End Darwinism in Public Schools

Is Darwinism True?

Ecclesiastes 8: 17 and I saw every work of God, I concluded that man cannot discover the work which has been done under the sun. Even though man should seek laboriously, he will not discover; and though the wise man should say, “I know,” he cannot discover.

Darwinism has been a matter of intense debate in this country for more than a hundred years. Beginning with the famous Scopes Monkey Trial, American courts have considered this issue in great detail. They have only grown in intensity in recent past and it appears this great strife will not cease any time soon. However, this great strife is not without warrant. Darwinism has successfully replaced Christianity as the West’s guide to the nature of man, his origins and his ultimate destiny. It would take volumes to describe the influence that Darwinism has had on modern Civilization. Yet it is the intention of the author to point out that due to the atheistic and nihilistic influences of Darwinism, the West has departed from the traditional characteristics of Western Civilization and would benefit greatly from a return of the old Civilization that pre-dated Darwin. Darwinism ushered in the most violent and Genocidal period in human history.

Darwin’s completion of Communism is too well known to even discuss, but the effects of Communism cannot be ignored. The Roman Catholic Inquisition massacred over 50 million people over a span of 605 years. Yet it took Communism less than 100 years to massacre over 100 million people! In 1989 Communism supposedly fell. Yet, my generation is still very much obsessed with it. We are living in a time of great Philosophical limbo and it is my intention to saddle the old, time tested ways, back onto my Country and lead it into another golden age even greater than the one produced by the great Protestant victory in the Thirty Years War and the subsequent Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 which is well known as the beginning of the modern period. But in order to do that this issue of Darwinism must be solved.

Before I begin I would like to inform the reader that the subsequent consideration is not something that I thought up on my own. Everything that I am about to say is based on the work of well-known scholars: The late Gordon Clark, the Chairman of the Department of Philosophy at Butler University for 28 years, Mary Louise Gill, of Brown University’s Philosophy and Classics Departments and the late Morris Kline of NYU have informed me in the development of the proceeding as well as the famous Bertrand Russell and David Hume. I also confirmed my conclusion with the head of the Mathematics Department at a University here in Louisville, Ky.

The recent court cases concerning the validity of Intelligent Design (ID) have ruled that ID is not Science but Religion. Of course, this assumes that Empirical Science can prove things. It assumes that Empirical Science is the arbiter of knowledge. If this assumption is refuted the rest of Darwinism comes tumbling down. It is my intention to do that exact thing. I will prove that: 1. Empiricism cannot define sensation and show how sensation produces perception and abstract ideas. Thus, it has no account for thinking and knowledge. 2. Empiricism cannot identify individual numeric natures. 3. Empiricism falls prey to the fallacy of induction, that is, Asserting the Consequent. 4. Pursuant to #2, Empiricism cannot show how mathematics and numbers represents physical reality and thus fails to justify any Scientific law.

1. Secular Philosophy is founded on sensation and experience. Perception is inferred from sensation and passing from perception, remaining memory images, through abstraction, produce abstract ideas. A sentence only has meaning as it is verified by sensory experience. And finally, words are representations of chemical reactions. First, what is a sensation? No one knows. Second, if perception is an inference from sensation how does one determine the difference between a valid and an invalid inference? No one knows. Moreover, sensation never gives perception. Perception is chosen not given. Therefore, it is subjective not objective. Third, it is an assumption that abstract ideas are taken from images because not all men claim to have these. The British Scientist Francis Galton denied that he had any images. Fourth, how can a sensation of a particular thing produce a universal concept or an abstract idea? A sensation of a dog gives me an image of Rover or Fito, not a genus, like Canine, or Vertebrate. Fifthly, when confronted with the many problems Empiricists have with language and concepts, they cannot appeal to colloquial use because most people do not think that Love and Human Rights and Justice are chemical reactions. There is something soul-ish, something divine and universal, because well, atheism is not a human philosophy. Lastly, Empiricists admit themselves that animals have much more keen sensations than humans do yet they have no mathematics, no grammar and no dictionaries. This is very problematic for the Empiricist’s mechanistic worldview.

2. Are there multiple things or just one thing in the universe? The Pre-Socratics tried to solve this by affirming that the universe was one substance with Thales the Milesian, then four substances with Empedocles, then Democritus’ Atomism posited an infinite number of substances. All of these were shown to be problematic and Zeno’s Paradoxes ended the Pre-Socratic attempt. Enter Aristotle. Mary Louise Gill refuted all attempts made to provide a theory of individuation in Aristotle. In her article: “Individuals and Individuation in Aristotle”[1] we are taught:

i. If we take matter to be the principle of individuation how do we individuate one unit of matter from another? Some will say, “the spatio-temporal location”. Yet this is circular. How do we individuate spatio-temporal locations? By the matter contained in that space. So the matter is individuated by the space and the space by the matter. It is a circle.

ii. Some have tried to use matter and quantity as the principle of individuation. Gill replies, “this criterion will not work for identical twins, two drafts of water from the same fountain, or Max Black’s pair of spheres, which have qualitatively identical matter.”[2] Gill speaks to this issue in more detail but for the sake of brevity I will end her comments here.

3. Bertrand Russell said, “All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: ‘If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true.’ This argument is of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: ‘If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing.’ If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.” [3]

Induction, as it functions in logic and helps develop scientific laws, refers to a process of observing a particular object or event and drawing a universal conclusion that has yet to be observed. All induction is the formal fallacy of Asserting the Consequent. As Bishop Berkley put it,

“In every other science men prove their conclusions by their principles, and not their principles by their conclusions.”

Simply, the problem goes something like this: When it is raining outside the streets will be wet; The streets are wet, therefore it is raining outside. This is a fallacy. The streets could be wet for an infinite number of reasons. Just because some principle is functional does not mean that it is true. Morris Kline pointed out that Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometry, contradictory theories, had equal function. Thus, function is not truth.

4. Albert Einstein said, [4] “as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”

Morris Kline said,

“Thus one cannot speak of arithmetic as a body of truths that necessarily apply to physical phenomena. Of course, since algebra and analysis are extensions of arithmetic, these branches, too, are not bodies of truth….It seemed as though God had sought to confound them with several geometries and several algebras just as he had confounded the people of Babel with different languages…Nature’s laws are man’s creation.” [5]

Yet Kline describes the huge problem with these admissions, “As we shall see, the most well developed physical theories are entirely mathematical [6] …Descartes was explicit in his Principles that the essence of science was mathematics.” [7] Pythagoras, later Pythagoreans and Euclid affirmed the Monad, the ultimate principle without distinction and source of all number. Euclid defined the Monad as “that according to which every thing that exists is called one.”[8] Numbers were extensions from the Monad. This is all ad hoc as Plotinus admitted later in his Enneads. How does distinction emanate from a monad? Plonitus admitted he had no answer. Modern Secularists do not understand that their system was originally designed as a part of a Pantheistic religion. Do modern Secularists believe in an eternal Monad? Also, we are met with many contradictions between Mathematics and the physical world as Kline catalogs:

1. One raindrop plus one raindrop does not equal two raindrops.

2. One volume of Nitrogen plus three volumes of Hydrogen does not equal four volumes but two volumes of ammonia.

3. One cup of 40 degree water plus one cup of 50 degree water does not equal 2 cups of 90 degree water.

4. A quart of gin plus a quart of vermouth does not equal two quarts.

Some may object that Newton worked all these problems out in his Calculus. Kline complained that Newton had proved his calculus by physical results. The Mathematics department of the Berlin Academy of Sciences held a contest in 1784 (Almost 60 years after Newton’s death) for the contestants to provide a solution to the problem of the infinite in mathematics. In all, 23 papers were submitted and all were found to be incompetent failures. [9]

This is the end of Darwin and all attempts to prove knowledge from human experience. In the Philosophical sense, only the Revelation from an omniscient God is true.

I can be contacted at my blog, "Uncreated Light", or email: drake.shelton@gmail.com.

[1] Gill, Unity, Identity, and Explanation in Aristotle’s Metaphysics

[2] Ibid. 62

[3] Russell, The Scientific Outlook, 51

[4] Geometry and Experience, Address to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin on January 27th, 1921

[5] Kline, Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty, 95-98

[6] Ibid. 7

[7] Ibid. 43

[8] Thomas Taylor, Theoretic Arithmetic, 4

[9] Kline, 149-151