Thursday, May 21, 2009

Darwinism is Self-Contradictory

The most basic tenets of Darwin's hypothesis deny each other.

Darwinism posits that:

1) The fittest species survive
2) Changing and adapting is the pre-eminent method for survival of a species

The 2 fundamental points are diametrically opposed.

1) If a species is the fittest, why then are these "fittest species" now extinct?
2) If a species is most fit, it will be an agent to cause change to maintain itself, not to be changed.

If a species does comply with Darwin's framework, then it is demonstrated to be unfit, not most fit.

Sociologically Darwinism is entirely unapplicable:

Philosophies, ideologies and the various human societies that have been built based on them have all over time adapted, changed, evolved, and without exception passed-away. Some have left faint, passing marks in the dust, and many have disappeared without a trace.

There are however two enduring, unyielding societal forms known to history; Judaism and Catholicism. They do not change: they cause change. They thrive and grow in a permanently hostile environment. They are therefore empirically demonstrated to be the fittest.

Darwinism is a self-contradictory concept that is clearly invalid sociologically, and demonstrated to be totally unapplicable to people that are honest enough to embrace truth and live steadfastly and honestly in accord with the obvious demands of our reality.

When it comes to physiological mutations, the jury is out. Once the Burgess Shale findings are adequately considered, I'll look at that aspect again.

For an enjoyable foray into the integration of Genesis, Geology, and Evolution, I found this to be an interesting read.

Veritas Vincit Omnia

No comments: