Evolutionists are Sad and Embarrassed that some 30% of Americans Reject Darwinian Evolution

In commenting on the recent Pew Research Center’s survey on the Public’s Views on Human Evolution, New York Times columnist Charles Blow said “In fact, this isn’t only sad; it’s embarrassing.”

Beg to differ Mr. Blow …  those who should hang their head in embarrassment are folks like himself that buy into this evolutionary nonsense.  And nonsense it is indeed.

Mr. Blow, and many of the “elite” thinkers and pontificators of the nation pass on the notion that there are mountains of indisputable evidence for evolution … there’s not!

A contrary and contentious view of life on this earth is what’s called Intelligent Design. An idea that says:

“Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”

But what do the smartest people in the world, the Darwin disciples, have to say about this notion of design in nature?

Francis Crick said some thirty-five years after he and James Watson discerned the structure of DNA, that biologists must “constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”

Some quotes from Richard Dawkins, probably the worlds most prominent spokesman for evolution and atheism:

Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun.

The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.

Design can never be an ultimate explanation for anything. It can only be a proximate explanation. A plane or a car is explained by a designer but that’s because the designer himself, the engineer, is explained by natural selection.

Darwinian natural selection can produce an uncanny illusion of design. An engineer would be hard put to decide whether a bird or a plane was the more aerodynamically elegant. So powerful is the illusion of design, it took humanity until the mid-19th century to realize that it is an illusion.

And from Stephen Hawking:

“ … tiny quantum fluctuations in the very early universe became the seeds from which galaxies, stars, and ultimately human life emerged” Stephen Hawking

And from Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), and one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology:

‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

So this is the philosophy behind the  “science” that Mr. Blow is pushing as truth. As you can see, it is very important for those holding tightly to the religion of Materialistic Darwinism to demolish the idea of design in nature.

But what of this idea of the “illusion” or “appearance” of design in nature?

Illusion: The definition of an illusion is an idea or something you can see that isn’t real.

An example of illusion would be seeing animals in the clouds as they roll overhead – or a drawing that can look like an old lady or a vase depending on which part you focus on.

So legitimate illusions can easily be exposed – but what of the supposed illusions of design in nature? And lets focus for now on the human body and what we see there as designs – real or illusions:

In terms of machines, designs manifest themselves in functional entities that accomplish a particular purpose or set of purposes. If these machines are illusions (e.g. the Bat Mobile), then their reality is quickly exposed and disappears as soon as we leave the movie theater. But the car or bus we get into when we leave the theater is a real manifestation of design that is tangible and real, and one we can rely on.

So lets take a walk through the systems, organs and machines making up the human anatomy:

  • Skeletal System
  • Muscular System
  • Cardiovascular System
  • Digestive System
  • Nervous System
  • Respiratory System
  • Immune / Lymphatic Systems
  • Urinary Systems
  • Female Reproductive System
  • Male Reproductive System
  • Integumentary System

And the main organs:

  • Brain
  • Eyes
  • Thyroid
  • Ears
  • Balance
  • Heart
  • Skin
  • Lungs
  • Liver
  • Pancreas
  • Spleen
  • Stomach
  • Kidneys
  • Prostrate
  • Bladder
  • … and more …

And the trillions of cells that make up these systems and organs … what has been discovered about the internals of a cell is truly astonishing – machines creating stuff; machines consuming stuff manufactured by other machines; machines moving stuff from on part of the cell to another; machines importing stuff from outside the cell; machines that export stuff to other cells; machines that communicate with other cells.

And lets not leave out DNA. The computational and informational storage capability of DNA is mind boggling. Researchers have determined that a gram of DNA can store on the order of 1/2 million DVDs worth of information.  Researchers have also discovered not one, but two languages co-existing within the structure of DNA – languages that define, in detail, the systems and organs listed above. Plus – DNA is what gives life the capability to reproduce itself from generation to generation.  And DNA is what distinguishes a human from a chimp;  a lizard from a cabbage.

It can be successfully argued that each of these systems and organs accomplish specific purposes in the life of the billions of humans living now or have ever lived on this earth.

Each of these systems and organs operate as machines, and the tightly integrated  collection of all of them operates as a human machine capable of, among other things, love, curiosity, creativity in writing – art – music …, exploration and more.

What can’t be argued is that these systems, organs and the human being itself are illusions or delusionary appearances of design!

No … what we see in nature as design is exactly that … design! And intelligent design at that.

So I ask you, Mr. Blow, lift the curtain … see what’s behind the curtain of atheistic materialism … behind the philosophy and religion of Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne,  Francis Crick, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) and others who would mock  those having a contrary world view.

Lift the curtain and look at, for example, the mountain of evidence for the evolution of birds, or of humans. What you will see are a paltry few fossils of something that may be a bird or a dinosaur –  a dozen or so hominoid skulls that periodically get rearranged according to some new and revolutionary evolutionary find in the rocks and dirt.

Look behind the curtain and see the strong emphasis on how closely the chimp and human are genetically related (~95%) – while ignoring, for the most part, the galaxies worth of intellectual, inventive  and cultural differences between the two.

No … Mr. Blow … I would suggest that the 30% of Americans who reject evolution are just a bit smarter than you.

Don Johnson – January 2014


2 responses to “Evolutionists are Sad and Embarrassed that some 30% of Americans Reject Darwinian Evolution

  1. I thought you might be interested in another rebuttal to the NYT article by Dr. Al Mohler.

  2. Pingback: Who says we have to choose between God and science? | A Yearning for Publius

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s