Charles Darwin On The Ouija Channel
Professor Richard Dawkins, one of the greatest living "experts" on blind watchmakers and selfish gene-centric Evolution got out his Ouija Board to channel the spirit of Charles Darwin, author of The Origin of Species and the father of Naturalism and Atheism.
Contacting Darwin was considered of a dangerous and controversial nature because if his current residence is Hell then a whole lot of evolutionary biologists will be out of work.
Dawkins and company agreed it was worth the risk because there aren’t enough Evolutionists to rip out the pages of one million copies of Ray Comfort’s new book linking Darwin and Natural Selection to Hitler.
Richard Dawkins (RD) was the designated medium and Niles Eldredge took the following notes.
Everyone placed their fingers on the planchette and Mr. Dawkins asked the Ouija board the burning question, "Charles, are you in Hell?"
Spirit Response: "The subscriber you are trying to reach out of range, planchette will now channel hypothetically."
What follows is pure Unadulterated Unverified Nonsense and reflects my belief that the scientific arguments and rational thinking of Intelligent Design is a thirst-quenching alternative from the obdurate (obstinate) Evolutionists whose only motivation is to eliminate God.
Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead is purely coincidental. Since Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins or Niles Eldredge never attended a channeling session, neither of them could endorse these views, which may or may not prove to be correct.
RD: Mr. Darwin, everyone wants to know if there are any Evolutionists in Foxholes?
RD: Creationists are telling everyone you repented because you were reading the book of Hebrews to Lady Hope on a beautiful autumn afternoon a few days before you died.
Darwin: Ah yes, that autumn afternoon, I can still smell her perfume.
RD: So you were with her and reading the Bible before you died?
Darwin: Well, if you mean six months before I died and "with her" in a biblical sense, the answer is yes.
RD: You read a story from the Bible to get her in bed?
Darwin: She was an evangelical, what story should I have read? Richard, do you know the difference between girls aged: 8, 18, women 28, 38, 48 and ladies 58 and 68?
Darwin: At 8 – You put her to bed and tell her a story. At 18 – You tell her a story and take her to bed. At 28 – You don't need to tell her a story to take her to bed. At 38 – She tells you a story and takes you to bed. At 48 – You tell her a story to avoid going to bed. At 58 – You stay in bed to avoid her story.
I was 73; taking Lady Hope to bed was a BIG story!!
RD: So you never regretted coming up with the Theory of Evolution?
Darwin: Of course not, and my daughter on February 23, 1922 wrote to "The Christian" journal my repentance was an urban legend. You guys misunderstood me anyway. My "theory" was never about the origin of life ("abiogenesis") but about how successive generations of organisms change over time ("evolution").
RD: But you added a plausible mechanism, "Natural Selection."
Darwin: Notice the word "plausible." Just because some birds (i.e. finches) had long curved beaks so they could get fat eating tiny bugs on the Galapagos Islands doesn’t prove that life began in a "primordial soup."
RD: That was only variety, what about similarity? If you look at an x-ray of the upper limb of a crocodile, a bird and a human, they all have five digits for "fingers" and two bones in the forearm. Similarities are evidence that we have all descended from some common ancestor.
Darwin: Sure, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it was a good design…worthy of being duplicated.
Look Richard, after 150 years I expected you guys to come up with something better than if a bird was born with the wrong beak he uses it to fight because a short stout beak is useless to get insects out of crevasses in the rocks.
RD: Well we might have if Michael Behe hadn’t written Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution based on your definition of "irreducibly complex."
Darwin: So what? Only the religious dummies go to Christian bookstores. Bush Jr., Quayle and the Creationists prove Professor Lynn’s research that less than 7% of university academics believe in God.
RD: Normally, that would be so, but Behe makes a credible, sophisticated case for Creationism without using the Bible so his book is at Borders, Barnes & Noble. Thank "god" for Judge John E. Jones III, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, who ruled Intelligent Design is not science but essentially religious in nature and cited Behe's testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
But I got to tell you it’s hard to attack a reputable scientist from a reputable institution with a sophisticated argument even with a court case from a biased judge. And wait till you see his photo.
Darwin: So what’s the problem?
RD: Michael Behe represented himself as a scientist persuaded by the evidence, not a Creationist with an evangelical agenda like John Sanford with a toothy smile bragging about being saved:
Darwin: What’s Behe saying?
RD: He maintains that biological systems are irreducibly complex and possess incredibly complicated structures that can be reduced to very basic states.
Darwin: Didn’t I say that?
RD: Yes but he proved that if an everyday non-biological irreducible complex mousetrap could not have developed in stages then a species which originally possessed no eyes will never come to possess perfect ones due to a small chance development because it affords an advantage due to natural selection. Behe says, "Such a system without an Engine of Change could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece." Behe and his buddies found out modern genetics, not random radioactive mutation is the engine of change.
Darwin: Well, random mutations are random. Haven’t we proven a mutated gene can cause cancer, organ failure and death? New species result from trillions of trillions of random tiny "beneficial" random mutations. Did I mention they are random and life probably came about through… you guessed it, a series of … random mutations?
This is another favorite deductive method of the evolutionary theorist. The "improbability drive," in which they decide upon a conclusion without any evidence whatsoever to support it, and then continually speculate a series of wildly improbable events and unbelievable co-incidences to support it, shrugging off the implausibility of each event with the vague assertion that sometimes the impossible happens (just about all the time in their world). There is a principle called "Occam's Razor" which suggests that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation, Intelligent Design, is most likely to be correct. Evolutionists hate Occam's Razor (Thanks Gerard Holmgren for this insight).
RD: Yes, Charles we get it. But Michael Denton wrote Evolution a Theory in Crisis and points out "The tiniest bacterial cells are irreducibly complex, and are actually a microminiaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery made up of a hundred thousand million atoms far more complicated than any machine made by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."
A new generation of bacteria typically grows in 20 minutes to a few hours and although there is much variation in bacteria and many mutations they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria.
Forget human vision formed by Natural Selection, molecular biologists cited Behe’s research and wrote Michael Behe and Darwin's Black Box, which demonstrated that the cell could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications.
Darwin: Well, you can’t say I didn’t warn you when "I freely confessed that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, WAS absurd in the highest degree."
RD: But you said, "the absurdity was illusory and that the difficulty of believing a perfect and complex eye could be formed by Natural Selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real"… Of course, no one knows what the Hell you are talking about… "illusory, insuperable, can be considered real" but it was all we had.
Darwin: Yes, I wrote a confusing sentence, what did you want me to do? Admit I wanted to find an alternative to God because I could not persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice." Richard, have you persuaded yourself there could be a beneficent God that would allow suffering?
RD: No, but I’m not omnipotent and why does there have to be a benefit in beneficent? On the other hand, a "perfect and complex eye" is a benefit for human vision.
Darwin: The "ayes" were a problem even before modern ophthalmology.
RD: Damn those eye scientists. They found three, almost imperceptibly tiny eye movements ‘tremors, drifts and saccades’ caused by minute contractions in the six muscles attached to the outside of each of your eyes. Every fraction of a second, they very slightly shift the position of your eyeball, automatically, without conscious effort on your part, making human vision possible (The Saccades Of The Oculomotor System In Vision Processes In Biological Vision, by Tom Wagner).
Tremors – the tiniest and probably the most inexplicable of these movements, continuously and rapidly wobble your eyeball about its center in a circular fashion. They cause the cornea and retina (front and back) of your eyes to move in circles (with incredibly minute diameters of approximately 1/1000 (.001) of a millimeter, or .00004 inch.
This size is about 70 times smaller than the thickness of a piece of paper.
Darwin: You can’t be serious, are you saying that 70 circles of the same diameter (OOOOOOO...OOOOOOO) all touching can be placed in a row straight across the thickness of the paper?
RD: Yep. There are other problems too; people are questioning the benefit of symmetrical mutations in aiding survival. How would you explain two symmetrical, arms, ears, nostrils and eyes?
Heck, I’m thinking an eye in the back of my head would be handy but on the other hand two arms are necessary to pop open a can of Beer.
Darwin: Well, an eye in the back of your head would be useful if your only concern was a predator sneaking up behind you when you were drunk, but you need to think Survival of the Symmetrists and Lady Hope. There would have been no story about taking her to bed if I looked like The Elephant Man.
By the way, did you go to inaugural Gordon Conference in Neuroethology in the UK?
RD: No, but Bora Zivkovic did and made the mistake of exposing Carl Zimmer for leaving the Ampulex compressa (Emerald Cockroach Wasp) and its prey/host the American Cockroach (Periplaneta americana) out of his research.
Darwin: We have an explanation for the wasp: They represent an evolutionary transition.
In the beginning, wasps were bigger and strong enough to drag a paralyzed cockroach to their burrow where they laid an egg on the belly of the roach.
The egg hatches and the larva chews a hole in the side of the roach and begins devouring the organs one by one for about eight days. However, the offspring of the fit wasps were stupid and ate the organs in the wrong order and the roach died before they could hatch. This gave an evolutionary advantage to the smart larva, one that saved the nervous system organs for dessert.
However, the larvae that survived weren’t strong enough to drag a big roach into its burrow so they had to learn how to retool the roach's neural network that only affects the specific circuits that are involved in walking. The wasps took classes in neuroanatomy, neurophysiology and neurochemistry so they could learn about the nervous systems, metabolism and the specific factors that regulate dendritic branching patterns of neurons; molecular, cellular and behavioral effects of neurotoxins in cockroaches.
Then the smaller smarter wasps can inject it’s venom very precisely into the subesophageal ganglion in the head of the roach so they can grab the roach by its antennae and walk it around like a dog on a leash back to its nest.
RD: And don’t forget the witty comment from "Kafka" on Zimmer's blog:
"I had a dream that I was a cockroach, and that wasp Ann Coulter stuck me with her stinger, zombified my brain, led me by pulling my antenna into her nest at Fox News, and laid her Neocon eggs on me. Soon a fresh baby college Republican hatched out, burrowed into my body, and devoured me from the inside. Ann Coulter's designs may be intelligent, but she's one cruel god."
Darwin: BTW have you guys found those intermediate links I wrote about in "The Origin": "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
RD: No, but it doesn’t matter because someone is now arguing the existence of God with Intelligent Design based on the perceived evidence of order, purpose, and design in nature. They got their ideas from Plato and Aristotle.
Teleology: study of causes says the existence of God is intuitive and makes a prima facie case for an intelligent designer. Though modern science rejects creationism, which holds that the human race can be traced to a talking snake and a spare human rib, Kent Hovind stresses it requires even more faith to believe in evolution ("Florida Today" Jan 24, Seminar Debates Evolution Theory by Breuse Hickman).
Buzzzt –Negative energy detected…Charles Darwin wanted to find an alternative to God; Richard Dawkins wants to prove he is smarter than God.
Please wait…. take a few deep breaths while we fill Richard Dawkins with an entirely different personality. Tuning RD to an Intelligent Designed spirit.
Creationists try and prove the existence of God, which is true with false and absurd statements from the Bible:
"In the beginning God..." Genesis 1:1 Actually the Bible doesn’t need to prove God. It simply declares His existence as a settled fact, and then tries to win the debate with a free pass to heaven for all that believe that he is, and a promise of Hell for those who those fools that hath said in his heart, there is no God." Psalm 53:1. They know the bible is true because it couldn’t have been authored by men – it foretells the future with 100% accuracy every time.
Evolutionists try and prove that Macroevolution, which is false with Microevolution, which is true.
Microevolution can explain the types of bird beaks, the colors of moths and the length of the giraffe’s neck because they are variations in the gene pool of each species. Selective breeding cannot create a new species and when it goes too far the species doesn’t evolve into something different it dies out.
It’s been 150 years and no one has found a natural process that can show how things fall together into organized complexity (macroevolution).
According to the brilliant English astronomer, Sir Fred Hoyle, the chances of higher life forms ever evolving is the same as a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard, assembling a Boeing 747 from the materials therein or about 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power.
To illustrate just how impossible it is, imagine this: On the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.
You can cross a cocker spaniel with poodle and get a cockapoo but if it looks like a dog, barks like a dog, a cockapoo is still a dog. If you want to prove The Theory of Evolution, then let’s see a frogapoo.
Darwin: I know not what course others may take, but as for me if it’s a choice between Evolution, Creation and Deism I’ll stay dead.
Believe it or not, the best essay about the debate over Evolution was written by Jim Pappas and published in the Indianapolis Christian Issues Examiner on September 11, 2009.
Of course, Jim is a Creationist who wants to show "how to mine the riches of God’s Word and ferret out the truth of history and science in the Bible," but we won’t hold that against him.
[Beginning of "Emperor of evolution has no clothes," by Jim Pappas]
"...we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated." Dr. Richard Lewontin – 1997
You can see by many of the comments to this series on Dr. Lewontin’s quote that evolution’s adherents claim science is counter-intuitive, and often against common sense.
There is a plainly stated reason for this, "we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes."
Evolutionists are "forced" by their "a priori adherence to material causes" to believe evolution is the only possible answer.
Because their pre-existing belief that there is no God, and there is nothing beyond the observed natural realm.
Evolutionists purposely limit their views to fit their presupposition, and anything that disagrees with them they decry is "unscientific" or "religious."
The truth does not matter to the evolutionist; the only thing that matters is their absolute faith in material causes.
It does not matter to them that their explanations are counter-intuitive.
They just claim "science" is counter-intuitive.
But is science really counter-intuitive?
When the apple fell on Newton, was it counter-intuitive to think there is some force causing the apple to fall down, instead of falling up? Is it counter-intuitive to observe that mammals drown if they breathe under water because they need oxygen in the form of gas?
Is in counter-intuitive to understand that the heart is what pumps the blood through the body and not the liver? Science is NOT counterintuitive.
So what else are evolutionists left with?
Creating "an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations...no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated."
In the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary (online), "mystify" means "to intentionally perplex the mind of," "impose upon the credulity of" and "make obscure or difficult to understand," or "to embellish (as fact) or fancifully."
Why in the world would evolutionists want their concepts to "intentionally perplex the mind of" people, or make them "obscure or difficult to understand"?
It is so they will seem so intelligent and beyond question that people will follow lock step into their belief system because of their perceived brilliance without noticing that the Emperor of Evolution has no clothes.
Just who are these "uninitiated"?
The "uninitiated" are all people, and particularly all people who do not readily buy into the hoax of evolution. The "uninitiated" are anybody without advanced degrees who dare to question the so-called science used by evolutionists. What about the people with advanced degrees who disagree with evolution? Just ask an evolutionist, who will describe the highly qualified and educated scientists who disagree with them as "stupid," "insane," "out of their minds," and "not really scientists."
When you think about it, evolution is more of a fanatical religion whose adherents absolutely despise anyone who would defile their system of beliefs, than honest science. Do not dare expose their way of thinking, or their faith; unless their wrath means little to you.
[End of "Emperor of evolution has no clothes," by Jim Pappas]
Robert Singer - February 3, 2010 - LewRockwell.com