By accepting you will be accessing a service provided by a third-party external to

Questioning Darwinism By Brian Simpson

     According to mainstream science, about 97 percent of biologists, life evolved from the primal slime, moving from single cell organisms to humans. It did this without the intervention of intelligence, no space people, or gods/God. The mechanism was, and is, random mutations, that are then subjected to natural selection. But selection by definition means that there has to be something to first select, so everything goes back to random mutations. Geneticists admit that most random mutations are deleterious, and thus bad, but there are low probability mutations that are beneficial, and these are selected. What is supposed here is that there is some sort of pre-established harmony between environmental needs and these random mutations. Thus, moths in an industrial area, where there is pollution, would benefit from darker colours. Sure, natural selection would favour the darker moths of species X, but what if there were NO darker moths to start out with? How would a random mutation happily occur to produce just the needed colour change? Surely the chances of this are infinitesimal, since there is no mechanism linking the need of the species, with its genetic; it is all random after all.

     These sorts of concerns are just the tip of the sceptical iceberg:

“Over 1,000 scientists have now joined the growing movement to challenge prevailing evolutionary theory. Under present scientific dictatorship, theories like Darwinism go virtually undisputed; challenging such a widely accepted belief is almost certainly career suicide. But as the “dissent from Darwin” movement shows, even the most “established” of theories should still be subject to scrutiny. To continue to blindly accept a theory, even with evidence to the contrary, is more akin to brain-washing. The true spirit of science, after all, is to question — not to follow. The aptly-named list, “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism,” surpassed 1,000 names in early 2019. Respected professionals from around the country who’ve earned doctorate degrees from top-tier universities are joining forces to remind the establishment, and the public, that what scientists know, and what they think they know are two different things. The Dissent from Darwin list was created in 2001 and is maintained by the Discovery Institute. All 1,043 dissenters have signed the same 32-word statement, which reads:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” This is what radicalism looks like in 2019, and in case you can’t tell — it’s also what “common sense” used to look like. The very idea that questioning Darwinism could be so controversial is laughable; if no one ever questioned “prevailing theory,” we’d all still believe the Earth was flat. There would be no Darwinism either, for that matter. And yet, here we are: Living in a world where asking too many questions is considered dangerous.”

     I do not see Neo-Darwinism being dethroned from the universities, any more that Einstein’s special and general relativity theories, both inconsistent with quantum mechanics, are likely to be displaced. There needs to be viable alternatives, that predict more, and generate technological spinoffs that make money for the elites, for theories to be rejected nowadays. Saying “God did it,” does not cut ice with technocratic scientists, who want to be able to have something that they control, or rather, for their masters, those who pay them peanuts, for their intellectual prostitution.

     Truth today, does not matter to science; what counts is making money, and delivering politically correct justifications for the existing anarcho-tyrannical regime.



No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment
Already Registered? Login Here
Thursday, 02 July 2020
If you'd like to register, please fill in the username, password and name fields.