So you took one part out of context, added the naturalist yeast and made bread? (again – rhetorical) Look, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt the first time but… you didn’t make bread – you just pinched a loaf.
OK, but you skipped a step. Molecules don't jump together out of nothing. They're made of atoms. No, we haven't recreated the Big Bang. This proves what exactly?
Darwin believed cells were just globs of matter. We now know that they contain DNA, a highly information based system. Ooops.
Darwin didn't know about genetics (the Mendellian details) but he knew about inheritance. He also knew about variation and natural selection. There's no "Ooops!" and there's no scientific alternative.
I do not believe this man intended to pigeon hole science, or have his naturalistic 150 year old theory become a religion.
Earth to Heartlander: Not everything that upsets you is another religion.
The genome. Get a group of guys together jumping out of trees and waving their arms. We’ll get back together in a million or so years to discuss your results.
Well, I guess your Nobel awaits you. Or is it the Medved Award for Silly Strawmanning? Create real pressures on the human population to change, and the survivors will be the ones who changed in the right direction. And so proceed. Over time, the average genome will change if the adaptation is changing.
Since I believe intelligence came from intelligence – I can only assume that you are referring to the loaf you pinched earlier. Life comes with Intel Inside:)
There is no law of conservation of intelligence. It isn't in the Second Law of Thermo or anything else.
So, just what did Darwin know?
Charles Darwin (1809-1882) was born into wealth and able to have a life of ease. He took two years of medical school at Edinburgh University, and then dropped out. It was the only scientific training he ever received. Because he spent the time in the bars with his friends, he barely passed his courses. Darwin had no particular purpose in life, and his father planned to get him into a nicely paid job as an Anglican minister. Darwin did not object.
But an influential relative got him a position as unpaid "naturalist" on a ship planning to sail around the world, the Beagle. The voyage lasted from December 1831 to October 1836.
It is not commonly known that Charles Darwin, while a naturalist aboard the Beagle, was initiated into witchcraft in South America by nationals. During horseback travels into the interior, he took part in their ceremonies and, as a result, something happened to him. Upon his return to England, although his health was strangely weakened, he spent the rest of his life working on theories… {to explain life without need of a creator}.
After leaving South America, Darwin was on the Galapagos Islands for a few days. While there, he saw some Finches, Darwin's finches which had blown in from South America and adapted to their environment, producing several sub-species. He was certain that this showed cross-species evolution (change into new species). But they were still finches. This theory about the finches was the primary evidence of evolution he brought back with him to England.
Darwin, never a scientist and knowing nothing about the practicalities of genetics, then married his first cousin, which resulted in all seven of his children having physical or mental disorders. (One girl died after birth, another at 10. His oldest daughter had a prolonged breakdown at 15. Three of his six sons became semi-invalids, and his last son was born mentally retarded and died 19 months after birth.)
His book, Origin of the Species, was first published in November 1859. The full title, On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, reveals… {‘his’ underlying concepts}
Side note:
Karl Marx (1818-1883) is closely linked with Darwinism. That which *Darwin did to biology, Marx with the help of others did to society. All the worst political philosophies of the 20th century emerged from the dark cave of Darwinism. Marx was thrilled when he read Origin of the Species and he immediately wrote Darwin and asked to dedicate his own major work, Das KapitalDas Kapital, to him. Darwin, in his reply, thanked him but said it would be best not to do so.
In 1866, Marx wrote to Frederick Engels, that Origin of the Species contained the basis in natural history for their political and economic system for an atheist world. Engels, the co-founder of world communism with Marx and *Lenin, wrote to Karl Marx in 1859: "Darwin, whom I am just now reading, is splendid" (C. Zirkle, Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene, 1959, p. 85). In 1861, Marx wrote to Engels: "Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural selection for the class struggle in history" (*op. cit., p. 86). At Marx’s funeral, Engles said that, as Darwin had discovered the law of organic evolution in natural history, so Marx had discovered the law of evolution in human history (*Otto Ruhle, Karl Marx, 1948, p. 366).
Note: The above was to show why many associate Darwin with Marx. In Darwin’s defense, I do not believe he intended to establish communism with his theory.
Back to his book:
In his book, Darwin reasoned from theory to facts, and provided little evidence for what he had to say. Modern evolutionists are ashamed of the book, with its ridiculous arguments.
Darwin’s book had what some men wanted: a clear out-in-the-open, current statement in favor of species change. So, in spite of its laughable imperfections, they capitalized on it. Here is what you will find in his book:
Darwin would cite authorities that he did not mention. He repeatedly said it was "only an abstract," and "a fuller edition" would come out later. But, although he wrote other books, try as he may he never could find the proof for his theories. No one since has found it either.
When he did name an authority, it was just an opinion from a letter. Phrases indicating the hypothetical nature of his ideas were frequent: "It might have been," "Maybe," "probably," "it is conceivable that." A favorite of his was: "Let us take an imaginary example."
Darwin would suggest a possibility, and later refer back to it as a fact: "As we have already demonstrated previously." Elsewhere he would suggest a possible series of events and then conclude by assuming that proved the point.
He relied heavily on stories instead of facts. Confusing examples would be given. He would use specious and devious arguments, and spent much time suggesting possible explanations why the facts he needed were not available.
Here is an example of his reasoning: To explain the fossil trans-species gaps, Darwin suggested that species must have been changing quickly in other parts of the world where men had not yet examined the strata. Later these changed species traveled over to the Western World, to be found in strata there as new species. So species were changing on the other side of the world, and that was why species in the process of change were not found on our side! To explain the fossil trans-species gaps, Darwin suggested that species must have been changing quickly in other parts of the world where men had not yet examined the strata. Later these changed species traveled over to the Western World, to be found in strata there as new species. So species were changing on the other side of the world, and that was why species in the process of change were not found on our side!
With thinking like this, who needs science? But remember that Charles Darwin never had a day of schooling in the sciences.
Here is Darwin’s explanation of how one species changes into another:
It is a variation of Lamarck’s theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics (*Nicholas Hutton III, Evidence of Evolution, 1962, p. 138). Calling it pangenesis, Darwin said that an organ affected by the environment would respond by giving off particles that he called gemmules. These particles supposedly helped determine hereditary characteristics. The environment would affect an organ; gemmules would drop out of the organ; and the gemmules would travel to the reproductive organs, where they would affect the cells (W. Stansfield, Science of Evolution, 1977, p. 38). As mentioned earlier, scientists today are ashamed of Darwin’s ideas.
In his book, Darwin taught that man came from an ape, and that the stronger races would, within a century or two, destroy the weaker ones. (Modern evolutionists claim that man and ape descended from a common ancestor.)
Note: This is what was attractive to Marx and Hitler… Once again, in Darwin’s defense, I do not believe this to be his intent.
He developed a chronic and incapacitating illness, and went to his death under a depression he could not shake (Random House Encyclopedia, 1977, p. 768).
He frequently commented in private letters that he recognized that there was no evidence for his theory, and that it could destroy the morality of the human race. "Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without in some degree becoming staggered" (*Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, 1860, p. 178; quoted from Harvard Classics, 1909 ed., Vol. 11). "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy"
The X Club was a secret society in London which worked to further evolutionary thought and suppress scientific opposition to it. It was powerful, for all scientific papers considered by the Royal Society were first approved by this small group of nine members. Chaired by Huxley (Darwin’s colleague), its members made contacts and powerfully affected British scientific associations (Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, 1984, p. 64). " ‘But what do they do?’ asked a curious journalist. ‘They run British science,’ a professor replied, ‘and on the whole, they don’t do it badly’ " (R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 467). In the 20th century, U.S. government agencies, working closely with the National Science Federation and kindred organizations, have channeled funds for research to universities willing to try to find evidence for evolution. Down to the present day, the theorists are still trying to control the scientists.
There is no law of conservation of intelligence. It isn't in the Second Law of Thermo or anything else.
OK - but you will be a fossil one day – and no intelligence will come from you anymore…
Well, we could argue if this has already taken place.
Naturalism, naturalism, all is naturalism…