DARWIN - 'THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES' - THAT MYSTERY OF MYSTERIES

According to Darwin, the most quarrelsome question among scientists of his day was that of "the origin of species - that mystery of mysteries", or how have the present-day living species of plants and animals arrived at the present state of affairs?

DARWIN WAS RIGHT, in the introduction to his 'Origin of Species', to admit that he had collected his facts and evidence to support his own preconceived evolutionary conclusions.  Darwin and his evolutionary friends and their creation foes all argued just like lawyers who, first of all, must choose which side they will take before they can even begin to gather their facts and evidence to argue their own preconceived case.

MY TEST CASES

DARWIN'S CASE - NATURAL SELECTION

For with my test cases of species stability, I completely persuaded myself of the truth of Darwin's introductory point that "I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived".  In my several readings of Darwin's "one long argument", I noticed that he freely admitted that his case was not supportable by even one real live visible test case of evolutionary transformation of one species into another.

When Darwin wrote, near the end of his life, that "Not one change of species into another is on record ... We cannot prove that a single species has changed into another".  So, Darwin chose to believe that one species could change into another in spite of his facts that all his live visible evidence was against it.

Now, DARWIN WAS RIGHT to make the basic fundamentalism of his case perfectly clear when he wrote, "In order to make it clear how, as I believe, natural selection acts, I must beg permission to give one or two imaginary illustrations".  Whenever I consider this beggarly request of Darwin's, I am greatly tempted to deny him my reader's permission in the name of science.

Darwin also said, "But I must confess that, with all my faith in natural selection..."  Now, why does Darwin beg to be allowed to freely use his imagination to show his great faith in natural selection and evolution?  Because he had no real live visible data to support his hypothetical evolutionary pipe dream anywhere in his "one long argument".

Throughout his writings about his own peculiar brand of hypothetical biology, Darwin practiced his favorite theoretical scientific methodology which I call explanation by imagination.  This is the method by which imaginary questions are given imaginary answers and visible effects are given invisible causes.  For example, Darwin chooses to invent the imaginary question; how did the giraffe get its extra long neck?  He then invents his imaginary answer, that by his imaginary process of natural selection, "it seems to me almost certain that an ordinary hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe".  Darwin wrote that his natural selection idea was in the image and likeness of the human selection used in domestic breeding.

By means of a great many such easygoing uses of his imagination, Darwin developed a very high degree of certainty in his own great powers of imagination which he called natural selection.  Darwin called natural selection a "metaphorical expression", and also said, "In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a false term ..."

A present-day lawyer, Norman Macbeth, writing about his retrial of his faith in evolution, says, "The biologists have innocently confessed that natural selection is a metaphor, and every experienced person knows that it is dangerous to work with metaphors.  As the road to hell is paved with good intentions, so the road to confusion is paved with good metaphors.  Perhaps the sober investigators should not have staked so much on a poetic device:..

When writing about his great fanciful powers of natural selection to change one species into another, to say about his visible observations, "We see nothing of these slow changes in progress..."  However, when he writes of his invisible observations, he says, "I can see no limit to the amount of change..."

It seems to me almost certain that Darwin hung his whole case for unstable species on his own personal subjective powers of wishful-hopeful thinking in spite of all the visible evidence of stable species to the contrary.  So Darwin was able to write that he was fully convinced of the "truth" of his transmutation of species theory.

Darwin wrote that "no one ought to feel surprise at much remaining as yet unexplained on the origin of species, if we make due allowance for our profound ignorance on the mutual relations of the inhabitants of the world at the present time, and still more so during past ages".  Many times Darwin wrote just such complete confessions of his perfect ignorance of any visible connections between any two species - present or past.

Concerning species, Darwin wrote, "No one definition has satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species".  Darwin well proves the truth of that statement when he gives his own very vague definition: "I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other".

To so well describe the completely subjective value judgments which make up all biological classification systems from species to plant and animal kingdoms.

DARWIN WAS RIGHT to soberly consider the fact that his theory directly contradicts the visible evidence.  Darwin wrote: "These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads: First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduations, do we not see innumerable transitional forms?  Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined"?  And again: "The distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty".

Darwin used his standard hypothetical scientific method to answer all these objections which was that of using his own miraculous supernatural powers of imagination to invest the innumerable transitional links he so greatly desired to justify his theory.

When he wrote concerning the fossil record, to confess that it was against his theory, "so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed 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 graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.  The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record".

NOW, THIS IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF DARWIN'S CHIEF METHODOLOGY OF EXPLANATION BY IMAGINATION.  First, he has expressed his evolutionary preconceived notion of what the fossil record ought to be like if the record were in perfect agreement with his theoretical organic chain of life.  So, the perfect geological record exists entirely as a product of Darwin's imagination.

Second, he understands that the geological record contradicts his pet theory; so, rather than give up on his fantasy, he chooses to imagine that the record is perfect just at those missing link points where he needs it most.  It is only by the powers of imagination that any fossil can be connected to any other fossilo or presently-living species.

DARWIN WAS RIGHT.  To reveal the metaphorical nature of his thinking Darwin wrote, "when we contemplate every complex structure and instinct as the summing up of many contrivances, each useful to the possessor, in the same way as any great mechanical invention is the summing up of the labour, the experience, the reason, and even the blunders of numerous workmen; when we thus view each organic being, how far more interesting - I speak from experience - does the study of natural history become"!

In another passage, Darwin explains, "or where, if we may use the expression, the manufactory of species has been active, we ought generally to find the manufactory still in action, more especially as we have every reason to believe the process of manufacturing new species to be a slow one".  Darwin, in another place, uses his highly metaphorical expression "the whole machinery of life".

Thus, Darwin makes it perfectly clear that his hypothetical evolutionary change processes, called natural selection, are made in the image and likeness of the ordinary human machine invention and manufacturing processes.  The ordinary literal machine invention and manufacturing process goes from the small and simple toward the large and complex.  So Darwin made his figurative evolution of life machine processes go from amoebae to fish to reptile to rat to ape to man.

DARWIN WAS RIGHT to show his metaphorical thinking when he wrote that he often thought of his mind as "a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts".

DARWIN WAS RIGHT to know that "I AM QUITE CONSCIOUS THAT MY SPECULATIONS RUN QUITE BEYOND THE BOUNDS OF TRUE SCIENCE".

I agree with what one present-day evolutionary biochemist, named Chargaff, has written about present evolutionary theory spinning: "In my opinion it would be more honest to confess that we know very little indeed about these things, and to say that the road to the future should not be uselessly cluttered up with shoddy, and often entirely baseless, hypotheses...for I believe that our science has become too mechanomorphic, that we talk in metaphors in order to conceal our ignorance..."

Darwin was right to argue that his evolutionary notions should not be taken literally, but, rather, figuratively and metaphorically.             

I will now make use of a machine metaphor for my own case.  I have observed that copying machines are designed to make copies of original paperwork; but, they cannot make originals.  So, biological creations, like copy machines, are designed to be able to make copies; but, they cannot make original creations and originate new and different species.

The Christian believer in creation according to Christ will say, "Christ said it and I believe it"; and the Darwinian believer in evolution according to Darwin will say, "Darwin said it and I believe it".

There is a sharp contradiction between Christ's method of knowing (science) and Darwin's method of knowing (science).  Christ, speaking as the Creator and Originator of species, gives His eyewitness reports.

Christ spoke of His reasons to know about creation, and Darwin spoke of his reasons to believe about evolution.

Christ talked about His presence at the beginning when He made them male and female by His own power, and Darwin talked about his absence at the beginning.

Christ argued from His profound knowledge of His own business of creating all living creatures with the stability to reproduce their own kinds, and Darwin spoke from his "profound ignorance of the mutual relationships of living beings".

CHRIST SAID THAT THORNS CANNOT PRODUCE FIGS AND BRAMBLE BUSHES CANNOT YIELD GRAPES.  DARWIN MIGHT EASILY HAVE SAID THAT THE UNLIMITED POWER OF HIS NATURAL SELECTION IMAGINATION COULD, IN THE COURSE OF MILLIONS OF YEARS, HAVE CAUSED EVEN A FAMILY LINE OF THORNS TO PRODUCE FIGS AND BRAMBLE BUSHES TO YIELD GRAPES.

Christ called true the record of the history of the earth written in the Bible concerning the six days of creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the Flood, the Tower of Babel, and the whole record of the Holy Scriptures.  Darwin called false the history of the earth in the Bible and fabricated his own history of the earth out of his own wishful/hopeful thinking.

Christ preached His Gospel of Observation of that which He had seen and heard, and Darwin preached his gospel of imagination of that which he had not seen and had not heard.

Christ revealed His Gospel of Salvation, and Darwin revealed his gospel of speculation.

John Farison
1066 Blachleyville Rd.
Wooster, Ohio   44691      (216) 264-3052

GOD BLESS YOU