Darwin on the Ouija Channel
by Robert Singer
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.
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.
company agreed it was worth the risk because there arenít enough
Evolutionists to rip out the pages of one million copies of Ray
Comfortís new book linking Darwin and Natural Selection to Hitler.
(RD) was the designated medium and Niles Eldredge took the following
their fingers on the planchette and Mr. Dawkins asked the Ouija
board the burning question, "Charles, are you in Hell?"
"The subscriber you are trying to reach out of range, planchette
will now channel hypothetically."
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.
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?
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.
yes, that autumn afternoon, I can still smell her perfume.
RD: So you
were with her and reading the Bible before you died?
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?
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?
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
I was 73; taking
Lady Hope to bed was a BIG story!!
RD: So you
never regretted coming up with the Theory of Evolution?
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."
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 doesnít prove that life began in a "primordial
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
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it was a good designÖworthy
of being duplicated.
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 hadnít written Darwin's Black Box: The
Biochemical Challenge to Evolution based on your definition of "irreducibly
what? Only the religious dummies go to Christian bookstores. Bush
Jr., Quayle and the Creationists prove Professor Lynnís research
that less than 7% of university academics believe in God.
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 itís 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.
whatís the problem?
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:
RD: He maintains
that biological systems are irreducibly complex and possess incredibly
complicated structures that can be reduced to very basic states.
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.
random mutations are random. Havenít 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 throughÖ you guessed it, a series of Ö 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.
vision formed by Natural Selection, molecular biologists cited Beheís
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.
you canít say I didnít 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
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"Ö Of course, no one knows what the Hell you are
talking aboutÖ "illusory, insuperable, can be considered real"
but it was all we had.
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
Iím 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.
"ayes" were a problem even before modern ophthalmology.
RD: Damn those
eye scientists. They found three, almost imperceptibly tiny eye
movements Ďtremors, drifts and saccadesí 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).
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.
canít 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, Iím 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.
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
By the way,
did you go to inaugural Gordon Conference in Neuroethology in the
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.
have an explanation for the wasp: They represent an evolutionary
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.
larvae that survived werenít 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 itís 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 donít
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."
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
RD: No, but
it doesnít 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
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
energy detectedÖCharles Darwin wanted to find an alternative
to God; Richard Dawkins wants to prove he is smarter than God.
take a few deep breaths while we fill Richard Dawkins with an entirely
different personality. Tuning RD to an Intelligent Designed spirit.
try and prove the existence of God, which is true with false
and absurd statements from the Bible:
the beginning God..." Genesis 1:1 Actually the Bible doesnít
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 couldnít have
been authored by men it foretells the future with 100%
accuracy every time.
try and prove that Macroevolution, which is false with Microevolution,
which is true.
can explain the types of bird beaks, the colors of moths and the
length of the giraffeís 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 doesnít evolve
into something different it dies out.
Itís been 150
years and no one has found a natural process that can show how things
fall together into organized complexity (macroevolution).
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.
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 letís see a frogapoo.
Darwin: I know
not what course others may take, but as for me if itís a choice
between Evolution, Creation and Deism Iíll stay dead.
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.
Jim is a Creationist who wants to show "how to mine the riches
of Godís Word and ferret out the truth of history and science in
the Bible," but we wonít hold that against him.
of "Emperor of evolution has no clothes," by Jim Pappas]
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
You can see
by many of the comments to this series on Dr. Lewontinís quote that
evolutionís 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."
are "forced" by their "a priori adherence to material
causes" to believe evolution is the only possible answer.
pre-existing belief that there is no God, and there is nothing beyond
the observed natural realm.
purposely limit their views to fit their presupposition, and anything
that disagrees with them they decry is "unscientific"
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
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?
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
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]
[send him mail] writes for
Market Oracle and The
2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part
is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.