COMMENTARY
WHY DOES IT LINGER ON
We have just refuted the theory of evolution from three different standpoints. One showed how biological evolution is genetically impossible, one showed how space discoveries seem to confirm the inability of biological systems to evolve, and one showed how even evolution of the solar system makes no sense. So why are there still people who believe in theories of evolution?
One article I read pointed out the sophistication of an eye. Without even getting into the genetic impossibility of evolution, the article showed how for evolution to have been a reality, several improvements in the eye would have had to evolve simultaneously -- a scenario of such a high degree of improbability that it rendered the theory a virtual impossibility. This article alone should have been enough to lay evolution to rest. Although it probably did just that for some, it apparently did not do away with the theory for all. Why not?
Extensive literature has been written disproving the theory of evolution. Many of these books are more technically involved than this one. Each one of these books should have been enough to lay evolution to rest. Yet, although some of these books have caused many to realize the insanity of evolution, they have obviously not managed to do away with the theory entirely. Why not?
After all, it is not necessary to disprove every aspect of evolution in order to disprove the theory. To show that a space vehicle will never land on the moon, for example, it is not necessary to prove that every component of the craft will malfunction. Simply proving that at least one vital component essential in reaching its destination will malfunction -- a booster rocket, the guidance system, the lunar module which descends upon the moon -- renders the mission's goal unattainable. The same is true with evolution. Disproving only one crucial aspect of it should be enough to do away with the entire theory. Which means that anyone acquainted with only one of these disproofs should have given up the theory by now. Surely anyone familiar with many of the disproofs should have dropped the theory like a hot potato. Why is it that all the disproofs seem to make little impression on some people?
I think the problem lies in "killing the wrong horse." My experiences have shown that many laymen who believe in evolution, ironically, know little about it. Apparently, they have either taken a liking to the theory or have simply put their trust in the scientists who perpetuate it. This, I believe, explains why all the literature already in existence disproving the theory has not had the kind of impact one might expect. If some people never cared enough to find out on a scientific level why they thought the theory was legitimate, what good is going into the technical details of why the theory doesn't make any sense? Neither common sense, logic, nor the theory's legitimacy was the reason these people accepted it in the first place. So by continually disproving evolution, you just keep "killing the same dead horse." It's not a question of whether the horse is dead or not. The problem is in the perception of those who refuse to believe the horse is dead in spite of the fact that there is a carcass lying in front of them. The point I'm making is that belief in the theory of evolution has origins outside the realm of scientific validity. The facts seem to have little impact on some people. To them it's a matter of personal inclination.
I believe evolution is as much a psychological problem as it is a scientifically technical one. After having disproven evolution on a scientific level, as others have done before me, but perhaps with a somewhat different approach, my goal now is to touch the psychological aspects of the theory. Searching for the reasons or motivations -- unrelated to scientific technicalities -- behind the acceptance of evolution by so many, so blindly, can perhaps shed the kind of light necessary for some to find their way out. Perhaps showing how logic is being tainted, or totally replaced, by emotions, might help some see evolution for what it really is -- a whimsical concoction of modern imagery.
My objective, therefore, in the next few chapters is to show how the layman's acceptance of evolution is largely due to a sort of double standard in logic. That is, the kind of "logic" by which some people accept "scientific" theories is not the kind of logic by which they actually live.
WHY DOES IT LINGER ON
We have just refuted the theory of evolution from three different standpoints. One showed how biological evolution is genetically impossible, one showed how space discoveries seem to confirm the inability of biological systems to evolve, and one showed how even evolution of the solar system makes no sense. So why are there still people who believe in theories of evolution?
One article I read pointed out the sophistication of an eye. Without even getting into the genetic impossibility of evolution, the article showed how for evolution to have been a reality, several improvements in the eye would have had to evolve simultaneously -- a scenario of such a high degree of improbability that it rendered the theory a virtual impossibility. This article alone should have been enough to lay evolution to rest. Although it probably did just that for some, it apparently did not do away with the theory for all. Why not?
Extensive literature has been written disproving the theory of evolution. Many of these books are more technically involved than this one. Each one of these books should have been enough to lay evolution to rest. Yet, although some of these books have caused many to realize the insanity of evolution, they have obviously not managed to do away with the theory entirely. Why not?
After all, it is not necessary to disprove every aspect of evolution in order to disprove the theory. To show that a space vehicle will never land on the moon, for example, it is not necessary to prove that every component of the craft will malfunction. Simply proving that at least one vital component essential in reaching its destination will malfunction -- a booster rocket, the guidance system, the lunar module which descends upon the moon -- renders the mission's goal unattainable. The same is true with evolution. Disproving only one crucial aspect of it should be enough to do away with the entire theory. Which means that anyone acquainted with only one of these disproofs should have given up the theory by now. Surely anyone familiar with many of the disproofs should have dropped the theory like a hot potato. Why is it that all the disproofs seem to make little impression on some people?
I think the problem lies in "killing the wrong horse." My experiences have shown that many laymen who believe in evolution, ironically, know little about it. Apparently, they have either taken a liking to the theory or have simply put their trust in the scientists who perpetuate it. This, I believe, explains why all the literature already in existence disproving the theory has not had the kind of impact one might expect. If some people never cared enough to find out on a scientific level why they thought the theory was legitimate, what good is going into the technical details of why the theory doesn't make any sense? Neither common sense, logic, nor the theory's legitimacy was the reason these people accepted it in the first place. So by continually disproving evolution, you just keep "killing the same dead horse." It's not a question of whether the horse is dead or not. The problem is in the perception of those who refuse to believe the horse is dead in spite of the fact that there is a carcass lying in front of them. The point I'm making is that belief in the theory of evolution has origins outside the realm of scientific validity. The facts seem to have little impact on some people. To them it's a matter of personal inclination.
I believe evolution is as much a psychological problem as it is a scientifically technical one. After having disproven evolution on a scientific level, as others have done before me, but perhaps with a somewhat different approach, my goal now is to touch the psychological aspects of the theory. Searching for the reasons or motivations -- unrelated to scientific technicalities -- behind the acceptance of evolution by so many, so blindly, can perhaps shed the kind of light necessary for some to find their way out. Perhaps showing how logic is being tainted, or totally replaced, by emotions, might help some see evolution for what it really is -- a whimsical concoction of modern imagery.
My objective, therefore, in the next few chapters is to show how the layman's acceptance of evolution is largely due to a sort of double standard in logic. That is, the kind of "logic" by which some people accept "scientific" theories is not the kind of logic by which they actually live.