Defending the Paradigm

People friendly to the theory of evolution have spent the past 150 plus years creating and defending Darwinian myth. A major part of this project has been to promote Darwin as an original thinker. To do this people have had to lie and deceive people as to the truth. The most prominent victim of this process has been the creationist Edward Blyth.

Quotes and comments;

1. "May not then, a large proportion of what are considered species have descended from a common parentage?" - Edward Blyth [1837]
- Although Charles Darwin stole the idea of natural selection  and despite the fact this is well attested and well known by scholars, he is still given credit for it. In the 1830s a man by the name of Edward Blyth published articles on natural selection; these articles were read by CD and he annotated them in his own handwriting. It was one of these articles (published Jan/1837) that caused CD to begin his famous notebook/s on evolution. Despite all this CD never gave Blyth any credit for the idea, nor did he (at first) even mention him. From the very start he took credit for the idea, and called the theory of evolution he outlined in the Origins ''his'' theory.

From the very start scholars have known this, and people friendly to E. theory have gone along with the game and given credit to Darwin despite his obvious and flagrant plagiarism. In a recent book on Darwin's predecessors Rebecca Stott doesn't even mention Blyth; doesn't even give him a mention in the book... although she mentions most other figures in this story. (i.e. the idea of evolution thru the ages.)

- Despite the fact Loren Eiseley (an e.) wrote a book on Blyth and his influence on Darwin Stott deliberately refuses to mention him. This isn't a matter of ignorance but a deliberate attempt on her part to rewrite history, to present a mythical version of reality.
Q. "Why would she do this?
A. "People who are especially hostile to any idea of creation (and Stott is one such person) don't want creationists to get any credit for anything. They see the fact Blyth came up with the idea of natural selection as especially unfortunate and especially dangerous.
Q. "Why?
A. "According to textbook orthodoxy, natural selection [NS] is the very core of modern e. theory. To give credit for it to Blyth means that it's entirely wrong to say creationists don't come up with important ideas; it means it's wrong to say creation can't lead to good ''scientific'' ideas... and these people refuse to allow the public to consider such a ''heretical'' view. Stott (and others obviously) is very willing to rewrite history and to present a myth in its place to further this project.

- We see in the divinization of Darwin by supporters of E. theory that there is no reason to believe they're being honest about the subject of origins, and much reason to believe they're engaged in lying, deceit and obfuscation.

Notes; 02/04/2013

1. Darwin and the mysterious Mr. X - Loren Eisley [1979]
- a wonderful read, by a great writer.
2. Stott's book is a farce from beginning to end. e.g. despite promises she skates lightly (very lightly) over the ancients... apparently in an effort to present evolution as a scientific idea rather than what it is, a philosophical idea.
- I abandoned the book quite early, in disgust, but the index shows no reference to Blyth or to Eiseley. (She does have 6 references to "book burnings'' however... all the while she's engaged in a version of one herself.)
- Ch. 1. (Darwin's list) pretends to cover all the ''modern day'' precursors to e. theory... but does not mention Blyth. The list was added to later additions after CD had been rebuked for ignoring earlier writers on evolution. (If you want to know what kind of ''character'' CD had, consider the fact he had the audacity to disavow any influence from his grandfather.)
- I'm not aware of any collection of Blyth's work... and it's easy to imagine why. i.e. Darwin's supporters want his work ignored and utterly forgotten. (We see here an example of how science is done; one does everything one can do publicize views one is friendly toward, and buries opposing views. How anyone can pretend science is neutral is astounding. It's anything but.)
- to promote the myth of evolution as a scientific idea Stott begins with Aristotle... though this isn't even remotely the origin of the idea. (She curiously claims Darwin never read Aristotle or Epicurus. Even if we could believe this claim most other scholars of his day did.)
3. We're told continually be the champions of scientism that ''science is self-correcting'' but here's an instance where it is not. In fact the situation is worse now than it was when Eiseley published his book.
4. It's too bad our evangelical supporters of e. haven't read Eiseley's book.
Q. "How do you know they haven't?
A. "I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.
- Anyone who knows the truth of this case can only be repelled by such grotesqueries as "Darwin Day'' in the churches.
5. Daniel Dennett, in one of the most absurd statements I've ever read, claims Darwin was the greatest scientist who ever lived.... but perhaps he meant the greatest plagiarist and was misquoted.

The amazing, fantastical Eugenie Scott

Apologists for Darwinism are famous for making extreme statements, but perhaps the most extreme I've come across was uttered by Eugenie Scott.

Quotes and comments;
1. Eugenie Scott can be seen (briefly) in the second C. S. Lewis documentary where she points to herself and says, ''I'm a scientist, and I don't know any evidence against evolution.''  [1.]

-  As someone who switched from evolution to a creationist perspective after reading many critiques of evolution, I'm staggered by this claim. What in the world could she mean by such a statement? Is this just another case of someone employing the ''big lie'' strategy, or can she really mean this in some way? Here are some possibilities; choose the one you think most likely.

Multiple choice
a. she can't see any evidence but she hasn't been looking
b. she's blindfolded
c. she's got a bag on her head
d. she's under the influence of heavy medication
e. she's doing a comedy routine
f. she isn't a scientist
g. she doesn't know what the word evidence means
h. she's incapable of telling the truth
i. she was the inspiration for the Pinocchio story
j. she's allergic to the truth
k. she has a phobia about being honest
l. she's really Richard Dawkins wearing a bad wig
m. she was an ostrich in a previous life
n. she's a robot under the control of selfish genes
o. she doesn't know what evolution means
p. she's taking part in a biggest lie competition
q. she's an anti-christian
r. she's an anti-creationist
s. she's an actor in a sitcom
t. she's a political hack
u. evolution is her religion
v. she believes in the big lie approach to rhetoric and persuasion
w. she believes the public is 'stupid' enough to believe her
x. she believes the lie is more effective than the truth
y. she imagines people naively think she's honest
z. being on camera causes her to make a fool of herself
Or; all of the above




- Michael Johnson

Notes; 14/02/2013
1. C. S. Lewis and Evolution [Youtube]
- Why she points to her chest is unknown at this time, but scientific studies are under way even as we speak.
- The most surprising thing about this clip is that her nose doesn't grow a foot or so as she speaks. It actually does tremble a bit as if the Pinocchio effect were going to happen but then it stops.
2. It's quite possible she's not being honest at all, and like a political hack is just giving a sound bite response to her opponents. As she's famous for being disingenuous, it's likely she's merely trying to score points; i.e. by denying there is any evidence against evolution she's more less denouncing all critics of evolution as idiots.
3. By making her statement as strong as possible she risks having it dismissed as political overstatement or even being laughed at, but she hopes to persuade [naive] people that despite what critics say, E. is undeniably correct. i.e. it's her way of degrading her opponents. The person who hears her is supposed to ask themselves, ''how could anyone question such an undeniable fact as evolution? there must be something very wrong or twisted with such people.'' (In a larger sense this is called demonizing or dehumanizing one's opponent.)
4. To my ears her statement is as strange as saying ''I don't see any evidence against the idea people are basically good.''
5. This is a person who openly advocates lying and dishonesty to her peers, so we can't be surprised at her statement, but we can wonder why she expects anyone to believe her. Though Scott fancies herself clever, she's naive and foolish to think a strategy built on lies will work long term. (It's no sin to be wrong, but it is a sin to deliberately lie and deceive; especially when this concerns the young.)
   "I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,
For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned." - Matt 12:36-7
6. She can only get away with such a bizarre statement in a society where Darwinists control the education system and ban all criticism of E. theory.
7. I suppose she might mean that while she's familiar with the critiques of E. theory she hasn't come across any that have prompted her to abandon the idea.
- I think it depends on what she means by evolution. If a person is convinced they live in a godless, materialist universe then some form of ''natural'' evolution (or transformism) HAS to be true. I take it Scott is saying something like, "I'm convinced materialism is true.''
8. If she's being even remotely honest here she cannot mean that she doesn't see some problems with some of the subsidiary components of E. theory.
- She's likely ignoring the OOL problem, and would [lazily] contend that it's not part of the E. theory.
9. I'm not a scientist but I don't see any evidence she's telling the truth.

The Roundness of Evolution

One of the more amusing comments made about evolution recently is one by the American theologian Michael Peterson.

Quotes and comments;
1. In the video 'C. S. Lewis and Evolution' a theologian is quoted as saying;
"Evolution shares equal status with the roundness of the earth, it's revolution around the sun and the molecular composition of matter.''  [1.]

- Doesn't our theologian understand the difference between physical objects and living organisms? Doesn't he understand they can't legitimately be compared? e.g. the cell is at least a trillion times more complex than a grain of sand. If Peterson was the expert in philosophy and logic that he claims to be he'd know this renders analogies across these realms exercises in deceit and obfuscation.

Our evolutionary apologist seems to have forgotten that no one denies the roundness of the earth,  heliocentricity, or atomic structure, while they do have grave doubts about evolution, and many deny it altogether. If he had ears to hear this would tell him something... but perhaps he has his fingers in his ears.

We might as what has the ''roundness'' of the earth got to do with genetics and biological complexity? Maybe the superiority of evolution (as a solution to the mystery of origins) rests in its being a round theory.

Overheard at a recent BioLogos convention;

"It's the roundness of the theory that finally convinced me of its veracity. It's a theory that's as round as the earth, or as the belly of a gourmand.''

"It's the plumpness, the globularity of the idea that impresses me. It possesses a bold circularity that  verges on an almost mystical cylindricity."

"I myself admire the globosity of the idea, it shares a certain geometric relation to the curve in Darwin's nose."

"No other theory in science even approaches the rotundity of this theory... it leaves a man fully satisfied, and enlarges his thinking in all areas.''
"Well, said my friend, well said.''

"I would say that we see in evolution a theory that is plump without being bloated. It has a perfection of roundness that we will likely not see again."

"It's always been my contention that the more round an idea is the more closely it approximates reality... and since  no theory has more roundness than evolution this means it is a certain fact. A man can no more deny it than he can deny his own belly. It's as necessary to science as good suspenders to a pair of pants."

- Michael Johnson  [frfarer at gmail.com]

Notes;
1. CS Lewis and Evolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNNUPN3-WeM&feature=youtu.be
"Evolution shares equal status with the roundness of the earth, it's revolution around the sun and the molecular composition of matter.'' - theologian Michael Peterson
2. I had no idea the earth was round; when I went to school it was called a ''bumpy spheroid'' as I remember.