Friday, August 23, 2013

Happy belated birthday little Chucky Darwin .. But you're still full of shit

 When I first started this blog, it was to inform friends of what I was up to, scheduled gigs and training I was conducting. By the way, I will by playing on the JBER military base here on September 11th for their Survivor Outreach event. Anyway, I thought I'd insert an essay from time to time because I don't know what else to do with them. So, here is one which is an off-shoot of the one I sent to Ben Stein's site which you can find at the very bottom of this blog. This is a further clarification of Darwin's one-time buddy who later denied the possibility of Darwinism, or Natural Selection. Here it is:

The motive behind this piece isn't a defense of Genesis, it's a "back atcha" to the arrogance of the likes of Richard Dawkins or professional smart-ass bill Maher. Let THEM cough and sputter and be defensive for a change. I understand how natural selection works and that its principle was demonstrated by the introduction of the English sparrow to the US in the early 1800's. They flourished and really spread. Now you can see that those that headed north and their decedents are portly for insulation against the chill while those that went south are now spindly like the African bushman. However, the ones that migrated north did not start growing fur and earmuffs. Anyway, like I wrote in the foreword of my book "Lazarus", C. S. Lewis noticed an arrogant tone of authority in the scientific and technological community that is undeserved and grating.

“Natural Selection” is the process that caused man to evolve from lower life forms according to anthropologists/naturalists from Charles Darwin to present day.  Most of the accounts I’ve read suggested that an old colleague of Darwin’s, Alfred Russell Wallace, coined the term “natural selection” to explain their (Darwin and Wallace) hypothesis on how this evolution took place—the mechanism forcing the change.  That is key to the most glaring flaw in the theory of evolution, that change  (biological transmutation) is forced by the surrounding environment… adapt or die.  

Almost like a fad, the naturalists of the mid-19th century all seemed to latch on to this idea of evolution and frantically wanted to get credit for its “discovery”. The race to the publishers was on. Darwin intended to be the one made famous by his observation. He was in such a hurry that he became openly annoyed by the older, more patient Wallace who tried to warn Darwin that upon more detailed pondering, “Natural Selection” was a fatally flawed theory.  

Before becoming specific about evidence to the contrary, specific about the size of the human head and human brain, he explained to Darwin that Natural Selection could not account for the fact that the human being (contemporary and paleolithic) were endowed with mental capacities far in excess of what was needed to survive. Why? What would force that to occur? Why would a cave man have the same intellectual capacity as the man that would later split the atom? He didn’t know what an atom was. What forced this creature’s brain to be able formulate abstract thought? And even if natural selection isn’t a force that requires change, but is a result of nature experimenting with itself and it stumbled upon these attributes it really doesn’t matter because Wallace finally played the What are the odds (?)  game, when he presented the following.  Loren Eiseley explained:
 “As it is, the head of the infant is one of the factors making human birth comparatively difficult. When we are born, however, our brain size, about 330 cubic centimeters, is only slightly larger than that of a gorilla baby.  This is why human and anthropoid young look so appealingly similar in their earliest infancy.
“A little later, an amazing development takes place in the human offspring. In the first year of life its brain trebles in size. It is this peculiar leap, unlike anything else we know in the animal world, which gives to man his unique human qualities. “

Proponents of Darwinism should be amazed and humbled “that man was achieved at all. For four things had to happen, and they had to happen simultaneously:
1.       His brain had to almost treble in size
2.       This had to be effected, not in the womb, but rapidly, after birth
3.       Childhood had to be lengthened to allow this brain, divested of most of its precise instinctive responses, to receive, store and learn to utilize what it received from others
4.       The family bonds had to survive seasonal mating and become permanent, if this odd creature was to be prepared for his adult role.”

The odds against those 4 factors occurring simultaneously in an upstart species is so astronomical, it’s safe to say “it’s impossible”. But it occurred nevertheless. The final statement should be from French biologist and philosopher, Jean Rostand, and a bold statement it was: "Already at the origin of the species man was already equal to what he was to become"

If man is descended from the apes, I can just see Papa Ape walking by junior, stopping and yelling to Mama Ape, "Ethel, come and look at this kid. Look at his head! It's enormous!" Mama Ape adds, "All the other one-year-olds are scampering through the trees and ours just lays on his back and shits himself!"
"Yeah, the world won't be kind to this one" says Papa Ape.
"How will we ever explain this one?" she asks.
"We must invent a new word" said Papa Ape.
"Man?" asked Mama
"No... 'Adopted '" said Papa Ape

And happy birthday Little Chucky Darwin!