Search This Blog

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Darwinism...the noble lie, the big lie or both? You decide!

It was very kind of one of my commenters to say the following:
Hawkeye® has left a new comment on your post "Darwinists and the "Incredible Flying House."":

Excellent post Radar. Classic, straightforward explanations and clear thinking. Your opponents are no match for you. 
Well, thank you, but they really do not try.  I gave them the benefit of the doubt that they might be ignorant or brainwashed but I now realize that they are simply liars.   Liars who believe that the general public is too stupid to see the wool being pulled over their eyes.  Darwinism has all the cohesion of a recent M. Night Shyalaman movie script (Lady in the Water, hahahahaha) and less evidence than Sally Rand had clothes.  All sizzle, no steak.

Humanism has become the national religion and one basis for Humanism is the belief in Darwinism.  Darwinism is unscientific to extremes, defying common sense and the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Law of Biogenesis and the definition of information and design, among other things.   Darwinism is not only unscientific it is utterly ridiculous.  It is not even close to scientific.  I have completely given up on some commenters because they will never reason with me or anyone else.  

One technique they tend to follow (talking about Darwinists and not necessarily any one individual commenter) is a ploy made famous by a guy named Hitler:  


Hitler wrote a book, Mein Kampf, which was the basis for his National Socialist government.   He promoted the idea of the Big Lie (and was inspired by Darwinist thought, by the way).

"All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."

Actually, the first Big Lie was Satan telling Eve that, if she ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, as he said, "You will not surely die!"   Talk about going oppo!

The big lie is so enormous that people cannot believe anyone could be so evil as to express something so big and important and would require a bit of research to expose, therefore the normal man and woman tend to just roll with it.


Plato's invention, it "is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably, of a religious nature, knowingly told by an elite to maintain social harmony, or the social position of that elite. The noble lie is a concept originated by Plato as described in The Republic. A noble lie, although it may benefit all parties, is different from a white lie since a white lie does not cause discord if uncovered whereas noble lies are usually of a nature such that they would do so."

Darwinists like Richard Lewontin see this idea as a valuable aid to promotion of Darwinism.  Dr. Henry Morris, now passed away,  revealed that to many scientists the idea of evolution "is like a game" in which they are all trying to find ways to fool the public and, well, read for yourself:

Games some people play
The supreme rule of this game is to stifle arguments against evolution—any way you can.

First published:
Creation 23(4):35
September 2001

A leading evolutionary scientist has made a revealing admission. Richard Dickerson, an authority in chemical evolution and a professing theist, has said:
‘Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule.  Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behaviour of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.’1
Thus, evolutionary ‘science’ is not necessarily a search for truth, as we used to be told, but a game in which scientists try to find naturalistic causes, even for the origin of the universe and all in it.

At the conclusion of a creation/evolution debate in which I participated some years ago, a professor in the audience said, in effect: ‘You may well be right; special creation is probably the truth and evolution is wrong.  Nevertheless, evolution is science, and creation is religion, so only evolution should be taught in schools.’  Not every  evolutionist is as frank, but this really is the game they play.

A second rule seems to be that the end justifies the means.  In Stephen Jay Gould’s book, The Mismeasure of Man, that noted evolutionary author argues that the social and political bias of an author (Gould himself has admitted being a Marxist) could have an effect on his scientific results.  Commenting on this, another evolutionary Marxist at Harvard University, Dr Richard Lewontin, has (no doubt subconsciously) suggested this second rule of the evolutionists’ game plan:
‘Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies, because they believe that small lies can serve big truths.2

Alternatives ‘outlawed’

Even though scientists never cite any real scientific evidence for evolution, doctrinaire evolutionists insist there is such evidence, because any alternative is outlawed by the rules.
‘In other words, it’s natural selection or a Creator.  There is no middle ground.  This is why prominent Darwinists like G.G. Simpson and Stephen Jay Gould, who are not secretive about their hostility to religion, cling so vehemently to natural selection.  To do otherwise would be to admit the probability that there is design in nature—and hence a Designer.’3
A third rule of this game of evolutionary science seems to be to insist that all scientists, by definition, are evolutionists.  Even though thousands of creationists with post-graduate degrees in science are pursuing careers in science, these are commonly ignored or ridiculed or even denied status as scientists by the evolutionary establishment.  The game plan is that, no matter what scientific credentials they have, scientists cannot be creationists without forfeiting their status as scientists.

In fact, many think it would be better not to let creationists become scientists at all.  When I was an engineering department chairman at Virginia Tech, I asked the biology professor in charge of the doctoral program in that department whether a creationist student could get a Ph.D. degree in his department.  The answer was ‘No!’  No matter how outstanding his grades or dissertation or even his knowledge of evolutionary theory, if he did not believe in evolution, he could not get the degree.

This commitment to the rules of the game has been expressed starkly by two university professors:
‘… as a matter of fact, creationism should be discriminated against. … No advocate of such propaganda should be trusted to teach science classes or administer science programs anywhere or under any circumstances.  Moreover, if any are now doing so, they should be dismissed.’4
That opinion, by an Iowa State University engineering professor, was published by the main US organization dedicated to fighting creationism—an organization whose establishment was funded by the Carnegie Foundation. 

Fail creationists

Another Iowa professor said any professor (lecturer) should have the right to ‘fail any student in his class, no matter what the grade record indicates’ if that professor discovers the student is a creationist.5  Furthermore, the student’s department should have the right of ‘retracting grades and possibly even degrees’ if the student becomes a creationist later.5

Famous Christian scholar, C.S. Lewis, who had long supported the idea of theistic evolution, changed his mind just before he died, and said:
‘I wish I were younger.  What inclines me now to think you may be right in regarding it [evolution] as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders.’6
This is, indeed, quite a game some people are playing!


  1. Dickerson, R.E., The Game of Science, Perspectives on Science and Faith44:137, June 1992.
  2. Lewontin, R.C., The Inferiority Complex, New York Review of Books, 22 October 1981, p. 13.
  3. Johnston, G.S., The Genesis Controversy, Crisis, p. 17, May 1989.
  4. Patterson, J.W., Do scientists and scholars discriminate unfairly against creationists?  Journal of the National Center for Science Education, p. 19, Fall (Autumn) 1984.
  5. Frazier, K., Competence and Controversy, Skeptical Inquirer8:2–5, Fall (Autumn) 1983.
  6. Lewis, C.S., Private letter (1951) to Captain Bernard Acworth, one of the founders of the Evolution Protest Movement (England). Cited by evolutionist Ronald Numbers in his book, The Creationists, University of California Press, California, p. 153, 1992.
Reprinted and condensed by permission fromActs and Facts, Institute for CreationResearch, San Diego, California.


More from the famous Baloney Detector  

Here is an example of operational science in 2010 finding still more marvelous complexity and design within the cell and then Darwinists inserting their religious fairy tale into the story.   While the findings of science are at odds with the idea of Darwinism, the label gets stuck on the outside of virtually every discovery.   If it was not so tragic and evil and costly to the human race it would be downright hilarious:

Piston Engine Joins Rotary Engine in Cells     09/22/2010    
Sept 22, 2010 — The rotary engine ATP synthase has been discussed frequently in these pages (e.g., 12/22/2003, 08/10/2004, 08/04/2010) as an exquisite “molecular machine” that produces the cell’s energy pellets (ATP) with a rotary, turbine-like mechanism.  Now, a piston-driven engine has been found at work in every cell’s energy factory.

    ATP synthase operates at the end of a sequence of machines in the respiratory chain that generates chemical energy (in the form of ATP) from the food we eat (or from sunlight, in the case of plants).  The enzyme runs on proton motive force – a flow of protons that drive its carousel-like rotor.  But how does the proton gradient get established?  That’s the job of Respiratory Complex I, the first machine (enzyme) in the chain.  Complex I takes electrons from food, stored in NADH molecules, and transfers them down a chain of electron receptors to parts of the machine that pump protons across the mitochondrial membrane into the periplasm, setting up a proton gradient.  It now becomes evident that Complex I includes parts that move like pistons.

    Complex I was reported in a July Science Express paper as having a railroad-like coupling rod (see 07/06/2010).  This week, The Scientist described it as “A piston proton pump,” referencing a paper from Nature last May:1  Richard P. Grant reported,
The mechanism proposed by Leonid Sazanov’s group at the Medical Research Council in Cambridge is “almost completely unexpected,” says Faculty Member Thomas Meier.  Unlike the ATP synthase, which “drives protons across the membrane in a rotary turbine-like motion,” writes Faculty member Nathan Nelson in his review, the transfer of electrons from NADH cause a slight widening of one part of the complex, forcing the long helix to move like the a row of pistons that shove protons across the membrane.
Some scientists feel this important finding will rival the excitement about the discovery that a rotary engine produces ATP.  One faculty member “predicts that it will become one of the most cited papers in respiratory chain research, as important to our complete understanding of energy generation as is the mechanism of ATP synthase.

    The original paper in Nature1 used the same piston metaphor and contained the same enthusiasm:
The overall architecture of this large molecular machine is now clear.  F-ATPase [ATP Synthase] has been compared to a turbine.  In a similar vein, complex I seems to resemble a steam engine, where the energy of the electron transfer is used to move a piston, which then drives, instead of wheels, a set of discontinuous helices.
Tomoko Ohnishi, commenting on this paper in the same issue of Nature, continued the piston metaphor in his title, “Structural biology: Piston drives a proton pump.2  He described how the food we eat goes through a “highly efficient process” called oxidative phosphorylation in the mitochondria, ending in the synthesis of ATP.  Complex I was known to have some distance between its electron acceptors and the transmembrane antiporters.  It was unknown how the parts were coupled.  Now, the mechanism of the first enzyme, Complex I, is becoming clear:
The membrane-spanning enzyme known as complex I couples the movement of electrons to that of protons as a way of converting energy.  Crystal structures suggest how electron transfer drives proton pumping from afar.
    Complex I is one of the energy-converting enzyme complexes found in the membranes of the cell’s fuel factories, the mitochondria, and was the last such complex without a structural portrait.  But in an epoch-making paper in this issue, Sazanov and colleagues1 describe X-ray structures of bacterial complex I, and report that it has an unusual ‘piston’ mechanism for controlling proton movement across mitochondrial membranes (see page 441).
Both the original paper and Ohnishi’s summary contain diagrams showing how the piston mechanism works in conjunction with the connecting rod described in the 07/06/2010 entry.

    ATP Synthase was mentioned in a PNAS commentary this week.3  Stuart L. Ferguson [Oxford U] recounted the decades of effort to determine how ATP was generated.  He indicated that much remains to be learned, including why different life forms have different numbers of c-subunits in the F0 rotor (for background, see 12/22/2003, 08/10/2004, 08/04/2010), but mentioned “the apparently universal nature of the ATP synthase” in passing, indicating that even lowly bacteria have these elegant machines.  Eukaryotes (including all plants and animals) and eubacteria, but not archaea, “are from sequence analyses very similar,” he mentioned.  Archaea also use forms of ATP synthase that differ from those of eukaryotes in some respects.

1.  Efremov, Baradaran, and Sazamov, “The architecture of respiratory complex I,” Nature 465 (27 May 2010), pages: 441–445, doi:10.1038/nature09066.
2.  Tomoko Ohnishi, “Structural biology: Piston drives a proton pump,” Nature 465 (27 May 2010), pages 428–429, doi:10.1038/465428a.
3.  Stuart L. Ferguson, “ATP synthase: From sequence to ring size to the P/O ratio,”>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, published online before print September 21, 2010, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1012260107.
So what can evolutionists do with the discovery of rotary engines and piston engines in the simplest forms of life, all the way up to humans?  They just attribute it all to the remarkable creative power of the goddess Evolution. 
    A Nature Education article by Nick Lane (cf. 08/11/2010) referred to the piston paper by Efremov et al, saying “Again, the structure betrays the mechanism – in this case not a rotary motor but, even more surprisingly, a lever mechanism not unlike the piston of a steam engine (Figure 2),”  But then, Lane invoked Michael Russell’s lame hydrothermal waste dump myth (02/15/2008) – you remember, the one that falsified the primordial soup myth (02/05/2010) – to draw a parallel from simple proton gradients in deep sea vents to the proton gradients that drive pistons and rotors in the cell. 
    That’s like comparing rolling stones to automobiles, or clouds to aircraft.  Look at his convoluted reasoning to get from rolling stones to automobiles without intelligent design:
There are, of course, big open questions – not least, how the gradients might have been tapped by the earliest cells, which certainly lacked such sophisticated protein machinery as the ATP synthase,” Lane admitted.  “There are a few possible abiotic mechanisms, presently under scrutiny in Russell’s lab and elsewhere.  But thermodynamic arguments, remarkably, suggest that the only way life could have started at all is if it found a way to tap the proton gradients.
  So tell us, Nick, did Life try to tap into these gradients on purpose?  After all, if it “found a way,” it must have been looking for it.  In Lane’s vision quest, Life, in some nebulous form lacking ATP and a proton gradient, studies those deep-sea vents with furrowed brow, asking “How can we tap into that?”  But wait – without a way to tap into it already, it would have no energy to look for, discover, and harness the proton gradient.  Well, that must imply, then, that all the machinery just “arose” all together, fully formed, by chance.  Maybe it was a miracle: “the acquisition of mitochondria and the origin of complexity could be one and the same event,” he said. 
    Only an evolutionist gets away with this kind of nonsense in scientific lit.  But that’s not all.  Lane proceeded to extend his mythology to all complex life, with all its organs and functions, speculating how it all originated with proton gradients.  In the end, though, he had to admit it the whole idea a myth:
The question is, what kind of a cell acquired mitochondria in the first place?  Most large-scale genomic studies suggest that the answer is an archaeon – that is, a prokaryotic cell that is in most respects like a bacterium.  That begs the question, how did mitochondria get inside an archaeon?  The answer is a mystery but might go some way toward explaining why complex life derives from a single common ancestor, which arose just once in the 4 billion years of life on Earth.
Well, at least he recognized he left some “big open questions” begging.  Nothing more needs to be said.  He just shot any claim to science out from under his own feet and showed himself belonging to a “mystery” cult, along with the editors of Nature, who, by printing his speculations, became willing accomplices in promoting the mystery cult. 
    Take Nick Lane’s freak show (08/11/2010) to Mad Magazine where it belongs.  The rest of us are enjoying this confirmation of intelligent design at the smallest scale of life.  You’re running on pistons and rotary engines.  Cool!  Lane gets a teeny bit of credit for sharing one amazing factoid in his article about the eletrical potential in your body set up by these proton gradients: “A membrane potential of 150 mV across the 5-nanometer membrane gives a field strength of 30 million volts per meterequivalent to a bolt of lightning.”  You’ve got the energy of lightning in your cellular engines.  Hot!
Next headline on:  Cell BiologyIntelligent DesignAmazing Facts
  On the Fifth Anniversary, CEH was covering the Darwinian exasperation with creationists: the rhetoric that was heating up in Dover, Pennsylvania (09/26/2005), the natural history museums training their docents how to deal with evolution skeptics (09/22/2005), and the pundits cussing out I.D. in editorials (09/02/2005).  That month also had the usual variety of other reports about cellular machines, Saturn, genomes, pterosaurs, the big bang, Grand Canyon and much more.

Darwinism will become the joke of the ages among scientists one day.  The idea that "life arose" from non-life is plainly absurd when you have some comprehension of what the simplest of life forms have running under the hood.  The old "tornado in a junk yard making a 747" is not even enough, it is beyond that.  Darwinists do not even own the junk or the tornado nor can they explain where either came from.  It is totally irrational to believe that existence just *poofed* and life *poofed* and information *poofed* and design simply *poofed* with no natural cause possible.   No, a First Cause requires a Creator using supernatural means to created the Universe and all that is within it.   It is time for these scientists to give up their ridiculous game!

You think you avoid worshipping God by believing in and adhering to Darwinism?  No, you are just worshipping another god, the goddess evolution, Chance, The Evolution Fairy,  who has *poofed* everything you see into existence.  How can you be so blind as to think otherwise?  Operational science has revealed intricate design throughout the Universe and within the organism.  Someone had to have designed it and brought it into existence.  Someone had to input life and information into the material world.  You will never get away from that truth.  But perhaps one day you will realize that Jesus was able to make the blind see and so there is hope for you if you for one minute turn away from your death-grip hold on a complete absurdity and look carefully at all the evidence without the fairy-tale cutlines.  Perhaps one day you will turn off the Darwinist blather and simply allow Occam's Razor to rule the day.  

I will give Hawkeye the last word:

Blogger Hawkeye® said...


Good luck my friend. Trying to talk sense to your detractors is like trying to teach a blind man about the colors of the rainbow.

Best regards...


Jon Woolf said...

You're raving, Radar. This side of you isn't even funny, it's just pitiful. Nazi comparisons? Accusations of racism? Have you really fallen so far that this is all you've got to offer?

If creationists are the true scientists, and the evidence really supports creationism, then where are the creationist explanations for the anomalies that your commenters keep listing? Take one of them -- just one -- and give a coherent YEC explanation. Just one? Please?

Anonymous said...

Who was on the Nazi's naughty list?

"Recall that many creationists claim that the horrors of the Holocaust were inspired by Charles Darwin? I don't quite understand, then, why ol' Chuck was on their list of banned authors, along with Ernst Haeckel."

You loose again Radar.

Anonymous said...

"Well, thank you, but they really do not try. I gave them the benefit of the doubt that they might be ignorant or brainwashed but I now realize that they are simply liars. Liars who believe that the general public is too stupid to see the wool being pulled over their eyes. Darwinism has all the cohesion of a recent M. Night Shyalaman movie script (Lady in the Water, hahahahaha) and less evidence than Sally Rand had clothes. All sizzle, no steak."

Do remember that to disparage is not to argue and to continually repeat old saws in finitum ad nauseum will not make them true.

- Radar, a.k.a. American Vet

Radar, if you are so confident in your positions, then why do you evade so many straightforward questions, repeat the same old fallacies over and over without ever addressing them, and stoop to disparaging your opponents with half-baked accusations and strawman arguments?

Anonymous said...

"Who was on the Nazi's naughty list?"

Nice find, Anonymous.

Banned by the Nazis:

"Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (H├Ąckel)."

"All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk."

Another YEC talking point laid to rest. Good riddance.

-- creeper

Hawkeye® said...

Thanks for the nod, but I think the following statement from your article pretty well sums it up...

"In other words, it's natural selection or a Creator. There is no middle ground."

This is why there is so much tension between people like us and those like your detractors. There is no way to find common ground. There is no such thing as a "half-Creator" or a "partial-Designer". There either is one or there isn't.

(And if you don't want one, there is nothing that will convince you otherwise.)

Best regards...

Jon Woolf said...

Wrong again, Hawkeye. Radar's insistence on an all-or-nothing position is the reason there's so much disagreement between him and his "detractors." The reason for the tension is entirely different. That arises from the fact that Radar is so dishonest in his arguments and tactics.