Tuesday, October 27, 2009

A review of The Dawkins Delusion? - by Alister Mcgrath

Notes toward a review of 'The Dawkins delusion' - by Alister Mcgrath
Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine

Quotes and comments;

Ch. 1. Deluded about God?

20. 'Yet The God Delusion is surely right to express concern about the indoctrination of children by their parents. Innocent minds are corrupted by adults cramming their religious beliefs down their children's throats.

- This seems an odd thing for a Christian to say. I guess being a 'liberal' he can ignore what the bible says about bringing children up with a knowledge of god. (Liberal theology is basically humanism with god tacked on as a kind of dessert dish.) I note he says nothing about Dawkins bringing up his daughter in the religion of atheism.

20. 'Bringing up children within a religious tradition, he [Dawkins] suggests, is a form of child abuse.

- This attack depends upon defining 'religion' in such a way as to exclude things like, Humanism, Evolutionism, Marxism, New Ageism, and the like.

22. 'Dawkins quotes with approval the views of his friend Nicholas Humphrey, who suggests that parents should no more be allowed to teach children about the "literal truth of the Bible" than "to knock their children's teeth out."

- Allowed? Allowed by who? Over and over again we see atheists teaming up with the massive State to attack Christianity. It's atheists who ever desire to build the super state; the all consuming state, the totalitarian state... so they can use its resources to wage war on people they don't like. This is a totally sick (perverted) comment.
- By limiting his charge to 'literal truth' Dawkins has exempted christian liberals from his attack you'll notice; knowing what great allies they are.
- Dawkins has surrounded himself with a crew of truly warped people.

24. 'In The Blind Watchmaker, he provided a sustained and effective critique of the arguments of the nineteenth-century writer William Paley for the existence of God on biological grounds. It is Dawkins's home territory, and he knows what he is talking about. This book remains the finest criticism of this argument in print.

- Mcgrath says he has no real critique of the critique Dawkins makes. This is because he (sad to say) accepts evolution! (I take it he believes in some wishy washy 'god did evolution' idea; which isn't evolution at all.)

26. 'There is no difficulty, for example, in believing that Darwin's theory of evolution is presently the best explanation of the available evidence, but that doesn't mean it is correct.'

- I'd like Mcgrath to tell me how Darwinism explains the origin of life.

30. 'As Dawkins himself pointed out elsewhere: "Modern physics teaches us that there is more to truth than meets the eye; or than meets the all too limited human mind, evolved as it was to cope with medium-sized objects moving at medium speeds through medium distances in Africa."25
- nothing has done more to corrupt scientific thinking than the idea man has the mind of a trumped up monkey.
- If you're expecting Dawkins to be consistent you might as well expect it of politicians.

30. 'The real problem here, however, is the forced relocation of God by doubtless well-intentioned Christian apologists into the hidden recesses of the universe, beyond evaluation or investigation. Now that's a real concern. For this strategy is still used by the intelligent design movement—a movement, based primarily in North America, that argues for an "intelligent Designer" based on gaps in scientific explanation, such as the "irreducible complexity" of the world. It is not an approach which I accept, either on scientific or theological grounds. In my view, those who adopt this approach make Christianity deeply—and needlessly—vulnerable to scientific progress.

- if there is no evidence of Design I don't see how you can possibly offer evidence for god. I'd like him to step up and tell us what his approach is, because apparently he doesn't have any. Is he defending spontaneous generation then? (He's flat out denying what Paul said in Romans.)

31. 'But the "God of the gaps" approach is only one of many Christian approaches to the question of how the God hypothesis makes sense of things. In my view it was misguided; it was a failed apologetic strategy from an earlier period in history that has now been rendered obsolete. This point has been taken on board by Christian theologians and philosophers of religion throughout the twentieth century who have now reverted to older, more appropriate ways of dealing with this question. For instance, the Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne is one of many writers to argue that the capacity of science to explain itself requires explanation— and that the most economical and reliable account of this explanatory capacity lies in the notion of a Creator God.

- It's not surprising he'd choose an apologetic that only has appeal to one person in a million. This isn't a bad argument, but it's woefully inadequate on its own. (Of course the bible doesn't seem to matter to christian liberals; they pick and choose whatever they like in it, like seagulls at a dump. (i.e. thinking most of the bible is junk.)

- Swinburne's argument is just the design argument in a fancy collar. In its way it's a god of the gaps arguement as well. i.e. what is it but 'science can't explain this.... therefore god.' (I can't see that this is much different. It's only 'advantage' is that its so obscure the Materialist can't really refute it.) All this does is take the gap argument to another level. (If materialism can explain the animals maybe it can explain man; if it can explain man maybe it can explain god. Are there no gaps? If there aren't isn't materialism true? It would seem so to me. If there are no 'gaps' in an argument the argument is usually said to be true. Not all 'gap' arguments are bad; there are good 'gap' arguments, and there are bad ones. (e.g. the materialist has no way to explain the origin of living things; this is a good gap argument.)
- Mcgrath seems terrified some argument for creation will be proven wrong, but he doesn't seem to be worried that evolutionary arguments have repeatedly been shown wrong for 150 years. That doesn't seem to have shaken his faith in evolution a bit.
- Swinburne's argument sounds a lot like Van Til; but as a good liberal Mcgrath can't mention Van Ttil, as he was so crude and was associated with those fundamentalists. (And worst of all, he was an American.)

Ch. 2. Has science disproved god?

34. 'As 1 pointed out in Dawkins' God, his point is fair and widely accepted: nature can be interpreted in a theistic or in an atheistic way—but it demands neither of these.

- The world demands neither a c. or a m. explanation? (I wonder if God knows about this.)
- If the universe has been created by God (as all true Christians must affirm) surely it 'demands' a creationist explanation. I don't see how that can be honestly denied. If the world was created by God, wouldn't we see evidence of this? Is he saying there would be no evidence?

35. Note; Mcgrath talks on and on about science; but never defines it. What's the point of talking about in that case? It's like talking about nothing.

37. 'Max Bennett and Peter Hacker direct particular criticism against the naive "science explains everything" outlook that Dawkins seems determined to advance. Scientific theories cannot be said to "explain the world"—they only explain the phenomena that are observed within the world.'

- What 'science' basically does (and one doesn't have to, by any means, be a materialist to do it) is to describe the world. [Basically to describe the physical world.] To describe the world is Not to explain it. i.e. is not to give an account for its origin or existence. Basic science is a relatively simple project. When Aristotle took a worm and dissected it, drew it up, and described it, he was doing science. This kind of project is available to everyone; you don't need a PHD to do science, it's been done by one and all since man stepped onto the scene.

37. 'In a significant publication titled The Limits of Science, Medawar explored the question of how science was limited by the nature of reality.

- and what is the nature of reality? The 'nature' of reality is creation. Science is limited by the particularity of the creation. If scientists (researchers, investigators) discover truth about the universe, it is truth about creation, and thus (I assume) truth about the Creator. True science is the ongoing discovery of 'secrets' hidden within the creation.

43. 'But worse was to come. When Dyson commented that he was a Christian who wasn't particularly interested in the doctrine of the Trinity, Dawkins insisted that this meant that Dyson wasn't a Christian at all. He was just pretending to be religious! "Isn't that just what any atheistic scientist would say, if he wanted to sound Christian?"19

- Of course Dawkins himself isn't (in any way) a consistent materialist; so who is he to talk? He couldn't live out his 'scientific' ideas for a single day. Does he really think of himself as the mindless gene carrying robot he talks about in his books? (How easy it is to write things; how hard it is to live them out.) Does he apply the same standard to atheists as to Christians? Does he have a materialist ethic?

45. 'The Dawkinsian view of reality is a mirror image of that found in some of the more exotic sections of American fundamentalism. The late Henry Morris, a noted creationist, saw the world as absolutely polarized into two factions. The saints were the religious faithful (which Morris defined in his own rather exclusive way). The evil empire consisted of atheist scientists. Morris offered an apocalyptic vision of this
battle, seeing it as being cosmic in its significance. It was all about truth versus falsehood, good versus evil. And in the end, truth and good would triumph! Dawkins simply replicates this fundamentalist scenario, while inverting its frame of reference.

- I find it amazing (unbelievable) that Mcgrath would compare Dawkins to Henry Morris. Does he have a clue what he's talking about? (Or does he, but wants to throw the atheists a bone? i.e. look at me, I loathe these 'fundies' as much as you do.) Morris was the opposite of Dawkins, a true gentleman in how he conducted himself. This is why I cannot abide liberals like Mcgrath. They treat people like Dawkins with great respect (read again the cloying words Mcgrath pens about Dawkins in the beginning of this book) and treat creationsists with abusive contempt. The sad truth is that Mcgrath (and most of his fellow liberals) are closer to Dawkins in their worldview than they are to Morris. (I reject the reading of the book of Revelation that Morris had; and reject the pre-millenial view.)

- The trouble for Mgrath is that the bible describes the world in the terms Morris did. (It talks of the antithesis between the seed of Satan and the seed of Eve; Jesus says 'he who is not with me is against me' and so on.) The liberals (in their infinite wisdom) do everything in their power to negate what the bible says about this issue.

- who's defining things in an 'exclusive' way? Morris or Mcgrath? Mcgrath doesn't even pretend to base his views on the bible.

- If Mcgrath has ever read the 'Genesis Flood' I'll eat my hat.

47. 'Dawkins here cites approvingly the Chicago geneticist Jerry Coyne, who declared that "the real war is between rationalism and superstition. Science is but one form of rationalism, while religion is the most common form of superstition."

- What's so laughable in this comment is the pretense that all scientists ever do is work away (like busy beavers) on their science... and so we can all pretend that scientists are purely rational beings! This is utterly comical. Contrary to popular myth, scientists do take off their smelly old lab coats and come home... and they manage to hold a multitude of irrational beliefs. Here we have Coyne hiding behind the skirts of science while he talks (irrational) rubbish. The 'real' war? Give me a break. Maybe he'd like to define rationalism? and while he's at it superstition? These terms have become as empty as trash talk on basketball courts. i.e. rationalism is what I believe, and superstition is what people I don't like believe.

- The greatest superstition on the planet is the idea life can come from non-life... but apparently Coyne thinks that's the height of rationalism. (He's rationalizing alright.)

47. 'Dawkins seems to view things from within a highly polarized worldview that is no less apocalyptic and warped than that of the religious fundamentalisms he wishes to eradicate. Is the solution to religious fundamentalism really for atheists to replicate its vices? We are offered an atheist fundamentalism that is as deeply flawed and skewed as its religious counterparts.'

- I wonder if Jesus Christ thinks Henry Morris was/is as bad as Richard Dawkins. Maybe He thinks a bit differently on this issue than Mcgrath. You'd think he'd be a bit more careful about his rhetoric, but I don't suppose he imagines those stupid 'fundies' will ever read his book. (Ah yes; if only we could all be as saintly as Michael Ruse.)
- he describes Morris in terms nearly identical to what Dawkins does.

- Mcgrath spends much of the book criticizing Dawkins for unfairly atttackig fellow atheists; but he spends much time himself attacking fellow creationists. He mentions that Mchael Ruse wrote that he was ashamed of the shabby treatment of Dawkins, I wonder if any christian liberal will write a piece telling us how ashamed he is of how Mcgrath has treated fellow creationists. (Don't hold your breath)

44. 'It is well known that the natural world is conceptually malleable. It can be interpreted, without any loss of intellectual integrity, in a number of different ways. Some read or interpret nature in an atheist way. Others read it in a deistic way, seeing it as pointing to a Creator divinity, who is no longer involved in its affairs. God winds up the clock, then leaves it to work on its own. Others take a more specifically Christian view, believing in a God who both creates and sustains. Others take a more spiritualized view, speaking more vaguely of some "life force." The point is simple: nature is open to many legitimate interpretations.'

- I would disagree. It's not 'nature' that is open to many 'legitimate' interpretations; it's man, specifically man and his fallen nature. i.e. it's only because of man's fallen nature that we have all these interpretations. If God created the world there is only one valid, true and accurate interpretation. (I'm not saying we're capable of comprehending it fully, or even substantially.) His statement sounds suspiciously as if there Is no accurate interpretation. Creation is an objective reality, not just a subjective interpretation. [That at any rate is the biblical view of things.] To reject the objective view you have to reject scripture. Unfortunately, too many christian liberals do just this. Their greatest fear is to be branded biblicists.

47. 'I have already criticized the intelligent design movement, a conservative Christian anti-evolutionary movement whose ideas are also lambasted in The God Delusion.

- Mcgrath baffles me. I get the impression he doesn't have a clue about the creationists he talks about. He seems to live in an ivory tower somewhere, having isolated himself from 99 percent of the church by the sounds of it.
- Apparently one of the worst things he can think of to call someone is an anti-evolutionist. (Horrors.)

49. Roman Catholicism, by the way, has never had the difficulties with the notion of evolution that are characteristic of conservative Protestantism.

- Apparently 'conservative' is the worst epitaph McGrath has; he uses it continually as a term of abuse.

- The adoption of E. by christian liberals is the saddest blight on the church in many a century. (They defend this adoption of materialism by picking and choosing the bits of evolutionary theory they like, and ignoring the bits they don't like. They ignore the fact E. is materialism writ large; its a theory that claims to account for molecules to man evolution.) Despite what the pope says, there in no room for god in the theory. It's utter deceit to pretend otherwise.

- McGrath tells us earlier, that he likes to be an independent thinker, and go where the evidence is; but here he's cheering the Roman Catholic position. (You know; where the pope tells everyone what to think.)
- my only problem with evolution (and it's admittedly a small one) is that it isn't true. I guess that makes me an ignorant fundamentalist.

50. 'Yes, there are religious people who are deeply hostile to science.'

- Although he says this, he doesn't name anyone. McGrath attacks Dawkins for his lack of scholarship but he shows a remarkable lack of it himself in this book. It's nearly impossible to be 'deeply' hostile to science. Science is a word; a word that covers a multitude of things. That some people are hostile to some things scientists do (and Christians aren't alone in this by any stretch) does not equate to being hostile to science. Again you'd think McGrath would write more carefully.

- To approve of everything scientists do is the really absurd thing; a version of scientism. Far too many Christians (like M.) stand on their heads to convince the world they're in favor of everything that's been sprayed with the aroma of science. (Science and technology are interrelated; and we have many inventions from technology that are utterly frightful; not only bombs and weapons, but hi-tech surveillance equipment, internet spy programs, etc.) Since scientists are as fallen as any of us, the work they do will reflect this. To baptize all of science is a wrongheaded idea.

- There are many atheists who could be considered hostile to 'science'. (eg. the Greens)

To be continued;

Notes;
1. The Dawkins Delusion? - by Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath

Monday, October 26, 2009

All truth is God's truth; but is all 'truth' true?

Aquinas said all truth is God's truth; very true, but there's a huge problem. When we turn to scientists for truth, we don't always get truth; we get instead the opinions (often false) of people (especially in our day) who are often hostile to God. i.e. we don't have access to the truth directly, but only through the corrupt 'filter' of fallen man. This is something the natural theologians almost never deal with. This isn't much of a problem on a banal level (e.g. what is the color or constitution of the blood) but when we go on to more complex levels (e.g. origins) it becomes a huge problem; so huge that we don't get truth at all, what we get is deliberate deceit and lies. (e.g. Darwinism)

- So on the theoretical level we can agree that all truth is god's truth (the greatest 'ally' the c. has is the discovery of actual truth of the creation) but on the practical level we have to deal with all kinds of not only falsehood but deceit. In our day the m. (or non-c.) wants to smuggle all of his false thinking into the 'conversation' via the medium science. What the c. then needs is a way to determine what is and is not true; he can't just go cap in hand to atheists and hope to get the truth. (If the atheist thinks his wview is in danger he will lie every time about the subject at hand.)

- The Christian needs to distinguish between descriptions of the the world, and explanations for things. (e.g. there's a huge difference between describing how the circulatory system of a man, and giving a theory on how man came to exist on earth.)

- A big problem we have is that despite what natural theologians tell us, the Materialist denies that all truth is God's truth He denies that we see evidence of a Creator in the world. The natural theologian tends to ignore this dilemna. If all truth is god's truth how come the materialist (if we're to believe him) doesn't see it? e.g. how can evolution (M2M) be the truth of creation, if the materialist denies it (E.) has anything to do with God? If all truth is god's truth, why do creationists and materialists disagree about things? (It would appear that christian liberals (e.g. A. Mcgrath) opt for E. in an attempt to limit the amount of disagreement between materialism and creation.)

- What's the solution? Is there a solution? We would do well to distinguish 'facts' and theory; to distinguish description from explanation; to distinguish science that deals with the present from 'science' that tries to reconstruct the past. i.e. theories aren't ever true in the same way descriptions are. (e.g. supposed examples of 'evolution' taking place in the present are a million miles away from theories about molecules to man evolution. We see some variation within set boundaries, but we don't see lizards turning into birds. We don't see an ape putting a hat on and going off to college.)

- As regards natural theology the question is this; is knowledge of the created order knowledge of God? Advocates will say that since all truth is God's truth, if I have truth about a frog I have knowledge of God. Well, maybe; but just what have you learned? Not very much I don't think. Let's take a banal example. I go and buy myself a boat (and old fashioned wooden boat lets say) at the market. I'm told it was made by a local craftsman. Now what do I know about that man (person) from his boat? Not a whole deal I don't think. I don't even know what his favorite sports team is, or even if he has one. I'm not saying nothing can be learned, but would caution people on expecting that much can be learned. (e.g. we can learn that God is wise, that compared to us He is infinitely wise, but we can't learn that He is loving or holy.)

Notes;
1. 'In Darwin's day very little was known about either of these principles [heredity and variation; re Mendel] but this ignorance of the real facts permitted Darwin to assume almost anything he wished regarding variation. - G.M. Price/The Predicament of Evolution
- The ideas of Charles Darwin were based on a profound ignorance of the real (true) facts. Natural theologians who believe 'all truth is god's truth' naively accepted Darwin's delusions as truth. In theory the idea there is only one truth (god's truth) is valid; in practice it's a reef that shipwrecks people continually. Darwin pretended to be a great guru, a great purveyor of truth, when he in fact he was deeply ignorant of his subject. The sad thing is that the natural theologians were all taken in by his claims of truth. They didn't seem to comprehend the fact scientists could be wrong about their claims of truth. (They bought and sold fool's gold, and sold the church down the river; sold it into bondage to materialism.)

- If we take the dictionary definition of superstition [an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear] then the theory of e. popularized by Charles Darwin was a case of superstition. This was even more so the case with the naive clergy who accepted it; there we have ignorance added to ignorance. The irony here is that while theologians were beginning (with the German critics) to be highly sceptical (to say the least) of the Bible, they were as naive as children when it came to ideas that were circulating in the scientific sphere, and in the 'sophisticated' journals.

- The 'theory' of evolution accepted by the 'liberal' clergy was philosophical speculation dressed up to appear as science. (This wasn't difficult in 1859, as science had yet to enter its institutional stage.) What they took to be truth was merely pipe smoke. I wish the natural theologians of our day would learn the lesson from this, but instead they appear intent on repeating it; as every new claim made by scientists is immediately baptized as Truth. (In some cases this happens as little as weeks, or even days after the event.) Such is the lust to be accepted within the academic community. This rush to judgment is unseemly and unbiblical. Where is the care, the diligence, the testing, the considered reflection? Are they afraid truth will run away and be lost? (Trying to keep up with fallen man in his flight from God is a hopeless task in any event.)

Pilot asked 'what is truth?'; the least our theologians could do would be to ask the same question. It's not simply the weekly pronouncements of the science magazines and government financed science groups.

2. 'Erasmus Darwin was contemporaneous with Lamarck, and had much the same ideas about the effects of the environment being passed along to the next generation; though it seems that these two men were unacquainted with each other. He taught that the accumulation of these effects had brought about great changes in plants and animals, and that these changes had been going on "perhaps millions of ages before the commencement of the history of mankind." They would also continue into the future, as he said, "world without end." - Price

- So; was that true? Had Darwin found out a truth about god's world? Should the clergy have thrown away their bibles and jumped on the Erasmus bandwagon? The history of science is men pretending their theories are equivalent to god's truth; and being continually mistaken. (I'm not denying we have discovered some truths about the non-biological world.)

3. "None of the animals or plants of the past are identical with those of the present. The nearest relationship is between a few species of the past and some living species which have been placed in the same families." - Prof. H. H. Newman, of the University of Chicago, entitled: "Readings in Evolution, Genetics, and Eugenics" (1922). - Price

-So; was that one of God's truths? No one believes it today, as hundreds of 'living fossils' have been found; but yet, not long ago, our clergy believed this was one of god's truths. (Can one hope they'll ever learn?)
- to pile on more examples (there are hundreds, if not thousands) would be tiresome. [At one time the 'scientists' claimed the universe was eternal, and that the sun orbited the earth.]

4. In 2 lectures on Aquinas (and natural theology) R.C. Sproul refuses to address the key question; i.e. 'how do we know that 'scientific' truth is true?' We're led to suppose this is a trivial matter I guess. It's disappointing to see him ignore the issue. (To ignore serious objections is to be dismissed by serious people.)

- Sproul goes on to blame the 'church' for getting it wrong on geocentrism, and for attacking Galileo. Is this true? We have to remember that the Roman Catholic church was (and still is) very much an oligarchical institution. (i.e. the people at the top made the decisions for everybody) People forget that both Copernicus and Galileo were not God hating atheists, but Christians. (Geocentrism was the scientific orthodoxy of the day; and came not from the Bible, but from the natural sciences.)

Haeckel's Recapitulaton theory refuted

Students are still being taught the 'recapitulation theory' as an evidence for Evolution. This is deplorable, as anyone who's informed on the subject, knows it's a fallacious notion. It was effectively refuted as far back as 1925 by G. M. Price. (see chapter below) [1.]

Chapter Eight - Lessons from the Embryo [The Predicament of Evolution]

THE fact that all the larger animals start from ova, or eggs, was first published to the world in 1651 by William Harvey, the discoverer of the circulation of the blood. But further knowledge of the stages in the development of the embryo was long delayed, until K. E. von Baer (1792-1876), about a hundred years ago, worked out the first comparisons between the developing embryos of man and the various classes of animals. That they all start alike and for many stages of their growth continue to behave in the very same fashion, appeared so remarkable that during the second quarter of the nineteenth century this fact gave rise to a great deal of speculation as to the reasons for this similarity.

Like Louis Agassiz (1807-1873) his contemporary, von Baer to the end of his long life rejected the theory of organic evolution. But long before he died the rather meager facts of embryology, as then known, had given rise to what is usually called the "recapitulation theory," which in the hands of Ernst Haeckel and others rapidly became by all odds the most popular argument in favor of the evolution theory. If within recent years this line of argument has much declined in favor among leading scientists, it has been because more recent discoveries in biology and embryology have tended to spoil the argument as contributing any support to the general doctrine made so familiar by Charles Darwin.

Embryo Development

A detailed description of the developing ovum is not essential for our present purpose. It may suffice to say that the one cell first goes through a complicated process of division and becomes two; each of these divides and thus there are four; then eight; then sixteen. Soon the developing embryo comes to look much like a mulberry, a round ball composed of a great many individual cells. Next the ball becomes like a hollow sphere, the cells composing merely the shell of this sphere. This is termed the blastula stage of the embryo; and it is a very interesting fact that all the higher forms of life develop thus far in the very same way, each passing through this blastula stage.

By the next processes of growth one side of this hollow sphere bends inward, forming a slight groove or depression, this depression becoming deeper until the two sides around it unite, thus forming a sort of double-walled sphere, which is now called the gastrula. With further development the gastrula lengthens out a little and becomes a short double-walled tube, with much more complicated processes a little later. We need not describe these next stages; but it must be noted that all of the higher animals, including reptiles, birds, mammals, and man, always pass through this same gastrula stage; and only afterwards do they gradually become more and more different from one another.

Why are all these animals alike in their early stages? Many people have said that this resemblance is because the higher forms have all been evolved from the lower kinds of animals, and that in its development the horse, the dog, or the man must always pass through, of course very rapidly, the stages through which its ancestors passed in the long ages of the past when it was evolving to its present position. This is the famous "recapitulation theory," which said that each of the higher animals repeats or recapitulates some or most of the stages that its long line of developing ancestors went through. And the evolutionists long pointed to these striking facts of embryonic development as one of their strongest proofs of the theory of organic
evolution.

A Better Explanation

But is there not a better and a more rational explanation than this whimsical one of recapitulation? All the higher animals start alike from a single fertilized cell, the ovum. How could any of them reach the higher stages of structure without all passing through many of their earlier stages side by side, or running parallel to one another?

For comparison, take the many lines of railway running Westward from Chicago. For considerable distances these roads run parallel to one another; but gradually some of them turn toward the south, some of them toward the north, while others keep on westward. Of these last, those going clear through to the Pacific Coast will keep together, or parallel to each other, for much longer distances than will those going to Texas or to Similarly, we might expect that the embryos of the higher animals, such as the dog, or the horse, or the elephant, will resemble the human embryo for a much longer period than will the embryos of the starfish, the frog, or the chick. The insect and the vertebrate would naturally begin to diverge from each other somewhat early in their development; though two insects, such as a house fly and a grasshopper, or two mammals, such as a dog and a horse, will maintain their resemblance to each other for a much longer period.

These facts follow from necessary first principles; they are of the very nature of things, and could not well be otherwise. As all the higher forms start alike from a single cell, a hundredth of an inch or so in diameter, all these cells or ova of the cat, the dog, the horse, the ape, or of man being at first so nearly identical that no powers of the microscope seem to show much difference between them, save in the number of the chromosomes they contain in the nucleus, or slight differences in the size of the ova themselves,— since they all thus start alike, how could they develop into the higher forms without running more or less parallel to each other for some time, gradually diverging more and more from the common or average type?

This is all there really is to this wonderful "recapitulation" process, which in the latter decades of the nineteenth century was so very much overworked by Haeckel and his disciples as an argument for organic evolution. [End of main argument; the rest of chapter is below]

The Fallacy in "Recapitulation"

Of course, these evolutionists had much more to their argument than the facts we have just given. They had three sets or series to compare. These three series were as follows:

1. The individual development of a single animal from the ovum to maturity.

2. The classification series, composed of all the typical animals arranged in a series, from the one-celled type up to one of the higher animals, or man.

3. The geological series, which also starts with rather small, lowly organized forms, and runs up to the higher or more highly organized types, man last of all.

The first of these series is an actual fact; it represents a real historical development. The second of these series is purely artificial; but it is a very natural one, and is a convenient one for purposes of scientific study. But up until quite recent years the geologists stoutly maintained that the third also represents just as true a natural order, just as much a real historical fact, as the lirst one, only a much longer one. Within the past few years, however, it has been proved that the third is just as truly an artificial series as is the second. Indeed, it is much like the second; for it simply represents the floras and faunas of the ancient world, found as fossils in the rocks from all over the globe. And the work of geologists in putting these fossils together into a series is just as much an artificial act as is the similar work of thc zoologist or the botanist in arranging the corresponding living forms into a series from the little to the big, from the simple to the complex in structure.

Man-made "Orders"

We are now able to get our bearings with reference to this argument from "recapitulation." We see that the evolutionists are really comparing one natural or real series of facts (No. 1), with two wholly artificial series (Nos. 2 and 3), which as serial orders have each only a purely artificial or constructive existence. The individual units of the classification series and of the geological series really exist, of course; but the arrangement of them in a serial order or line, one after another, is an arbitrary act of the one making the arrangement. And hence, while these comparisons are interesting and convenient for purposes of comparative study, the results of such comparative arrangements of the facts of the modern animals and of the ancient animals, with the one real historical order: namely, that of the embryonic development of the individual, cannot prove anything in favor of the theory of organic evolution. In fact, this "recapitulation theory" never did prove anything at all except the ease with which people can fool themselves and others by mere tricks of logic.

Now I know that some friends of the evolution theory will protest that this matter of the "recapitulation" argument is not by any means as simple — and as silly — as I have here represented it. They will begin to talk about the "gill slits" in the human embryo, the "tail" it is alleged to show, and a number of other alleged "vestigial" parts or structures, some of which "persist" throughout life.

The space here at my command will not permit me to do more than briefly to refer to a few general principles in this connection, referring the interested reader to my recently issued "The Phantom of Organic Evolution" (1924) for a more complete treatment of these topics.

What about the "Gill Slits"?

The so-called bronchial arches, or "gill slits," which are depressions or grooves below the head of the embryo, never actually open into the larynx, as do the real gill slits of fishes; nor do they ever have anything to do with the breathing organs, as do the true gill slits of the sharks and other fishes. The upper one of these arches finally develops into the upper jaw, the second into the lower jaw, and the others develop into the various organs around the neck. They are necessary as preparatory stages for the structures to follow from them. Their fancied resemblance to the gill arches or gill slits of fishes has been much overstated by evolutionists; and this idea that they are the useless relics of a fish-stage through which man once passed in his upward evolution has been much promoted by inaccurate or even fraudulent diagrams (mostly "made in Germany") which have been copied from one book to another, often without the writers of the books knowing the real facts in the case.

Similar remarks could be made regarding the so-called "tail" of the human embryo. Its use by some half-informed advocates of the evolution theory as an argument, is not an evidence of much thinking or much embryological information on their part. Several of the ductless glands of the human body, such as the thyroid, the pineal, and the pituitary, were once pointed to by the evolutionists as useless relics or vestiges of man's inheritance from his animal ancestors. Modern discoveries in physiology have put a stop to this argument. But until these discoveries of the real uses of these organs, this argument of the evolutionists was among the most effective they had along this line.

Big Strawberries on Top
If we return to a consideration of the present status of the "recapitulation theory," we shall find that it has but few defenders among biologists of the first rank. Adam Sedgwick admits that there is a general resemblance between the embryo and the larval stage of certain animals; but he adds that "this resemblance, which is by no means exact, is largely superficial and does not extend to anatomical details."

Dr. Percy Davidson, of Leland Stanford Junior University, has written a treatise entitled: "The Recapitulation Theory and Human Infancy" (1914). It is a mine of information regarding this whole subject. But in his summary of the present situation Davidson says:
"From these authoritative statements it appears that the facts of embryonic resemblance fail to support recapitulation in all three of its main implications.

"The order of appearance of characters is not uniformly, or even commonly, that required by recapitulation, which is first those representative of the order, and then in succession, of the family, genus, and species. . . .

"In the second place, embryonic resemblance in comparable stages does not vary directly with remoteness of kinship, but shows often very great divergence from this rule. . . .

"Finally, where resemblance does exist, it is not identity, nor even close [resemblance]."—Pages 34, 35.

L. C. Miall, in an address before the British Association in 1897, said:
"The best facts of the recapitulationist are striking and valuable, but they are much rarer than the thoroughgoing recapitulationist admits; he has picked out all the big strawberries and put them at the top of the basket."—"Proceedings" (1897), p. 682.

William His, one of the most eminent of embryologists, says:
"In the entire series of forms which a developing organism runs through, each form is the necessary antecedent step of the following. If the embryo is to reach the complicated end-forms, it must pass, step by step, through the simpler ones. Each step of the series is the physiological consequence of the preceding stage and the necessary condition of the following."—Quoted by T.H. Morgan, "Evolution and Adaptation," p. 71.

A Mere Bypath
And Professor His declares that Haeckel's method of comparison is a "mere bypath," and is "not necessary at all for the explanation of the facts of embryology."

Oskar Hertwig, another eminent authority, says:
"We must drop the expression 'repetition of the form of extinct forefathers,' and put in its place the repetition of forms which are necessary for organic development and lead from the simple to the complex."—Quoted by T. H. Morgan, op. cit., p. 79.

Vernon Kellogg also declares:
"The recapitulation theory is mostly wrong; and what is right in it is mostly so covered up by the wrong part that few biologists longer have any confidence in discovering the right."

Finally, we must conclude these declarations with another one which represents the present phase of this question:

"The critical comments of such embryologists as O. Hertwig, Keibel, and Vialleton, indeed, have practically torn to shreds the aforesaid fundamental biogenetic law [of Ernst Haeckel]. Its almost unanimous abandonment has left considerably at a loss those investigators who sought in the structure of organisms the key to their remote origin or to their relationships."— Scientific American, February, 1921, p. 121.

So much then for the notorious "recapitulation theory," which the uncritical zeal of Haeckel labeled the "fundamental biogenetic law." This theory originated when the facts of embryology were new and but imperfectly understood; it was brought into prominence by means of an aftificial arrangement of the fossils which seemed to resemble the embryonic development from the simple to the complex. It has now collapsed with a more accurate and more complete knowledge of the developing embryo, and especially with the exposure of the artificiality of the geological arrangement of the fossils.

In short, as I have said elsewhere:

"The recapitulation theory, as an argument for organic evolution, was founded on ignorance and deceptive comparisons; it has now outlived its popularity among those evolutionists who feel obliged to depend henceforth upon honest arguments to promote their theory. To continue to use the recapitulation theory as it was used by Haeckel and Darwin, can no longer be regarded as an indication of intellectual honesty." "The Phantom of Organic Evolution" (1924), Chap. VII, past para.

End of chapter;
- I ask you; why this fraudulent 'theory' has been propagated for so many decades when scientists know it's fallacious? Don't students deserve better than this? And if our educational elite are willing to traffic in fantasies like this, why should we believe this is the only fallacy they've been pushing? [I personally wonder why should we believe they have any integrity at all.]

Notes;
1. This chapter taken from the book; The Predicament of Evolution by George McCready Price (1870-1963)
(This was ©1925 by Southern Publishing Assoc.) Public domain.
2. I've been reading some of the older Creationist books, and I recommend this to anyone who wants to understand the Origins debate in our day. Without a background to the debate a lot of issues can seem confusing.
- I notice that many of the arguments are more or less the same as they were nearly a century ago.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Esau and Theistic Evolution

One of the passages from the bible that I've always puzzled over (and one should do this for a lifetime, before rejecting any of them) is the one where Esau surrenders (sells) his birthright for a bowl of stew.

- This has always struck me as impossibly strange... but recently it occurred to me that our theistic evolutionists, when they breezily accept Darwinism have done much the same, if not worse. I'm staggered when I read people like Polkinghorne, and how they breezily accept the 'fact' Darwin destroyed the design argument. (Faith of a physicist) They give up the idea of biblical creation as if it were a bauble; as less than a bowl of stew. (Not even soup in a cup.) They toss it aside like an empty candy wrapper. [And thus despise their birthright.]

- What's the explanation? (I don't believe P. is any kind of reprobate, or that he's insincere.) As I see it (and I can't know) they either don't think the doctrine of creation is important, or they don't want it to be. e.g. they don't want to embrace any doctrine that would mean their expulsion from 'polite' (i.e. PC) society; they don't want to have to deal with the social implications; they don't want limitations on their thinking, etc.

- The bible presents a very different picture of things.
"All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life and the life was the light of men" (John 1:3-4).

- This verse alone should suffice to do away with the notion of theistic evolution. (Theistic evolution being a contradiction in terms) We see here that the Son made all the things. (i.e. not some blind, random process.)
Theistic evolutionists will say; yes of course Christ created all things; in the sense he invented the wonderful process we call evolution. ("Thank god for evolution" as one book title comically says.) If we're to accept this we must believe and accept that Intelligence itself used a non-intelligent process; that the Personal used an impersonal process; that the Governor of the universe used a random process; that the One who sees all used a blind process; that the Logos used an irrational process. This makes no sense to me.

- What kind of revelation of God is Christ if instead of creating all things (as the bible declares) he only turned some kind of switch on and letter matter in motion, responding to the laws of physics, do its thing? Is that what Yahweh is like? We see no revelation of God's moral and holy character in the 'program' of evolution; for as we're told continually by our school teachers (and how could they be wrong, or dare to lie) there is no moral nature to evolution. (The bible on the contrary presents to us the picture of a holy god creating all things in a state of perfection. e.g. He didn't create man with the irrational instincts of animals raging within him. (This is the model offered to us by theistic evolutionists.)

- What can one say? Some people prefer slop to the real thing. (Some people would prefer to be drunk than to be sober.)

Notes;
1. "And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red [pottage]; for I [am] faint: therefore was his name called Edom.
Gen 25:32 And Esau said, Behold, I [am] at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me?
Gen 25:34 Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised [his] birthright."
- Esau could care less it would seem. (The NLT translates this, he was 'indifferent' to his birthright, and went about his business...) The theistic evolutionist is the same. He doesn't, he feels, need this old creation myth. He has no need of it, as he can fabricate one of his own, one that tastes much better.

2. If Adam was just an evolved animal, then Christ as the second animal was/is merely an evolved animal as well. (Like Esau, the theistic evolutionist has given up far more than he realizes; and indeed he gives up far more than Esau ever did.)
- if it's true (as some claim) that Esau made his way back from his apostasy, we can only hope some of our theistic evolutionists will as well.

Monday, October 19, 2009

The fact of spontaneous generation

The reason the fundamentalists (ape ancestry deniers) don't believe in spontaneous generation is that they haven't gone to the right schools. (Christian schools and home schooling have led them into this error.) Only bigoted, bible believing fools don't believe this idea; an idea that is as obviously true as is the fact the earth goes around the sun. (These poor creationists think the earth orbits heaven itself; such is the depth of their ignorance.)

These flat earthers are going against all accepted opinion when they deny spontaneous generation. In the opinion of many (e.g. our great friend Daniel Dennett) they should have their children taken away from them. Our society depends on science and people who deny spontaneous generation are against science. This makes them enemies of our society and all it stands for.

Where do these sad people get their ideas? Well, from their old book. It tells them that spontaneous generation is from the Devil, and so they won't accept it. This is medieval thinking at its worst. We can have no sympathy with these people, they must be forcibly removed from the public scene; they must be taught to conform to society or to lose any hope of having a place in it. Spontaneous generation is a fact affirmed by every respectable scientist in the world today. Only the demon haunted backward creationist denies it.

We see spontaneous generation everywhere we look. It's as obvious as breathing. The only people who can't see it are blind; people who have deliberately blinded themselves. No criticism of this fact of science should be allowed in our schools. The creationists must be kept from confusing our students with their nonsense.
- signed anonymous; a lover of true science, and a hater of superstition.

Notes;
1. "If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation we must have recourse to the miracle of a supernatural creation." - Ernest Haeckel
2. 'It should also be expressly noted that Darwin had made the theory of organic evolution "a going concern," as J. Arthur Thomson expresses it, long years before spontaneous generation was definitely refuted; so that in a certain sense it may be said that all the founders of evolution were ignorant of the profound truth that life can come only from antecedent life of a similar kind. In other words, evolution was to a certain extent founded on a belief in spontaneous generation. - G. M. Price (The Predicament of Evolution/ch 10)

Friday, October 16, 2009

Going down Darwin's River in an Evolutionary canoe

Does a scientist ever balk at the use of evolution to explain things?

Quotes and comments;

1. ' In a letter to the editor of PNAS June 3, John R. Skoyles (University College, London) took issue with Deborah S. Rogers and Paul Ehrlich for having written a theory of the evolution of canoe design (yes, that is canoes, as in boating). The paper had even used refined terms like positive selection and negative purifying selection in their theory of how intelligent humans designed their canoes over the centuries. Skoyles protested: “This is an insufficient foundation for inferring the existence of any particular type of process, let alone one analogous to ‘natural selection.’” He further accused them of equivocation in their use of the E-word.

Rogers and Ehrlich stood by their claim in the same issue of PNAS. They defended their use of evolutionary explanations by pointing to the many scientists who do the same thing. “This is a commonly accepted signal of negative (purifying) selection for genetic evolution and when interpreting the fossil record,” they said. “Although it does not prove that natural selection was at work, it certainly supports that inference.” [1.]

- I have only one question; If I look at a canoe and claim to see intelligent design, are they going to dismiss my comment as being religious?

- If there's no difference between human design and 'natural' design why are we having this acrimonious debate over Origins? If a canoe can evolve, why can't a living organism be designed? [i.e. If Materialists can apply evolutionary theory to something that's been intelligently designed, I don't see how they can object to me applying design to the things they claim evolved.]

- Evolution has become little more than a word game. [I expect to see it sold in a can any day now; where people can use it like spray paint.] When a word (E.) can mean anything, it means nothing at all. People are being sold down the river by our professors; sold into the slavery called Materialism.

- If other people do X, that means it's alright? (Are we back in kindergarten?)

Notes;
1. An Evaluation of Evolution as an Explanatory Device Creation/Evolution Headlines; 06/03/2008

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

The long, sad moan of Darwinism

Did Music Evolve?

Quotes and comments;

1. In May 19, 2008 — Nature ran a nine-part series on music. An entry by Josh McDermott, psychologist at University of Minnesota, asked how music might have evolved. The theme, with variations, is that nobody knows.
Music is a uniquely human trait. It is ubiquitous across cultures. Bird songs and animal calls, while musical to us, do not appear to have a music-appreciation function to the animals themselves. The great apes have nothing like it.

McDermott stated the theme in paragraph one:
"We think we understand why we are driven to eat, drink, have sex, talk and so forth, based on the uncontroversial adaptive functions of these urges. The drive to engage in music, a compulsion that is arguably just as pervasive in our species, has no such ready explanation. Music was one human behaviour that Charles Darwin was uncertain he could explain, writing in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex: “As neither the enjoyment nor the capacity of producing musical notes are faculties of the least use to man ... they must be ranked amongst the most mysterious with which he is endowed.” [1.]

- What a sad and dreary way to look at the world; this is Darwin at his curmudgeonly worst.

- This is a classic bit of Darwinist thinking. i.e. it's anthropocentric, in that nothing can be of value if it's not of value to man (i.e. man the animal) It can't be imagined that music might be valuable to god; or valuable to man in expressing his worship of god. It can't be postulated that it's an aid to man's moral, spiritual and aesthetic imagination. The e. can't understand music because he has abolished (murdered) man and replaced him with a trousered ape. He can't understand music because he doesn't see man as made in the image of god; they can't understand it because they don't see it as a gift from god.

- Surely music is of great use to man; and surely only an evolutionists would think otherwise. The examples are numerous, and obvious to anyone who hasn't been warped by a Darwinist education. Music offers joy, comfort, entertainment; it quickens all the emotions. On a higher level, the order and harmony of great music remind us of the perfect world of the creation. They create a longing for an ideal world.

- Darwin didn't seem to ask himself whether his own books were of the least use to man. They were about as useful as stockings on piano legs. All the books on e. are utterly useless in any Darwinian sense (and in any other sense in my opinion) So every time an evolutionists produces another book [doing something producing no reproductive advantage] on Darwinism he's proving that evolution theory isn't true.

- Darwinism is a curse, a plague upon humanity, and this is a woeful example. It's such a destructive ideology that it even destroys such a glorious thing as music. Great music exists but only because the people (now and in the past) aren't self conscious Darwinists.

Notes;
1. Did music evolve? Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/19/2008

Friday, October 9, 2009

The Beauty of (the word) Evolution

'Is evolution good for anything? There’s no question it keeps a lot of scientists busy, but has it helped the proverbial man on the street? Here is one perspective.

Quotes and comments;

Michael LePage [ May 7, 2008] hit the sales beat for evolution on New Scientist this week:
"Evolution is a beautiful theory. It explains everything from why some birds lose the ability to fly, to the bizarre meandering path of the vagus nerve in our bodies.
Sure, evolution makes sense of the extraordinary diversity of life on Earth, but can it actually be put to practical use? The answer is: it can and it should." [1.]

- This is the kind of hack writing that annoys me. What he's pointing to is variation (and negative mutation) within the created kinds. This isn't evolution at all. [Not as the public thinks of the term.] We need a new terminology in the whole area of biology. The one Materialists use is utterly useless; as it prevents understanding, rather than facilitate it. Variation has nothing to do with M2M (molecules to man) Evolution. Nothing. Though they're aware this is the case, Materialist continue to use the word evolution in many different ways; deliberately muddying the waters.

- This lack of precision is a disgrace; especially when you consider that the Eskimo have over a dozen words for snow. Maybe the Eskimo are better scientists; or maybe they have no reason to lie about the subject at hand.

- The downward loss of function has nothing to do with the supposed upward gain of novel function. This is like saying gravity and life are the same thing; like saying entropy and specified information are the same thing. It's really sad that people like LePage play this game, but what can you do? If people refuse to be honest you have to somehow deal with their lies and deceit. One way you do this is to continually point out what's going on. Maybe one day people will get tired of all the deceit and come up with a meaningful vocabulary.

- He uses the word 'should' - a Materialist has no right to use the word should. The word 'should' is a moral and theistic term, it has no basis in the physics based universe of Materialism.

- He speaks of things being beautiful. There's no foundation for such a concept in materialism. Doesn't he know that what he considers beautiful is just a hormonal imbalance? a bit of gene programmed delusion? (Over and over you see how materialists cannot live in terms of the theory they insist is true. They trumpet the theory when writing articles, but as soon as they move away from the keyboard, they seem to forget everything they've written.)

- Evolution is just a word; it can't explain anything. I get annoyed at this endless personification of the word evolution. (In our day it's word that means a thousand and one different and often contradictory things.)

Notes;
1. How Useful Is Evolution Theory? Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/07/2008
2. I called Lepage's article hack writing because it's meant to confuse people, and because it's part of this project to portray evolution is false ways. (e.g. to portray it as a useful theory in practical, every day science. In my opinion this is fallacious, and amounts to deliberate myth making.)
3. No creationist denies mutations, or loss of function that result from mutation. (The doctrine of the Fall was around for millenia before Darwin hopped out of bed.)

Monday, October 5, 2009

Revelation without religion

Quotes and comments;

1. ' Julian Huxley tells us ('Religion Without Revelation') that, "it's clear that the idea of personality in God is put there by man.''

- It seems to me that Huxley has it wrong, and that it's god who has put personality into man. If the Materialists were correct there could be no personality of any kind, as matter doesn't have personality. The Materialist has to tell us where personality comes from, and he can't. All he can say is, ''well it's here.'' I can't imagine this can be intellectually satisfying to anyone.

- Without God there would be no personality. To say one doesn't like the idea of God, is to say one doesn't like personality; that one would prefer to be a rock than to be a human being. As life can only come from life, so personality can only come from Personality. At the core of Christianity is the insistence that the universe is Personal; that reality is personal.

- Contra Huxley, there is no such thing as being without revelation. Both the Materialist and the Christian live in a 'revelational' universe. There is no escaping revelation. Even if you locked yourself in a room and played computer games all your life you couldn't escape revelation, as the human heart (mind, soul, body) is a creation of god, and thus a revelation of god.

- I think we can say that true biblical faith, rather being a 'religion' is more like revelation without religion. Christians have the truth, non-Christians must content themselves with religion. (e.g. with religions like materialistic evolution.) False religions are attempts to escape Revelation.

- When a writer says about X that 'it's clear' you can be confident he's about to b.s. you. If it was clear he wouldn't have to say it's clear. Who is he talking to, himself?

Notes;
1. False religions abound, and seem to increase daily. God becomes just another word once we reject the Creator. Some theologian defined god as the common will of all living things. Maybe he ought to have told the predators and the herbivores. It apparently doesn't matter that there is no common will. (Has this guy ever opened up a history book, or taken a look out the window?)
2. If you've ever studied, even briefly, the ideas of humanist theologians (and you have my sympathies) you know they like to say things like; god is; truth, light, love, democracy, the common will, the world, the spirit of humanity, mankind, etc. God is a thousand and on different things; but never God. This is what we mean by false religion. Fallen man loves religion; it's anything and everything... with the exception of being Yahweh, creator of heaven and earth. [My favorite among these goofballs, is the guy who defined god as a symbol for the vital spark of the universe.]
- It's not theologians like this the atheists hate. They're more than happy to let clowns like the above tip toe through the tulips and cast flower petals to the wind.

Thursday, October 1, 2009

Evolution is speculation evolving into fact

Thinking About Creation; where deep questions are answered.

- People often ask me, "what exactly is evolution?" I tell them evolution is a fact. For some reason this doesn't seem to satisfy some of them, and I have to go on to explain in greater detail, how this great fact came into being. You see, when you get right down to it, evolution is a matter of speculation evolving into fact. Yes, under the mutation producing pressure of atheists in high places, simple one celled speculation can turn into the great Fact of evolution. Yes, all the living forms we see around us evolved from that primordial bit of speculation. (The one celled bit of speculation we call Materialism, is the most simple life form in the intellectual world.)

While this primordial cell was simple, various natural processes (e.g. lightning, radiation, etc.) transformed it into a million different life forms. Can fact come from non-fact? Well obviously so, as the fact of evolution is alive and well, and spoken highly of in every classroom on the planet. If that's not a fact I don't know what is. Yes; it took millions and millions of years, in fact billions of years; but now it's a fact and no one can deny it. (Not anyone in their right mind; not anyone who isn't ignorant, stupid, superstitious or wicked.)

People ask me to explain the origin of life, and I tell them that, "In the beginning, well not the real beginning, but close to it, when the earth was a comic [ed. that should be cosmic] wasteland, nothing but inert chemicals and bio wannabes, a little primordial germ of speculation emerged one day. Whether this glorious event happened in small pond as Darwin tenderly imagined, or in some deep sea vent, or in some desert, is still a question we need to answer... but all in all it's just a minor detail. (No offense to people working in this area.)

What was the nature of this original germ? We don't have all the details but we do know that it was a single celled bit of speculation known as Materialism. Over time this one celled germ evolved (you might even say germinated) into the world we know today. That this is a fact no one can deny. (Just see what we'll do to them if they try.) Of course it didn't happen overnight. It took time." (Time nurtured this delicate flower until it was ready to become the fact we know today; time was the great gardener in this tiny plot where materialism first was born.)
That usually satisfies people, and they find contentment from their existential torment.