The Myth of Darwinism
by
Syed Muhammad Waqas
(DG BIRF)
***
by
Syed Muhammad Waqas
(DG BIRF)
***
This article is a response to another article, namely, “Darwin’s year: time to reflect”, published in daily Dawn on January 11, 2009. In his article, the learned physicist has emphasized to rediscover Darwin in the present age with an objective reflection on his theory. He asserts, “Today all true scientists accept his theory of evolution” and that “power of evolutionary thinking” can pose serious challenge to the anti-Darwinism stances held by people like Harun Yahya. It is unfortunate that some naturalists propagate Darwin’s theory of evolution as a religious doctrine and are by no means ready to consider it less than a fact.
Let me first clarify that Darwinism and evolution are two entirely different linguistic conceptions. However, after the publishing of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species in 1859, both began to be rendered as identical, thus written both ways as Darwinism and Evolutionism. Theory of Evolution was a demand of thirsty 19th century Western society that had already rebelled against the clergy’s farfetched, unscientific interpretations of universal scheme and existence of life on earth. The presentation of this thesis was per se atugboat to pull the scientific thinking from ancient to modern. Nevertheless, Darwin’s Origin of Species is, after the revolutionizing discovery of DNA code and unprecedented research development in biochemistry, worthy to be thrown in a dustbin. His book including the theory propounded inside is outmoded and obsolete today and all “true scientists” are explicitly fed up with the dying giant of Darwinism. His book was, of course, the “Bible” on natural history up to some two decades ago, but its today’s status is diametrically opposite. Had Darwin been able to foresee today’s revolution of biochemistry, he would have never decided to publish his work. A huge number of scientists in the West, especially in America, concede that they are compelled to base their research on Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, for there is no alternative view apart from that of religion. The best available book in the market on the death of Darwinism is Michael J. Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box published by Free Press, New York. Michael Behe has extensively investigated Darwin’s case and intensively excavated the flaws of Darwin’s “Natural Selection”.
Isa Daudpota’s stance also stands in opposition to the creationism preached in Quran and Judo-Christian Bible. In this particular view, the learned writer of that article instigates to annul the Semitic position on life and endeavors to invalidate the belief of billions. If we put our trust in Darwin, God shrinks to become a god of nothing, let alone considering him omnipotent Creator.
Darwin’s Evolution is after all a theory, unable to be tested in time-space. The a priori nature of Evolutionism makes this theory more into a philosophical deduction rather than an a posteriori i.e. scientific fact. The wall paintings in natural history museums do not stand in themselves enough evidence to be reckoned as substantial reason to believe in what Darwin proposed more than a century ago. If so, it is very much like the “stagnation” of thought; hence unwise and unscientific. While cursing the priestly class for forcing on people what is superstitious and preaching what is irrational, the naturalists themselves hold a view that owns no legitimacy in the empirical world. The belief that man evolved from a fish or something similaris, in fact, more irrational than any of the myths of ancient divinities.
I am glad to state that all modern scientific researches, including those in physics and astronomy, point to the existence of a central force that is the principle of creation. It is a ripe time to “reflect” on Darwin’s stance in the light of a highly advanced science and dethrone Darwinism once for all as an incongruous theory that has been in a business of hijacking the discipline of biological sciences for around 150 years.
Let me first clarify that Darwinism and evolution are two entirely different linguistic conceptions. However, after the publishing of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species in 1859, both began to be rendered as identical, thus written both ways as Darwinism and Evolutionism. Theory of Evolution was a demand of thirsty 19th century Western society that had already rebelled against the clergy’s farfetched, unscientific interpretations of universal scheme and existence of life on earth. The presentation of this thesis was per se atugboat to pull the scientific thinking from ancient to modern. Nevertheless, Darwin’s Origin of Species is, after the revolutionizing discovery of DNA code and unprecedented research development in biochemistry, worthy to be thrown in a dustbin. His book including the theory propounded inside is outmoded and obsolete today and all “true scientists” are explicitly fed up with the dying giant of Darwinism. His book was, of course, the “Bible” on natural history up to some two decades ago, but its today’s status is diametrically opposite. Had Darwin been able to foresee today’s revolution of biochemistry, he would have never decided to publish his work. A huge number of scientists in the West, especially in America, concede that they are compelled to base their research on Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, for there is no alternative view apart from that of religion. The best available book in the market on the death of Darwinism is Michael J. Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box published by Free Press, New York. Michael Behe has extensively investigated Darwin’s case and intensively excavated the flaws of Darwin’s “Natural Selection”.
Isa Daudpota’s stance also stands in opposition to the creationism preached in Quran and Judo-Christian Bible. In this particular view, the learned writer of that article instigates to annul the Semitic position on life and endeavors to invalidate the belief of billions. If we put our trust in Darwin, God shrinks to become a god of nothing, let alone considering him omnipotent Creator.
Darwin’s Evolution is after all a theory, unable to be tested in time-space. The a priori nature of Evolutionism makes this theory more into a philosophical deduction rather than an a posteriori i.e. scientific fact. The wall paintings in natural history museums do not stand in themselves enough evidence to be reckoned as substantial reason to believe in what Darwin proposed more than a century ago. If so, it is very much like the “stagnation” of thought; hence unwise and unscientific. While cursing the priestly class for forcing on people what is superstitious and preaching what is irrational, the naturalists themselves hold a view that owns no legitimacy in the empirical world. The belief that man evolved from a fish or something similaris, in fact, more irrational than any of the myths of ancient divinities.
I am glad to state that all modern scientific researches, including those in physics and astronomy, point to the existence of a central force that is the principle of creation. It is a ripe time to “reflect” on Darwin’s stance in the light of a highly advanced science and dethrone Darwinism once for all as an incongruous theory that has been in a business of hijacking the discipline of biological sciences for around 150 years.