The Evolutionist Campaign to Suppress the Truth
Kazmer Ujvarosy
March 07, 2006
The truth is that the evolutionist explanations for cosmic and biological development from a simple beginning do not square with the facts. Only development from a most complex universal common ancestor agrees with the data we have.
Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, is dedicated to keep the Darwinian doctrine?s judicially imposed monopoly in our public schools alive, to the best of her abilities, and at the expense of generations of students. According to Ken Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, what evolution really means is summed up in the conclusion of Charles Darwin?s On the Origin of Species: ?There is grandeur in this view of life ? from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.?
What we are not being told by either Scott or Miller, and what is being criminally dismissed or suppressed by the entrenched Darwinian establishment, is the fact that experts in the field failed to find evidence that the mechanisms proposed by Darwin can produce new kinds of living organisms. For example as early as 1922 the Russian ichthyologist and zoogeographer Leo S. Berg made public his finding that what is believed to be evolution is indistinguishable from the process of development from a fertilized ovum, in which zygote or genotype the phenotype organism has its origin.
In discussing the remarkable relationship between development and what evolutionists assume to be evolution, Berg wrote: ?The laws of the organic world are the same whether we are dealing with the development of an individual (ontogeny) or that of a paleontological series (phylogeny). Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance.? (Berg, L. Nomogenesis; or, Evolution Determined by Law. M. I. T. Press, Cambridge, 1969, p. 134.)
Thus, rejecting the Darwinian doctrine of evolution from a simple beginning, Berg argued that an organism?s qualities are determined entirely by the orderly unfolding of sequences that characterizes embryonic development. In other words in Berg?s judgment development and what is believed to be evolution are, strictly speaking, one thing.
His finding is most significant because if what is believed to be evolution is in fact development, then the ?endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful? are not unfolding from a simple beginning, as Darwin proposed, but rather from a most complex genome, zygote, genotype, or universal common ancestor.
Building on the findings of Berg, Otto Schindewolf, Richard B. Goldschmidt, William Bateson, Robert Broom, and Pierre Grass?in 1984 John A. Davison from the Department of Biology at the University of Vermont presented the semi-meiotic hypothesis of organic evolution. (Davison, J. A. Semi-meiosis as an evolutionary mechanism. J. Theor. Biol., 111: 725-735.) His papers, in his own words, ?expose the complete failure of virtually every aspect of the Darwinian model.?
The essence of Davison?s hypothesis is that the formation of new species (speciation) results not from new genetic information generated by evolutionary mechanisms, but rather from an enormous potential supply of information already present in the genome or preexisting information. ?Thus,? he writes, ?what has been described as convergent evolution is not that at all but the expression from preformed sources of virtually identical morphologies.?
Although Davison is still asking, ?What is the origin of the preexisting information??, he?s convinced his ?model provides a rational explanation for the absence of intermediates both in contemporary and in fossil species.? On top of that Davison argues that if laws govern both evolution and development, and not chance, then ?The existence of laws presumes a law maker or makers. That in turn suggests purpose.?
Needless to say, Davison had to pay a price for his dissent from the Darwinian doctrine. He was subjected to harassments by various members of the faculty, and his salary remained frozen at the 1995 level. Eventually he retaliated by publishing ?What It Means to Be an AntiDarwinian at the University of Vermont.?
This brings us back to Eugenie Scott, who in her presentations and debates keeps referring to Charles Darwin?s brainchild as the ?theory of evolution.? Without her blinder she could see what Davison wrote in his ?Do We Have an Evolutionary Theory??
Davison points out that a theory ?is an hypothesis which, having been tested, has achieved a degree of support, thereby enabling it to make certain predictions.? However in Darwin?s model allegedly nature selects random changes in genetic composition resulting from assumed undirected mutations. So Darwin?s brainchild clearly cannot be tested because if the evolutionary mechanism he proposed is without purpose, its result cannot be predicted.
To illustrate, if we travel without a goal in mind, the prediction of our destination is impossible. The only prediction a person can make is that our wanderings are unpredictable, or that we can?t get lost because we have no destination in mind. Similarly, if the evolutionary mechanism is without purpose, no prediction can be made, except that the result of evolution is unpredictable. But to remain rational, a process without purpose is necessarily endless and can have no result. By definition result means a desired consequence or outcome. So if indeed Darwin is correct that from a simple beginning ?endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved,? for no purpose whatsoever, then his model can yield no result or outcome, and therefore cannot be predictive.
Also let me note that in the absence of purpose no action of any kind makes sense. If the process Darwin labeled ?natural selection? is indeed purposeless, how can selection take place in the absence of a goal? Selection implies choosing in preference to another or others for some purpose. If there is no purpose, there is no need for selection, be it natural or human. Thus the very act of selection implies a purpose, but Darwin and his disciples irrationally insist that the process of evolution is purposeless.
In light of the fact that it is impossible to make predictions based on the evolutionary mechanism proposed by Darwin, Davison correctly concludes that ?the Darwinian model does not qualify even as an hypothesis, a curious status for a view still widely accepted by the evolutionary establishment.?
But to give credit to where it belongs, Eugenie Scott is correct in insisting that explanations which are not predictive, and cannot be tested scientifically, have no place in science. For these very reasons the Darwinian model has no place in science.
As by now it should be evident, the Darwinian model is not predictive, because the result of any purposeless process is unpredictable. Moreover it is not testable scientifically because Darwin?s claim that natural selection managed to yield human life automatically disqualifies human involvement in the testing of that absurdity.
Incidentally, the celebrated Big Bang model of the universe suffers of the same predictive impotence. As Stephen Hawking noted in his lecture, ?The Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology? (Cambridge, UK, 11 January 2002), if all equations break down at a singularity, the Big Bang cosmology does not have any predictive power because if no one can predict what comes out of the initial singularity in which the universe has its source, it is impossible to calculate how the universe would evolve.
Just as in cosmic evolution, we are faced with the same problem in biological evolution. If no one can tell what comes out from a simple beginning or common ancestor, it is impossible to predict the evolution of life.
Characteristically, Eugenie Scott likes to assure her listeners that evolution isn?t a belief, because ?Scientists can test it and test it and test it over again.? She fails to realize that when scientists are testing a particular process which they think is natural selection?s purposeless process, in reality they are not evaluating natural selection?s abilities, but their own abilities. Put simply, they fool themselves repeatedly into believing that what they do is what natural selection does, and in turn fool their students and the public as well.
In any case it is obvious that if natural selection is the cause of human life, then natural selection is above and beyond human life ? i.e., natural selection is supernatural. But if natural selection is not a supernatural agent of creation, why is that entity not available for observations and experiments? Why can?t we see and touch natural selection?
If it is true indeed that only one thing in science is not open to change, namely its demand that every explanation be based on observation or experiment, where is for natural selection the observable evidence capable of being touched or tested? Also, if indeed from a simple beginning or universal common ancestor evolves the richness and complexity of life, who was there to observe, touch or test that postulated common ancestor?
This basic and rational demand by science brings to mind the incident reported in connection with Jesus Christ. In John 14 we find that when Jesus was teaching his disciples about the nature of the Creator, Philip demanded that his explanation be based on observable evidence:
Philip said to him, ?Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied.? Jesus said to him, ?Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, ?Show us the Father???
Also note Paul?s letter to the Colossians where he identifies Christ as our Creator:
By Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible ?; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Is there need to make it more evident that the theory of creation meets the demand of science? We are being told that Christ created the universe for the production of human life in his own image, similarly as a seed creates a tree for the purpose of self-reproduction. In other words Christ identifies himself as the cosmic system?s common ancestor, seed, genome, genotype, or input and output. As he put it in Revelation 22:13, ?I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.?
To come to the point, whereas the evolutionist speculation fails to meet the basic demand of science that an explanation must be based on observable evidence capable of being touched or tested, the theory of creation from Christ?s body satisfies that rational requirement. After all neither Darwin?s natural selection nor his imaginary simple beginning or common ancestor is observable and capable of being touched or tested. In contrast Christ, the actual Creator of the universe, made himself available for observation, and was being touched and tested. What is more, he made the prediction that in due time he?s going to live with us again.
Now, if evolutionists keep insisting that Christ is not the Creator or universal common ancestor of the cosmic system, we should demand from them to make available their natural selection and common ancestor for observation, touching, and experiments.
To conclude, when next time Eugenie Scott and similarly deluded evolutionists parrot the bold-faced lie that we have no scientific theory of creation, remember to remind them that it is in the Bible. In reality the theory that Christ constitutes the seed of the universe, or the genotype of the phenotype universe, is incomparably more scientific and fact-based then the alternative explanations invented by evolutionist biologists and cosmologists. It identifies Christ as the seed of the universe, and human beings as Christ?s reproductions. Because Christ is our universal common ancestor, and because he got in touch with us, and promised to live with us in the future, Darwin?s imaginary common ancestor is a parody of Christ.
In the final analysis whereas Darwin posits common descent from a simple beginning, the theory of creation posits common descent from the existing highest form of intelligence. As we have no confirmable evidence that intelligence superior to Christ?s intelligence exists, we are constrained by the available evidence to accept that Christ created the universe for the production of human life in his own image, similarly as a seed generates a mighty tree for the purpose of self-reproduction.
Contrary to what we are being told repeatedly, it is not science that faces a new offensive, and it is not the theory of common descent what we are challenging, but the irrational elements of the evolutionist doctrine. Because descent from one universal common ancestor is the essence of Darwin's model, the theory that Christ is the common ancestor of the entire universe actually reinforces Darwin's main contribution to science. But whereas Darwin proposed descent from a simple common ancestor, the scientific theory of creation proposes descent from the existing highest form of intelligence.
Unless the defenders of the Darwinian model acknowledge the fact that common descent makes scientific sense only from the existing highest form of intelligence, Darwin's idea will not sell well on the marketplace of ideas. As Alan I. Leshner, the chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science realized, "Scientists can't sell it alone." Therefore he would like to see religious leaders get more involved in the promotion of evolution. However that cooperation will remain a dream unless the realization sinks in that indeed Jesus Christ constitutes the cosmic system's input and output.
So as our Creator personally testifies, and as nature itself testifies, and as I and other rational thinkers see it, common descent from the existing highest form of intelligence makes a lot more sense then descent from Darwin's imaginary simple common ancestor by the help of an equally imaginary natural selection.
Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, is dedicated to keep the Darwinian doctrine?s judicially imposed monopoly in our public schools alive, to the best of her abilities, and at the expense of generations of students. According to Ken Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, what evolution really means is summed up in the conclusion of Charles Darwin?s On the Origin of Species: ?There is grandeur in this view of life ? from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.?
What we are not being told by either Scott or Miller, and what is being criminally dismissed or suppressed by the entrenched Darwinian establishment, is the fact that experts in the field failed to find evidence that the mechanisms proposed by Darwin can produce new kinds of living organisms. For example as early as 1922 the Russian ichthyologist and zoogeographer Leo S. Berg made public his finding that what is believed to be evolution is indistinguishable from the process of development from a fertilized ovum, in which zygote or genotype the phenotype organism has its origin.
In discussing the remarkable relationship between development and what evolutionists assume to be evolution, Berg wrote: ?The laws of the organic world are the same whether we are dealing with the development of an individual (ontogeny) or that of a paleontological series (phylogeny). Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance.? (Berg, L. Nomogenesis; or, Evolution Determined by Law. M. I. T. Press, Cambridge, 1969, p. 134.)
Thus, rejecting the Darwinian doctrine of evolution from a simple beginning, Berg argued that an organism?s qualities are determined entirely by the orderly unfolding of sequences that characterizes embryonic development. In other words in Berg?s judgment development and what is believed to be evolution are, strictly speaking, one thing.
His finding is most significant because if what is believed to be evolution is in fact development, then the ?endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful? are not unfolding from a simple beginning, as Darwin proposed, but rather from a most complex genome, zygote, genotype, or universal common ancestor.
Building on the findings of Berg, Otto Schindewolf, Richard B. Goldschmidt, William Bateson, Robert Broom, and Pierre Grass?in 1984 John A. Davison from the Department of Biology at the University of Vermont presented the semi-meiotic hypothesis of organic evolution. (Davison, J. A. Semi-meiosis as an evolutionary mechanism. J. Theor. Biol., 111: 725-735.) His papers, in his own words, ?expose the complete failure of virtually every aspect of the Darwinian model.?
The essence of Davison?s hypothesis is that the formation of new species (speciation) results not from new genetic information generated by evolutionary mechanisms, but rather from an enormous potential supply of information already present in the genome or preexisting information. ?Thus,? he writes, ?what has been described as convergent evolution is not that at all but the expression from preformed sources of virtually identical morphologies.?
Although Davison is still asking, ?What is the origin of the preexisting information??, he?s convinced his ?model provides a rational explanation for the absence of intermediates both in contemporary and in fossil species.? On top of that Davison argues that if laws govern both evolution and development, and not chance, then ?The existence of laws presumes a law maker or makers. That in turn suggests purpose.?
Needless to say, Davison had to pay a price for his dissent from the Darwinian doctrine. He was subjected to harassments by various members of the faculty, and his salary remained frozen at the 1995 level. Eventually he retaliated by publishing ?What It Means to Be an AntiDarwinian at the University of Vermont.?
This brings us back to Eugenie Scott, who in her presentations and debates keeps referring to Charles Darwin?s brainchild as the ?theory of evolution.? Without her blinder she could see what Davison wrote in his ?Do We Have an Evolutionary Theory??
Davison points out that a theory ?is an hypothesis which, having been tested, has achieved a degree of support, thereby enabling it to make certain predictions.? However in Darwin?s model allegedly nature selects random changes in genetic composition resulting from assumed undirected mutations. So Darwin?s brainchild clearly cannot be tested because if the evolutionary mechanism he proposed is without purpose, its result cannot be predicted.
To illustrate, if we travel without a goal in mind, the prediction of our destination is impossible. The only prediction a person can make is that our wanderings are unpredictable, or that we can?t get lost because we have no destination in mind. Similarly, if the evolutionary mechanism is without purpose, no prediction can be made, except that the result of evolution is unpredictable. But to remain rational, a process without purpose is necessarily endless and can have no result. By definition result means a desired consequence or outcome. So if indeed Darwin is correct that from a simple beginning ?endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved,? for no purpose whatsoever, then his model can yield no result or outcome, and therefore cannot be predictive.
Also let me note that in the absence of purpose no action of any kind makes sense. If the process Darwin labeled ?natural selection? is indeed purposeless, how can selection take place in the absence of a goal? Selection implies choosing in preference to another or others for some purpose. If there is no purpose, there is no need for selection, be it natural or human. Thus the very act of selection implies a purpose, but Darwin and his disciples irrationally insist that the process of evolution is purposeless.
In light of the fact that it is impossible to make predictions based on the evolutionary mechanism proposed by Darwin, Davison correctly concludes that ?the Darwinian model does not qualify even as an hypothesis, a curious status for a view still widely accepted by the evolutionary establishment.?
But to give credit to where it belongs, Eugenie Scott is correct in insisting that explanations which are not predictive, and cannot be tested scientifically, have no place in science. For these very reasons the Darwinian model has no place in science.
As by now it should be evident, the Darwinian model is not predictive, because the result of any purposeless process is unpredictable. Moreover it is not testable scientifically because Darwin?s claim that natural selection managed to yield human life automatically disqualifies human involvement in the testing of that absurdity.
Incidentally, the celebrated Big Bang model of the universe suffers of the same predictive impotence. As Stephen Hawking noted in his lecture, ?The Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology? (Cambridge, UK, 11 January 2002), if all equations break down at a singularity, the Big Bang cosmology does not have any predictive power because if no one can predict what comes out of the initial singularity in which the universe has its source, it is impossible to calculate how the universe would evolve.
Just as in cosmic evolution, we are faced with the same problem in biological evolution. If no one can tell what comes out from a simple beginning or common ancestor, it is impossible to predict the evolution of life.
Characteristically, Eugenie Scott likes to assure her listeners that evolution isn?t a belief, because ?Scientists can test it and test it and test it over again.? She fails to realize that when scientists are testing a particular process which they think is natural selection?s purposeless process, in reality they are not evaluating natural selection?s abilities, but their own abilities. Put simply, they fool themselves repeatedly into believing that what they do is what natural selection does, and in turn fool their students and the public as well.
In any case it is obvious that if natural selection is the cause of human life, then natural selection is above and beyond human life ? i.e., natural selection is supernatural. But if natural selection is not a supernatural agent of creation, why is that entity not available for observations and experiments? Why can?t we see and touch natural selection?
If it is true indeed that only one thing in science is not open to change, namely its demand that every explanation be based on observation or experiment, where is for natural selection the observable evidence capable of being touched or tested? Also, if indeed from a simple beginning or universal common ancestor evolves the richness and complexity of life, who was there to observe, touch or test that postulated common ancestor?
This basic and rational demand by science brings to mind the incident reported in connection with Jesus Christ. In John 14 we find that when Jesus was teaching his disciples about the nature of the Creator, Philip demanded that his explanation be based on observable evidence:
Philip said to him, ?Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied.? Jesus said to him, ?Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, ?Show us the Father???
Also note Paul?s letter to the Colossians where he identifies Christ as our Creator:
By Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible ?; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Is there need to make it more evident that the theory of creation meets the demand of science? We are being told that Christ created the universe for the production of human life in his own image, similarly as a seed creates a tree for the purpose of self-reproduction. In other words Christ identifies himself as the cosmic system?s common ancestor, seed, genome, genotype, or input and output. As he put it in Revelation 22:13, ?I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.?
To come to the point, whereas the evolutionist speculation fails to meet the basic demand of science that an explanation must be based on observable evidence capable of being touched or tested, the theory of creation from Christ?s body satisfies that rational requirement. After all neither Darwin?s natural selection nor his imaginary simple beginning or common ancestor is observable and capable of being touched or tested. In contrast Christ, the actual Creator of the universe, made himself available for observation, and was being touched and tested. What is more, he made the prediction that in due time he?s going to live with us again.
Now, if evolutionists keep insisting that Christ is not the Creator or universal common ancestor of the cosmic system, we should demand from them to make available their natural selection and common ancestor for observation, touching, and experiments.
To conclude, when next time Eugenie Scott and similarly deluded evolutionists parrot the bold-faced lie that we have no scientific theory of creation, remember to remind them that it is in the Bible. In reality the theory that Christ constitutes the seed of the universe, or the genotype of the phenotype universe, is incomparably more scientific and fact-based then the alternative explanations invented by evolutionist biologists and cosmologists. It identifies Christ as the seed of the universe, and human beings as Christ?s reproductions. Because Christ is our universal common ancestor, and because he got in touch with us, and promised to live with us in the future, Darwin?s imaginary common ancestor is a parody of Christ.
In the final analysis whereas Darwin posits common descent from a simple beginning, the theory of creation posits common descent from the existing highest form of intelligence. As we have no confirmable evidence that intelligence superior to Christ?s intelligence exists, we are constrained by the available evidence to accept that Christ created the universe for the production of human life in his own image, similarly as a seed generates a mighty tree for the purpose of self-reproduction.
Contrary to what we are being told repeatedly, it is not science that faces a new offensive, and it is not the theory of common descent what we are challenging, but the irrational elements of the evolutionist doctrine. Because descent from one universal common ancestor is the essence of Darwin's model, the theory that Christ is the common ancestor of the entire universe actually reinforces Darwin's main contribution to science. But whereas Darwin proposed descent from a simple common ancestor, the scientific theory of creation proposes descent from the existing highest form of intelligence.
Unless the defenders of the Darwinian model acknowledge the fact that common descent makes scientific sense only from the existing highest form of intelligence, Darwin's idea will not sell well on the marketplace of ideas. As Alan I. Leshner, the chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science realized, "Scientists can't sell it alone." Therefore he would like to see religious leaders get more involved in the promotion of evolution. However that cooperation will remain a dream unless the realization sinks in that indeed Jesus Christ constitutes the cosmic system's input and output.
So as our Creator personally testifies, and as nature itself testifies, and as I and other rational thinkers see it, common descent from the existing highest form of intelligence makes a lot more sense then descent from Darwin's imaginary simple common ancestor by the help of an equally imaginary natural selection.
Print
Email
