A.J. Castellitto
The ignorance of blind faith
By A.J. Castellitto
January 16, 2014

"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Charles Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." – Richard Dawkins

Darwin's Theory of Evolution provided the extra bit of fuel needed to propel Karl's godless Marxism (or Blind Naturalism). Overall, a strong case can be made for the powerful impact Darwin's ideas have had on the embrace and promotion of Atheism both then and now.

But how did Charles Darwin come upon his 'evidence'? How much of his theory was actually founded on sound scientific principles?

Darwin's father and grandfather were both wealthy physicians who held to a form of evolutionary thought. These were men of the freethinking, pantheistic sort. Charles was raised Unitarian and the extent of young Darwin's Christian faith must be called into question as very soon into his extended trip (five years across the globe on the H.M.S. Beagle) he had already laid a foundation for his naturalized theory of origins that left little room for a supreme deity.

The picture of a young intellectual (surrounded by godless influences during his formative years) engaged in a personal quest to apply natural theology to observed realities is easy to fathom. Darwin's ideas (which were not wholly unique but systematically conveyed) were enthusiastically embraced by the masses of the Enlightenment Era.

Darwin's close friend, Thomas Huxley (aka Darwin's Bulldog), was zealously supportive of Charles's academic achievements and fervently sought to promote and utilize Darwin's ideas to wholly 'free' science of any and all theistic considerations. A proud agnostic, Huxley heavily promoted the infamous concept of man's descent from apes.

The most prominent and aggressive defender of Darwin's theories, Huxley was once referred to as 'My good and kind agent for the propagation of the Gospel – i.e. the devil's Gospel,' by Darwin. Huxley himself boasted, 'it as respectful to be modified monkey as modified dirt.'

Darwin understood that he was ultimately promoting atheism. This is why he lacked the courage to put forth his radical ideas for almost twenty years. Huxley, however, was shameless in declaring his public support for Darwin and a godless evolution.

In his defining work, Origin of the Species, Darwin heavily promoted the concept of natural selection, in which a creature's ability to adapt to it's environment directly influenced it's ability to thrive and ultimately survive over time; and that the biological traits proven most beneficial for the survival of the creature (and it's particular species) are retained while earlier primitive forms lacking these traits would eventually die out. Ultimately, the survival of any creature over another would be dependent upon it's ability to adapt and avoid peril. Most of the evidence used by Darwin to confirm these considerations was consistent with his ideas.

Where Darwin enters the realm of presumption and blind assumption is his ideas related to common ancestry and progressive mutations. These are the areas of consideration that are used to propose a godless creation. Centuries later, these most courageous claims still remain lying on the same foundation upon which they were conceived.....the dung hill.

I have been repeatedly told with great assertion that the scientific community has moved on from the concepts put forth by Charles Darwin. Personally, I am quite pleased with this assertion. However, my follow-up question is often met with either silence or indignance. That question being:

What aspects of evolution do they now deem disposable?

Has Darwin been wholly discredited by modern science?

Is any aspect of his considerations beneficial or shall we wholly discard his theory?

What were his expectations for natural selection and does today's evolutionist hold to those same expectations?

I have yet to hear an honest answer to such inquires.

No rational human being argues the basic concept of evolution. The idea of gradual change over time or related concepts such as 'survival of the fittest' are ideas not too difficult to observe or comprehend. There are very few that fail to acknowledge these concepts. But that's not what Darwin's Origin of the Species was proposing.

In reality, natural selection does not bring about the wholesale changes Darwin hypothesized. There is no real evidence for the theorized level of progressive change proposed by Darwin and still promoted by the science of today. This is the unfounded, further application that drives the skeptic of blind evolution to cry 'foul!'

In utero, we have unique genetic coding that enables us to be born how we were conceived. We all become the creature we were deigned to become at conception. There's no evidence to challenge this reality.

There is zero evidence of positive mutations and progressive change in which a creature develops superior traits. That is all speculative presuppositions, especially as it relates to common ancestry.

Our genetics are fixed and remain 'in kind.' The establishment would do well to stick with the facts until they can be proven to be expanded upon. Any further proposal is nothing more than 'wishful thinking.' What evolution proposes is crossing the line of science into the realm of creative fiction.

This is not to say there exists no variation within the species and that over time these variations do not alter the characteristics or traits of the species to some ultra slight degree. But to make a case that a blind and random form of molecules to man evolution is responsible for the formation of a single cell, then to infer that genetic advancement may, by way of some phantom 'positive' mutation, occur which somehow enables the development of some newly defining trait that, in turn, causes a creature to develop into a more progressive life form .......?

I know, we should just give it time...... The answer lies in potent bacterias and genetically modified fruit flies.... Sorry, call me a skeptic, but I'm not buying it.

Ultimately, the overall problem with blind evolution both in process and acceptance is the non-skeptical adherence to a contrived, ideologically-based foundation. Especially since a sinless, godless form of evolution is arguably a building block of communism, apathy and moral decay.

For many, evolution is a cherished and heavily defended concept that resembles religious dogma. The main exception is that most of the radical aspects of evolution proposed by man preclude God. On the contrary, the consideration and inclusion of Intelligent Design theories provide healthy skepticism and rational thought beside the explanatory limits of unguided materialism.

True science should leave no lasting place for unsupported assumptions, unfounded speculations and insurmountable barriers. Not surprisingly, long ago evolution entered the realm of 'scientism.' This is why the funding continues to follow the agenda.

We should all be very concerned. This would be more tolerable if it was done in the name of religion, philosophy or ideology rather than under the guise of science. Such an approach reeks of agenda and control. In a collective effort to establish and promote a secular worldview, it seems professional integrity will continue to be compromised as bigotry reigns.

The fact of the matter is that evolution has been promoted and advanced with little self-revealing evidence by many a God-hater.

Richard Dawkins firmly declares,

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."

Sorry Dick, I have faith, but not enough to believe in evolution!

© A.J. Castellitto


The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)