WhatFinger


intelligent design, Darwin and Creation, Anthropogenic Global Warming

The Jealous God



One of the most hotly debated subjects in the last hundred years is the origin of life. Throughout human history Man has believed that some sort of Creator with powers far beyond those of mortal men intervened in affairs, and the existence of life-and the improbability of living organisms spontaneously generating from unliving material-has been the evidence to convince philosophers, historians, scientists, of the existence of God, or at least of some sort of Divine presence. There is clearly a demarcation between the living and the non-living, something that humans haven`t been able to explain. What is the great mystery of life? Why are we here?

Support Canada Free Press


Enter Charles Darwin. Prior to Darwin (in fact, throughout human history) the principle theory of life was what is now called Intelligent Design, the belief that we are MADE things. The sense of order in the Universe strongly suggested that life was the result of an intelligent engineering project. That life does not arise from nonlife, and that dead organisms never, ever return to life once extinguished (granted, they can if there is a momentary stoppage in certain life functions) made it clear that some force or being far beyond human comprehension was at work. But the 18th century was the time of the so-called "Enlightenment" and an arrogance overcame the educated, who had become enchanted with older Greco-Roman philosophies and came to believe in the absolute power of the human intellect a philosophy ultimately rejected by the Medievalists as self-evidently wrong. The Enlightenment, heady with the rebellious nature of intellectual arrogance, began questioning every traditional belief in the unflinching view that human reason could find a deeper truth. In so doing, the age-old belief in Creationism gave way to a new theory in which species were created via Evolution, or a slow, steady progress from one common ancestor into many different types of organisms. This was based on observations of similarities between species, and of the "mistakes" found in nature which suggested an incompetent Creator, an arrogant notion, given that these "mistakes" in no way hampered the affected creature. The first accepted theory of evolution was the brainchild of Jeane-Baptiste Lamarck, a French naturalist who believed that specific needs could cause changes in the organism`s "essence" which could be passed along to the creature`s offspring. Lamarckian Evolution never exactly explained how this occured, and was quite unsatisfactory in challenging the accepted view of "Nature and Nature`s God." It was Darwin (and the unheralded Alfred Wallace who published nearly simultaneously) who brought the materialist revolution. Materialism had been on the ascendency, along with the materialist view of atheism during the 19th century. Darwin, basing his theory of evolution on the economic theories of Thomas Malthus, came up with the idea that species evolve by random mutations coupled with "natural selection" in which the fit survive to reproduce their kind while the unfit die out. This seemed to explain the natural world, but there were serious flaws with this theory. Fossils suggested that species did not evolve smoothly or slowly, but seemed to appear in a flash-and disappear as quickly. Large extinction events did not see the appearance of new body types in any great numbers after life recovered. The theory itself was incapable of making any predictions of how life would evolve, or explain why life evolved as it did except in the most general of terms. It could not explain consciousness, or humor, or altruism. There were few transitional species found (if any). In short, it was a theory without any real solid evidence. In fact, there are several non-Darwinian theories about the origin of species. For example, we have Panspermia both directed (which argues that aliens seeded the Earth with life, the viewpoint held by DNA co-discoverer Francis Crick) and nondirected (which says life on Earth drifted here accidentally from elsewhere). We also have a return of Lamarckianism. And let`s not forget the ever popular Intelligent Design theory. But these competing theories never gain traction, because their research isn`t funded. Why? Because Darwinism allows no competitors. Clearly, the argument over Darwinism has been fought not because of scientific efficacy but because it has come to embody a belief system, one rooted in materialism, reductivism, and atheism. People who believe in the existence of a God do not have to win this argument, since the notion of a TRANSCENDENT God, one outside of the perceptual Universe. Victory in the origins debate is absolutely necessary to maintain the claim that nothing exists outside of that Universe. Science has taken a back seat, and challenges to the throne of the Blind Watchmaker are dismissed in the most vociferous manner possible. But the questions remain, and all of the "proof" of our Darwinian friends consist of pointing out similarities between species and accusing anyone who thinks there is a problem of being holy rollers. People like Richard Dawkins or P.Z. Myers turn purple shouting those who disagree with them down. If anything should convince the open-minded of the religious nature of their belief system, it should be the vicious nature of these attacks on the apostates. These attacks resemble nothing short of the Spanish Inquisition burning Jews and heretics at the stake. P.Z. Myers even went so far as to steal a consecrated Eucharist from a Catholic church and desecrating it with a rusty nail on YouTube. Now THAT is real science! We are witnessing a similar situation with Anthropogenic Global Warming; there have been numerous attempts to silence critics of this unproven theory, from Weather Channel meteorologist Heidi Cullen demanding that meteorologists who challenge AGW theory have their licences revoked, to the Gristmill calling for Nuremburg trials for "climate change deniars." But I ask the following question; if we are undergoing a radical change in the Earth`s climate, do we see any acceleration in evolution? Logic would dictate that we should observe evolution in any number of species, because we are seeing a sudden, dramatic change in conditions. Where are they? There is little evidence of any dramatic division of species. We do not see new microbes developing, which is where speciation would be most visible-especially in the Arctic regions. Remember the famous moths? I am reminded of the Bikini Island nuclear tests; logic would dictate that natural selection would have produced drastically new species on the radioactive islands where the U.S. conducted nuclear tests, yet I cannot find any information suggesting that a drastically new ecology has arisen. That doesn`t mean it didn`t happen, but where are the catalogues of the many new species? Even the coral reefs seem largely to have recovered. We don`t seem to have any newly evolved life forms-which suggests to me that Darwin`s view of the origin of species is perhaps flawed. So, now we have Global Warming to consider. If we have had these many decades of changing climate and rising CO2 levels, why don`t we see new species arising? We seem to be in a conundrum; either AGW is not occurring, or Darwinian Natural Selection isn`t, or neither are. These theories seem to be colliding, like two great blocks of ice fallen from a glacier that are butting against one another; only one will survive the contest, and perhaps neither. The interesting thing about both of these theories is that they challenge the traditional belief in God. One is based on a purely materialistic worldview, in which blind chance brings order out of chaos, while the other brings chaos out of order by the hand of Man. They are both ultimately forms of nature worship, in that nature is placed at the pinnacle of human existence. The Darwinist says nature is the only force we are dealing with, while the Global Warming Alarmist sees no role for the hand of God, but says that nature is the only real entity. The parallels between the two are striking; both are attempts to rebel against our Judeo-Christian worldview, and use science to justify dethroning the Almighty. These are two of the foundational legs of modern Liberalism; the Gaia worshipping environmentalists make common cause with the material worshipping Darwinists. They approach from different directions, but ultimately aim at the same goal-the abolition of God. By removing God from the human psyche they will be free to live as they wish. Of course, to live free from the Almighty means to live under the far heavier yoke of human bondage, because the person thus "liberated" must be controlled by force rather than persuasion and good behavior. The ultimate ambition of both camps will lead to the gulag. Atheism was the basis of many 20th century civilizations, with disastrous results. These atheistic systems were the worst tyrants ever seen in human history, because they had to force obedience and "right thinking" through the exercise of physical power. Atheism put into practice has always lead to bloodshed and repression. Joseph Stalin famously asked "how many legions does the Pope have?" Yet his legions were purely temporal, while the Pope proved to be the stronger of the two, because he appealed to spiritual things. Then, too, the god of the wood has often been a devilish thing, requiring human sacrifice or the abuse of young girls as part of the worship, and certainly the rising of environmentalism has the potential to enforce a totalitarianism "for the good of the planet" which neither lives nor breathes. Such groups as the "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement or Earthfirst" embody the new spirit of planet worship, and the many eco-terrorists and those who care more for the ecology than for their fellow men foreshadow a very dangerous mindset, one that sees Man as a sort of infection needing to be expunged. The belief in the dignity of Man as the image and likeness of God has been removed from the equation. And so, modernity is being squeezed by these twin forces, while moral relativism and "tolerance" make for lethargy in those who would otherwise be willing to resist. The red dragon drags it`s tail through a land of ennui, a place desensitized by the bread and circuses of our modern world and by a belief system that glorifies a belief in nothing. America is falling apart because there is nothing in the center, and that center is being squeezed by these ancient forces masquerading as science. Darwinism and Anthropogenic Global Warming are both belief systems, religions of a jealous god. Whether that god will triumph over America is a matter of conjecture, but we are seeing cracks forming in the whitened sepulcher that hides the corruption within. There is still time.

Recommended by Canada Free Press



View Comments

Timothy Birdnow -- Bio and Archives

Timothy Birdnow is a conservative writer and blogger and lives in St. Louis Missouri. His work has appeared in many popular conservative publications including but not limited to The American Thinker, Pajamas Media, Intellectual Conservative and Orthodoxy Today. Tim is a featured contributor to American Daily Reviewand has appeared as a Guest Host on the Heading Right Radio Network. Tim’s website is tbirdnow.mee.nu.


Sponsored