rightly point to “feeling the Mystery” and letting go of such limiting commitments. Consider the evidence, and go wherever it leads you, rather than defending any kind of prior point of view.

    By the way, here is an interesting article that was recently in the news about how a guy was beaten up and developed amazing mathematical ability that he didn’t have before.

    “In 2002, two men savagely attacked Jason Padgett outside a karaoke bar, leaving him with a severe concussion and post-traumatic stress disorder. But the incident also turned Padgett into a mathematical genius who sees the world through the lens of geometry.

    “Padgett, a furniture salesman from Tacoma, Washington, who had very little interest in academics, developed the ability to visualize complex mathematical objects and physics concepts intuitively. The injury, while devastating, seems to have unlocked part of his brain that makes everything in his world appear to have a mathematical structure.”


    I was reminded of this article by your assertion:

    “It’s like if you drop your laptop and damage a sector on the hard drive. But you find that, instead of causing problems, your laptop now has 10 brand-new fully-functional and extremely elegant apps on it that never existed before.

    “This seems irrational to me. And statistically unlikely.”

    But this article doesn’t really contradict your point. It shows that the human mind is radically different in kind from a computer.

    How can a human being have potentials that have not been expressed before if it is merely a biological organism? Well, I have seen plenty of evidence that there is a lot more going on than biological evolution could ever account for.

    Thanks again for your stimulating consideration!

    • Hi Paul,

      It’s not clear to me that “religion” and “science” are on opposing sides on this issue.

      It seems like they might both be on the same side this time, and on the other side is Erasmus Darwin and the folks who either wittingly or unwittingly promote his “anti-knowledge”..?

      To say that evolutionary theory is true but that it is “self-organizing” doesn’t seem different from saying that it’s plain old true. Whereas this article seems to take us through a step-by-step process in showing that it is not true…?

      Certainly evolution has enormous trouble in explaining the origin of life itself. And there is no evidence that various species evolved from other species, other than commonalities in visible function and in molecular DNA, which I used to think was itself proof, but I now see as “circumstantial evidence”.

      Furthermore, the actual process of “evolving” from microbes into humans appears to be impossible scientifically, based on the need for genes and proteins to jump into existence in a miraculous fashion. The only way evolution can believed to be “true” seems to be if we believe in “miracles” and and we throw out the scientific method. Otherwise how can an entire gene pop into existence, even in bacteria which reproduce all the time, if mutations are almost always harmful and often repaired by cellular machinery? Evolution seems to be one of the most superstitious and non-scientific theories I’ve ever heard of. Or as Charles Darwin put it, his granddad’s theory is disappointing because it is full of speculation but light on facts.

      However it is appealing to my mind when it wants “information” and “theories” to have a sense of “control” over existence.

      As far as someone developing more abilities due to a brain injury, I’m not sure this relates to genetic transformation in the evolutionary sense but probably does relate to the fact that we are said to use very little of our brain capacity most of the time. I sometimes think we are full of so many false beliefs that it’s a wonder that our brains function much at all! lol.

      Thanks Paul for sharing your commentary.

    • Paul Major   Thumb up +1


      This is a point-by-point response to BOT Student’s response to my response to his original posting. I hope that’s clear enough. :-)

      What I meant by “science” and “religion” being on opposing sides here was “science” and “religion” as social and cultural patterns in our modern Western (worldwide) culture. So some people would identify rather exclusively with “science” or “religion” and others might feel a conflict within themselves between these two traditions. And both those traditions have, in my opinion, become significantly “false”, identified with and clinging to patterns for social and cultural reasons – which is why they conflict. What I would consider “true science” – an open-minded consideration of what is going in the world – and “true religion” – an open-hearted response to the Mystery of our situation and a movement to participate in it appropriately – would not find themselves in conflict, in my opinion.

      I do consider evolution to be plain old true. If we look at the evidence, and there has now been a vast repository of evidence accumulated, part of what we see is a very complex system of life here on planet Earth, constantly changing in many ways, while also maintaining many stable patterns. And looking at the long-term history of the planet, which evidence suggests is perhaps 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%) old (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth) we see life appearing in very simple forms (prokaryotes) very early in this history, and then progressively more complex forms appearing. That’s evolution.

      I definitely agree that a materialistic interpretation of evolution has a great deal of trouble in explaining the origin of life. My appeal to a “self-organizing” principle inherent in existence itself is a “way around that”, but I don’t think it is necessarily unscientific to propose this. We can study this phenomenon and how it works. The book Order Out of Chaos (http://www.amazon.com/Order-Out-Chaos-Ilya-Prigogine/dp/0553343637/ref=sr_1_sc_2?s=books) is a very scientific address by a Nobel-winning scientist to this matter.

      We can clearly see the emergence of new orders of complexity in human history. There is an obvious progression from simpler to more complex forms of social organization. To give just one example, in so-called more “primitive” cultures, such as seem to have existed for thousands of years before there was writing and when technology was limited to a few hand-made tools, there is little social differentiation and people are very familiar with what everyone else does. Maybe the men hunt more and the women gather more, and maybe someone focuses on relations with the spirits, and someone else makes the arrows because he does it best, but others could fill in if they had to. Contrast that with modern society where there are a vast number of different roles, some of them requiring many years of specialized training, and most people have only the haziest ideas of what everyone else is doing. And clearly that trend has been going on for thousands of years (with some notable ups and downs) and HAD TO have been going on for a long time for us to get where we are now. A society such as ours can only be made sense of based on having a long history of progressive development. And someone coming from a more “primitive” culture cannot quickly and easily adapt to ours, while the reverse seems significantly easier. (NOTE: I am not saying that this kind progress is GOOD and more complex cultures are BETTER; I am just saying that this is an observable trend and that more complex cultures can only exist with such a history – and less complex cultures have plenty of complexity of their own.)

      The point I am making here is that I think that the evolution of human culture is LIKE the evolution of biological organisms, i.e. that there are general principles in common. We can see new levels of organization emerging, but it generally takes a long time. Sudden dramatic changes are more likely to be regression or a change at the same level of organization.

      That’ll do for now.

    • Edu   Thumb up +1

      You really may want to watch this ;-)


  16. M Flow   Thumb up +1

    I have always been uncomfortable with the term “Fit” and the “Mechanism” model of “cause and effect” used in Darwin’s theory.

    Our small Old-Brain core is much the same as a mouse that seeks to eat, shit, and reproduce. Over that is our big Neocortex or “Human Brain”. Our old core mouse-brain is still hard wired to control and direct the attention and agenda of the Human Neocortex. I note the term “Fit” is interpreted to satisfy the mouse-brain need to seek meals, reproduce, and dump waste while a surrounding ecosystem manages the recycling of biomass, energy, and information to support the mouse as an internal agent.

    “Mechanism”, as a model, satisfies the Primate need to manipulate objects and ideas to adapt body and environment for the needs of the core mouse-brain. Indigenous cultures retain mutual-serving relationship to their surrounding ecology. However, Perception of Ambient Prior Unity is the baby thrown out with the bathwater of Scientific materialism. Fear of social-censure of self-serving, mouse and primate indulgence, is at the core of Scientific Materialism. Belief in Scientific Materialism justifies and prostitutes bad science.

    External Prior Unity Processes and Internal Prior Unity Processes meet at an interface. Both add and subtract Process at that interface. Life patterns express that process-interference in fractal accumulation and sustained closed-circuits of biomass, energy, and information. Biologists can’t tell the circuits from the animals, trees, forest, and ecosystem. Each “Animated-Object” is incomplete and “Externally-Dying” without the others.

    Systems manifest more characteristics than the sum of their components. there is a system energy and character gain that appears only when system components are assembled and energized into interdependent processes. Many biologists and scientists are “Uncomfortable” with the term “Emergent-Characteristic” because it is not a reduction-determined phenomena… that is, not a “Mechanical” built-up cause and effect. Nun the less, It is a phenomena “caused” or the “result-of” adding together all the External Prior-Unity Processes with all the Internal Prior Unity Processes. Nothing is separate from anything else except by illusion of perspective. This is the basis of my descriptive living system theory.

    Pure Scientists have no trouble with this approach. But Materialists, with the limitations of their rigid viewpoint, must uncomfortably lose face to accept a “Prior-Unity” viewpoint. Existence is Non-Objective and it is pre-supposed Prior-Unity that supports the universal application of scientific theory.

    Come-on frightened materialists; wake up, the universe is fluid unity … ! Oh well, I don’t think materialists know how to swim. Maybe we can teach them.

  17. ray   Thumb up +1

    Hi bot, great article. However, I have one question. I hope you can answer it. As you may know there is a tremendous amount of similarity in the DNA of apes and humans. This similarity is not only at the genetic level but even at the chromosome level. i.e. some chromosomes are nearly the same both in content and structure. the chances of that happening by chance are infinitely small. I look forward to your reply. thank you.

    • ray   Thumb up +1

      here’s a quote explaining more: “The chances are infinitesimal that human chr 2 were to resemble those of other primates at random. This is what you say in science when you mean ‘impossible’. One simply doesn’t see a segment of DNA the size of Chr 2A and 2B being so similar for such a length when we look at rats, dogs, worms or any more distantly related living thing. But for every primate the relationship corresponds to humans the same way” http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/5558/chromosome-2-fusion?rq=1

    • Hi Ray,

      Yeah, I don’t know what to tell you. Many people say life on this planet is a miracle. Or at least a mystery. How could all these things happen by chance? Right?

      Even the theory of evolution is based squaredly on miracle after miracle, as I found out while researching this article, but which I did not understand back when I was in school. Somehow when I was in school I don’t recall that side of the theory being discussed all that much.

      Now, if you are suggesting that similar genetic structures implies a common genetic ancestor between apes and humans, yes! that is exactly how I have always thought. But if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

      Let’s say there are no humans and only apes, and we’re living long ago in earth’s shadowy past. One day, one of our buddies has a genetic mutation in his germ cells. When he goes to make love to his ape-wife, he gives her a defective sperm with which he impregnates her.

      However, rather than a miscarriage or some other birth problem, the genetic damage passed on to the zygote, the embryo, results somehow in an entire new human gene that never existed before but has now sprung miraculously into existence, and which causes the offspring to begin forming an entire new race of creatures – humans.

      This is one of the strangest theories I’ve ever heard. I don’t see how random genetic damage can create entire new functioning genes. It’s statistically improbable that this could ever happen, let alone happen again and again.

      What do you think is the likelihood that a single incidence of unrepaired genetic damage can create a brand-new fully functioning gene?

      So to sum up, yes, the genetic similarity between apes and humans is remarkable – it can’t be an accident. I agree with you there sir.

      Life itself cannot be an accident, from a mathematical or scientific point of view, according to some biology researchers I quote in this article, including Francis Crick who allegedly discovered DNA, and Dean Kenyon, Professor of Biology.

      Therefore some people say God created all of this through miraculous processes that don’t rely on chance.

      Other people don’t like using the word “God” but they still say all of this shows signs of “intelligent design”.

      (Using the same DNA for both apes and humans could be said to simply be good design. Just as having four wheels is a good way to design a car.)

      For me, it’s all a mystery. I don’t claim to have any answers about any of this. I really don’t. I just don’t believe in “evolution” anymore.

      I now see “evolution” as a belief system that is not based on scientific logic or scientific evidence so much as it is based on training all of us when we are young to believe in it.

      If this way of looking at it is foreign to you, and if you truly believe this article is great, then I’d encourage you to read through the article multiple times. It took a long time for this information to sink in for me, cause I was so steeped in my beliefs with regard to evolution.

      best wishes to you sir.

    • Again, the way I look at this stuff is: “correlation does not imply causation”.

      So the amount of chromosomal similarity between two different species does not tell us why the similarity is there or how it got that way, does it?

  18. ray   Thumb up 0

    hi BoT student. thank you for the kind reply. I agree with you that there is quite alot of evidence out there contradicting random evolution – I would even say overwhelming evidence. it just bothers me this genetic similarity between apes and humans at the chromosome level. I don’t see any other way to explain it except by common descent. the only other way to explain it is to come to the supernatural – i.e. to say God planted false information, which is strange.

Comments are closed.