Darwin is Dead
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
The problem that we non-Darwinists have with the Neo-Darwinists is this: They have abandoned rational thought. Tim Berra in his book, ‘Evolution and the myth of creationism’ concerning the eye states, “They (creationists) miss the point that a structure need not be in final form to confer an advantage. Some vision is better than none. For example, if you have ever had your eyes dilated for a vision exam, you know that the iris diaphragm becomes nonresponsive to light intensity and the pupil remains wide open. Your eye is imperfect until the effects of the drops wear off. But you can still see well enough to get around, and you are certainly better off than someone with no vision. Some of us are nearsighted. We myopic types have an elongated eyeball that causes the light rays to converge in front of the retina instead of on it. This results in blurred vision of distant objects. But if I were a wild animal, my nearsighted vision would be a big improvement over no vision. I could see forms of food, shelter, mates, and predators, and detect if they were moving. Eyes did not arise suddenly from nothing. They evolved gradually over hundreds of millions of years by incremental improvements over previous models.”
Let’s ignore, for the moment, that a middle aged accountant from Newark with eye-drops from his optometrist has nothing to do with how the eye came about, and shows the bankruptcy of Berra’s store of intellectual prowess. Let’s also, for the time being, ignore the fact that an animal that has a lineage of many generations going back, according to Evolution, millions of years, has subsisted and thrived without eyes, and that this wild animal over its and its multi-generational history, has been able to find, “…food, shelter, mates, and (avoid) predators, and detect if they were moving.” We will not ask the Neo-Darwinist how this wild animal was able to do all of these things without eyes for, according to them, millions of years, and we will simply ask two quite simple and straight forward questions: HOW IN HELL did they manage to change their DNA structure in order to bring about this slight and first in a series of nominal changes toward vision, and given that they have lasted lo these vast millennia just fine without it, WHY IN HELL would they need to? Yet again, in answer, we get no comprehensive biological source data for change, no intelligent step-by-step dismantling of the process with even the barest of hermeneutical explanation. Rather, all we get is the same old tired and insultingly inadequate begging of faith in evolutionary change sequences; the begging of if’s…IF this happened, and IF this were to take place, and IF this animal were to develop this or that, THEN we would have such and such, IF it worked, IF, IF, etc., etc., etc.
So when we ask for no more than a rudimentary analysis of how these things can possibly occur, all we get is a string of mathematically impossible scenarios. Like a child throwing a cup of water on a forest fire, the Berra’s, the Gould’s, the Dawkin’s, and all of their like, toss their Dixie cups of IF’s onto the blazing inferno of logic, in an infantile effort to extinguish rational thought.
We don’t need God to demonstrate the offensively aggressive stupidity of Evolution. For He has given us something that is undeniably far more powerful than all of these faith-based Neo-Darwinian religions being preached in the pulpits of university church houses and campus lecterns. He has given us a powerful weapon that slashes to ribbons all of these risible syllogistic absurdities. It is called logic. We have logic and its Creator–they have Darwin and cognitive dissonance.
Darwin is dead. Unfortunately for the Evolutionist, so is reason.
