Being
a conscientious scientist, Darwin was quite well aware
of the difficulties with his theory of evolution.
In his book ‘The origin of species,’ he
discusses the various natural phenomena that posed grave
threats to his theory. Regarding the human eye which
gave him the ‘cold shudders’ he states,
“To suppose 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, seems, I freely
confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”
Complex insect behaviors too baffled him, put him in
a despondent mood, as did some of the thing they managed
to engineer to perfection, such as the hexagonal honeycombs
that bees made with its finely calculated planes and
angles. The peacock feather’s intricate design
made him positively sick.
In
Chapter nine, Darwin discusses the ‘Imperfection
of the Geological Record’ that added to his woes.
If evolution were true, one would expect that the vast
majority of fossils would be of intermediary forms,
he noted with despair. Due to the incredibly slow nature
of the evolutionary process such forms would exist over
the vast majority of geological time. “Why then
is not every geological formation and every stratum
full of such intermediate links? Yet Darwin went ahead
systematically convincing influential people about his
theory. It was, after all, a big idea and bringing small
man a lot of fame.
Now,
the only merit of the theory of evolution has is that
it removes the ‘creator’ from the creation
equation. It challenged the idea that God create the
world and as such, this ideology, however deficient,
was indeed the need of the hour then. We are of course
referring to those dark days when oppressive religion
was breathing down our collective necks and cannot thank
Darwin enough for this service. Those indeed were the
heady days..when we went around breathing noxious DDT
fumes for health reasons. Oh, yes, it was the time we
though our heroic scientists with their cog-wheel sciences
were at the very threashhold...about to save us from
a creator who appeared to have lost control.
Today
of course we are embarrassed by the bravado of it all.
We no longer need to find ways and means for God-bashing;
on the contrary, the need of the hour may indeed be
that we are knocking at the doors of religions, intent
on borrowing a bit of metaphysics to temper our inadequate
sciences. With every passing day we are discovering
the stunning complexity of the world around us. We every
layer we open we find another and another ad infinitum.
The sad fact is our archaic theories and cog-wheel sciences
have long since lost traction. Our scientists, poor
sods, having been fudge information for the last decade
or more, regularly turn a blind eye to the metaphysical
nature of all things deep down, in the very realms they
operate. Increasingly, they are sensing that what lies
beneath a facade of seemingly straightforward sciences
is another science altogether, and one that is out and
out metaphysical in nature. Indeed, it's all very like
coming home one day and accidentally discovering that
your loving parents are actually aliens!
The
urgent need of the hour is wholesale revamping of our
sciences. What we need are robust sciences tempered
with a bit of metaphysics that can get down to the task
of explaining the complex world around us -- and quick.
A
modified theory of evolution currently doing the rounds
involves separating the observation or fact participle
from the theory participle. Evolution is an observed
fact, but explanation of the phenomenon which is the
theory itself, is now not so hotly espoused. In fact,
there is open admittance that ‘we are not sure
of the exact mechanism of evolution.’ Incidentally,
these are Darwin’s own refinements and they have
merely surfaced now as creationists are perceived to
be gaining ground. However, this cunning separation
does not in any way change the core issue. For, as regards
to the whether species can ‘jump from one to another’
which indeed is the core issue here, there still no
evidence. Till date there has been no evidence of the
intermediate species so direly needed to prop this theory.
Is
there perhaps another theory that will satisfactorily
explain the so-called evidence? Actually, there is.
It’s in two parts and this is how it goes. Firstly,
species do evolve or more accurately adapt themselves
to their surroundings to a certain extend though as
evidence will prove. However, they do not cross-over
to a different specie for the simple reason that we
have no evidence of it. Now, this revision ought to
take care of at least fifty percent of the evidence.
As
regards the rest, we have a second part of the theory,
and it goes like this. Similarity of design which is
at the heart of the theory of evolution can be better
explained by the term ‘common platform of design.’
This indeed is the evidence evolutionist are pointing
to and getting hot under the collar. Who has not seen
those extra holes and niches that seemingly serve no
purpose in an automobile? These are there to fit optional
fittings, such as an air conditioner, etc., but of course,
they are not currently fitted. It is to these holes
and niches that evolutionists point to and excitedly
spin their theory of evolution. Indeed, to them these
holes and niches are the vestigial bones and organs
that signal evolution. Going by their argument, leaving
your car in the sun for a sufficiently long period,
and they would 'evolve' that enviable air-conditioner!
We on the other hand, wise in the ways of mass-manufacturers,
know different. The holes and niches merely betray a
common platform of design and only a trip to the manufacturer
with money in one’s pocket will get these extras
for you or the higher end models itself. This is the
truth of the matter. All species share a common platform
of design. Which is why we might well see similarities
and vestigial appendages, or minor design differences
such as an elongated neck, or a powerful muscles, etc.,
all of which merely indicating that the creator wanting
another specie, keyed in his changes, and in the blink
of an eye all of it took form in the common platform
design models without him not having to go anywhere
near his clay pit.
Genomic
research supports the common-platform-design theory
to an astounding degree. We now know that up to 99%
of DNA is shared by all the living creatures. 'About
99 percent of genes in humans have counterparts in the
mouse,' says Eric Lander, Director of the Whitehead
Institute Centre for Genomic Research in Cambridge,
Massachusetts. 'The mouse is the only mammal, after
the human, whose genome has been sequenced. Eighty percent
have identical, one-to-one counterparts. Mice and humans
each has about 30,000 genes, yet only 300 are unique
to either organism. Both even have genes for a tail,
even though it's not 'switched on' in humans.'
Having
separated the facts participle from the theory aspect
of the theory of evolution, albeit in an effort to make
in more respectable, scientists have done us a favor.
Now, we can conveniently jettison the defunct theory
of evolution and replace it with the common-platform-design
theory. As scientific theories go, this one is superior
by far and it ought to satisfy pure science and it’s
advocated to an affably degree.
Now,
although the common-platform-design theory is answer
to the problem and one which even a blind man will appreciate,
it nonetheless suffers from one draw back. Although
it is scientifically superior and can take in its stride,
peacock feathers, honeycombs and whatever else that
nature has to throw at it, it nevertheless commits one
fatal faux pas. It ignores one unwritten rule of science.
That unwritten rule is, whatever the evidence, never
advocate a God-centric ideology. Alas, our bright little
scientific-to-boot theory goes ahead and does just that!
It unabashedly glorifies the creator! It shows him to
be not only a sophisticated designer, but is also a
cunning mass-manufacturer, and one who has the audacity
to create us humans on a common platform of design that
is shared by the likes of rodents and reptiles!
Bottom-line
is science connives even at the expense of science itself
to subtract God, the supreme scientist from every equation.
It will rather flog a dead-horse theory like the theory
of evolution that negates God than promote a brilliantly
scientific theory but one which ‘inadvertently’
glorifies God. And the sad part is it no longer needs
to toe this medieval stance, and by doing so, it actually
stunts its unbridled growth. And, as for us, we are
misled into paying the unnecessary and astounding price
of enjoying science's gifts, by having to have forfeited
our philosophical and spiritual equipoise. It is without
doubt, an exorbitantly high price to pay for so miniscule
a gain.
