How Insight From a Wise Old Country Doctor Reveals Evolutionary Theory's Fatal Flaw

It's About MISPLACED AUTHORITY, Not About Real Science

"Change the way you see things, and the things you see will change." (Dr Wayne Dyer)

few years ago I was told of a wise old Yorkshire country doctor, the old school. He used to say to people: "you must understand that 90% of our diagnoses are guesswork."

Yes, the doctor was being serious; oh, of course, he would point out that tests could be carried out which might (or might not) confirm any particular diagnosis and prognosis. His big point was that people had come to look upon doctors as major authority figures, something he did not entirely approve of. I understand that he told an old friend of mine (who used to know him well) that "the big problem is the demise of the church, authority traditionally given to the priest or vicar now comes to us, and to scientists, geologists and all the rest of them." As an aside, I just wonder how many people visiting a doctor ever consider that 90% of what they say is probably guesswork, until maybe things can be nailed down a bit later. I was thinking about this recently when I recalled the last time I personally visited a doctor; this was in the town where we used to live back in Wales. I had developed a slight physical problem. It was slight, nothing major. I just wanted his opinion. He gave me a few options regarding what it could be. "I just don't know for sure, could be a few things, he said, maybe it is even a virus." I did not ask him to give me anything for it (he knew me better than that), and about seven days later the problem simply went away never to return. But I recall, and really liked his honesty. But many people do seem to seek assurance in the medical profession, and our society in general puts a whole lot of trust and faith in its physicians, scientists, geologists and so on, just like that country doctor said. Is it good and healthy that our favoured authority figures are no longer pastors and vicars but scientists and technicians? Is this faith and trust sometimes misplaced? Has this trust made us all a little lazy, slow to do our own research? Should we really hang on, or depend upon, every opinion of these people? The answer, in many cases surely must be no.

Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins is a good example of the overly-dogmatic modern scientist, yet other distinguished scientists (Denis Noble, for instance) separate themselves from his style; a lot of the time he deals in propaganda, rhetoric and his (questionable and unproveable) personal opinions, which he always presents as clear fact, rejecting the opinions of other scientists who may disagree with him. His form of 'science' includes huge amounts of materialistic philosophy, insisting that the meaning of life can only be found through modern science and Neo-Darwinism, rejecting any idea that philosophy or religion could have any insights to offer (oops! excepting his own philosophy, that is). In his utterly uncompromising dogmatism, he is only manifesting the authority which western society itself has handed to him when it took the crown of authority off the church, handing it to modern science, with its inbuilt materialist philosophy and dependence on theory, propaganda and rhetoric.

As an atheist, Dawkins insists that no biblical or Christian writings have any authority whatsoever, this is especially true where such writings teach that God made the world and created men and women. What Dawkins apparently cannot see is that he himself is a man of faith; he believes that all life gradually developed from utterly chance, random processes which suspended the well-proven fact that life can only come from life; moreover, he believes that these one-chance-in-a-million scenarios continued to be successful even over many millions of years until eventually producing modern man. Now, that is real faith!

(The reader should be sure to read the lower insert article on Max Planck, on this same page).

Scientists (most of them, not all) now say that the answer to how we all got here can easily be found in evolution. This has become a sort of standard response, a well-trodden mantra, yet it is sometimes forgotten that this answer has now replaced an older one coming from former authority figures who would quickly point to the Word of God for any wishing to understand the meaning of life.
Back in the 1960s (around the time this authority switch was taking place), I recall watching one of those awful TV religious discussion programmes which seemed to go around and around in ever-decreasing circles (either because no one had the answer, or did not dare to say what they thought). I think it was called, 'The Sunday Break,' an odd title. An Anglican priest was being questioned by a few youths, the most vocal of these youths suddenly said, "I won't respect the church until everybody within it accepts that evolution actually happened." The harassed and under fire priest said, "Okay, well let me ask this: is it now more or less proven that evolution happened?" (though at least 30 years their senior, this man - supposedly representing Christianity - was asking them!), "of course it is," came the response, to which this under-fire man replied, "Oh well, I have no problem with that. In my opinion, we should all look on the Bible much more poetically anyway." In the time of a single heartbeat he had sold out his faith!

Yet here we all are about fifty or sixty years later and macro-evolution (the belief that man descended from apes over a many millions of years time period, all life having originally emerged by sheer chance in some primeval 'gunk') comes under more pressure every year as a sustainable theory of life, it now seems that it will never be substantiated in any way, it remains just a theory and a concept, with seemingly more scientists every year saying that it might not have happened that way at all! Certainly nothing within it can ever be provable. Yet it goes on being assumed. Why? Well, of course, it is 'scientific' isn't it? Is it really? No, it's distinctly unscientific in several ways; for one thing it breaks the law of biogenesis - life can only come from life - if the 'primeval soup' concept is right, all life came from non-life! Secondly, the fossil record - what we can actually dig up and inspect - has never backed up macro-evolution, rather we find the so-called 'Cambrian explosion' (all life appears at the same time), geologists know this, of course, but will still not separate themselves from evolutionary theory (all life developing from less sophisticated life forms over countless millions of years).

We have now reached a situation in which any leading educator can be dismissed from his or her job by challenging macro-evolution - yet it is not only unprovable but all the evidence which we do have points in a different direction! Is this not incredible? Yes, it's the power of these authority figures who have taken over from the priest and pastor. Modern science now insists that it has all the answers! It has taken full authority to itself!

Where Did the Dogmatic Approach to Human Experimentation Come From Anyway?

In the Garden of Eden the first couple were given the choice netween two ways of life:

1. Divine Revelation
Of course, the first couple rejected this, The Tree of Life represented this best choice.

2. Human Experimentation Without Divine Knowledge
This is what Adam and Eve accepted and it is the path which our world has followed ever since. Eve, and ultimately Adam too, were not too interested in the divine way of life, a life in which they would have regular contact with God Himself. Why? Because the wily serpent (Satan, of course) thought he could offer them something better. Let us briefly look at this:

2. The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3. but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'" 4. "You will not certainly die," the serpent said to the woman. 5. "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6. When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. (Genesis 3:2-6).

Now notice there that the 'Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil,' could be called the Tree of the Decider of Good and Evil. The first couple were taking the power and authority to themselves and to their offspring to decide their own systems of whatever good and evil, and right and wrong really are, rejecting direct input from Almighty God! So they chose the path of human experimentation - we have all followed this path ever since; only Jesus Christ has given us the power to break away from this and to recognise and return to the true, Godly path.

Today we live in a world which has decided for itself what constitutes good and evil; this is why our beautiful earth is a place of utter moral confusion. This is why we look to science and to experimentation for all the answers of life; human reason itself is now seen as of paramount importance. So we may perceive that the first attacks on Christianity came from the Renaissance, followed by the so-called Enlightenment - both of these placed mankind itself on a pedestal, gradually pulling away more and more from any concept of Divine Revelation. The Bible? Oh, that's just an old book - what did those people understand about life anyway! This is the attitude one typically hears expressed nowadays. Where did these attitudes come from? Well obviously originally from that wily old serpent in the garden but, since the dawn of the Christian Age, the Renaissance (around the 15th century), followed by the Enlightenment (around 1750) and finally Darwinism (around 1860 onwards). These movements gradually moved us all more and more away from God and closer and closer to atheism. By the way, I am not suggesting that the Renaissance, in particular, was wholly bad, actually much good came from it (but some bad too), likewise the Enlightenment contained both good and bad things, but - in general - these movements tended to place Mankind, and the learning of Mankind, on a pedestal and began to seriously undermine Christianity.

Max Planck (1858-1947)

In many ways Planck was one of the 'fathers' of modern theoretical, theory-driven science. He believed that science should take a position of authority, meticulous testing in the laboratory becoming less important than it had been in earlier centuries now we had reached the new era of 'modern science.' He famously stated this,
"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words, 'Ye must have faith.' It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with."
Planck, then, recognised that science was moving into a new age, an age in which in which it would become more theory-driven. For Planck, modern science should start to take 'faith' in its own endeavours, solid evidence for every step 'forward' becoming less important; he had noted this brazenness of approach in Darwin and now thought it should become the normal 'scientific' approach. Indeed, Planck himself was a theoretical physicist.

A few years ago an astronomer was in email contact with me. He loved his subject but he was derisive of some of the mantras of modern astronomy and cosmology. He also questioned the authority which was being given to his subject. I still recall what he said about it: "Don't listen when these experts tell you, that 'we now know this' and 'we now know that' - we know nothing! The universe continues to be a huge mystery to us. We say 'Jupiter is a planet' but we cannot even be sure of that, it is just opinion. Then some will say, 'the atmosphere on Mars is like...............' - ignore it, it's nonsense, just guestwork, we really don't know, it's about us feeling we need to be authoritative!" His remarks have stayed with me. This person was also, I might add, extremely sceptical of some of the claims of NASA. He said, "NASA is all about taking authority and control of space, taking the teaching and debating high ground. I don't take them too seriously in the field of space exploration. I don't think they always tell the truth, but they feel they must be in control. We send these people into space like we are encouraging people to see them as demigods because people like things and heroes to look up to, but it's debatable that you could say they went into space at all, only short distances." I am just quoting here what the man said to me, but his view was interesting.


So let us understand that modern naturalistic and materialistic science is far less concerned about only moving forward on solid proof and exhaustive testing than was the science of earlier centuries; it is now all about taking authority to itself, it tells us that only itself - modern science - can unlock the secrets of life; many times it has shown itself to be disastrously wrong yet insists on holding on to an authority which we ourselves have afforded it when we took the crown of authority away from Christianity and placed it on its own head. People like Richard Dawkins are now the new priests and prophets only because we - the people - have placed them in that exalted position when we gradually lost confidence in, and moved away from Christianity.

We may thus see that there is considerable hype, theory, persuasion, propaganda and speculation in modern science, it no longer sees itself as beholden to the untarnished truth. It is determined to hold on to a power and authority which we ourselves have granted it. This is a fatal flaw because modern darwinistic science will eventually be called to a reckoning when it is more widely and generally realised that it is based on a foundation of straw, bravado, invective and pure hype, the real 'scientific method' having departed long ago.

Robin A. Brace. August 8th, 2017.