Anarcho-Creationism.com

An Anarchist Defense of Six-Day Creationism

And a Creationist Defense of Anarchism

Why you should become a Bible-believing anarchist
 who also believes the universe was created around 4004 B.C.

Charles Darwin: The Creating of a Myth

"Hagiography" means "the biography of a saint" from the Greek word ἅγιος (hagios), "saint." The word is often used to describe a biography which ignores flaws and exaggerates achievements and virutes.

Charles Darwin is a "saint" in the religion of evolution. His modern-day fan-boyz portray him as the greatest biologist who ever lived, though he probably could not pass a graduate-level course in biology in 2026.

George Gaylord Simpson, one of the highest of Evolutionism's high priests, who ministered in the parish of Harvard University, has pontificated that Darwin

finally and definitely established evolution as a fact, no longer a speculation or an alternative hypothesis for scientific investigation.

Darwin did no such thing. Even Darwin himself would have denied that accomplishment. He had serious doubts about his own theory.

The Eye

In The Origin of Species, Darwin wrote that the idea of natural selection producing the eye “seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” Harvard paleontologist Stephen J Gould noted that Darwinism had flaws so significant that it had to be replaced by "Neo-Darwinianism," but even that must be replaced by some new theory, which Gould called "punctuated equilibrium, and declared in 1980 that neo-Darwinism is "effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy."

The "Missing Link"

Not "Link" singular, but millions and billions of "missing linkS," plural. Charles Darwin moaned about the absence of fossil proof of his theory of evolution, hoping someday the proof would be found. It never has been.

But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.
The Origin of Species, Mentor edition, 1958, pp. 293-294

But not just in the fossil record -- all around us, throughout the world, life appears in various "kinds" as described in the Bible, not a "finely-graduated organic chain" like Darwin's theory demands. Evolution should be visible everywhere. It should be next-to-impossible to identify different "kinds" of animals. There should be a "finely-graduated organic chain" between all animals, because all of life is perpetually evolving. Continuously. Step by step, mutation by mutation. It didn't all stop evolving when "Adam" and "Eve" finally came along.

Who decides what "orthodox" is? "Orthodoxy" is just "peer pressure," the desire to be one of "the cool kids." Darwinian Orthodoxy is also the desire to find something -- anything -- to replace the Bible. Anything will do, but it's nice to be able to couch it with an aura of scientific respectability. Scientific "orthodoxy."

Bad science is not always motivated by bad theology. Sometimes it's just the pressure of the "old boys'" guild. There is scientific peer pressure as well as international/governmental peer pressure. Governments can force scientists to limit their inquiry or promote false theories, either as a self-conscious tool of political repression, or out of hysteria or self-deception:

Certain questions are considered legitimate in any given academic guild at any given point in history. Certain approaches to the solution of these circumscribed questions are also considered the only ones acceptable. The guild polices itself rather well. The ways in which guilds enforce their world-and-life views are catalogued effectively in Thomas Kuhn's book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press, [1962] 1970). Kuhn concludes from a study of the history of physical science that the major intellectual breakthroughs are all too often made by young innovators who are not well established within the guild and by skilled amateurs who are self-taught and completely outside the guild. Guild members are seldom convinced by these scientific breakthroughs; they simply grow old and retire, or die, while the younger men establish the new "paradigm." Then a new series of questions and answers becomes the reign in orthodoxy, waiting for yet another innovator to revamp the operating presuppositions. Kuhn's analysis became a new paradigm for numerous academic disciplines during the late 1960's. Historians, political scientists, education professors, sociologists, and even a handful of natural scientists adopted Kuhn's open relativism. The idea of "objective science" was effectively removed from the classroom in those years of academic and campus turmoil. The confident technocratic neutralism of the Kennedy years disappeared, especially among the untenured younger professors. Kuhn's book itself launched a cross-disciplinary scientific revolution.
Gary North, Academic Compromise, May 09, 2016

"The Science" told Nikola Tesla (1856-1943) that Alternating Current (AC) was impossible because it violated the laws of physics. "Listen to The Science," Tesla was told. "The Science" would have sentenced the human race to a battery-powered (DC) world.
Tesla said the speed of light was not a constant. That's a "scientific revolution" that has not yet been permitted by the Guild to happen.

"Darwinism," "Neo-Darwinism," "punctuated equilibrium" are all part of an on-going conspiracy to overthrow the government of God and the “Vine & Fig Tree” worldview.

"Scientific racism" is as goofy as "Biblical racism." There are Bible-believers who believe God does not want the races to mix. That's a goofy idea. What is dangerous is when people with goofy ideas get badges, guns, and government costumes. Racists are laughable until they become archists.

Darwinism, Badges, and Guns | Gary North

 

The new religion did not emerge from Darwin's head full-blown out of nothing in 1859, when he published his book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. The ancient Greeks had a similar religion. The "Renaissance" meant a "re-birth" of pre-Christian ideas.

If anyone deserves to be the "saint" of evolution, it would be Charles Lyell. Lyell was Darwin's mentor. Without Lyell, Darwin wouldn't have beaten Alfred Russel Wallace or Patrick Matthew to the printing press. Lyell's concept of Deep Time made any theory of evolution plausible. If the "spirit of the age" was not already relentlessly moving toward atheism/evolutionism, and if Lyell had been intercepted by Van Tillian geologists, Darwinism would not have been a thing.