|
JANUARY 9, 2004 –
This is what
being a moderate independent is all about.
I received a
number of intelligent, polite e-mails (as M/I readers tend to be) in
response to
the article run last week challenging Darwin’s version of
evolution. Apparently every biologist and science teacher on the
planet reads M/I, and they spoke out in defense of what they think
and believe.
Although
intelligent and well-meaning, not a single one – not one – actually
responded to the article I wrote.
First, allow me to admit I deviated from
my normal reporting style in which I stop to carefully reference
every claim or statement made. But rest assured, there is no
need for alarm. For those of you who told me that what I said
no scientist agrees with and that there is no scientific research
into the topic or scholarly writing that agrees with me, here's a
few to start (and make sure you never make such claims inaccurately
again:)
Not By Chance: Shattering
The Modern Theory of Evolution, by Dr. Lee Spetner, PhD from
MIT, Fellowship in Biophysics at Johns Hopkins. (His book is
full of statistics, charts, you know, scientific data, but if you
want to catch some of what he has to say in conversation, check
this link here. Notice how similar it is to something you
read here a few days ago?)
Some reviews of this book:
"Extremely thorough and compelling," - Professor Christian B.
Anfinsen, Nobel Laureate, Dept. of Biology, Johns Hopkins
University. (A short bio on this man can be read
here, in case you want more references for my references.
How about some of his
best known
papers? Or maybe you want the
Encyclopedia Britannica entry on him and his Nobel Prize?)
(No offense intended in my tone, I am just jibing you all a little.)
"It is certainly the most rational
attack on evolution that I have ever read." - Professor E. Simon,
Dept. of Biology, Purdue University.
"Written with the utmost clarity.
Serves as an ideal text through which one might acquaint oneself
with one of the central issues in biology." - Professor G. N.
Schlesinger, Dept. of Philosophy of Science, University of North
Carolina.
That should start you out nicely.
And just in case you need more: Athropic Cosmological
Principle, by John D. Barrow and Frank Tipler; The
Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, by Dr.
Nils Heribert-Nilsson, Director of the Botanical Institute of Lund,
Sweden (search down for his name on
this page and you can see some of what he has to say about
evolution); Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,
by Raup, who worked for the Field Museum of Natural History.
Or how about this one: The
Carnivorous Plants, by Lloyd. (Sound like a familiar
topic?)
Maybe you want to hear from Darwin
himself?
“If it could
be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not
possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1958, p.
171. (You can go to
this site and see a wide range of quotes from a wide range of
sources about how the scientific record relates to that statement
and other aspects of Darwinian theory.)
But the point is you shouldn't need
diplomas from the Wizard to determine which ideas to consider or
not, you should trust your mind and judgment. Many of you
judged what I wrote based on an assumption that because I didn't
link references, none must exist on the planet, and no scientist or
educated person at all would ever say anything like what I said.
But does it really make what I wrote truer or less true now that you
know others have said similar things? We Moderate Independents
care only about the quality of the ideas, not the title or label of
who says them.
So now that we are past the, "No
scientist or educated person could say what you said, Bico,"
nonsense, let's deal with the actual subject matter and your
responses to it.
Every single
letter that came spoke out in defense of the natural selection
process, saying that natural selection is indisputable, that it is
the only proven, acceptable scientific explanation for things, etc.,
etc.
That’s nice, but
it completely misses the point. I was not questioning whether or
not natural selection plays some role in evolving things. What my
article was dealing with was the creation side of things – where the
changes that can be naturally selected or not come from; the
genesis, if you will.
Lots of the
letters asserted that
Darwin
does not claim evolution is random, because of this natural
selection, during which creatures can make intelligent choices.
But the point I
was addressing is that Darwin does assert that the choices presented
are random. Some readers suggested he did not claim that part was
random either, but not one presented an example proving otherwise,
and no one claimed that Darwin suggested intelligence guided what
mutations or changes presented themselves for natural selection.
This,
unfortunately, is what partisanship, pride, and fear often bring
about. Many people – and maybe rightly so – hold so tightly to
things like Darwinian evolution because they fear challenges to it
stem from dishonest political agendas or evangelical motivations.
Such fears and concerns whip the mind into a defensive frenzy and
shut down the free-thinking processes. And so rather than actually
dealing with the subject matter present, responses are given in
defense against an argument that is not being made.
I do not back
down from my point one iota. And in some e-mail exchanges with
self-proclaimed high-level biologists, the point that on the genesis
side of things, Darwin does assert that random mutation is the main
mechanism was in the end agreed upon. And one even came to
acknowledge that there is no actual body of evidence to support
this.
For example,
Darwin’s
theory follows the logic that we were all living as stupid monkeys.
Then, one day, a freak was randomly born with a bigger brain.
He/she was either more beautiful the others or more successful at
survival, and so, through natural selection, more and more of that
type went on to be born and thrive. Thus, humans.
That’s nice but,
1) it is absolutely unproven; 2) it is unlikely, especially taken in
light of the vast body of evidence around us.
Darwin’s
theory entirely hangs itself upon the randomness of that appearance
of a larger brain. Not for one second does Darwin suggest a certain
ape or group of apes willed their brains to be larger, and so guided
evolution.
One of the
problems we have with looking at history is we tend to distance it
into ignorance. People or animals back then were nothing like us.
They were innate, mindless, intelligenceless bags of genes and
reactions.
I will address
Darwin’s
lack of proof in a moment, but first, just for a second, consider
another scenario.
We are all
monkeys existing back hundreds of thousands of years ago.
All of the
monkeys around us don’t really question things. They simply turn on
NBC News or Fox News and think they are being informed well. They
spend their time going to work, coming home, watching some TV. Some
of them vote when an election comes up, some don’t bother. Those
who do get somewhat active in considering their votes mainly fall in
line with one of two parties. Those two parties rule our group of
monkeys.
But amongst us
there is you, a monkey who is not satisfied with NBC or Fox, for
whom neither of the two parties everyone else accepts even begins to
be adequate. You feel that us apes should think more, question
more, get off our couches, get out, and get more experiences so we
can learn more. You express these things to your fellow apes, they
throw doody at you. They outcast you, call you names, make clear
that there will be no changes occurring within the group.
At some point
you decide you’ve had enough, decide you are going to abandon your
stupid group of Fox/NBC watching couch potato apes. You announce to
the group you are headed off to a new place, going to take an
entirely different direction. Then you run off to avoid another
doody barrage.
When you stop to
rest after a mile or so, you hear footsteps. It is a few more
like-minded people who want to try the new way you described.
Now the
important point to note is that, exactly the opposite of what Darwin
suggests, there is no biological difference between you and Fox/NBC
couch potato two partiers. Darwin suggests the mechanism for change
that is a precedent biological shift. But if you look around at,
say, our current reality for a moment, there is no biological
difference between those of us who watch Fox News and those of us
who see it as garbage and choose another direction. Snide comments
aside, there is none. Some of our own flesh and blood – most of
them, in many cases – watch either NBC or Fox.
At this point,
there is no biological difference. The difference is a matter of
mindset and intelligent choice. And just in case some of the
Darwinian bias that has been fed into you starts to suggest that it
may be some random biological leap that makes you different than
those others, think about the many among us who at one point or
another was happily partisan and fulfilled with either NBC or Fox.
Then, someone of something spurred something in our minds.
So there we are,
biological identical but making the intelligence guided choice to
take another direction. According to Darwin’s theory, that choice
will not shape our biology, it is our biology that shaped that
choice.
And if you just
examine things in the infantile time scale studies about the topic
have used, it might seem so. If you check back in five years, ten
years, you may not notice significant biological difference between
the groups.
But now let’s
work with evolution’s actual time scale. Evolution would not serve
us well if our genes jumped to shift every time a new idea or trend
presented itself. Heck, how many of us would still be stuck with
tie-dye patterned skin at this point?
But consider now
that we leave the NBC/Fox News group, go form our own tribe
somewhere else, and for the next 100,000 years live lives in which
we willfully educated ourselves and expand our intelligence, in
which we choose to eat healthier and get exercise, in which we
choose an entirely different emotional and psychological mindset.
When we return
one day 100,000 years later and come across the group that chose the
direction of mindless couch potatoing, after that much time, do you
think we would still be biologically similar? Or might our biology
be guided by our intelligent choices, might our brains have grown to
be bigger, the rest of our biology seen similar shift GUIDED BY THE
CHOICES WE MADE, not guided by natural selection of random
biological mutations.
We all now know
that psychology affects biological chemistry. The biggest hole in
Darwin’s argument is the entire lack of useful study of the main
mechanism of change, reproduction. It looks at the fact that we put
out millions of sperm and says that shows a random process of
natural selection.
But where is the
evidence that the genetic material in the sperm we produce is
random? We know there is a wide variety, but is that variety
totally random, as Darwinism blindly asserts, or are the sperm
options provided guided by psychology, frame of mind, and how one
chooses to live? Does couch potato, Fox/NBC’er sperm present the
same variation as those who choose a different direction? Or is the
variation presented altered by the conscious choice taken?
Darwinists have
no conclusive studies on the topic. They choose to pretend the
question doesn’t exist, allowing themselves that with so many
millions of sperm, it must be a random process, not considering it
is our bodies that make these sperm, or that we know nothing of why
our body chooses to make which sperm. It is unknown and complex, so
they dub it random. But anyone who knows anything about the
functioning of a human body knows there is very little random
occurring within this highly sophisticated mechanism.
And on the
female side of things, there is a nine month process in which the
child is vastly influenced and shaped by the mother and her
chemistry. It is called pregnancy. Where are the studies
Darwinists have done to prove a baby’s biology is not malleable
during this period, that the mother’s chemistry, which is affected
by such things as thoughts, does not guide the biological
development of the baby?
Darwinists look
at reproductive processes on a time scale that is not a useful one
for dealing with such a slow process as evolution. Their studies
are the equivalent of flashing a light at a plant and, seeing no
instant movement in response, saying that proves plants do not move
in response to light. They do, it is just a much slower process.
And even if
there were to be some study on the topic – which there has not been
– it still might miss the mechanism of evolution, for the key thing
to keep in mind is that the real changes that guide evolution are
not common, they are not frequent. They are rare culminations of
such a massive force of will as to be scarce.
But that doesn’t
mean they are not real.
They are
Christopher Columbus. There was a prevalent wisdom that entirely
ruled half of the world, that the planet was flat. As time went on,
some people began to question and doubt this.
Still, nothing
changed.
More time went
by, and more people came to doubt it. Some brave and willful people
devoted themselves to trying to prove that the world was indeed
round.
Still, nothing
changed.
Nothing changed
until after years and years, the collective doubt, the collective
will to prove otherwise, all culminated in the radical determination
of a single man to finally do something about it. Maybe others had
tried, but they had not managed to find the right mechanism. But
through years and years of willing and trying finally, one day, one
man comes forth with the will, finds the mechanism, and so forges
off in an entirely new direction.
This would be
the process of the genesis side of evolution.
If you look at
the vast body of biological evidence on the planet, what you see is
a story of the immense will of the determined few. That was what
the example of the Venus Fly Trap represented, but let’s go back
further this time.
We are
single-celled organisms living in the water. At some point, some of
these cells decide it is better to work together as a unit. Over an
enormous period of time, they figure how to work together. Thus the
first multi-celled organism.
Or, as Darwin
would have, cells were floating around and then, one day, randomly,
some cells just happened to combine into a multi-celled organism, no
reason, just happened.
Back to my
version: Now you have some of these multi-celled organisms. Many
are satisfied, will hang around like the ancestors we left behind
when we chose to come
America.
But for some of those cells, there is a dream of more. There is an
intense will to be able to guide their future. There is a desire
for freedom and growth. And so over millions of years, we get
larger multi-celled organisms in the water.
That’s enough
for the vast majority, just like life on this planet is enough for
the vast majority of us now. But for a select few, there is an
unquenchable drive to know what is beyond the water’s surface. Just
like for thousands and thousands of years there was curiosity among
us about what was in space beyond our planet and yet we affected no
change because of it, so the same for the multi-celled water
dwellers.
But then one day
the culmination of thousands and thousands of years of wanting to
know what is out there results in the launch of the first
satellite. A multi-celled organism that can briefly live on land.
Then the fist live creature – a dog or monkey – gets sent into space
and lives a while. Another, more advanced multi-celled organism
takes a
Columbus
like, will-and-intelligence-guided venture onto land, having a
little more success than those who went before it.
Now insert the
required element for evolutionary change: lots and lots of time.
The Columbuses
of the sea try again and again over billions of years. Others build
on their little successes, until one day millions of years later –
that’s a lot of time which allows for a lot of will-guided
reformations and tries – an organism gets it right. The first
amphibian comes to be.
Or, as Darwin
would have it, just by luck, from those single-cells floating around
the ocean, random mutations just happened to give us frogs.
Darwin
explains all this progress from being single-celled ocean dwellers
to amphibious creatures as just sort of happening, as not being
adaptation over time guided by will.
And so it goes
on and on through our history. In my version, most amphibians were
of the NBC/Fox News watching, two-party accepting variety, don’t
come to America, couch potato variety. But a select few begin the
process toward future biological change by deciding they’d like to
be able to spend more time on land exploring what is out there. And
after millions of years of willing and taking actions and living
life in manner that attempts to achieve these ends, one day a single
Columbus emerges as the culmination of our intelligent, willful
guidance. He/she does not randomly as the result of some freak
genetic mutation, a lone land liver born entirely by chance. He/she
exists because it is what was chosen by the intelligence and will of
some in the species.
So feel free to
attack me for laying this out, but please don’t confuse my saying
this with my questioning natural selection as a prominent
mechanism. Natural selection is the election. The process I am
talking about is providing the candidates. In my version, most of
the candidates are slightly different variations of what came
before, the sort of variation Darwinism accounts for. These are not
the ones who guide evolutionary change.
While the vast
majority of candidates presented fit the Darwinian model of just
being another Democrat or Republican, of just being another lefty or
right-winger, of just being for the King or against the King,
evolution is guided by the rarest of the rare, by the Thomas Paines
and the Socrateses, by the Thomas Jeffersons and the Lulas, by the
Martin Luther Kings and the Ghandis.
They do not come
around often, but they do not appear by chance. They appear as the
result of will and intelligence. They are not freak, random
occurrences, but culminations, apex points of long, profound periods
of drive and determination. They do not appear in a day or at the
first thought of the need for change. It is only at the end of a
long process, an evolutionary process that ensures only changes that
pass the test of time and adequate willing truly carry the species
of the planet in new directions.
As luck would
have it, what I say is exactly backed up by science. One of the
e-mailers had this to say:
”…I have taken
a number of molecular biology classes which have gone into great
depth in how DNA gets manipulated by all of the molecular
machinery. For example, there are methods for cells to slowly
build up successive mutations (most of which tend to be
individually harmful) without hurting the cells too much so that
once there is some external pressure, those cells which have built
up mutations beneficial in the new environmental conditions will
survive while the rest die off.”
The process
explained here is exactly what I describe above, but the Darwinists
take a leap of faith to conclude that this process is entirely
random, not guided by will or intelligence, and that natural
selection is what determines when the mutation presents itself.
That is one
possible explanation, but it is just a guess. And it is a stretch
for the sake of keeping Darwin’s line of mindless randomness alive.
Notice the use of the words “molecular machinery.” That is what
Darwinists do to keep their theory of unintelligent randomness
alive, try and demean life and its processes into non-existence.
There is no such thing as “molecular machinery,” there are life
processes that occur on the molecular level. And you can bet
something in the body has something to do with how those processes
function.
You can not say
these mutation are random or that sperm is random until you have a
complete map and understanding of genes. Until you can say for
certain whether particular sperm is bigger-brained sperm or couch
potato sperm, how can you know if the variation of sperm being put
out is random, as the Darwinists assert as if known fact. You
can’t.
The same
e-mailer continues:
“As an example
of small scale evolution involving totally random changes, do you
know how your adaptive immune system works? Some of it still
isn’t fleshed out, but the genetic component of how antibodies are
made is pretty well known. One of the beauties of random mutation
and natural selection is that it can affect later mutations.
There are parts of DNA that are vital for life to go on... if they
fail, the creature is dead. These genes are protected from random
mutation by being repeated many times and by being in places
within the DNA that are not given to mutating as much. Antibody
genes, on the other hand, are designed to mutate as much as
possible in their recognition regions so that they can adapt to
new viruses and bacteria as much as possible. The proteins
involved in replicating antibody recognition proteins
intentionally introduce a lot of genetic mutations. There’s a
complicated selection mechanism backing this up to make sure that
antibodies against the body itself are suppressed. Like in
punctuated equilibrium, these mutated antibodies slowly build up.
When an infection happens, the environment in the body changes
drastically, and the antibodies against the infection start
multiplying like crazy, because that is the environment that they
were mutated for.”
Again, exactly
the same as I describe above, except, again, the Darwinist asserts
as if known fact that there is not intelligence or will behind these
processes – even if they are exact mirrors of processes we see play
out on a larger scale which we know are guided by will and
intelligence, and despite the fact there is nothing resembling
evidence of the randomness.
Darwinists love
the example of bacteria, claiming it makes their point. If you
don’t take all of your anti-biotic, the bacteria eventually become
resistant. The Darwinists jump out and say, “See, proof of natural
selection,” asserting that it was random changes in the bacteria
that caused this.
That is absurd.
The bacteria worked to evolve in a specific direction. The process
is like the one described above, that some of the cells will work on
the molecular level to adapt to the environment. If enough time is
left for the slow moving process of will-guided evolution to occur,
they will be able to save themselves. If you wipe them all out
before they get the chance, no such luck.
Take the example
of Global Warming. If suddenly the planet heated up 100 degrees, we
would have no hope and likely be wiped out. But if Global Warming
occurs at a slower pace, still, most of the people will stumble
along watching NBC/Fox, sitting on their couches, and so do nothing
toward fending off the impending disaster. But certain people will
start to notice a problem. They will team up with other like-minded
people to analyze the problem. Then they will work together to
develop a solution.
The solution the
bacteria arrive at is not random, they do not suddenly evolve into
multi-celled organisms, they do not suddenly grow gills or the
ability to fly. They specifically develop the ability to survive
the specific poison they are being walloped with. To Darwinists,
somehow this is undeniably random. In reality, it is a real stretch
to say it is just chance responsible for this intelligent
adaptation.
Randomness is
the panacea Darwinists use to try and fill in all the holes in
Darwin’s theory. They can not explain the mechanism of genesis.
You see above even now as they get into the molecular level, they
still can only observe a sophisticated process in which some cells
work toward a change that will occur only when a critical mass is
reached, that Columbus moment. The Darwinists can not even begin to
attempt to explain why these cells choose to try the variations they
try. But instead of admitting their ignorance, they claim that it
is random as if indisputable fact.
The above
e-mailer states:
“This is the
idea behind Stephen Jay Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium,
i.e. that mutations are usually harmful so creatures tend to stay
the same for long periods of time until the environment changes
drastically and then suddenly large amounts of evolution happens.
The periods of waiting are times for mutations to slowly build up
without being selected for, so that they are ready for when the
big changes come.”
That’s nice that
someone named Stephen Jay Gould has decided to come up with some
complex way to hold onto the claim that the process of change fits
with Darwin’s random genesis idea, but there is zero proof of the
randomness – the only proof is that all scientists have decided they
are going to say it is random and tolerate no saying of anything
else.
My version, that
these mutations building up are occurring because of the will of the
organism, that they are not being pumped out randomly by some
“molecular machine” but occurring as part of an intelligent organic
process in response to the will of the organism, is just as likely –
in fact, more likely, based on the evidence we have so far, the
grown muscles and the Martin Luther Kings, showing that change comes
as intelligence-and-will-guided adaptation.
Now, I am not
claiming the version I present here is for certain the right one.
You can agree or disagree with what I present here, you can present
counterpoint alternatives – that is what us evolutionary Moderate
Independents exist for, exchanges that aim to take us to new
heights.
But to attack
what I am putting forth with language and rhetoric that claims, as
many of the e-mails I received did, that what I present has been
proven wrong by science, that Darwinism has been proven
indisputable, that questioning it shows idiocy, only lumps you in
with another group of NBC/Fox couch potato-types.
Which was
exactly the point of my first article. Darwin’s theory has a
massive hole of the genesis side. The randomness he claims guide
the mutations is completely unfounded to this point. And so his
claim that evolution is only guided on the natural selection end is
not provable, not until we know for certain that the mutations are
random, which we do not.
And so when
Darwin is taught, it should not be taught as if indisputable fact,
but as the most accepted theory, and alternate possibilities, such
as Creation, aliens making the planet, or something else being
responsible for an intelligence- and will-guided should be
mentioned. Not taught as if known fact, not given equal time, but
mentioned.
Which is all the
Pennsylvania
school district in question was planning to do. And so I did and
still do stand with them against the ACLU’s lawsuit.
Don’t be
afraid. I am not trying to force religion on anyone.
But The Moderate
Independent will never shy away from pushing us all to get at the
higher truth, to push past our fears and biases, and to see things
on a level we usually avoid acknowledging, which is the only way to
get at the deeper truths. If we do not do so, then we will never
rise above the current Moveon vs. Fox situation we have arrived at.
And we would be no better than the most closed-minded partisans on
either side of that battle.
Remember, there
is no such thing as day or night, there is only a time when we are
being scalded by a massive nuclear furnace that actually exists some
93,000,000 miles away, and a time when we are not. You can choose
to simply it by saying day or night, but the reality that the sun is
not some nice yellow light but an actually existent nuclear furnace
scalding us like rotisserie chickens does not change because you do
so.
Nor does the
reality that those stars in the sky at night are not pretty white
lots turned on to compliment the dark. They are other even more
massive nuclear furnaces and other planets that actually exist, out
there, far, far away, so far away that we only see them as tiny
little dots; but they are real, nonetheless. What are they scalding
with their massive heat and light? Thousands and thousands of them,
all actually real.
So go on and
teach your biology classes during the day, go sleep up to rest at
night. But it doesn’t change the fact that there is something much,
much larger to our reality, and answers much, much truer than many
of the ones we currently hold as truth.
And that is
where The Moderate Independent’s destination is. If you are
satisfied to bicker in the low level truths of Moveon or Fox News,
feel free. But for those who want to join me to sail beyond the
sunset to a fuller understand, welcome to The Moderate Independent.
One of the most
central biological realities of the human body is adaptive
biological change. If a child grows up in Mexico, they can drink
the water without being sick. If someone exercises a lot, their
body responds by adding muscles. Again and again, biological
adaptation by the human body, some of it guided by will, such as
adding muscles through weightlifting, has been shown to be an
undeniable reality, central to the basic logic of how the human
biological organism works.
This combined
with the vast observable history around us makes intelligence- and
will-guided evolution an entirely plausible possibility. And the
complete lack of useful study on the genesis side of things leaves
Darwin’s theory truly, as yet, an unproven hypothesis. Natural
selection is a process that occurs, but it is entirely possible that
is occurs parallel to and unrelated to evolution rather than as the
catalyst for evolution, or as merely a refining process of the
evolutionary changes that occur.
In any case, never let yourselves shoot
down ideas just because you haven't heard them before or they are
different from what you've been told. It shouldn't matter
whether I can produce 10 books by scientists or not. Until you
learn to open yourself solely to subject matter and care only about
the truth of it in and of itself, you are shutting the door to a
world of progress and condemning yourself to a skewed, limited view
of the world, something only true Moderate Independents exist
without.
| 
