GenesisFile.com presents...

Fact-Free “Science”

     Hans Christian Andersen’s 1837 fairytale captures the power of slick swindlers and the vulnerability of a gullible public swallowing make-believe to avoid being considered “stupid.” Even the unclothed Emperor bit into the scam until it took an innocent youngster to observe, “But he has nothing at all.”
     Andersen’s quaint cultural insight suggests human nature is inclined to perpetuate fiction in order to avoid being shunned as “stupid.” The nagging failure of conventional science to explain the origin of first life on Planet Earth is eerily reminiscent of the Emperor’s invisible wardrobe.
     “Nothing at all” translates to a modern phrase: “there is no there, there!”
     Charles Darwin himself admitted, “Science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life.” 1 Mark Cahill put it “nothing” in the context of creation. “You may find it hard to believe God could make everything from nothing. But the alternative is that nothing turned itself into everything.” 2
     The claim that evolution qualifies as scientific fact lacks legs!
     How can intelligent 21st century humans assert their own intelligent minds evolved, by chance, from some unintelligent original life form when even astute scientists can’t explain the how, when, where, and why first life created itself?
     The law of gravity has been verified; precisely measured light speed is proven fact; a proper mix of hydrogen and oxygen produces water; the Period Table of the Elements epitomizes science; and DNA’s biological fingerprint is so precise it can solve crimes!
     The natural world abounds with precise laws and reliable scientific facts.
     So where are the “facts” confirming that original life, the essential foundation cornerstone for the chance hypothesis, created itself accidentally, millions of years before the present?
     Robert Jastrow, (1925-2008), astronomer, physicist, and cosmologist as well as founder of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, targeted the dilemma.
     “At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” 3
     And here is evolution’s Achilles Heel!
     Pretend science can’t spin an imaginary documentary without the bottom line technology of first life. Where’s the scientific evidence that “nothing turned itself into everything?”
     So what about evolution’s assertion that complex life evolved from simpler life forms over millions of years by “natural selection” if the starting gate is nothing more than conjectured abstraction rather than factual science?
     Given the dubious ancestry of that imagined first life, even Charles Darwin fretted he had devoted his life to a “phantasy.” 4…“I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science.” 5 He described his unsubstantiated dream as “a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] & holes as sound parts.” 6
     As to Darwin’s “speculations,” take a look at some of those “flaw[s]” and “holes” (See Appendix) and consider whether the child’s innocent “nothing there” observation from Andersen’s novel could be classified as anything more than fact-free “science.”
WLJ

Appendix

Darwin’s literary fabric of unproven suppositions deserves cross-examination, leaving the public to determine whether his
conjectures qualify as either “scientific” or “fact.”

“I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.” 7

“Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short
and sure, though slow, steps.” 8

“The production of new forms has caused the extinction of about
the same number of old forms.” 9

We may safely infer that not one living species will transmit
its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity.” 10

“If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed” 11

The number of intermediate and transitional links between all living
and extinct species must have been inconceivably great.” 12

“Early progenitors of man were no doubt once covered with hair, both sexes having beards; their ears were pointed and capable of movement;
and their bodies were provided with a tail…” 13

Man appears to have diverged from the Old World division of the Simiadae, after these had diverged from the New World division.” 14

“The average standard of mental power in man must be above that of woman …Thus, man has ultimately become superior to woman.” 15

“The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn [shown] by man attaining to a higher eminence in whatever he takes up,
than woman can attain—whether requiring deep thought, reason,
or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.” 16

“At some future period, not very far distant, as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and
replacethroughout the world the savage races.” 17

“The western nations of Europe…immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors and stand at the summit of civilization…” 18

Mike Norton Tree
Mike Norton

“Nothing is more extraordinary in the history of the Vegetable Kingdom …than the apparently very sudden or abrupt development
of the higher plants.” 19

“Geological research…does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on the theory…Why do we not find beneath this system great piles of strata stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Cambrian fossils?” 20

“Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection
which can be urged against the theory.” 21

““To suppose that the eye…could have been formed by natural selection,
seems, I freely confess, absurd to the highest degree.” 22

_____________________

1—Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 637.
2—Mark Cahill is a best-selling author and Christian clergyman.
3—Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (1978)116; (107 in 1992 edition).
4—Adrian Desmond & James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) 477.
5—Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, 456.
6—Desmond & Moore, Darwin, 475.
7—Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or
the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, (First Edition
facsimile, 1859, Cambridge: Harvard University Press) 184.
8—Charles Darwin, Origin, 247.
9—Charles Darwin, Origin, 453.
10—Charles Darwin, Origin, 647.
11—Charles Darwin, Origin, 219.
12—Charles Darwin, cited by F. Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles
Darwin, (1881), Vol. 3, 309.
13—Charles Darwin, Descent, Vol. 1, 206.
14—Charles Darwin, Descent, Vol. 1, 201.
15—Charles Darwin, Descent, Vol. II, 327, 328.
16—Charles Darwin, Descent, Vol. II, 327.
17—Charles Darwin, Descent, Vol. I, 201.
18—Charles Darwin, Descent, Vol. I, 178.
19—Darwin, C. (1881) in Darwin, F., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin,
(London: John Murray, 1888) Vol. 3, 248; cited by Michael Denton,
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 163.
20—Charles Darwin, Origin, 617, 618.
21—Charles Darwin, Origin, 406.
22—Charles Darwin, Origin, Chapter VI, 1859.
Copyright © 2012 Warren L. Johns.  All Rights Reserved.  Contact: GFile7@aol.com