A.J. Castellitto
Using propaganda to hide Darwin's doubt
By A.J. Castellitto
December 9, 2014

A highly disparaging reaction to an essay of mine perfectly demonstrates the aversion toward commentaries that apply a traditional-Biblical perspective in diagnosing contemporary social and political problems. Here was the first comment logged in response to a recent essay of mine –


The belief in God/s IS a BIZARRE DELUSION and Religion IS a PSYCHOSIS!!!"

This brings me to the major source of such hostile reactions – the 'science' and mass acceptance of evolution as the primary explanatory foundation for all things.

In my years of personal study and online debate, I've learned that if you're willing to cut through the resistance, intimidation, and mockery exhibited by 'disciples of evolution,' it's not too difficult to uncover the vast amount of unfounded speculation, fantastical thinking, and unproven, inconsistent theory.

One of the major hurdles evolutionary theorists have never been able to clear is the idea that one species can naturally progress into a higher or more advanced life form. This is a premise that simply has never been observed or demonstrated. It's an unnatural phenomenon that goes against the observed and testable laws of nature.

This reality was not lost on one of the world's top chemists, Professor James M. Tour, who has been scrutinized for publicly presenting his doubts and insecurities over the assumptions related to macroevolution within the scientific community –

"I do have scientific problems understanding macroevolution as it is usually presented. I simply cannot accept it as unreservedly as many of my scientist colleagues do...Some of them seem to have little trouble embracing many of evolution's proposals based upon (or in spite of) archeological, mathematical, biochemical and astrophysical suggestions and evidence, and yet few are experts in all of those areas, or even just two of them. Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, 'The emperor has no clothes!'

From what I can see, microevolution is a fact; we see it all around us regarding small changes within a species, and biologists demonstrate this procedure in their labs on a daily basis. Hence, there is no argument regarding microevolution. The core of the debate for me, therefore, is the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution....

I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? Furthermore, when I, a non-conformist, ask proponents for clarification, they get flustered in public and confessional in private wherein they sheepishly confess that they really don't understand either. Well, that is all I am saying: I do not understand. But I am saying it publicly as opposed to privately. Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution?"

The professional insights provided by Professor Tour are very valuable as much of evolution's recent theoretical proposals remain fixed on genetics. Specifically, the possibility that chemically-driven genetic changes, rooted in Darwinian presuppositions, provides conclusive validation for Evolution – once and for all! Obviously, Prof. Tour isn't sold on the idea.

Tragically, science all too often goes the way of politics and even journalism. Honesty and integrity becomes misplaced (and ultimately lost) as we travel on down the agenda-driven money trail. The more I research and study these matters, the more apparent it becomes how this world is filled with ideological deceptions. We must come to the sad realization that everybody cheats to gain an upper hand. 'Propaganda' has replaced reality, and 'conspiracy' has become the gateway to truth.

Repeatedly, the evolutionist exhibits an unapologetic tendency to express scientific claims that are long on (unproven) theoretical assertions and short on actual empirical evidence. The masses are blindly led, ignorant of the deception. Many of these 'disciples' unknowingly turn around and conclude that evolutionary 'theory' carries the same weight as all other existing theoretical proofs that actually support the claims asserted (as per the standard scientific method). The theories related to evolution simply cannot be observed in our current day.

Furthermore, these 'disciples' are quick to distort the views held by advocates of intelligent design as merely presenting a 'God-of-the-Gaps' mentality to the parts of the puzzle still yet to be revealed. The problem with these dubious claims is this false assertion that evolution has most of the theory covered and that proponents of intelligent design are merely trying to fit God into the mix (to fill the holes where science has yet to provide more conclusive evidence).

However, what skeptics of evolution are really trying to convey, during the few occasions they've been given fair and ample publicity and opportunity to do so, is that the 'actual science' has been unable to advance Darwinian-evolution. Ultimately, what we are left with is more than gaps, but a theory in crisis, one that has never advanced past (or more accurately, actually fulfilled) its own claims.

Upon closer examination, it becomes apparent that evolutionists continue to move the goal posts (or more accurately, redefine the game's emphasis by backing away from Darwin's defined rules and objectives, without actually announcing they are doing so.)

* The scientific contributions of Douglas Axe are particularly noteworthy.


Note: I am not sure if people do this on purpose; but when the scientific definition of "theory" is applied specifically to evolution, a false dichotomy is ultimately established. Professor Tour, Dr. Axe, and a growing number of skeptics throughout the world are taking to task those dogmatic evolutionists who fail to hold this theory to the same level of empirical scrutiny that all others are held. Although, there may exist other financially-driven theories that are validated despite a failure to meet the universally-applied rigorous standards of the scientific method. The controversy surrounding climate-change theories readily comes to mind.


*Originally published by the great people @ WesternJournalism.com

© 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.)