The Monkey-Brain Theory of Darwinism
The Logical Impossibility of Evolution
“In the beginning God created,” it is to teach us that at the will of God, the world arose in less than an instant...
-St. Basil The Great ~ Hexaemeron: On the Six Days of Creation-
This is a stark contrast from the proposed idea that life suddenly appeared and after a really, really long time humans came to be. How did it happen you might ask? “Lots of time and random mutations...” How is this a serious assertion and how did this retarded theory become mainstream? This is what I intend to cover in this article. I want to lay out the logical problems that come with the evolutionists worldview but First! Let us listen to the best description of evolution I have ever heard, and it is delivered by a trans person, because I am inclusive you know:
Perfect description of Evolution!
If you are new to this Substack, first of all, Welcome! I hope you enjoy this article and the rest of my content and if you want to stay updated with the content, become a subscriber which is completely free!
Yes, people actually believe this.
The THEORY of Evolution
To be perfectly clear, Evolution is nothing but a theory (or so they say…) despite the endless droves of soyience nerds who will scream “WE HAVE SOOOO MUCH EVIDENCE!!!” We will get into the “evidence” later but first, we need to lay out what the theory of evolution even is. When we explore the etymology the word evolution, it originated in the 1620s and referred to “the opening of what was rolled up” and was generally applied to books and scrolls and wasn't used in the sense that we know now until the 19th century. Even before Charles Darwin brought forth his book The Origin of Species, there were many people suggesting theories of evolution including Darwins grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. So many people were trying to formulate a cohesive theory of how the world as we know it came to be, essentially because the majority of them were naturalists who rejected the creationists worldview on the basis that they rejected the supernatural and only view the world as materialistic. So what theory did Darwin put forward that changed the mind of society? His theory was Natural Selection which states that over time, biological changes happen in animals given their environmental needs. If an animal is living in an environment that is cold, the animal will develop more fat and/or thicker fur to survive the weather conditions. I don't necessarily see a problem with this theory but it becomes problematic when people begin presupposing that natural selection can cause a change in kinds/species which has become the general theory of evolution. The difference is between Macroevolution (the change from kinds/species to different kinds/species) and Microevolution (the adaptation in a kind/species) and if you read The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, he was mainly pointing to Microevolution and merely suggested that all biological life originated from some primordial source but most of his assertions were speculations and assumptions which the scientific community is starting to admit saying that Darwin’s book might not even be in line with Modern Theory of Evolution and suggest that his theory wasn't even scientific which I would have to agree since most of his writing is mere speculation. The only time Darwin suggested that life emerged from “pond scum" was in a private letter to a friend.
The Genesis for Secularist
Another logical flaw is abiogenesis, the theory that life emerged from non-life. This theory has to be presupposed and granted before the talk of evolution can even begin, otherwise, you just have a lot of storytelling that has no foundation. They will claim this to be the case and yet lack any evidence for this theory. It is just another presupposition you have to grant even though the same people will call you a religious nut-job for believing in God without any evidence that He is real. Let us just grant them abiogenesis for the sake of argument. What then has to happen in order to get to populations? Meaning, if we say sure, life started in a warm pond and these single-celled organisms appeared like a miracle (the one miracle the naturalist has to accept, LIFE), what is the mechanism that takes an asexual organism that has no need for intercourse to reproduce and why would life even do this? We hear all the time that the mutations of evolution happen because it is advantageous but how is going from not needing to have sex for reproduction to needing to find a mate for the possibility of reproduction? Also, if the first life didn’t need sexual organs to reproduce, when did this emerge and what was the process for this? If you check out MadebyJimBob on YouTube, he tackles this problem of evolution all the time and is quite funny while doing so. The evolutionist has to agree that for random mutations to occur so precisely that an asexual organism eventually, with a lot of time, became Male and Female and it happened with several different species, this can only be a miraculous event that no one could even explain especially since nobody is able to witness this take place. Where is the evidence for this theory and how is it anything else than storytelling? They have absolutely zero evidence for this being the case and anything argument that they make about the matter is nothing but pure cope.
What about the planet? How did earth come to be? Was it the Big Bang Theory? Naturalists have been making claims about the age of the earth for quite some time now and have made some pretty hilarious assertions. What is really funny is asking them about the asteroids that brought water to the earth hahahaha. Lord Kelvin, a Royal Society member, was one to make a mathematical claim on the age of the earth by presupposing that the earth began as molten rock (not sure where that idea came from) and began “cooling down” and by estimating the temperature that the molten rock once was to the current temperature of the earth is essentially how he calculated his theory of the age of the earth. Seems like you have to grant several presuppositions just for his theory to work but hey, what do I know? He was attempting to figure this out as a way to disprove Young Earth Biblical Scholars (which seems to be a trend with these Naturalists) who would use the Bible as a way of calculating the age of the earth. For me, I don’t think the age of the earth is all that important. It could be 7 thousand years old or it could be 7 billion years old. To me, being a creationist, if God could create Adam as a fully grown man, who is to say that He didn’t create an earth that is billions of years old? Yet the age of the earth is always a topic that Naturalists will cling to as they think it is a good way to debunk Christianity, which always seems to be their motivation.
Logical Flaws Within Evolution
The biggest problem with Evolutionists worldview is that they claim to be evidentialist but what is the evidence that evolution occurred?
The most popular evidence that people like to point to is the comparison of different skulls and other fossils. First problem that one could point out is that what is the evidence that the skulls/fossils are even real? When you take a look at the “dinosaur” fossils that we see in museums, most of those are fake so how can we be sure that the skulls that are being shown are even real? If you look back through history, there are several examples of fake fossils that have been submitted so who do we trust to provide us with authentic records? Another problem with this “evidence” is that just because we can see similarities between the skulls is that it doesn't automatically prove that this is a result of evolution or even Natural Selection. As the saying goes, “correlation doesn't equal causation”. The jump to the conclusion that just because we see similarities doesn't mean that there was a biological mutation that bring about the next skull form, they could just look similar. They could've also just happened to find deformed skulls. What is the evidence that this isn't the case?
(VIDEO BELOW: In this video clip of MadeByJimBob, we see him talking with a guy who believes that at some point in time, humans had tails and he believes this because we have a “tail bone”...as if “tail” could only refer to the limb known as a “tail” and not refer to the end of something.)
My last point to the logical flaws of evolution is the “mind”. The naturalist can’t tell you when the mind came to be nor can he even tell you what the mind even is. To them, the mind is just a term for secretions in the brain, or the mind is just an emergent phenomena and we just use the term “mind” to categorize the processthat is taking place. To some people, they seem to think the mind and the brain is the same thing and this is probably just because most people don’t take the time to think about what the mind really is. To the Christian, the mind is the “YOU” or the “SELF”. It is the metaphysical aspect of a person that makes them unique from another person. The mind is not material but it is not just a mere concept since a concept is mind-dependent, you couldn’t even have the concept that the “mind” was merely a concept! This is the biggest argument, in my opinion, against Naturalism and the evolutionist has no way to tell you what the mind is since they believe everything that exist in this world is strictly material and they reject any notion of anything that is supernatural or metaphysical. This is another point where if you intend to argue with a naturalist, you would have to grant them the mind because without the mind, they have no way of arguing. If their worldview is true, we should all be the same and there should be no one who is unique from someone else. Without the mind, we would simply be deterministic machines and the concept of “true” or “false”, “good” or “bad” would not even exist because those concepts are mind-dependent and if the naturalist can not account for the mind, they have no argument. They don’t even have a reason why they would need to convince another person that their worldview is true or even have the need to defend their worldview as our beliefs are just a chemical process that determines what we believe so to say that there is a “wrong" or “false" belief would be an oxymoron.
Is Atheism a Lack of a Belief System?
I saw this video a while ago and figured this would be a good time to talk about this dummy. This is an argument that I have been hearing from atheist “I have a LACK of a belief system and now the burden of proof is on you!”. Now, it is technically true that they are coming from a position of a “lack of belief” and if the goal is to “prove God’s existence”, then this would be correct. However, Christianity is a faith-based believe system and we don’t believe that there is empirical evidence to “prove God’s existence”, although there are philosophical arguments like the Transcendental Argument for God, or the TAG Argument, but to say that the burden of proof is on the Christian isn’t exactly true. While it is true that they claim to be coming from a position of non-belief, they are still presupposing that life came from somewhere unless they state that they believe that the earth and the life on earth has always been and will always be, they are presupposing an alternate beginning to that of the Christian Genesis explanation so that is what you should press them on but to allow them to state that they have NO belief system is ridiculous. Everyone has a belief system, even the belief system of “no belief” is in fact a belief system. You can’t escape having a worldview. If they say evolution then ask them what is the evidence for evolution and see if they just appeal to the scientific authorities for that. Simply, the Christian only has to say that God is the necessary precondition for knowledge and without God there would be no knowledge and then it is on the atheist to tell you what would be their necessary precondition for knowledge is. Of course, they will likely say that knowledge is axiomatic (a proposition that requires no justification and is self-evident) which is very convenient for them. Although we can just say that God is axiomatic for us so we are just a justified as they are. If the atheist has no need to justify their position then we have no obligation to justify ours.
I hope you are enjoying this article so far! If you are, please do me a favor and share this with others so that they may read it as well as seeing the other articles that I have written (which are all free).
What Is Carbon Dating?
I’ve already talked about the similarities we see in skulls and other fossils and that simply seeing similarities doesn’t automatically mean that evolution is true but let’s take a look at the “biggest evidence” for evolution. If you read this article by the NIH, they put a lot of emphasis on the age of things and talking about things that they know to be millions or billions of years old. Well, how do they know the age of rocks and fossils? This is where we get into the method of “carbon dating”. First of all, what is carbon dating? Radiocarbon dating is the process in which people measure the amount of decaying carbon-14 from an organic material. Before we talk about whether or not this is a logically sound method for dating organic material, one should ask what is the margin of error for carbon dating? To do this, we have to grant that it is even possible to date organic material but we need to know the accuracy of these tests. If we grant that it is even possible to measure the rate of decaying carbon we also have to remember that all scientific studies and test require a mind. Some people ignorantly think that machines just function in and of themselves and produce the data that we are looking for. Machines convey data, they can not produce data. Think of a calculator. Is it just some magical device that simply produces mathematical answers for us or is it a machine that was developed by a human mind to convey truthful answers to us? It is obviously the latter as one could simply program a calculator to give false answers to equations so this is always have to keep this in mind when examining scientific studies. The machines that are used to calculate the date of organic material is calibrated by a human mind so we have to take into account that the machine is only as accurate as the person who developed the machine. Also keep in mind that a machine could be developed to give us the answers that we want regardless if the answers are true or false. Manipulation within the field of science is always occurring as there are many lobbying groups and private organizations and event government organizations offering large sums of money to acquire the scientific studies they need to push an agenda. People are of course capable of lying and with our current society being so encapsulated by soyience, how hard is it to imagine that people would put out false studies in order to manipulate the minds of people. A study is only as accurate and honest as the person who is conducting the study and since it is mostly secularists who are conducting these studies and secularists have no duty to uphold truth, is it really that far fetched to think they wouldn’t produce false studies in order to push an agenda? Here is a Substack article by Rachel Wilson explaining how secular organizations have been investing large amounts of money to infiltrate Christian churches in order to subvert Christianity and is a big reason why we are seeing so many “Rainbow churches” popping up everywhere.
Be sure to leave a comment to let me know what you think of the article!
The Scientific Method
It is remarkable to me how there are so many people who will hold soyience with such high regard as to say that they look to it as the answer for everything yet almost none of them even know or understand the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method, which was developed by a Christian in Rome, Roger Bacon, is the process in which we can develop theories from a hypotheses. It doesn’t give us “proofs” or “truths” yet people will act as if soyience is some magical process that we should all bow down to. If you ever find yourself in an argument with a person who is appealing to science or questioning your position on whether or not science is “good”, simply ask them what the scientific method is and if they can't answer that question, just laugh at them as they are appealing to something they know nothing about. Another fun fact to point out is that you can't even run the “theory” of evolution through the scientific method so to say that it is a “scientific theory" is just false. If anyone would care to demonstrate that evolution can be put to the test of the scientific method, be my guest but until then just accept the fact that evolution is far more unlikely to be the case for our existence when compared to there being a God who created everything. So keep telling your fairy tales soyience boys!
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed it, be sure to give it a LIKE and SHARE the post with others and leave a COMMENT to let me know what you think of the topics! Also, be sure to check out my YouTube channel and SUBSCRIBE