Evolutionists have constructed a scientific philosophy based on a flawed premise. This premise is that each organism can be explained by its molecular composition its parts. But my contention is that molecules do not have the capacity to make or define the whole. But Darwinists are mental dinosaurs....and instead of studying the whole organism as an interconnected web of life, they only study the molecular parts and ignore the fact that these molecules may very well may be modified by other forces.
So the darwinist philosophy is grounded in an unsubstantiated myth and they have twisted reality into something it’s not -- they believe that organisms have been constructed by the sum of their small, randomly-appearing parts parts that got selected because they were lucky enough to appear at the right place at the right time and then frozen by success. So to them, life absolutely CAN be explained and beneficially-altered for that matter, by the influx of randomly-appearing parts (molecules.)
But in contrast, I would suggest an alternative -- that the cause of adaptive modification is not physical in nature, but instead, must be ordered from deep within the organism as a response to a changing environment. Adaptation doesn't happen because of a random physical change, but because of a network of changes organized by the whole, which is in concert with its environmental and social contexts. In short, I believe the mind is responsible for adaptive change. And of course, if the mind is responsible for adaptive change, it pretty much puts natural selection out of a job.
So now the situation is this. We know evolutionary scientists aren't dumb. Blind maybe, but not dumb. Any informed, logical evolutionary scientist would HAVE to know that the arch enemy of selection is the mind. Descartes separated the mind from the body many years ago. Since then the mind has been forgotten in biology....which has allowed natural selection to step in and take over, at least in scientists' minds. But in over 100 years, science has yet to verify by way of controlled experiment natural selection's ability to adapt a population of creatures. So where does that leave us? A good scientist not only proposes a theory based on evidence, but he also rules out the competing theory or hypothesis by way of controlled experiment, if possible.
We all know that proving natural selection is virtually impossible (otherwise it would have been done by now.) However....what is VERY possible is to disprove the mind's ability to generate adaptive changes. This would be so simple a High school student could set up the experiment. For example:
If we had a certain fish -- let's say a black fish.....but then let's say we decided to test the mind of this black fish, so we took he and others like him to a location where being speckled would be beneficial. We could set up a contolled experiment to see if the presence of a predator or some other environmental cue such as a different background generated a new phenotype -- not only in the parent fish, but also in their future generations.
[I think this is the experiment part]
Charles Darwin wrote a long book on the premise of what he saw in the Galapagos (finches changing beak shapes) validated molecules-to-man evolution. But what if those new finch beaks were generated by the mind in response to environmental changes?....or even by the diet they consumed as youngsters?...what we would then have is not "evolution" -- but instead, just simple change brought about by mental or other nonrandom forces.
But do evolutionists TEST this hypothesis?
drumroll............
NO!!!
I believe evolutionary science is full of intellectual chickens. This type of experiment should have been conducted thousands of times by now -- maybe millions of times in the past 100 years. Yet, not even ONCE has it been. And you know why??? -- it's because what we are dealing with is pure evil. Darwinism is the root of all evil and these individuals are not only afraid of the truth, but they react badly to it. They are afraid of experiments that might overthrow their precious kook Darwinian roadside bomb, mental parasite, circus-monkey of a theory.
Not only that, but they're too chicken to tell us how chicken they are. They don't even bring the alternative up.....and that's so all us dumb people can continue to stay dumb. See, what they want us dumb people to do is let the "smart people" (them) do our thinking for us! They don't want us hillbillies even to consider that each organism may be intelligent or that we all have beautiful-created, highly complex minds, minds that could very well do natural selection's job without all the messiness (mass death).
But I can promise you this -- they will continue to play this game for as long as they can get away with it because they know that for every person who jumps on board the darwinian train, they're essentially jumping themselves on to the elevator to hell, because a belief in Darwinian evolution essentially equates to a belief in nothing...and that's because Darwinian materialism insists that matter created itself, that nature is all there is, and it is its own creator -- which leaves no role for God, the rightful Creator.
At this point, though, evos have admitted (because some biologists won't keep their darn mouths shut) that changes in finch beaks and changes in fish color and changes in human skin color are not the result of mutations, but the results of gene re-expressions -- which in my opinion is just secret code for environmentally-induced "mind-expressions." But of course once again, they will not bring up the mind, in fear of you getting the crazy idea that the mind is more intelligent and has a higher IQ than natural selection does.
