My blog is an attempt to present facts and point out the hypocrisy on various topics and subjects to, at the very least, get the reader thinking and hopefully do their own research thereby arriving at their own conclusions. Such a blog would not be ‘complete’ without a discussion about evolution/Darwinism and Creationism/ID (Intelligent Design).
I started to do my research into this and I quickly arrived at the conclusion that the information to adequately present both sides, from a scientific viewpoint, is vast, wide and deep on both sides of the argument. I am not a scientist so I did not feel I was qualified to argue, for example, the statistical viewpoint of the 21 amino acids forming the correct sequence necessary to form our DNA, while not having the DNA to tell the amino acids what sequence to form-classic chicken vs. the egg scenario.
Instead, I decided to approach it from a different viewpoint that is rarely discussed, at least from what I could find. It is circumstantial, but people have been convicted on circumstantial evidence. Not that I am not trying to convict evolution or creationism, I am merely pointing out that circumstantial evidence can be rather compelling.
To be upfront here, I am a believer and follower of Christ. As I mature in my Faith, things that were taught, at best, scratched the surface of what the Scriptures really meant. My point is, there is a lot more going on in many of the Scriptures and biblical accounts than we really understand and things are not what they appear to be at first pass when reading the Bible. I am not implying the Bible is misleading, but what I am saying is the meaning of the Scriptures go far deeper then we can imagine. So, when scientists refer to the bible to show how lame it is, what is lame is their lack of understanding of what it is really saying.
Just because I believe in Jesus does not mean I agree with every Creationist/ID (intelligent design) person out there. There are compelling points on both sides and some Christians can be just as myopic and closed minded as their counterparts on the evolution side. However, I did notice certain traits and characteristics on both sides that got me thinking as to what path to travel down when writing about this topic. More on this as the article unfolds. One thing that did strike me, is that it there is an ‘us vs them’ construct. It is a real shame that the two sides cannot come together and just focus on the scientific aspect of the arguments. I sincerely believe great discoveries could be made by doing that, but maybe that is why it is not happening-to keep us divided and prevent us from making such discoveries.
In many of the videos on evolution vs creationism, advocates talked about religion as being closed minded, incompatible with science etc. Let’s start with the basic question of what is religion? According to Merriam-Webster; “religion is a spersonal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices”. So religion, it can be argued, is a man-made construct designed to worship God or the supernatural. The evolutionists view religion as some institution propagating a religious dogma which prevents people from thinking openly about science, especially about evolution. Many forget, however, that Sir Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Copernicus, and many more all believed in God.
The inference here is that many, if not all, of the evolutionists are atheists or have converted from Christianity to evolution because of the ‘compelling’ evidence for evolution. Many of them also view any believer in Christ to be unable to do good science and look at the evidence for evolution due to the fact they are hampered by their religious beliefs.
So what is Darwinism?
Darwinism, defined by Marriam-Webster: 1:a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent groups of plants and animals have arisen from the same ancestors — compare evolution 4, neo-darwinism
2:a theory that inherent dynamic forces allow only the fittest persons or organizations to prosper in a competitive environment or situation
Another term is Social Darwinsim, again from Marriam-Webster: “an extension of Darwinism to social phenomena; specifically :a sociological theory that sociocultural advance is the product of intergroup conflict and competition and the socially elite classes (such as those possessing wealth and power) possess biological superiority in the struggle for existence.”
In reviewing the evolution perspective, it struck me that there was a lot name calling and ridicule on the part of the evolutionists towards the creationists. This is not just from the evolution scientists, but in all the comment sections (of the videos). It was filled with vitriol and abject hatred towards creationists. In fact, there were very disparaging remarks made about the Bible, God and Christ. Ok, you may not believe in God, the scriptures etc but to denigrate the Bible and God as such is not what I would classify as a healthy debate or even rational. However, there was very little of the same type of response towards the evolutionists on the part of the creationists. They, the creationists, just want to debate and discuss the facts and evidence. So, why the vitriol? To me, something much deeper is going on here which goes beyond the science of the topic. It reminded me of another topic that invokes the same type of emotional response which is the climate change debate. This debate does not involve the belief in God, but it has the same emotional vitriol. Is this what our society is devolving to, where the discussion and a ‘agree to disagree’ is no longer happening. It is now personal insults if you do not agree with a particular viewpoint. Incidentally, just a side note, this is a sign of a crumbling society in which there is no rational debate, but just rather emotional and hostile accusations.
I also noticed there was also a high degree of arrogance amongst the evolutionists along with a real condescension towards anyone who does not understand or does not agree with them. In contrast, I have seen videos where astrophysicists are explaining their work regarding the universe and I did not see any arrogance or the condescension in these physicists. They were happy to explain what their work was all about to someone who was interested. This is not to say that arrogance does exist on the creationist side, I have met some pretty arrogant Christians and pastors in my time. However, I did not see that type of attitude in the videos that I watched regarding the Creationist/ID viewpoint. But I am sure if I looked long enough I would find some but, in the ones I did watch, it was all on the part of the evolutionists.
So where am I going with all this? You can get a pretty accurate idea of the character of a person by the type of company/friends they keep, or the integrity of an institution by the attitudes and messages it projects. For example, Hollywood. If you have been reading any of the past posts in this blog (or pretty much anywhere in the alt-media) you will know just how perverted, hypocritical and corrupt Hollywood is. Just look at which politicians Hollywood embraces and the reactions when one of their own is outed for some perversion or some other crime. So, while looking at evolution in this light is in no way going to prove that evolution itself is false or correct, but it does reveal that there is much more going on here than just scientific theory (and yes, it is a theory). Why is this theory so embraced by the Left (hence, a clue)? Why is it that any aspect of evolution that is called into question is immediately met with punitive action? Consequently, one has to wonder why academia, governments, scientific organizations behave the way they do when it comes evolution.
The actions and behaviors of the aforementioned institutions are very similar to that of the global warming/climate change narrative. When there is any level of calling into question the claims of climate change, there is immediate disparaging on the part of the supporters, name calling and even calls to have the so-called ‘deniers’ arrested. The actions towards scientists who call into question or debunk a particular claim of climate change are ostracized, ridiculed, and removed from their offices. Even though many of the so called ‘facts’ of climate change have been proven to be false or made up or just plain wrong, these points were discounted or ignored and the narrative continued. Satellites have shown that ocean levels are decreasing and not rising as purported by the CC proponents. However, in spite of these revelations, many of the climate change believers chose to stick with their theories rather than the look at the facts. But anyone who takes these facts forward has their funding taken away and are placed on the black list. Why? This suppression, or better yet oppression, reeks of fear. If one has the evidence on their side, it has been peer reviewed, proven beyond a doubt and passes the scientific method why the hostile reaction? This is not the behavior of someone who has the facts on their side. What are they afraid of?
The same type of behavior and actions can be found with evolution. The point that evolution is taught in the public school as fact, with no presentation of alternative views (or if it is, it is presented in the same spirit of ridicule). Anyone who questions the evolution narrative is, like climate change, ridiculed and blacklisted. This is a classic Saul Alinsky tactic which those on the left employ so effectively. Therein lies another clue. If you do not know who Saul Alinsky, please click here:
The left embraces evolution. That was another big red flag in my opinion because when the left embraces something it usually turns out to go against the very fabric of the Judeo-Christian foundation and principles of the country. When the left embraces something, any rationale and thinking person should really think twice about it. Why would the left embrace evolution? Well, the left does not believe in God, in general, or in the extremes (which seems to be more mainstream) they hate God. Hmm, there is another clue. Observe the leftist bastions such as Hollywood, the MSM, our universities, our government which, by the way, is no longer a constitutional republic but more of a socialistic soft tyrannical institution (my opinion). What is the common element here? It is they reject God or, as it is becoming more apparent, many of the populace in these institutions are swinging in the opposite direction. Please refer to my previous posts on this topic posted on Sept 22, 2017.
So, my question is, if evolution is so correct why the hammering of this topic in the public schools and the vehement/defensive almost hysterical reactions when it is questioned? Sounds like mass brainwashing and manipulation to me. Common sense tells me that when there is such a type of reaction such as this, there is some truth that is being hidden. This notion is further solidified by more examples outlined below.
Why are people are ostracized in the scientific community if they talk about creationism/ID? Universities remove professors from faculty if this topic is discussed. Their funding and grants are taken away and they are blacklisted. Scientific organizations react much the same way. There is abject fear among scientists to discuss the topic since they do not want to have their careers ruined. The MSM acts much the same way as well with its ‘journalists’ who talk about creationism. Also, when the MSM has a guest on to talk about creationism, this person usually is not a very strong person nor is their faith very strong, as best as I can tell. I rarely see one of the more prominent creationist scientists invited to debate. It is always stacked in the evolutionist favor-much like anything else the Left does.
Again, this goes way beyond science in my opinion. There is actual suppression of debate and fact finding while at the same time a real oppression and threats to those who even look into the idea of creationism. This is no longer about science but about an agenda that is attempting to advance a particular view point and ideology or possibly a religion. Like many leftist causes, evolution has become to many as a belief system all its own complete with just acceptance of ‘facts’ by the followers. It seems to me, from listening to these evolutionists, that evolution has become a religion of its own to them. The evolutionists have developed their own dogma in which they become singularly focused on evolution as the only solution. Sound familiar? Again, just like climate change.
There is no doubt that the government is furthering this agenda by maintaining the purse strings over the universities and the scientific communities. I am sure you have heard of the Golden Rule…he has the gold, makes the rules. Of course, it is not a stretch of the imagination to realize how the government can influence the colleges in this manner.
To remove God from a society, the government becomes god in the eyes of its people.
Part of the Darwinian theory is the survival of the fittest. This applies to persons and organizations. Well, if you remove God from a society, what happens to the morality and ethics of that society? It becomes what the government says it is, or based on the philosophy the government is embracing. Some of these evolution scientists say removing religion and replacing it with science will bring on a utopian type of society where there is no hinderance with morals, ethics brought on by religion. Where can this lead? Hitler and Stalin both embraced evolution and social Darwinism. Mao-Zedong embraced it as well. By removing ethical and moral constraints it pretty much justifies any behavior by any one person or institution. What if those in charge are psychopathic or evil? Well, the three people just mentioned are real life examples.
The eugenics movement arose from Darwinism theory specifically the survival of the fittest. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood was a eugenicist, as was Hitler. Ms. Sanger, by the way, is idolized by the feminist movement and the left in general. They both were in favor of removing the weaker and inferior aspects of the human species. Hitler promoted the master race concept while Ms. Sanger was in favor of removing the negro race.
No diety, no ethics, no free will. If there is no moral or ethical construct and we are taught that we are all animals via the evolution theory, what kind of society will it be? As this country is turning away from God and is shutting down all faith based things (to be read as Christian based), just look at the condition of our society. I think there is solid empirical evidence to determine a correlative relationship between the removal of God and the increase of amoral behavior. So, it seems evolution has become part of a world view, a philosophy and to some a religion since much of its tenants have to be taken on faith. There is active promotion by all governments to further the belief in evolution. So, if the view is we are just evolved animals and nothing more, does this give the governments the excuse to treat us as such? It appears so if you look at the way abortion is promoted, euthanasia is promoted, forced vaccinations, forced acceptance to transgender/gay lifestyle, the promotion/legalization of perversions, Big Brother surveillance, erosion of our constitutional rights, increasing lawlessness, increasing militaristic behavior of the police, increased regulations. These are not the tenants of a healthy and enlightened society.
One last point, I believe that the deck is artificially stacked in favor of evolution. In my researching various other topics, I found, what appears to me, significant discoveries of things that unequivocally prove certain biblical accounts. These discoveries have been covered up or absconded by various institutions such as the Smithsonian. Why? If these discoveries were brought to the public attention, then the narrative that the left is trying force upon the population would be fatally eroded, in my opinion. Hence, their power and control would also be eroded. Consequently, there must be a Creator. It is very dangerous to them to have a population that truly believes that they are created beings and that there is a Creator. I will post something regarding these discoveries at a later date.
As I stated in an earlier post, by their fruits ye shall know them. What is your opinion of the fruit of Darwinism thus far? Do your own investigation on this, but I hope I presented a unique perspective on this debate to at least get you thinking on the bigger picture. I made some assumptions on the part of the reader as to what he/she is aware of the antics of Hollywood, the abject biasness towards leftist philosophy in the MSM-just look at the reporting during this past presidential elections. Thank you for reading.