Darwinism and Logic
Kurdishaspect.com - By Dr Fereydun Rafiq Hilmi
A property of logical analysis is the tendency to lead different people to different conclusions. Politicians are a prime example of the ability of humans to twist the truth and falsify facts which they do form the day they decide to practice the demagogic art of arguing for their corners.
In the post-Darwin-Freud-Machiavelli era we have seen serious deviation from the natural progression and selection of the development of mankind through the desire by politicians, psychiatrists and social engineers to prove the theories propagated by the three well-known characters and radically influence mankind to fall into the trap and influence of dubious and half-analysed ideas which generally use basic facts such as the development of natural beings and basic reproductive sex and the drive to survive and progress to pursue the interests of some political animals intent upon controlling the population of the earth and its wealth.
This tendency has been utilised by many and in particular characters such as Hitler 1 and Hitler 2 who just left office with not enough disgrace or accountability.
I shall present the reader with a few questions which I believe may explain the logical blunder which caused Darwin to come to the conclusion that God does not exists and that it is all the work of a process which seems to run through all the threads of the animal and plant kingdoms. It is not certain that Darwin believed that there is no God but he did believe that man just as all other animals and plants were not created in their current forms as the three main religions (in particular Christianity) suggest but “evolved” from a single living creature of the most basic forms.
He based his conclusions on a number of observations of which the similarity between man and monkey and all mammals were striking even during gestation and development in the wombs of the female of the species. Many animals share some or many of their properties and go through a short evolutionary process which starts with a very basic form and foes through several stages to their final birthday forms and that would suggest at first that evolution is a fact. Furthermore, some animals seem as if they have been created as a result of a combination of more than one species with several examples of known species such as mules and others some created in the lab.
However, we do not have any animal which we can definitely say changed or evolved in the same way from one form into another after reaching adulthood. Nevertheless there is a great possibility that this may be day be shwn to happen although the way this would happen is suggested by Darwin to be extremely slow and for that reason he needed to find out if the age of the earth was long enough to make his theory feasible.
Essentially intervening scientifically through Genetic Engineering or some other technique does not prove Darwinism even if such a feat of evolution were to be achieved in that way because the whole theory is based on natural selection or sel-propelled evolution without conscious intervention.
Having found out that the age of the earth is in thousands of millions of years Darwin was happy to put forward his famous theory as if he had found the “missing link” to his disjointed logic and with that many world leaders of the 19th, 20th and even 21st centuries used the most violent and aggressive means of fighting, massacring and defeating other nations armed with the notion of survival of the fittest causing the annihilation of some 100 million human beings. The theory was also used as posthumous justification for all the cruel and criminal behaviour of the colonial powers starting in the 17th century. To this day the “survival of the fittest” notion seems to motivate the whole political and militaristic drive for these fortunate and rich nations to control those whom they conquered and kept under developed and backwards to continue their cosy belief in this primitive theory.
Thus we see that a theory which believes in the “survival of the fittest” seems to have adopted the least advanced and developed basic animal instinct which is a clear discrepancy.
Secondly the conclusion based on Darwinism which is: “the non-existence of God” is based on the religious idea that Man was created by God in his present form and since the theory stipulates a long history of evolution from lower animal forms to man, therefore there is no God. This idea assumes that God was created by man rather than the other way round for it suggests that if those who say God created man in his current form are wrong then God himself also is wrong and therefore does not exist.
This is of course logically unacceptable for there is no direct link between the existence of God which is a logical conclusion made by nearly all of mankind and what humans, claiming to be messengers or children of God claim. There is also no reason to doubt the existence of God while still believing in Darwinism if we accepted the notion that man did evolve but God must have facilitated that evolution. In fact it is more logical to accept the existence of God if we accept Darwinism because of the order and intricacies of life and details of the evolutionary idea necessitates the existence of an organised and all powerful being controlling or having created the conditions for a self-propelling evolutionary process.
What would be totally unacceptable is to suggest that all this fantastic myriad of creations and highly complex and accurate processes would just start from no grand design and for a relatively insignificant intelligence such as that of man to suggest that to be the limit of intelligence and order and yet being completely unable to create the simplest new life form.
We do not need to spend our lifetime proving the existence of God provided we strip him of all the properties bestowed upon him by his creations and concentrate simply on the logicality of his existence.
The simplest way is to think about a different kind of evolution but a very much proven, seen, observed and real one such as the process of an orange seed taking root and growing into a tree, then producing its own branches and leaves and finally replicating itself many dozens of times within many dozens of its parents (orange fruits). Such complicated perfectly designed processes following perfectly designed orders and producing perfect copies of itself, its tree and its fruits cannot be explained through a random, unproven and illogical Darwinian evolution.
The orange seed which does not have any brain (the prerequisite for thinking and intelligent thought, planning and design) and yet contains the blueprint for hundreds of highly scientific and technical processes beyond the brain of even the most intelligent human being and even teams of scientists. That could not all have evolved at random by itself through a dumb existential drive to survive.
Not only is the intelligence and blue prints of processes and procedures are necessary but all of the facilities which would be needed, many specialised instruments, industries and factories which would be required to achieve what the orange seed seems capable of achieving. Added to this must be the organisation, logistics and coherence needed to bring all those advanced technologies together in the production of a single product.
There is also the question of weather the process of evolution is triggered by conscious action or changes in the environment and conditions on the ground. If it is a function of conscious action then such a complex decision and modification system implies the existence of a will to evolve and a capability to analyse, design and execute extremely complex processes taking care of the conditions outside as well as the internal mechanisms inside the animal. Thus it could not be the result of a dumb process caused simply by mechanical or environmental conditions prevalent where the animal happens to be. Such a process would mean the animal is controlled by the environment and would evolve regardless of will or determination.
There is equally no evidence that an animal consciously demands change from its body such that it signals to its wing albeit across thousands of bodies of its kind and thousands of years to turn into a hand. More likely and reasonable is a kind of cross-species animal husbandry which may produce a third species with characteristics of both parents shared to a degree and that may continue until a stable new species has been added to the animal kingdom. This could be the result of accidents or momentary necessity rather than a grand design “natural selection” process.
Therefore evolution can neither be achieved by an external dumb process, nor by an internal will of the animal. If however we go back to our original belief that a deity (God if you will) has created all this amazing world and possibly worlds then we see that evolution can occur but not otherwise. The process is simply too complex to go on without a thinking and extremely intelligent intervener and nothing like that has been witnessed throughout human history which indicates the possibility of change based on willing the body to do so. It is true that some animals can change colour or produce a camouflage effect to escape predators or catch a prey but that ability is born with the animal itself and is part of its physiology and organic makeup. Such properties have been observed in plants as well. Also possible is a certain amount of limited conditioning such as growing longer hair to protect against the cold or teeth and claws to larger or smaller sizes for practical purposes. Not all animals are meat eaters or compete for the same food and the existence of millions of species after so many millions of years indicates the survival of all kinds of fit and unfit creatures to this day. That alone refutes the theory.
Darwinism has no explanation for the non-physical side of life at all and ignores human behaviour and moral advancement. It cannot explain why some people would sacrifice their own lives to save others even if those others are pets and poisonous snakes. It does not answer the question “why we cater for all creations in the world” if we are simply motivated by survival of the fittest. Why don’t we just shoot the weak and the infirm but instead do all we can to save them and bring them back to health. I see that we are beginning to approach the analysis of the barbaric behaviour of same deranged leaders who actually did and still do attempt to eliminate the weak and the unfit.
What Darwinism also ignores is the fact that the struggle for life and survival only becomes of importance when animals get to the edge of existence and get threatened by annihilation, which is an extreme condition. Once the emergency is passed animals of all kinds tend to settle down and get on with living. To suggest that the emergency case is actually the rule and not the exception is not wise.
The theory claims that fish evolved into reptile’s ad these may have turned into birds. Anyone can see that fish may have as good a chance of survival in the sea than on land. Why then take this huge leap unless an external force is working and activitating the changes for a completely different reason altogether.
The fact that a human embryo seems to have a tail when first conceived indicates a common design just as a bicycle, a car, and an airplane all share the use of wheels without anyone thinking that an airplane was born a bicycle before turning into a car and then became an airplane and the process took millions of years. We know that with all man’s ingenuity we have achieved some success in designing variable-geometry flying machines. But these variations cannot by themselves start without a computer program written and tested by man controlling it. A change from one animal species to another is a million times more complex and therefore requires ultra superior intelligence and programmed processes and that can only mean one that created everything in the first place.
We also know that man needs to ducment his designs if he wishes to improve or maintain his creations and thus knows all about them. Man himself however was first created or evolved without knowing anything about himself or his designs and functions. This bootstrapping process of man discovering himself through self-examination, representation and trial and error is the miracle of life and cannot be claimed by anyone except the creator. It is like creating a supersonic jet and then expecting it to find out how it was designed and how it works and how to maintain itself as well as well as deal with the environment and finally to change its designm functionality and go through the change process all by itself. In effect evolution would be similar and yet we are told this is happening without a creator.
Most importantly, therefore, a radical design change involving form, contents, materials, behaviour and purpose must have an intelligent external actor as it would require most intricate manipulation of parts materials and mechanisms and thorough testing, no evidence of which we have ever witnessed in a supposedly continuous and natural process which we have been told started millions if not billions of years ago.
This sort of process has only been seen in fictitious films such as the Terminator series which derives its ideas from Darwinism. Moreover if such metamorphisms were possible then the idea of a God becomes even stronger and more profound.
Those who do noy agree with the religious concepts like myself and believe that the teachings are man generated and made should not through out the good with the bad. Religion is a formalisation of human conclusions over the millennia. Its basic rules are good and helpful, giving the unsure and vulnerable mankind an anchor of spiritual calm and I have absolutely nothing against that. However God existed log before the universe was created and by rejecting some of he religious beliefs it would be foolish to reject God with them as well. Such simplistic ideas as Darwinism defy logic and in my opinion cannot be the right instrument of judging a much more superior conclusion of the existence of an unfathomable intelligence which created all the things and with them Darwin and Freud and Einstein and you an me. I know I did not create myself and since I am capable of creating other things it follows that someone else must have created me. No it was not my mum and dad because although they were the instruments of my creation they did not specifically ask for me or have any say in any of my characteristics.
Then there are the questions of coincidences such as the evolution of male and female species, the regularity of the functions of reproduction; the clear and obvious complex and detailed order of the existence of the animal and plant kingdoms which cannot in anyway be attributed to random or pragmatic evolution. Neither can we explain the mental processes, spiritual values and sense of purpose and objectives which are far beyond a simple primitive desire for evolution based on “natural selection” or the will to survive. Darwinism cannot explain the will to die for a cause for example. Nor can it find an answer for the workings of the conscious mind which is for ever trying to solve the mysteries of creation such as itself. It is not sure whether an animal is born with the evolution mechanisms and nature conspires with it to achieve transformation and change or that one or the other acts alone.
Then there are the matters of choice which seems to affect the evolution process such as why for example does an animal wish to change and could it not survive in its original form? And is survival meant to be a communal group survival or survival of life itself for it is the first one then we conclude that groups must disappear if evolution changes them into another type. If on the other hand it is survival of life then evolution is redundant for life is life in whatever form, shape or quality it may be.
The Miracle of even the simplest form s of life
How many man-designed factories can take a small piece of matter bury it in mud and get a completely hygienic atom of sugar? How many processes would be require to take earth and get sugar out of it in that clean and pure form. What kind of instrument and/or factory would be needed to achieve that?
Yet the seed produces roots which are followed by a pant which grows defying the weather and the wind as if having a Ph.D. in architectural and structural ngineering. The mind blowing processes of growth itself without breaking the skin is a fantasticn achievement. Then we have the leaves leading to beautiful and wonderfully aromatic smells and colours the purity of which is unachievable by mankind and the duplication of the branches, levees, flowers and finally the flowers turning into the perfectly designed orange fruit the engineering of which is totally beyond the capabilities of our Einstein and Darwin let alone the average scientist. The colour, taste, acids, vitamins, and above all the purity of the juice all require millions of years to even understand let alone be randomly acquired.
The Darwinian evolution seems to tackle shape and form alone ignoring the processes I have described above for just an ordinary dumb plant. Imagine what it would be like for an ape to turn into a man without help. There is no doubt that an animal with intelligence will do all it can to deal with its environment in order to survive. It could change its limbs, skin or shape to do so over time, however, the question of fitness has never solved the problem of survival. We know man can die from a simple insect bite and that does not make the insect fitter or more intelligent or more rugged than man. Millions of animals have survived over the millions of years and that too proves that life occurs in parallel and is not necessarily an evolution of one into the other.
Imagine if Darwin’s theory were proven then we would have to assume that today or eventually we would only have the final link and that is likely to be a more advanced mankind with all the others evolving into us, yet there is no evidence of this happening.
Clearly the idea that there is a common evolutionary thread that runs through all animals in such a way that every animal is the product of another evolving into it cannot be proved by simply the fact that the earth has existed for millions of years.
Supposing we assume that the evolutionary process started with the first organic cell. We know there are still cells of this type in existence which means that some cells survived but did not evolve. The question is why? Far from it in fact we have discovered smaller and smaller living organisms, viruses and basic proteins.
Furthermore, if we assume that the first time evolution started was at the very beginning of life on earth we see that some cells evolved into the higher forms while others remained in their original forms. The problem is although different animals had different degrees of evolution of millions of creatures over the same period of time (we are assuming a single parentage), the evolution process should be continuing unless we are saying that the nature of this process is intermittent and occurs only every so many millions of years and we happen to be living in the trough period when evolution happens to be dormant. Otherwise we should continuously see at least one or two transformations of apes to men, dogs to monkeys, and fish to birds and so on.
Now considering the near miraculous and highly complex process of evolution it would be relatively easier at the higher orders of the animal kingdom and far less possible or likely when you have a mere basic and single cell/ Yet Darwinism claims for the process to have started at the very lowest levels and then proceeded more slowly with time to the extent that we do not see this happening today.
But if you want to prove a theory by guesswork then you sometimes cut corners and become loose with logic and so the idea that evolution has occurred because there is a common thread of design and similarity in the parts and structure in the organic and physical makeup of animals. On that case the transformation from invertebrates to vertebrates would never have been possible and the procession would have halted. The idea, therefore, does not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it distinctly supports the idea of a common external designer and creator instead. It is common knowledge that a car manufacturer, for example, will produce different models even of the same series and year of manufacture, by making simple or major changes to suit the buyer but would use very similar structures and parts. If we see different sizes and models then we would be laughed at to suggest that the larger and more powerful models with the electronic guidance, superior materials and design started life as the smaller and less advanced models. Having said that there probably is an ingenious way of doing this by using man’s ingenious programming inventions which can simulate this metamorphic process on a computer than it ever taking place in the way Darwin has suggested.
The value of the work carried out by Darwin lies in the enormous details which he documented about the natural world. Had he kept his conclusions to the facts he would been one of the world’s greatest researchers and biologists. Unfortunately his success went to his head and he started ideas which led to disastrous barbaric actions by some tyrannical madmen and to the erosion of human progress of values and great social advancements with the effect on society which we have seen since the ideas were first published.
In its main conclusions Darwinism is a step backwards in the process of human spiritual and moral evolution for it advocates a most basic and primitive instinct of savagery, that of “Survival f the Fittest”, which was interpreted by tyrants to mean survival of the most barbaric, cruel and strongest creatures, having long been discarded by sophisticated man after millennia of mental, moral and psychological development and is therefore quite dangerous as we have witnessed since the idea was spread in the western world. Those tyrants decided to define fitness in their own image and went for it blindly. Therefore, the entire concept requires an independent observer to define the exact meaning of fitness.