Criticism of Darwinism
The fundamental points of criticism about the materialistic theory of evolution
Preface
Origin of Life
Did multicellular organisms originate from monads?
Did higher forms of living originate from primitive multicellular organisms?
Did reptiles originate from amphibians, birds and mammals from reptiles?
Suppression of differences between macro and microevolution
Macroevolution through genetic mutations by accident?
Did mankind develop from specific primates?
Resume
Preface
The first step to record is that Darwinism is not a scientifically proven fact but only an interpretation of already existing findings from biology, genetics and palaeontology; in fact an interpretation depending on a specific view of the world – just as any interpretation is depending on the observer’s view of the world.
It is no secret which of these different views of the world determines Darwin’s theory of evolution: materialism; meaning the opinion that matter is the source/very basis of everything and everything existing is the product of material development; everything even life and consciousness can be explained and in the end reproduced by the laws of materialistic sciences.
This view to the world offers only one single scenario to answer the questions of “How did life on earth develop? How did the different types of plants and animals come into existence?” and this is the scenario stating that life must have risen out of matter and that a higher developed being is always an evolutional result of its direct predecessor. Today this opinion is so heavily spread that nearly no one asks in how far this interpretation or hypothesis has proven itself to be a logical theory. Not even the representatives of natural sciences, pretending they themselves work scientifically and objectively, scrutinize this hypothesis. Some of them even speak very autocratically and arrogantly by claiming no “seriously taken scientist” would have a doubt about this theory (from: National Geographic Deutschland, Editorial, p. 204, written by the chief editor).
Scientific journalist C. C. Malzahn found clear words in the article “Is God descending from Darwin?” (December 26th, 2005) published on Spiegel Online. His writing may appear arrogantly and polemically, but actually is not extreme nor “unscientifical” because it only states the key arguments of materialism:
Speaker of the theory of evolution like the American philosopher Daniel Dennettaber say: There is no God. He was not necessary. Nietzsche at least let him die. The neodarwinists say: He was never here. This is possible – but not of any importance to faith. For modern faith it is not about explaining the cosmics and how it developed. Modern faith today is nothing more—but also nothing less than a seat belt and consolation in a fast moving world. No reasonable being can reject the theory of evolution.
Any one rejecting this theory is not any more counted as a “reasonable human”…?! By critically observing this theory it becomes very clear that not one single stage has been proven yet.
Origin of Life
The world picture of materialism and the theory of evolution respectively base their knowledge on unproven assumptions like: «In the beginning, there was only matter because there is nothing more than matter». Thus the fact that the world today is full of life must be a logical consequence of assuming “life is originating from non-organic matter”. Consequently stating that after the hypothetical Big Bang, an enormous amount of galaxy swirls emerged out of primeval matter. In these swirls planets developed out of the primordial sun through heavy matter swirls. One of these planets is the Earth composed out of glowing matter in the beginning. When this started to cool down, lava sludge originated from rain and ended in forming the primordial oceans. In the primeval oceans first organic compounds shall have originated out of nonorganic-chemical reactions and these first compounds should have been responsible for the first living unicellular organisms.
Based on the Milley-Urey experiments from 1953, laboratory experiments shall be proof to this. With this it is possible to develop organic connections out of non-organic ones using electronic influences. This especially is used to originate amino acids, the basic parts of proteins. When the results of the Miller-Urey experiments were published, scientists proclaimed the artificial production of life’s basic components. This indeed is a bluff because amino acids are not the basis of life but only one module of one of organic material’s basic components. Organic matter—and especially a living cell—is composed out of much more than only amino acid. The “best” case would just produce a dead cell, but never a living one!
The assumption living monads arose from accidentally occurred molecular bonds out of the “primordial soup” thus is a materialistic faith not based on a theoretical basis. Because it has long since been proven by statistical probability calculation that a development of complex organic compounds out of non-organic matter is not possible by accident—stressing that an organic compound by no means is a living organism.
Materialism postulates the equation: organic body = living being. If a living body in fact is only a quantum mechanical structure, scientist should be able to create for example a seed in the laboratory. Chemical components of seeds are long known. Thus it actually should be possible to artificially merge these components in a way that a germinable seed arises. Or even simpler: We split an apple into two parts and ask the whole scientific elite of the world to put both of the parts together again. Because this process should be possible if an organic body is only the result of mechanical functions of matter.
Assuming that living organisms originated from matter is in consequence only an unproven (and absurd) faith.
Did multicellular organisms originate from monads?
Even if we would accept that monads somehow developed from matter then the essential question of “How did life arise?” is not solved yet. Statistics proclaim that even the unique development of a living cell out of organic matter-elements is impossible. Even if this impossibility has happened there would have been only a single cell in between a life-threatening primeval ocean. This single cell would have died immediately—and this one single accident would have been senseless. But following the Darwinistic scenario the primeval ocean was full of monads. This is the point when this scenario becomes ridiculous because all of these monads must have developed out of matter by accident. Even if there were lots of monads, further development would have stuck here. Dividing monads stay monads—until today.
The materialistic faith nevertheless proclaims monads “somehow” developed or joined in a way that multicellular organisms arose: first primitive forms of plants and animals. But there is not even a theoretic model showing how this process could have happened.
The assumption of multicellular organisms developed out of monads is only an unproven faith without any scientific grounding.
Did higher forms of living originate from primitive multicellular organisms?
Theories that are impossible on a relatively low level of monads and multicellulars become even more impossible on a level of higher forms of living. Multicellulars evolved to jelly fishes and cartilaginous fishes, primitive original algae evolved to various higher plant organisms. Again, there is no theoretic model realistically approving how this could have happened.
Did reptiles originate from amphibians, birds and mammals from reptiles?
Following the evolution theory the driving forces behind evolution are small genetic changes adding up over a million years. But genetic changes are always single accidents. In every procreation egg and sperm cell merge and start to exponentially divide. When cells divide DNA must double and identically be transmitted to both new cells. If copy errors occur (e.g. through radioactive or cosmic radiation) genetic information is impaired, meaning at least one gene sequence is destroyed. Comparable to a text in your computer: If a monkey would accidentally punches the keys how high would be the probability that the monkey won’t mix the letters? How high is the probability that even a better word or a more complicated sentence is created? And no text is more complicated than our genetic code. The probability equals zero especially when facing the fact that this accident must have happened a billion times.
But exactly this impossibility is the precondition to evolutional theorists: Some reptiles showed “small genetic changes” by with slowly first birds and mammals evolved.
But the bodies of reptiles and mammals are different from the beginning: the one is breading eggs the other isn’t. How should this have evolved “slowly” and “step by step”? Either “you” are a reptile or you are a mammal. But after evolution theory also intermediates in every variation must exist: living beings of 95 % reptile and 5 % mammal, of 90 % reptile and 10 % mammal etc. Or is a mammal straightly on hatched from a reptile egg? Even if it would have happened, it would not do so twice. This poor miscarriage would have died alone, together with the whole future of mammals.
The assumption amphibians evolved to reptiles and reptiles to birds and mammals is again just an unproven belief that is almost laughable when plastically imagine the respective intermediate beings. But this absurdity is nevertheless taught and propagated in primary schools and universities, in mass media, in specialist literature and in popular scientific publications.
Suppression of differences between macro and microevolution
Biology differs between variations of plants and animals in the categories of realm, class, order, family, genus and species, while every species is divided into different breeds; for example the species of “dogs” and the various breeds of dog.
Hereby macroevolution represents the development of biological realms (animals and plants) and the respective classes, orders, families, genus and species. Changes within a species resulting in develop the different races represents microevolution.
The difference between amphibians, reptiles and mammals is part of macroevolution. But evolution theorists illustrate this macroevolution with examples from microevolution by for example breeding of dogs races. These are examples of “evolution right in front of our eyes”. But also this argument is a bluff! If a new race characteristic shall be breaded as e.g. specific fur colors or body form, a specific order of breeds is necessary that in the first steps demands also an exactly calculated inbreeding because the specific characteristic would only appear with the first being. If this single being would couple with conspecifics, the new characteristic would immediately disappear.
Macroevolution through genetic mutations by accident?
In today’s biology textbooks that are all dedicated to Darwinism and thus follow the materialistic picture of the world, you will never find any hint to the difference of macroevolution and microevolution. On the level of microevolution, it actually is possible that new races develop through mutation and natural selection or by breeding selection. But this is not a macro-evolutional process because no matter how these special “Darwin-finches” look like: finch stays finch, bird stays bird. And in this big variety of dog races it still is about dogs. No matter how intense you breed dogs or fish: you will never ever get something different than a dog and never ever something different than fish!
But in evolutional sciences it is proclaimed at some time amphibians arose out of fish! And out of amphibians reptiles developed etc.
Again, let’s remember the difference of breeding special race characteristics on the level of microevolution. Without systematic selection this race characteristic would disappear all over a sudden. Now imagine the dilemma in the stages of macroevolution! Somewhere on earth a reptile is born with a genetical mistake leading for example to a misconstruction of scales where some scale areas are reformed to feathers (it is said that birds developed from reptiles and the feathers developed from various mutations of reptile scales). This single example would have been rejected by the group, if not even killed. Even if this new characteristic is not a disadvantage itself, this accidentally developed “non-negative” genetical mistake would disappear if this being would find a mating partner. This partner of the unique does not have this characteristic and from this connection born descendants can again only couple with conspecifics not having this characteristic. For not losing a special feature also in microevolution a specific order of breeding would have been necessary—not talking about alleged changes on a macro-evolutional level.
The assumption of changes in macroevolution resulted from genetical changes happened by accident, is again an unproven faith with a pretty ridiculous component if you image all of the postulated steps of development and intermediates.
Did mankind develop from specific primates?
The development of men is a special problem to evolution theorists as not only macro-evolutional changes but also consciousness and thinking power as well as religio and ratio occur in this stage. Conventional explanations suggest the primitive hominids developed a “higher consciousness” as their brains became big enough to do so.
This materialistic faith is based on two dogmas: 1) Men developed a bigger and more complex brain by accidentally occurring genetic changes and 2) consciousness is a byproduct of the brain. Based on these dogmas, evolution theorists then explain the development of believing in hereafter and hence derived myths and religions while in the mean time creating a new (pseudo-scientific) “myth” themselves. Stating the following: “When hominids gradually became conscious due to accidentally occurred enlargements of their brains, the early homo sapiens recognized he has to die and will pass by forever. The tremor of transience then made him imagine dead tribe members or sexual partners are not gone forever but continue living in a hereafter. This illusion was strengthened by his new ability to dream as a consequence of the bigger brain which made him see his fellows in his dreams. This is how the belief in hereafter developed! Out of that the different cults and images of hereafter and in the end different views of god and religions were created.”
Religion in the materialistic model is nothing more than a creation of mankind—a self-deception to find consolation because this early human was not strong or “illuminated” enough to bear the ultimate consequences of the “materialistic truth” namely that life is bleak, senseless and godless. Here the vicious cycle of materialistic argumentation is closed and leaves humans behind in nihilistic views of the world—including the respective consequences we can see worldwide.
Resume
Definitely we explore a lot remainings of plants and animals in fossils that are not living on earth anymore: extinct fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals, not to forget extinct monkeys, primates (called “leading animals”) and “apes”, being interpreted as ancestors of mankind by followers of evolution theory. Extinct amphibians, reptiles, mammals including “apes” are in no way a proof that one has developed out of the other. Not even genetical commonalities in certain families, genus and species of 90 % and more are proof to this. Genetical commonalities and similarities do not approve genetical relationships but only pointing out that the bodies of these different beings are composed out of the same organized, organic matter and that this organic matter in the bodies of all beings is built from the same components, especially from information carrier DNA. That is all what genetical commonalities and similarities prove in the bodies of all the different beings—nothing more and nothing less.
The assumptions, (1) Life did develop from matter by accident, (2) complex beings developed from the simple forms of being by genetical mutations again by accident, (3) men are evolved animals (4) consciousness is a product of a big enough brain, represent an unproven faith derived out of materialism and based on all the above described and absurd steps of thinking.
But as followers of evolution theory are not distinguishing between real scientific analysis and interpretation – always dependent on the picture of the world – they see all palaeontic and genetical findings and all other phenomenas of life compelledly through glasses of their theory and thus “see” findings of alleged evolution everywhere even though they are not pointing on evolution.
Translated by Stephanie Stockklauser, Berlin