“Creationism meanwhile is a dead end that leads nowhere and to nothing - to no further knowledge or discovery - it is useless.”
Spirited: Creation ex nihilo dead? No, it’s the other way around. It’s materialistic Universal Evolutionism that is the dead end since it is unable to account for the origin of life:
“...science has no...answer to the question of the origin of life on earth. Perhaps (life) is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited: either life was created...by the will of a being outside...scientific understanding, or it evolved...spontaneously through chemical reactions...in nonliving matter...The first theory...is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith (which assumes) that the scientific view...is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief.” (Until the Sun Dies, Robert Jastrow, 1977, pp. 62-63)
Abiogenesis is a dead end and so desperate are evolutionists on this score that Richard Dawkins recently moved ever so quietly in the direction of panspermia——which merely moves the problem out into deep space.
No, evolution has nothing to do with true empirical science as the respected traditionalist metaphysician Rene Guenon (1886-1951) reveals in his brilliant critical analysis of Theosophy and Spiritism entitled, “The Spiritist Fallacy.”
Guenon writes that in early Theosophist and spiritist (mediums/channelers) circles use of the word ‘progress’ or ‘progressivist’ preceded the use of the word ‘evolution.’ The roots of Theosophy, hence of evolution, stretch back to the ancient Upanishads of India and to ancient Greece, and in its modern version, progress and/or evolution-—depending on whether it is Darwinian or Teilhardian-— describes either the progress (transmigration) of life or spirit as it inhabits in succession the bodies of different beings over the course of thousands or even millions and billions of years.
Eventually the word evolution became preferred, especially by empirical realists and dialectical materialists like Karl Marx because it had a more ‘scientific’ allure:
“This kind of ‘verbalism’...provides the illusion of thought for those incapable of really thinking...” wrote Guenon. (ibid, p. 231)
Speaking of verbalism, the embrace of Darwinism by dialectical materialists was a sham:
“Many people confound dialectic with the theory of evolution,” noted G. Plekhanov. “Dialectic is, in fact, a theory of evolution. But it differs profoundly from the vulgar (Darwinian) theory of evolution.” (Fundamental Problems of Marxism, 1929, p. 145)
As if all of this isn’t bad enough, in July 2008, sixteen evolutionary scientists came together at an invitation-only symposium in Altenburg, Austria to discuss their concerns with the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today and widely accepted by progressive liberals, secular humanists, Marxists, transhumanists, secular politicians, academicians, seminarians, and evolutionary theologians.
The Altenburg symposium is the centerpiece of evolutionist Suzan Mazur’s book, “The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry.” Mazur’s book also looks at the rivalry in science today surrounding attempts to discover “the elusive process of evolution.” (Desperate attempts to discover ‘the elusive process of evolution,’ reviewed by Walter J. ReMine, Creation Ministries International)
Mazur’s book openly acknowledges the problems surrounding evolution and natural selection (determinism) and documents these concerns with statements from leading evolutionary scientists:
“A wave of scientists now questions natural selection’s role, though fewer will publicly admit it” (p. 20).
“Evolutionary science is as much about the posturing, salesmanship, stonewalling and bullying that goes on as it is about actual scientific theory. It is a social discourse involving hypotheses of staggering complexity with scientists, recipients of the biggest grants of any intellectuals, assuming the power of politicians while engaged in Animal House pie-throwing and name-calling: ‘ham-fisted’, ‘looney Marxist hangover’, ‘secular creationist’, ‘philosopher’ (a scientist who can’t get grants anymore), ‘quack’, ‘crackpot’ … ”
“In short, it’s a modern day quest for the holy grail, but with few knights. At a time that calls for scientific vision, scientific inquiry’s been hijacked by an industry of greed, with evolution books hyped like snake oil at a carnival.”
“Perhaps the most egregious display of commercial dishonesty is this year’s celebration of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species—the so-called theory of evolution by natural selection, i.e., survival of the fittest, a brand foisted on us 150 years ago.”
“Scientists agree that natural selection can occur. But the scientific community also knows that natural selection has little to do with long-term changes in populations.” (p. v)
“Basically I don’t think anybody knows how evolution works.” (Jerry Fodor, p. 34).
Mazur not only calls attention to the existing censorship against non-Darwinian ideas but tells us why it happens:
“The commercial media is both ignorant of and blocks coverage of stories about non-centrality of the gene because its science advertising dollars come from the gene-centered Darwin industry. … . At the same time, the Darwin industry is also in bed with government, even as political leaders remain clueless about evolution. Thus, the public is unaware that its dollars are being squandered on funding of mediocre, middlebrow science or that its children are being intellectually starved as a result of outdated texts and unenlightened teachers” (Mazur, p. ix).
“The mainstream media has failed to cover the non-centrality of the gene story to any extent. … this has to do largely with Darwin-based industry advertising, editors not doing their homework and others just trying to hold on to their jobs” (Mazur, p. 104).
Thanks, spirited.
Needless to say, I agree with Jastrow!
Science has no answer for the "origin" of anything. It can never "see" beginnings, for the simple reason that empirical science is based on direct observation — from "inside" the system of which scientists are parts and active participants — and no scientist was ever around to "observe" the beginning of life on Earth or anywhere else.
And yet it seems many scientists have a quasi-religious commitment to the idea of "spontaneous chemical reactions" as fully accounting for the origin of life (from "pure" matter) and its development ("evolution") here on earth. The fact that this is ultimately an untestable hypothesis doesn't bother them in the least — it is simply taken as an act of faith.
Indeed, science has tried to test this hypothesis, called abiogenesis. So far, no luck. And I predict unless a non-material factor (mind, intelligence, information) is taken into consideration, the origin of life and its evolution cannot be explained in principle. A further problem is that many scientists regard mind, intelligence, information as mere epiphenomena of physical processes — evidently another act of faith. But that expectation leads exactly nowhere.
In comparison, it appears to me that belief in a Supreme Creator of Life is more rational than belief in spontaneous, clever chemicals being drawn into living, active form by the edicts of "blind," that is to say purposeless natural selection.
There is a way to understand that there is "evidence" that we can observe that validates our faith in the Supreme Being, Who is Creator and sustainer of Life. As Romans 1:20 puts it:
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:FWIW. Great post, dear spirited! Thank you so very much!