The first problem with Bartusiak’s statement is that Darwin “demonstrated” nothing but his own ability to wildly speculate. Charles Darwin was a Scripture-denying materialist philosopher and circular logician, not a scientist. Sir Francis Darwin, as editor of his father’s
Life and Letters, wrote of his father’s propensity for speculation that “it was as though he were charged with a theorizing power ready to flow into any channel on the slightest disturbance.” Darwin’s elder brother Erasmus wrote to Charles after reading his copy of
The Origin of Species: “The a
priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won’t fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling.”
Facts are required to “demonstrate” a scientific truth. Darwin had no facts, and he knew it. In The Origin of Species, published in 1859, Darwin presented no actual evidence or facts that demonstrated the truth or validity of evolution, or what he called descent with modification. Darwin’s letters reveal that on the very eve of publication, he had not even been able to convince himself. On November 23, 1859, he wrote to his friend, Sir Charles Lyell, “Often a cold shudder runs through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy.” Two days later he wrote to Thomas Huxley, “I had awful misgivings, and thought perhaps I had deluded myself as so many have done.”
Darwin knew in his heart that he had produced nothing but a patchwork of incoherent guesses, and so did his friend Lyell who, after reading his copy, suggested to Darwin that “[W]hen, as I fully expect, a new edition is soon called for, you may here and there insert an actual case to relieve the vast number of abstract propositions.”
Darwin’s a
priori reasoning was not a step forward for science but a great leap backwards. Theologians in Medieval Europe, also using the a
priori method, reasoned from one false proposition to another, until they had built up a great tower of pseudo-science, tempered with false religious mortar, until the great Roger Bacon, and 300 years later, Francis Bacon, with his
Novum Organum (New Instrument, observation and experiment) taught people to learn by inductive facts rather than by traditional deduction. Before that time, everybody accepted the teaching of Aristotle, the founder of formal logic, that heavy bodies fall to earth faster than light ones. Galileo disproved it by dropping objects of various weights from the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa.
True science follows the a
posteriori method, insisting that an assertion can only be known to be true on the basis of experience and evidence.
Today, The atheist hierarchy of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) embraces wholeheartedly the Dark Age a
priori method of Aristotle and Darwin, and it is from the NAS that Ms. Bartusiak, the Washington Post, and the rest of the unthinking media get their “science.” The fundamental pseudo-scientific a priori premise of the NAS is this: There is no Creator/Designer. Their deductive conclusion from this arbitrary religious premise is: Therefore, atheist materialist molecules-to-man evolution—what I prefer to call chance human reptile descent—must be true. That is the sum of their a priori pseudo-science. Inductive observation and experiment are utterly absent from their system. The NAS has become an organization of atheist ideologues, not scientists searching for the truth in nature.
The second problem with Ms. Bartusiak’s statement is that while “natural selection” sounds impressive to the unlearned and ignorant, it is actually nothing more than a distracting and indefinable figure of speech falsely presented by the NAS to the media and the public as the ultimate be-all and do-all of chance human reptile descent. Nature, however, lacking a mind and a will, has no capacity whatsoever to “select” anything.
In its book,
Science, Evolution, and Creationism, the NAS defines natural selection in three contradictory ways: as “the driving force behind evolution” (p. 23), as a “process” (p. 50), and as an outcome or “reproductive success” (p. 5). The “driving force” is unquantifiable; the “process” is indefinable; and the “reproductive success” turns out to be anything and everything we see in nature itself.
The NAS book committee chairman, Francisco J. Ayala, writes about natural selection in some detail in his own book
Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion. He offers this most revealing insight: “However, it is not possible to formulate a
satisfactory definition of natural selection” (p. 52, Ayala’s emphasis). A phrase that cannot be satisfactorily defined cannot be satisfactorily understood. Thus, by the admission of NAS’s own book committee chairman, natural selection is not in any sense a scientific explanation, but rather a deceptive figure of speech, an outright personification of nature that disguises the lack of empirical evidence for the alleged evolution of one specific species into another.
The discovery of DNA should have put an immediate end to Darwinist speculation. Why? Because DNA is encoded information, and encoded information as well as information itself always has an intelligent source. Thus, DNA is
prima facie proof of intelligent design. If you have never heard that before, please take a few minutes to let it sink in. Ask someone who is still drinking the NAS Kool-Aid to try to refute it. The NAS won’t be able to help them. The NAS has no atheist/materialist explanation for the origin and operation of the complex encoded instructions within living cells. How could they?
Darwinist evolution is the greatest, most despicable, and most often repeated lie of modern times. The members of the NAS hierarchy know that their atheist/materialist standpoint conflicts irreconcilably with belief in the God of the Scriptures, and that their pseudo-science is a direct attack on our nation’s Judeo-Christian tradition, the very foundation of our political life. Here is the conflict laid out as basically as possible:
And creating is the Elohim [God] humanity in His image. In the image of the Elohim He creates it. Male and female He creates them (Genesis 1:27, Concordant Literal Translation)
versus:
Birds and mammals evolved from different lineages of ancient reptiles (The NAS book Science, Evolution, and Creationism, p. 8).
We cannot be endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights if we do not have a Creator. The atheist/materialist pseudo-science of the NAS leads to one political principle only: might makes right. We thus have no inherent God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We get what the ruling government deigns to give us, and we had better be thankful for that. Where else should we expect the insistence upon chance human reptile descent to lead?
Charles Darwin a “towering genius”? Please!
I am confident that regular CFP readers do not now need me to connect the fraud of Darwinist evolution to the social, moral, educational and political decay now rampant in American society.
Mr. Johnson, who holds a general science degree from West Point, is the author of “Sowing Atheism: The National Academy of Sciences’ Sinister Scheme to Teach Our Children They’re Descended from Reptiles”, and the inventor of the board game “Obozo’s America: Why Bother Working for a Living?”. His latest book is “Outing the Moronocracy: Ending the Rule of the Blind, the Stupid, and the Disgraceful in American Society”.
