Darwin was a genius, says Huff Po essayist Rifkin

Well Darwin was a good observer, and eloquent writer. He had bred pigeons and knew about selective breeding practices. He already knew of the generally accepted theory that living things were related somehow, but the devil is in the details.

Rifkin’s essay about Darwin from Huff Po, is linked below, but there are some questions to ask. Rifkin is satisfied Darwin is a genius–Aristotle was also a genius, but limited by the tools available, so he was wrong on many things–like the 4 elements.

Here’s why Darwin has to be a genius, even though his modification and selection theory has a lot of evidentiary chemical and genetic inadequacies and gaps–Darwin provided secular materialist atheists with the theory that eliminated the God problem. As Dawkins admitted, Darwin allowed for atheists to be comfortable, and I would assert he allowed them to be satisfied and able to reject questions raised about the gaps in the evidence or the explanations for functional complexity and diversity.

Now my objections to the Darwinian theory have nothing to do with religion and a believer in a creator–I have problems with a lack of a chemical evolutionary theory, lack of transitional phyla and species, confusion about INTRA SPECIES MODIFICATIONS BEING USED AS EVIDENCE OF INTER SPECIES MODIFICATIONS.

There are a few orders of magnitude required to explain the difference between an insect and a crocodile or an orangutan, but they are all related and underlying anatomy and physiology are unified by carbon, biochemistry, DNA/RNA cellular complexity.

When people talk about the higher and more complex life forms, important to know that cellular complexity is present at the lowest of life forms, driven by similar biochemical reactions in anatomy that has common elements–for example the cellular membranes.

Darwin, an honest man, said he couldn’t explain inter-species lack of reproduction, or even simple problems of reproduction blocks related to donkeys, mules and horses. He was honest enough to admit that he couldn’t explain the development of complex anatomy and physiology like the eye–he had no idea of the cellular anatomic and biochemical complexity that underlies living things. He didn’t know the mechanism of reproduction and genetics. He thought a cell was a membrane containing a soup, like the scientists of his age, not knowing that electron microscopy would should complexity of a high order.

He was a hedgehog on a mission–find an explanation for what the Borg called in the Sci Fi world–CARBON BASED UNITS.

DNA and Carbon–unifiers and the beginning of the mystery of functional complexity. And who knows how enzymes and feed back loops are developed–dumb chemicals sure don’t know how.

I also have a big problem with chemicals, complex chemicals like DNA and RNA being anthropomorphized to beings with a sense of direction and the ability to “develop” new or more complex phyla.

Chemists would laugh to think that someone attributed intelligence or a purposeful existence to even a protein with a molecular weight in the tens of thousands.

As for coordinated development of extraordinarily complex physiological and structural complexity–chemicals don’t plan and execute.

When an evolutionist employs the tautological argument that enough time will produce a monkey, elephant, horse, ant, spider, crocodile–my response is that we think time since the big bang is estimable and mutations that coordinate development of functional complexity can’t happen in the time allowed when one considered the nature of the chemical complexity and specificity required.

I am not a creationist–but the evolutionists want to park all their enemies in the creationist lot so they can make fun of them. The young earth creationists are looking for a magic, a creator–I’m looking for a chemical and genetic design factor–what Dawkins calls the selfish gene factor. Dawkins and I separate when he claims genes or DNA or RNA could know how to evolve–chemicals don’t ‘know’ nothin’.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-rifkin/was-darwin-really-a-geniu_b_7562304.html?utm_hp_ref=science

Advertisements

8 responses to “Darwin was a genius, says Huff Po essayist Rifkin

  1. “Dawkins and I separate when he claims genes or DNA or RNA could know how to evolve”

    I’m not aware that Dawkins has said anything like this. Do you have a reference?

  2. It’s very interesting how this is seen as a binary debate. It’s either evolution or creationism. I should have thought that belief in God could easily incorporate evolution as simply being part of His grand design.

    That said I have absolutely no doubt that Evolution will not be the last word in this matter.

  3. Search Richard Dawkins, then search Dawkins and his concept of the selfish gene.

  4. A few years ago National Geographic had article praising Darwin and how he was absolutely correct. The article was full of references and descriptions of design – no designer or other means of achieving the design. As stated here – somehow the chemicals knew how to change to achieve predicted results.

  5. Something tells me that the Theory of Evolution is supported purely by propaganda, the same kind of propaganda that “proves” that blacks are sub-human or that used car in the car lot had its oil changed every three months.

    The usual assumption behind all scientific investigations and conclusions are the the people carrying out those investigations and conclusions are fully objective, that is, that they have no vested interest in the conclusion.

    Are those who have developed, enhanced, and promoted the Theory of Evolution fully objective? Do they ever say that the Theory of Evolution has substantial, perhaps even game-ending, problems? Do we not have starry-eyed scientists constantly “confirming” the Theory of Evolution because their source of money and their reputations are on the line?

    Moreover, is the Theory of Evolution simply a means to an end, that is, an attempt by some to demonstrate that the Judeo-Christian God is not only irrelevant to human existence but also unnecessary?

    Everything in our world has pros and cons. Too much water and we drown. Too little water and we die of thirst. Are there no negative consequences to the Theory of Evolution or are any perceived consequences declared irrelevant, thus turning evolutionists into nothing but used car salesmen?

    I smell a con.

    • nice. gary

    • I always feel somewhat offended by the word “Theory” used along with the word “Evolution”. That implies experimentation, and the ability to replicate the experiments. The fruit-fly-biologists have been growing fruit flies for many years, for instance. They can produce fruit flies with all sorts of different attributes. But, even with the countless generations of fruit flies, even with all the permutations, they still have never seen anything except fruit flies. So the fruit-fly-biologists have shown, through their experimentation, that they can make . . . fruit flies out of fruit flies. They have certainly shown the validity of fruit fly DNA, that it contains the code built into it to create all manner of different fruit flies. But it has never been shown that fruit fly DNA can, by chance, suddenly create something other than a fruit fly. Therefore, I would say that Evolution is nothing more than a guess, with no proof of the basic principles.

  6. “Aristotle was also a genius, but limited by the tools available, so he was wrong on many things–like the 4 elements.”

    If you look at the 4 elements correctly, Aristotle was actually describing the four States of Matter: Solid (earth), Liquid (water), Gas (air), and Plasma (fire). And even the word “element” was something that was simply translated incorrectly during the Renaissance. The original word (so I’ve been told) corresponds much better to the phrase “states of matter”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s