Darwood’s materialist creation myth isn’t even a theory. It is, as E. Mayr points out, nothing more than a long argument, completely devoid of observable, repeatable data...hatched by a med-school dropout, turned clergy dropout, turned amateur naturalist...who had a religious axe to grind which amounted to nothing more than “God didn’t do it.”
“Darwood’s materialist creation myth isn’t even a theory. It is, as E. Mayr points out, nothing more than a long argument, completely devoid of observable, repeatable data...”
—Mayr was quoting Darwin, who in Origin called the book “one long argument” because it incorporates observed data from myriad fields of science (biogeography, comparative anatomy, embryology, taxonomy, paleontology, etc) and explains it all under a single theory.
“who had a religious axe to grind which amounted to nothing more than “God didn’t do it.”
—A religious axe to grind? What evidence is there of that? He was married to a Christian, had his children go to church, donated money to missionaries, even donated money to have churches built, and the reason he waited so long to publish his theory was probably out of fear of offending anyone. As I’ve said before, psychology and mind reading are not your strong suit.
Carroll H., is that you?
Well, this is the crux: God did not do what is grand in the superiority of our race over other animals, yet these same folkes do not believe in an original sin, ironically.
Yet the original sin directly implies the sort of bestiality that might have occurred and which have yielded our current conditions of sinful affinity to horrible experiments and masturbate fantasy type “dream behaviors” undertaken by experimentist scientists (eg. Dr. Mengele and other dictators never get to undergo what their “dreams” and ambitions to others impose). Those things indeed, God did not do it, which is the more salient point they always avoid, because they do it and they are the fetishist “fleshists” who swim in such saltless salts of mediocrity.
They fail to comprehend, in their blinding sins and barbarity, that it is the saltiness in the other that is valuable, and they do not have faith that whatever saltlessness lugage there is, it gets either digested or reconditioned. It’s not what comes in that matters in terms of “education”, but what edifying substance that comes out - be it work output as part of a team or personal conclusions to add to the libraries out there.
The missing link searchers conveniently fail to look for the greater picture of a missing solution to a puzzle they obviously do not want to figure since their search is based in a belief in Darwin instead of questioning the whole ethics issue surrounding genocide via abortion and stem cell “research”.
Isn’t it strange they then believe like astrologers that it is birth that matters more than conception time? While it is clear that the NT and science implicate the conception by the Holy Spirit or under certain special and unique conditions as paramount to determining the “future” success or failure or grandness of a being.
The cynical illiteracy, manipulation and hypocrisy of today’s sinful world has lead to such blindness and denial, all the while confering them to confined “disciplined” searches, missing forests for the tree.