Darwin's Discovery

Naturalism holds that a material, physics-based universe offers a true basis for understanding the world and our humanity. The view is widespread. And as you pursue it, you soon seek that if you didn't already know, humanity has no final meaning.

The end stares us in the face. Science may have some of the answers, but if we have all evolved straight through random chemical combinations and mutations, then all the attempts to find what our humanity means are nothing more than what we take from the casino of our uncertain impressions. Trapped inside our own mental there is no final meaning. Except that denials soon get to sound paradoxically as if they were final! - Food for thought?

Darwins

Makes you wonder

Darwin's Discovery

If there is no final basis for the validity of our own mental we are left with an accidental cerebral universe of molecules with no rhyme or greatest reason. We have merely inherited our whirling mental molecules from our forebears.

Charles Darwin was acutely aware of the impact of his own principles on the validity of human reason, and in 1881, one year before he died, (he had expressed similar views in his Autobiography in 1876) he explained how rational convictions could not be sustained on the basis of evolution:

Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the succeed of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt all the time arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? 1

What is Darwin saying here? On the basis of his new beliefs, (no doubt arrived at using his reason) his own theorize was unable to reach convictions he could trust beyond the scope of naturalism. But can he even place real belief or value in his new beliefs, knowing they have only come from his own mind? He would like to believe so.

Reason needs a foundation

As we look back, we can see that Darwin's principles was not about changing his worldview on the basis of research-based evidence, but about postulating ideas based on a naturalistic philosophical worldview, without an enough basis for the validity of his reason.

Now, the same 'lower animal' mental applies to Darwin's plausible-sounding case for evolution. And you are supposed to be impressed and deLighted at this fabulous discovery that your suitably impressed and deLighted mental has only come from lower animals. Well, do you enjoy having your mental treated as trash, because that's what Darwinism does for you?

Consider a uncomplicated analogy; how Darwin used two separate stools to sit on when he did his academic work. He sat on the first stool, which was strong and secure, to do his investigate and writing. Here, he utilised a high view of his reason, probably unacknowledged although inherited from the biblical theistic worldview of his Western culture, and more than that, one he inescapably possessed as a personal, divine image-bearer. But, he has a problem; he dislikes the high honour and the profound responsibilities that go with it, and sets out to deny it. So he rejected the Genesis list of the moral fall causing guilt, suffering and sorrow, and soon became an enigma to himself.

And as he denies the high validity of his reason, without realising it, he is suddenly whisked onto a second stool as he thinks about his new evolutionary beliefs and what succeed they might have upon his own thinking. As he does, he comes to see that the second stool is so weak it fails to maintain the high validity of his reason, and leaves him with his 'horrid doubt'.

Doublethink

This analogy shows how Darwin held two simultaneously incompatible sets of assumptions. Without the first, he could never have arrived at the second. But, with the second, he didn't have the first! If your mental comes from lower animals you don't have enough belief to believe in it! If Darwin's principles were true, you would never know.

As Darwin formulated his theory, the most underlying changes take place in his own mind, in his ideological beliefs, and the way he interprets reality. Now as his mental circulates, he interprets discoveries and forms new beliefs that he thinks prove his theory, when all they do is to give plausible maintain to his new ideological beliefs.

Charles Darwin began by assuming his mental was sufficiently developed to postulate and confirm the empirical validity of evolutionary belief - that countless, tiny accidental biological changes in organisms tended, by natural selection, to abandon the least useful changes (mutations, as such, weren't known then) and maintain the most beneficial. What he didn't know was that, in any given gene pool, there is no evidence of any process ever adding new genetic information to that pool, causing other related, but more developed organism to evolve from it, as is required by his theory.

Darwin's principles is his personal dream. However, large numbers of people have thorough that it has conclusively discredited biblical Christianity, when it's done nothing of the sort.

What is often missed is that once Darwin confessed to his doubts about not being able to trust the conclusions of his thinking, on the basis of it advent from an animal like a monkey, he had let the cat out of the proverbial bag. In one fell swoop, he did not leave himself a leg to stand on! But he had already made an optimistic leap, against his reason, to believe his principles and to release it.

Darwin's discovery

This discovery that Darwin made - call it an admission, if you prefer - is actually stunning; it is of the top consequence, and he made it when he realised that his belief in evolution undermined the validity of his theorize he had used in arriving at his new beliefs, and instead gave him a weak one inherited from lower animals that he couldn't trust!

So as you reflect on the validity of your own reason, you may find it helpful to rule on which stool are you sitting. Because if you accept Darwin's beliefs, you are using the high view of your mental to accept a lower one, that is not only in conflict with the higher one, but which undermines the validity that you have used to believe Darwin. The new beliefs make nonsense of the high view of theorize you have used in accepting them!

How does this happen? The information article of evolutionary belief is inconsistent with a high view of the rational human person, and in fact destroys it; a fact Darwin chooses to ignore when he continues to use his high view of theorize to propagate his futile beliefs! On the basis of naturalistic evolutionary belief, the validity of theorize self-destructs. Darwinism is one of the most subtle attacks ever made on the foundation of human theorize in an endeavor to replace Christianity with secular humanism - based on a naturalistic world view.

Ultimately Darwinism has not discredited the empirically accumulate and credible foundations of Christianity, the historic Genesis fall into a broken and spoiled world, and the advent of Jesus Christ, who by his life, sin-bearing death and resurrection, has provided a final solution. Now, God graciously reconciles to himself all who trust in Christ and his accomplished work on the cross. Those who do, become new creations in him. There is a fully trustworthy answer, after all.

1. Charles Darwin (Darwin Internet Correspondence Project, letter 13230), personal correspondence to William Graham, 3 July 1881.

Darwin's Discovery

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks