Darrow Miller and Friends

The End of Darwin

Bacterial Flagellum disproves Darwin

Darwin is dead, and so is Darwinism. One little organism demonstrates it.

Charles Darwin thought that all of life descended from a common origin through a process of “natural selection,” aka survival of the fittest. In 1856 Darwin wrote to his friend Asa Gray that there were only two possibilities for the complexity we witness today, “Either species have been independently created, or they have descended from other species ….”

The significance of those words is multiplied exponentially in the context of today’s science debates. Darwin says either a species is independently and purposely created, or we are the result of random selection. Ensuing scientific discovery has clearly shown that the complexity of organisms is more rationally explained by a Creator than by chance. And yet on a grassCharles Darwin wrote to Asa Gray-roots level, Darwin is still taught all over the world. Evolutionism is an ideology found not only in biology but is the assumption underlying all academic studies.

In other words, we have embraced Darwin’s first assertion and ignored his second. By Darwin’s own measure, what science has discovered since Darwin should turn every honest scientist to acknowledge an Intelligent Designer, i.e. the Creator God.

“Natural selection” is the term Darwin used to describe natural changes, without a guiding intelligence, processes without design or purpose. His parallel, as he conceived it, was that nature selects randomly, without purpose or direction, in contrast to what human beings do in selecting by their intelligence, imagination and will.

“Artificial selection” is the breeding of dogs or roses or grapes whereby human intelligence controls the process to achieve a given purpose. Dog breeders might develop a breed with greater ability to herd and protect sheep. Grape culturists will cultivate a new grape for its fragrance or taste. In all these cases, human beings guide the process from the point of their imagination through their willful activity to the final product.

In a world where people are free to observe, reason, and draw life conclusions, putting one’s faith in an Intelligent Designer is a stronger position than regarding the universe as a cosmic accident. While the latter view leaves us “free” to live without moral restraints, it comes at a dear cost: a life without purpose. And of course without any true freedom as well.

This, in my opinion, is why the modern world is in such a mess. People live lives of unrestrained license to follow one’s own instincts – the “taking people,” rather than those who live lives of freedom and generosity – “the edifying people.”

Charles Darwin saw a major crack in his own theory. He not only identified this potential fault but even offered a challenge in his book The Origin of the Species: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Darwin himself points the way to the demise of his own theory. And biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University has established, in Darwin’s own terms, how and why Darwin’s theory has “broken down.” Dr. Michael N. Keas writes,

About a half century ago biologists found that some bacteria swim by means of a rotating flagellum, which is a long whip-like propellor connected to a rotary Michael Behe disproves Darwinengine that is situated within the cell membrane. About twenty years after this Behe discovered that the bacterial flagellum and many other molecular machines within living cells exhibit a property that he called “irreducible complexity,” and which implied that they could not have originated by an unguided material process like natural selection. Behe sparked a revolution with his book that announced his discovery: “Darwin’s Black Box” (1996), which has sold 300,000 copies.

This is not playing faith against science because Darwinism is theory, not science. The evolutionism that has dominated Western academic and intellectual life since 1850 has been proven wrong, on Darwin’s own terms. Science has proved Darwin wrong! Yet modern science and its followers continue to reject science for an atheistic faith.

There is no conflict between biblical faith and science. There is a conflict between modern science and atheist faith. It is wise to heed Darwin’s advice and acknowledge that his theory of evolution is dead.

  • Darrow Miller

print this page Print this page

About 

8 Comments

  1. Mary Coverdale

    January 1, 2018 - 9:16 am
    Reply

    Darrow, When Scott taught briefly at Bryan College, I was able to take courses free. I chose Spanish and Theology. I had to write a paper for the course. Just the simple research I did for the paper confirmed in my mind that we not only had a redeemer but also a creator. Believing that gives such a security and Joy that really is impossible to any other belief system. The reason I’m writing is because it is so sad when those who know better give in to popular opinion.

    • admin

      January 2, 2018 - 1:20 pm
      Reply

      Mary, it is good to hear from you. Thanks for your input. Hope you are doing well.

  2. Romina

    January 2, 2018 - 6:47 pm
    Reply

    Execelente! queda claro el por que “No hay conflicto entre la fe bíblica y la ciencia” y que “Hay un conflicto entre la ciencia moderna y la fe atea”.
    Gracias!

    • admin

      January 3, 2018 - 6:03 am
      Reply

      Gracias Romina, me alegro de que encuentra el blog útil. Necesitamos educarnos lo suficientemente bien con la realidad de la evolución-ism ideología, que podemos hablar civilmente con nuestros amigos Darwiniana.

  3. Philip Collier

    January 13, 2018 - 3:16 am
    Reply

    Actually, there is no such thing as irreducible complexity. This debate has been going on for decades, which Christians have lost over and over again, most recently with the Dover trial where the Christians could not produce sufficient evidence for Intelligent Design and lost the case to have it taught in school alongside evolution.

    • admin

      January 15, 2018 - 12:08 pm
      Reply

      Hi Philip
      Thanks for your comment. Actually, the case will be decided in the court of science rather than the court of law.

      Philip, who do you thank when there is no one to thank?

      • Philip Collier

        January 16, 2018 - 10:31 pm
        Reply

        What?!?! There is no such thing as a science court.

        • admin

          January 17, 2018 - 6:18 am
          Reply

          Good Morning Philip

          In time it will be the judgement of science, the “court of science,” that will make the final decision. At one point in history people thought that the earth was the center of the universe. Science showed them wrong. For some time people thought that what a woman carried in her womb was a piece of tissue. Now the court of science has demonstrated that what she carries in her womb is both alive and human, a unique human being. There is a growing body of evidence that there is more to creation than merely the physical and with the discovery of the genetic code, there needs be a “code maker.” It will not be a court of law that will decide if the atheists or the theists are are correct. It will be the “court of science.”

          Wishing you a good day, my friend.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Shares
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers: