Evolution of Cartoon Science

by Nicholas Stewart (Narasimha das)

National Geographic Society rencently devoted another entire issue to
Charles Darwin and his speculations regarding the origin of species.
Their agenda was to show how Darwin’s ideas are now widely accepted by
scientists and researchers while most religious leaders reject Darwin
due to their blind faith in scriptures. They quoted Srila Prabhupada
briefly, and out of context, saying, “Darwin’s ideas are nonesense.”
The entire issue was aimed at illustrating how modern science is
confirming the fundamentals of Darwin’s ideas regarding the evolution
of species; yet instead of providing substantial evidence, they simply
glorified Darwin and offered imaginative narratives on how species
might have transformed themselves through mysterious mutations.
Evolutionists claim that most leading scientists now support Darwin’s
hypothesis that all life has evolved from simple compounds and that
every species has improved itself automatically through chance
mutations and the process of natural selection. National Geographic
Society, Discovery Channel, Science Channel and most of the academic
community, apparently, have suspended scientific thinking when it
comes to the topic of evolution and the origin of species.

Before I began studying the Darwinist teachings, I expected to
encounter at least 2-star scifi script ramped up a few notches,
perhaps, with elaborately devised academia speak. Instead of
compelling mock science, however, I’ve found only Disney-style cartoon
tales of amoebas learning to be fish, fish sprouting wings, learning
to fly and breathe air, monkeys learning to make tools, build condos,
wear pants, grow corn, and so on. All this is possible, the
evolutionists say, by the power of innumerable, successive, genetic
mutations. They believe these mutations have continuously improved
millions of species over millions of years due to the principle of
survival of the fittest, or natural selection.

In truth, no real evidence supports the Darwinian idea that species
transform themselves into new species through mutations. Rather,
modern biology has discovered the vast complexity of even primitive
animals, whose life functions are perfectly controlled by genetic
codes in millions of cells working in symbiotic interrelationships of
unfathomable complexity. Much of the inner working of even a
relatively simple organism, like a virus, are unfathomable for modern
science. Similarly, modern biological sciences have barely glimpsed
the highly complex symbiotic relationships between species. If not for
the influence of wholesale indoctrination, discoveries regarding the
mind boggling complexities of life on Earth would surely have caused
most sober and intelligent people to reject Darwin’s ideas
immediately.
. .
Darwin’s idea of evolution is unfounded by any biological science and
flies in the face of fundamental laws of physics. The belief that
complex order and function comes automatically or accidentally out of
chaos is not supported by any science or logic. By every known natural
process, complex organizations, whether organic or inorganic, tend to
degrade or become reduced to simpler forms. Nowhere has anyone found
evidence that dull matter magically becomes conscious and endowed
with the will to live, multiply and evolve. Instead, we see everywhere
that complex living organisms are created by other living things, and
when dead, devolve to simple forms of matter. Similarly complex
structures, both manmade and natural, if left alone, will
dissolve--not evolve. Drop billions by highly sophisticated computers
in the sea, along with billions of land creatures and plants, and none
will evolve into an aquatic animal. Rather, all will degrade into
simple minerals and compounds. (Modern science is still unable to
create a computer that lasts more than a few years in even the best
conditions, with constat maintenance.)

Everywhere we see that life comes from life, as does matter. Never do
we see that dullI creates life. Life, however, produces all kinds of
matter, including complex devices like cars and computers. Real
scientists can easily prove that something superior, like a human
being, can create inferior things like factories, computers, cars and
sewage. No machine or computer, no matter how advanced, can become
conscious or replicate itself. Even the most sophisticated device
needs the human hand to turn it on. Highly complex living entities
such as humans and animals must be maintained constantly by
intelligence or intelligent instincts and by intricately organized
biological actions and interactions such as digestion, breathing and
sexual reproduction. There is nothing left to chance anywhere in the
natural world. Every species requires intelligence or intelligent
instincts at every stage -- for its maintenance, for its survival, for
its interactions with other living things.

Yet the Darwinists believe the vast matrix of life began from a
mythical chemical soup and evolved accidentally by an infinite series
of random yet perfectly sequential magical mutations. Never mind how
inert matter became conscious in the first place, or became a living
one cell aniimal with a will to live and multiply. They have no
explanation at all nor can they create even the simplest one cell
ameoba with all their advanced equipment, so we will need to skip over
this problem and jump ahead--way ahead--to species. They believe that
improvements in each species come about due to genetic mutations and
the process of natural selection. Although they offer no explanation
why these mutations occur, or how genetic codes were created, their
idea is that once in a blue moon, an organism will mutate in a way
that is beneficial for its survival. Since the superior mutated being
survives better than its non mutant kin, it passes on its tendency for
a particular genetic mutation to future generations, thus enabling
other animals within the species to inherit a beneficial abnormal
trait. Finally, after a long time, this trait is assimilated by the
species as a normal inherited capability. For example, the bugs that
learned to flap their mutated appendages and fly survived better than
their crawling ancestors and thus created a lineage of superior flying
insects.

For an insect or animal to go from crawling to flying, however, takes
far more than a long series of external mutations. It would require
innumerable perfectly orchestrated, internal and external mutations
or, in other words, a metamorphous of the entire organism. This
change would need to be perfect and complete almost immediately, as in
comic book fiction. Otherwise, the initial mutations in the organism,
mutations not yet functional, would hamper rather than help its
ability to survive. Thus the organisms with the tendency to mutate
would die off quickly by the process of natural selection. This is
common sense.

The way a bumblebee, housefly, or hummingbird flies is so complex that
even the best minds in science are unable to grasp it fully, to say
of duplicate it. Is it logical to think these amazing flying abilities
are the result of a long series of lucky accidents? To go from a
walking animal to a flying one requires many changes in brain
function, instincts, digestion, nervous system, muscles, eating
habits, bone structure, reproductive processes and a plethora of other
highly complex biological features and functions. All bodily functions
would need to change perfectly, in perfect coordination of
interrelationships, to accommodate new survival habits and instincts
based on flying. Otherwise, even with a pair of perfectly designed,
matched and fitted wings fastened to its back, the poor crawler would
never get off the ground. (It is easier to build an airplane from
scratch than to modify a Chevy to fly.)

To imagine an aquatic species changing from breathing in water to
breathing in air through a series of accidental mutations is still
more fantastic. Unless each successive mutation is immediately perfect
and complete in itself, such as happens only in comic book land, the
organism would be a freak with decreased rather than increased
capabilities for survival. What would happen to the fish that are only
half way between breathing water and breathing air? How would they
survive to pass on their genetic abnormalities? Imagine a fish that
somehow learns to breathe on land but not how to run fast or hide or
hunt. How would it survive?

The evolutionists offer no explanation why or how such mutations
happen and why a tendency to mutate causes a species to evolve into an
improved species. They offer no explanation how animals survive in the
intermediate stages when their mutations are not functional. They have
no explanation regarding why some species have thrived abundantly in
primitive, relatively simple forms, never feeling the need to improve
themselves by evolving into more complex life forms. Many insects,
like red ants, still crawl on the gournd and are thriving without
flying. Monkeys and chimps, also, are content to survive in their own
way, without computers and cars, as are alligators, birds, bees and
sharks. Every amazing instinct and ability in every animal is
inconceivable in its biological complexity and the complexity of its
relationships with other highly complex living beings. The belief that
all these perfect functions and interrelationships have developed by
chance through beneficial mutations is an anachronism in the 21st
century.

One hundred and fifty years ago people could be forgiven for believing
in Darwin. Their idea of biology was extremely narrow and simplistic:
a bag of blood and bile and bone tied together with bunches of nerves,
muscle and tendons. Many educators in those days were eager to
overthrow the influence of religious thinking, which they felt
infringed on scientific advancement. Ironoically, in their eagerness
to discredit or transcend traditiona thinking, which they considered
unfounded, they embraced Darwin’s belief system without critical
analysis. Today, in light of sophisticated scientific research,
educated and thoughtful persons should regard the Darwinian idea of
evolution to be no better than comic book fantasy. Darwin’s
proponents, however, have effectively created a cult of blind
followers within the academic community, robbing educators and
students of their ability to think critically on this topic.

The evolutionist mission offers a loose system of beliefs based on
superficial observations of biological similarities between species,
some of which are supposedly extinct. Although it’s a fact that each
species shares biological traits with other species and has limited
abilities to adapt in various environments, this fact provides no
evidence that creatures change completely into a new species through a
series of mutations. Yet, in the name of science, “evolutionary
theory” has been vigorously promoted by misguided educators
everywhere for nearly a century. Although the Darwin hypothesis can’t
be demonstrated on any level, many students blindly accept it at a
young age because it’s promoted in classrooms and textbooks across the
nation and in various media groups, such as the ones cited above. I
remember thinking my fifth-grade teacher was an upstart or a fanatic
when she dared to question the evolutionary hypothesis being promoted
as “likely fact” in our biology textbooks.

Some people accept Darwin’s ideas for the sake of neglecting nagging
questions regarding the meaning and purpose of life. Darwin’s ideas
offer atheists a weak excuse for denying God but fall way short of
actual science. Darwin’s speculations form the basis of a modern
mythology that fuels dangerous cults of atheism in the academic
community and the world at large.

The Vedas, a vast compendium of scriptures from ancient India, offer a
more reasonable and consistent explanation regarding the origin of
species. According to Vedic scriptures, such as Srimad-Bhagavatam,
God, the supreme living being, creates superior living beings, known
as prajapatis, and empowers them to populate various planets with
various grades of species. It’s not illogical to accept that superior
beings can create progeny of equal or inferior nature through sex or
other powers. It’s scientific fact that living things create other
living things. Srimad-Bhagavatam and other Vedic scriptures teach that
God, the original and supreme person, has endowed each species with
amazing abilities to survive and adapt in varieties of changing
conditions on Earth. Vedic evidence never suggests that species evolve
from chemicals and morph into new and better species through a series
of mutations. Great sages from every culture and every age have
concluded that God is the desinger and creator of all that exists. He
is known as the cause of all causes and the basis of all reality.

It is reasonable to accept the consensus of scriptural conclusions
that the wonders of life and the cosmos were created by the
omnipotent, omniscient and wonderful God. It is reasonable to accept
that a living organism is animated by the consciousness of a spiritual
soul, the living force. It is illogical to believe that matter and
chemical reactions produce life and consciousness when in fact all
practical evidence points to the opposite: matter and complex chemical
reactions are created by living beings. Nonetheless, modern academia
usually prefer to deny the wisdom of age-old spiritual traditions.
They feel more comfortable believing that the majestic, infinitely
complex and beautiful cosmos, with its millions of species of life,
evolved accidentally, after planets and galaxies were formed by an
exploding chunk of dead matter, which came from nothing.

Like the Big Bangers, the Darwinites recruit dishonest scientists to
trumphet their cause. Such scientiists are unable to repair even one
broken seed or egg, to say nothing of create one. Yet they wax
eloquently about the origin of life on Earth. Due to false
indoctrination and a bias against God and religion, many people today
have come to reject common sense and timeless wisdom for a belief in
cartoon fantasy. No one, not even a child, should accept comic book
teachings as a substitute for common sense and real knowledge.

[Note: By way of compromise, some Christian scientists have suggested
that God creates all the species of animals and plants slowly, through
gradual evolution. When asked about this idea, A.C. Bhaktivedanta
Swami Prabhupada, the world’s leading exponent of Vedic science,
replied, “A chicken can create another chicken in a few weeks, but it
takes God millions of years? This idea is not very good; it is not
supported by the Vedas or the Bible.”]

by Nicholas Stewart (Narasimha das)
December 2005it