darwin:blind chance of divine mutation

…The theory of evolution in biology was already an old, even a discredited, one. Darwin, in his preface to The Origin of Species, listed more than thirty precursors- and was accused, in spite of this, of serious omissions. Greek thinkers had held the view that life had developed gradually out of primeval slime. Diderot, Buffon, and Darwin’s own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, in the eighteenth-century had held more or less fully worked out theories of the origin of species by evolution, or transformism, as it was called.

The objections to pre-Darwinian theories of evolution were partly based on the assumption of a short geological time span, which did not allow evolution time to operate, and partly on the speculative and puzzling explanations of how the process worked. In the most noteworthy pre-Darwinian evolutionist works- Erasmus Darwin’s Zoonomia (1794) and J.B. Lamarck’s Philosophie zoologique ( 1809)- it was supposed that the new needs of an organism somehow gave rise to new organs which were then transmitted to offspring, or even some inner impulse toward perfection caused the new organs to develop.

—Darwin, although he meant well, is responsible for a causing a very dark period in scientific history. By assuming that humans are just a more developed form of animal, he set off the world of moral relativism which we are now mired in. The world is too endlessly complex to have just evolved and formed somehow into the beauty we see around us. If you were to drop a bottle of ink down on the floor, how many times would you have to drop it for its contents to form just the word CAT? How about a full sentence? How about Shakepeare? This is essentially what one has to accept to celebrate Darwin.
Imagine the “accidental” formation of the human eyeball, the brain, or even an apple seed. This is such a stretch of logical thought, that I consider Darwinists to be more “religious” than non-Darwinists.—Read More:http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2007/02/17/charles-darwin-kabbalist/ image:http://www.modernmythmuseum.com/chaney%20jr%20tid%20fm%20121.html

This was merely to explain one mystery by another. True, the same might at the time have been said of Darwin’s own explanation, which assumed variations in offspring ( though the explanation of these variations was still not understood), but if it was a mystery, it was at least one of everyday occurrence, which was not true of the development of new organs by mature organisms. ( to be continued)…

Related Posts

This entry was posted in Feature Article, Ideas/Opinion and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>