Darwinism: Creating the Eyeless

Darwinism: Creating the Eyeless

             Darwin's theory of evolution has many critics.  My research into the many articulate scientists who discuss it reveals that the links in its alleged chain are found wanting.  The debate can be ended based on the fossil evidence alone, as Darwin himself admitted.  It shows nothing even resembling a long series of life forms traipsing through a progressive evolution, as our encyclopedias so glowingly display.  Add to this the laws of thermodynamics, which would make evolution a miracle, if it took place, demanding more faith than believing in the tooth fairy.  Last but not least, our humanness is the greatest debunker of all.  If I am an advanced animal, how can I comprehend things like love, justice, right and wrong, unless it was planted in me? 

            Evolution defines me as an animal in a fixed world of laws or it reduces me to a machine in a predetermined trajectory.  These are two different ways of saying the same thing.  The ramifications of this are evident if one thinks about these words:  “We hold these Truths to be self‑evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . .” In a Darwinian universe this is lunacy; in a created one it is reality.  It cannot be both.
            There is already a long‑standing leading spokesperson for the evolutionist camp, Dr. Eldridge, who has said in a speech that this theory should not be taught in the schools any longer.  He has admitted he cannot point to one specific example of a transitional organism among the millions of fossils he oversees at the British Museum, and he has offered alternatives to the orthodox theory of evolution.  The problem with this is the amount of current knowledge and research which is based on evolution as a forgone conclusion. 

            For one, psychology is based on it.  Notice when psychology was invented by Freud, he was an avowed atheist and did not believe that humans were free in any way, shape or form.  Under Freud's version of two plus two, we live in a fixed world of natural laws.  Behavior itself is irrational, and none of his theories about the inner‑workings of the human psyche can be studied on any conclusive level.  We can only define what can be observed and measured, not what is going on deep inside the subconscious, whatever that is.  Studies have proven the ineffectuality of psychological counseling.  If you have two groups of people who need psychotherapy and one group is given it and one is not, the number of people who are healed of their psychoses is the same for each group.  The determining factor, it turns out, is the people who want to be better will get better, with or without counseling.  Those who do not, will never get better. 
             Behaviorism is the branch of psychology that deals with the measurable.  Pavlov is the father of this school.  He trained dogs to respond to stimulus in a determined environment.  He rang a bell and turned on a light in a cage every time the dogs received food.  They were trained to salivate when they heard the bell and saw the light even apart from getting the food.  This is behaviorist psychology.  What was done to the dogs is called operant conditioning.  I think Stone Age people domesticated animals too.  Hadn't people used animals to do work for a long time?  This is nothing new.  Arthur Koestler called this branch of psychology ratomorphology because it views humans as rats to be studied and trained.  They are animals and will respond to stimulus and punishment just as any animal would.  The Marine Corps used this method to build highly disciplined Marines, even before Pavlov's discoveries.  Both the behaviorist branch and the psychoanalytical branch of psychology assume evolution as a foregone conclusion.  One is scientific, observable; the other is plastic, non‑provable.  If we actually knew what humans were we could probably come up with a better way to diagnose our “psychological” problems?  Jesus was perfectly clear about such things.     
            The biologist bases his studies on evolutionary paradigms.  It does not take any great leap of logic to realize that if evolution is not where we came from, years and years of bad and wasted research has been done.  They look for trees in forests they cannot admit are there.  They need a chain saw.  With the proper view of our place in the world, could cancer, nerve damage and heart disease be as simple as curing a hang nail?  We will never know until the One who created us rips back the sky and all the shadows of our perceptions are brought to light.
            Politics is the vehicle of enslavement under Darwinism.  If evolution is true, then according to the descent of man, we are merely a link in a food chain. The strong control the weak, and they have every natural (selection) right to do so.  We are either the predator or the prey.  Of course this completely obliterates the original definition of "Natural Law."  Natural Law was seen by the U.S. Founding Fathers as having grown out of God's harmonious and sensible world.  The body of Justice Blackstone's treatises on English jurisprudence was based on Natural Law.  Unalienable rights are meaningful only when based on the proposition that man is made in God's image.  He holds a special place in the creation and therefore has certain responsibilities towards both God and his fellow man.  These Truths are absolute and not subject to human opinion. 

             In the minds of certain “modern” political philosophers, some of us are nothing more than “useless eaters.”  Charles Darwin had a cousin named Francis Galton.  He was the promoter of the Eugenics movement.  The eugenics movement is the school of thought that says we should purposely breed more of the best of us and eliminate the worst of us with selective breeding.  Sterilize and abort the “human weeds” and give advantages to the best sort of people.  This movement was strongly promoted in the British Empire and in the USA.  You thought the Nazis started this.  Not so.  Hitler simply made slight alterations to what the English were doing in their colonies and what America was doing among its less desirable teaming masses.

            The politics of human control roll off this evolutionary model.  Hegel made the human animals into children of the state.  Marx made us fodder for the Illuminati New World Order.  All knowledge then became non‑reason and it became “intellectual” to believe in nothing, in a world without meaning, absolutes, or value.  Everyone was reduced to a commodity on an actuary table appearing on some bureaucrat's ledger sheet.  Our worst political nightmares owe their origins to the evolutionary paradigm.  The Socialist‑Communist state, the National Socialist system, and the road down which the U.S. government is taking America is not “holding these Truths to be self‑evident,” but they are being smashed by a materialistic, Keynesian Brave New World.  The politics of evolution has become the strong controlling and devouring the weak, having now convinced the weak to be the willing food.
            Education has been fused with the notion that there is no meaning outside of serving the state.  This is not openly propagated as a statement of faith, but it exacts discipline, both subtle and overt, of any violation of its code while the American schools produce right‑thinking consumers.  Of nearly any developed nation, the American people spend more money to educate their kids and get the least for their money.  An article I read just today compared the success of American education to that of South Korea which spends half the money and gets twice the result.  It proves that half of the money we spend on education is completely wasted.  (or ¾ depending on your math interpretive skills)  When some school districts have one administrator per classroom teacher with administrators making one‑third to one‑half as much again what a teacher makes, it is obvious the system is its own curse.  For every $10 spent on education in U.S. public schools, only about $2 gets to the classroom.  They institute new tests continually and new programs to meet the needs of minorities and special needs children.  More funds are earmarked for Gifted and Talented students.  With all the money we spend, nothing improves in the way of real learning.  For their best laid plans, educators refuse to do the right thing; that is, hold the kids responsible for their education, their behavior, and their own lives.  If Americans really cared about their kids, they would protect them from the drugs and immorality that are rampant in our schools.  Kids need to be shown that they are valuable and given an environment with clearly defined limits, high expectations, and swift and sure discipline.  The school's discipline policies should make an example out of the disruptive students so that the marginal kids can experience an educational environment free from distractions and disruptions.  Instead, our schools produce helpless servants.  Don't we want free, self‑reliant and productive citizens?  Who's in control of this?
            The problem with education is that it is run by people who are either completely brainwashed or who are intellectual traitors.  They tell teachers to help kids become better thinkers.  Teachers are also told to help kids display higher order thinking skills.  As a teacher, every time I hear them tell me these things I cringe.  (Snake talkin')  In our most elemental state we are perceivers of the simplicity of all things.  This is how humans are born.  Kids are the best readers of body language, intentions, friend or foe, and they are born this way.  Kids are thinking along higher order schemes the moment they begin to perceive their world.  The instant they respond to their mother's first touch and to their own needs.  They are assembling a perceptive framework to discover their position in their domain. 

             The public schools destroy this ability with brutal efficacy.  Darwin's theory of evolution is the lynch‑pin to show how effective we are.  The thinking person can look at the space shuttle and instinctively know someone made this amazing device.  The shuttle, with all of its computer systems, navigation systems, temperature tolerances, and all the scientific and technological achievements that went into it, could only be the creation of intelligent design and construction.  But some humans will look at the simple cell in the human body and believe that it is the result of a long series of accidents.  The space shuttle is not even a stone tool when compared to the simple cell, yet we are asked to believe the cell just "happened."  Such a contradiction of logic itself must be taught through a process of mental injury.  That a human being could actually be convinced to believe this is scary.  Because there is no scientific proof for evolution, the person makes a leap of faith based on nothing. 

            Dr. Michael Behe, a noted biologist, once a proponent of evolution, rethought his own views.  The complexities within the single cell caused him to face obvious facts.  In his book, he challenged evolutionary views by his notion of “irreducible complexity.”  Without going into the details of cell structure, he proposes that the living machines that operate within the simple cell are the mechanisms that are the basis of life.  These mechanisms are simple meaning that it is inconceivable that they could function in a state wherein they were still evolving some of the necessary parts that make them work.  They are irreducible because they are without any conceivable ancestor.  It's like imagining how a Venus Fly Trap evolved.
            At what point does a human being submit to the tyranny of intellectual deconstructionism?  The child knows nonsense when he/she is being subjected to it.  Submission takes a long series of cruel and violent acts to bring subjection or a long exposure in the group think tank to help us become proselytized into the accepted modes of thought.  In the words of Author Kessler we will not only have the jackboot stomping on our faces, as in Orwell's description of government, but we will request the jackboot stomping on our face, and thank the government for it. 
            Belief in evolution is the greatest of the two‑plus‑two‑equals‑five confessions because to confess it is to confess that one is no longer a familias dei, an offspring of God, but is merely a homo sapien, or a member of the animal kingdom descended from primordial slime.  The confession entails so much self‑degradation that many people will never even try to think about it.  The homo sapien is just an accident which resulted from time and chance.  To mention meaning or purpose is ludicrous.  To discuss liberty or equality is like a dog trying to discuss life as a fish, inconceivable.  And before I forget, cognizant awareness is a useless gift.  What is there to think about, nothingness, meaninglessness, pointlessness, justice, fairness?  Don't laugh.  There are whole philosophic movements based on non‑reason and life in a meaningless universe.  If this were not so tragic, it would be laughable. 

            Imagine the created being with the spark of divine life within, reduced to such a state.  Now imagine them arguing and fighting wars over what they call fairness, and social justice when, by their own confession, they cannot admit such things even exist.  To do so is lunacy in their paradigm.  They actually fight over pieces of dirt and notions that are no better than primal screams.  How could they know that there was “good and evil” unless somewhere there was a standard outside of us that planted it in us?  But we return to beginnings again, Socrates, Plato, and a garden. 
            Beginnings are illuminating.  They can help us understand origins and roots of matters.  A researcher could possibly find the document that proves that Darwin's evolutionary theory is at base a re‑educational program launched to mentally erase meaning from our minds so we can be molded for a collective society.  The document exists.  (How far down the political correctness rabbit hole are you willing to go?)  Find it.  I did.  The book of Romans that Paul wrote removes the conspiratorial essence from the theory of evolution and reveals that it is a result of human choices and actions.  Yes, evolutionary theory is mentioned almost two full millennia before Darwin lived.  How could God know?  Let's have a surprise party for God. 
             In the first chapter of Romans Paul is addressing the Greek culture and its apostasy.  Paul discusses how God's existence is obvious in what is made and in our own humanness.  That's pretty simple.  No human being has an excuse.  Paul was criticizing the corrupted Greek culture that Rome had inherited.  These Greek pagans did not glorify God but exchanged the image of the incorruptible God for corruptible man and animals.  The sell‑out of evolution is that humans, made in God's image, refuse to accept this reality and exchange His incorruptible image for the corruptible image of created things like animals.  We-b-Animals. The consequence was that God let them have exactly what they desired: Dead and vile souls.  God is real big on freedom.  He's also big on freedom of consequences.  He let their own bodies be filled with just what they wanted, no conscience, no morals, no anchor; the result was they gave up their natural pure desires for all kinds of wickedness and perversion and the results thereof.  They said they were wise and they became fools.  They became degenerates and no longer even did what men and women were made for.  They were completely depraved.  This was all the result of their own choice to refuse to acknowledge what God had put in them to direct them and help them to enjoy what was made and who they were meant to be.  When they rejected eternal truth they were filled with a disease that was in keeping with what they said they wanted.  They became fools and loved it, and they explored the depths of their own depraved insanity and created a system of nonsense in defense of their meaningless and animalistic state.  Or some evil genius created it for them to lead them to depravity and destruction.
            The results of Darwin's “great” theory are evident in art.  Consider Michelangelo's Pieta in contrast to the work of Pablo Picasso or Jackson Pollack.  Modern art leaves much to be desired; that is, if you want anything other than an intrusion on your obsolete standards of harmony, beauty, and meaning.  The modernists of painting, literature, and music have taken the new naturalistic paradigm to it logical artistic conclusion. 

In modern painting we begin with impressionists who beautifully display their world as an impression of what they see.  It is not done in the realistic detail of the world as it is, but as it is impressed upon their senses.  Beauty, light, form and space are exquisitely utilized to give to their paintings a sense of light, space and form, but also an appearance of being slightly out of focus.  The reality of what is seen is subject to the painter's impressionistic interpretation.  Reality is moving from the objective styles inspired by the artists of the Renaissance period into the subjective. 

            Art under the post impressionists moved into an active intrusion on what the senses actually see.  Starry Starry Night by Vincent Van Gogh is a perfect example of this.  The post impressionists used strong colors and specific cultural symbols to portray their take on reality.  Modernists further pushed the envelope, or should I say they mocked the envelope and then threw it out.  In their paintings, reality becomes fragmented and discombobulated.  Humans are reduced to objects in a world that cannot be defined by reason.  Some of the schools in the modernist camp were the cubists, surrealists, and the Dada movement.  With their art they propagated a worldview as one without God and without meaning. 

             Renaissance art is meaningless unless one understands the classical values of harmony, balance, stability and the Christian faith which inspired it.  Juxtapose this against modern art which shows just the opposite.  The modern artists were not trying to make beautiful art; they were propagating their worldview of an ugly, materialistic, useless, meaningless, and unknowable existence.  I am not criticizing their artistic ability, but any art must be interpreted within the context of the artist, his worldview, and his purpose.  To understand modern art one must understand Darwin's theory and the logical conclusions flowing from it about the world and reality.  For instance, to understand a Picasso painting, which looks fairly nonsensical, one must understand the presuppositions that inspired it, the notion of a meaningless world, the leap from an ordered world based on reason into an irrational world based on non‑reason.  
            Picasso is a good example of the hypocrisy of the modern art movement.  He painted his weird‑looking pictures to establish his place in the art movement from which he was financially benefiting.  He was an artist formally trained and was able to paint in the classical style that resembled the art of da Vinci or Rafael.  When he painted his wife, he used this style which emphasized her real beauty in a meaningful world.  He had to leave the modern, cubist‑fragmented world behind.  When required to deal with his actual world with actual people, he could not impose on it that which could not describe what he knew to be real.  One of the greatest modern artists could not live in the world that his art depicted.
            Another famous man who needed to come back to earth from the bombastic, pagan, naturalist philosophy he promoted with his art was Stravinsky.  Stravinsky was a modern composer who tried to abandon the forms of classical music established by the greatest composers like Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart.  He wrote a dance symphony called The Rite of Spring.  It utilized barbaric rhythmic patterns, and primal melodies, and was accompanied by naked dancers utilizing pagan style dance depicting fertility ceremonies.  He was trying to find those primeval roots of music outside the traditional, rational paradigm and more in keeping with the Darwinian view of our animalistic ancestry.  This symphony, when performed in Paris, caused such an uproar that the spectators rioted and tore up the theater.  Stravinsky was required to face the non‑realty of his philosophy.  As a hobby, he collected and ate rare mushrooms and was somewhat of an expert on the subject.  He admitted that if he applied his materialist and non‑reasonable view to his study of mushrooms, he would soon die because mushrooms follow strict natural laws and some are extremely poisonous.  Thank God when you fly in a jetliner that flies in the meaningful world of the laws of nature that Newton envisioned rather than the chaotic and meaningless one that Jackson Pollack fancied.
            Literature and music have been afflicted by the Darwinian paradigm.  James Joyce's Ulysses has been called one of the greatest works of modern fiction.  Please, have you ever seen a page of it?  It is not punctuated because that is the infliction of rules on writing by those who think they know.  Are you one of those poor blind souls who still believe that written language should follow rules?  Joyce's writing is done as an endless stream of consciousness.  Oh, sorry, we tried to impose punctuation and spelling on you.  If I don't see the genius in it, I am considered a Neanderthal.  Read The Catcher in the Rye sometime.  Explain to me the “genius” of that endless drivel from a prepubescent, spoiled and uncultured brat.  If that meaninglessness is where literature is going, don't look too hard for a fan base.  People want the perennial themes and morally fortifying characters such as those found in the works of Shakespeare, Dickens, Twain, and Hugo. 

             Although a contemporary of these modernists, Franz Kafka did not hold to their worldview.  Read The Trial or Metamorphosis and you will see Plato's cave and this modern worldview dissected by a man who could see where this journey would lead them.  The end of their materialist view is . . . um . . . ahhh . . . nonsense, nothing, or nihilism, or nearly anything that doesn't smack of order, morality, or the ultimate enemy of materialism, Christianity.  Acknowledging such modernist non‑literature as literature is to confess two plus two equals five.
            Modern composers such as Stravinsky tried to apply disorder to their craft; is that the right word?  Or should we call it sound accidents.  Anyway, the modernists used a couple of techniques to distinguish their sound accidents from the music of those who were not in the know.  Instead of using the conventional seven‑tone scale, Schoenberg and other modern composers transcribed their music without key Signatures, using the twelve‑tone scale.  Every note in this twelve‑tone scale is one‑half tone apart.  Having rejected the formality of key signatures, they wrote all the notes that were sharp and flat as sharps and flats.  What I have always wondered is why they kept the whole treble and bass clef thing at all.  They were taking their music to the naturalistic frontier.  Why didn't they go all the way and abandon paper and pencils?  Cowards!  Maybe they didn't think this thing through as well as they should have.  Hypocrisy is so sneaky. 
            Another technique that they used was non‑resolution.  When a classical symphony ends or a portion of a piece ends, there is a definite tonal resolution.  The modern composers, in order to rebel against this, purposely had the music chase its tail without ever resolving.  In this kind of music there is a feeling of constant tension and trying to go somewhere without ever getting there.  Of course, if we evolved this is in vogue; you know, the whole time plus chance equals us thing.  We are on our way to ... resolution?  And where is that?  Could accidental chaos look like you?  Chaotic series in music which has no resolution, at least they tried to be true to their worldview.  Listen to Beethoven or Bach and then listen to something by Schoenberg.  See if you get it.  There you have it, music outside of the rules of music. 

            Other musicians took this stuff to ridiculous levels by calling random noise music and by combining all kinds of stupidity with sound accidents.  Look up John Gage on the internet and you can see just how far some people will go to try to be the latest thing.  Tribal war drums are sometimes preferable.
             We cannot migrate away from Darwin's theory of evolution without a look into philosophy.  The Greeks looked for the connection between reality and perception in their quest for virtue and Truth, with a capital T.  The Christian worldview brought a moral compass to the Western world, even as it was being high-jacked by opportunists.  The modernists rejected absolute truth and declared war on Christianity with a particular fury.  With the whole materialistic transition, the Marxist Communists had no other intention than the absolute enslavement of the human race.  Those unplugged individuals who populated the margins of society became sitting ducks for the next up and coming intellectual Britney you‑know‑who and needed a philosophy to shore up their position in a meaningless world. 

Announcing - the most plastic, pliable, fly‑by‑the‑seat‑of‑your‑pants philosophy ever, existentialism.  It is the philosophy of existence.  There are different schools of thought within existentialism, but the main branch of existentialism is materialistic and its adherents reject God's existence and absolute truth. 
            The existentialist decides what his truth is and then lives by it.  For example, he gets up and decides that today he will derive his feeling of worth, meaning, and value by helping old people with their groceries at the store.  So Eddie Existentialist goes to the grocery store and helps old people all day.  At the end of the day he has counted 37 people that he helped, and he sleeps like a baby knowing he helped them.  Meaning equals helping, and helping equals meaning.  He had a good day.  Circular logic but there you have it; comfort by self‑actualization.  The next day Eddie E. wakes up and thinks he needs a change.  He goes downtown and stands at stop lights as if waiting to cross the street. When people stand next to him waiting to cross, he pushes them in front of moving buses.  It's a guaranteed kill.  He got 40 today and he sleeps like a baby relishing his very fulfilling work for that day.  For the existentialist it does not matter what you believe or what you do, because all is meaningless anyway.  The existentialist just takes a great leap of faith in ... whatever.  Who could possibly condemn him?  And based on what?  Two plus two equals ... you fill in the blank. 
            As I said, there are different schools of existentialist thought.  Some derive their meaning from moments of enlightenment.  Others derive their fulfillment from moments of anguish.  But whatever they chose to derive their meaning from, they must admit that it is actually meaningless.  They just make a leap of faith knowing there is nothing worth putting their faith in, but they simply must because there is no other option available to them.  What is this deep and abiding need that humans, materialistic ones, have that they must invent meaning in their lives?  Why can they not live in the world they say exists?  Why must they have meaning?  To help themselves feel more comfortable in a world that offers nothing, not even an explanation?  What is madness?  Who could I ask?  
            I have often wondered why materialists, like existentialists, nihilists, or even Communists, have such an aversion to Christianity.  If they believe Jesus is just another lunatic living in a meaningless world, why is Christianity anything to be feared?  Christians are safer than abortionists and drug pushers or Eddie E. on his bus‑kill days.  Aren't they?  Even if Christians try to convert people and try to push their stuff on others, can't you just ignore it as you would any other existentialist path you don't choose to agree with?  Is it that gnawing voice deep down inside that still wonders, "What if someone is right?”  Kill Socrates!  Is it the power trip?  In their wisdom they became?  A.) Geniuses, B.) Fools, C.) Animals, D.) Devils, E.) Slaves  F.) Dead, G.) All of the above, H.) None of the above, I.) Undecided a/k/a moderate. 
            Evolutionary theory leads us down a particularly dark path.  We are left as animals or machines in a world that has nothing to tell us.  Understand that neither of these have freedom because both have destinies determined by outside forces.  Animals are either prey or predator, domesticated or wild.  Machines are in need of maintenance and constant care, and they are each designed for a specific and mundane purpose.  In this scheme of things, control is everything, and nothing, but it is the only way to bring the most comfort to your own personal existence.  The levers of control are the only ring to reach for.  “One Ring to rule them all."
            If Darwin is correct this turns us, free people, into human commodities for trade in the market place.  Should I have used the word slave?  See the number on your birth certificate.  You and I are designated as commodities on the stock exchange.  I don't like it.  My body is from below and cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, but my spirit is from above and longs for its home.  Darwin who?