Metaphysical Darwin

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

Charles Darwin

  • Transcript of Podcast #8 Coronavirus Demonstrates How and Why Atheists/Socialists are Darwinists (4/27/2020)



    In my first podcast I mentioned why Darwinism is germane. Why it is not just another scientific theory. Today I am going to expand on that, and frankly explain why I am so passionate about Darwinism.

    Oddly, it is the coronavirus that has pushed the true danger of Darwinism into the public sphere. Because of the coronavirus we have seen socialists (including so called democratic socialists) push the philosophical agenda of socialism to the forefront. Socialism requires the removal of God from the government and schools (straight out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals). A true socialist is an atheist. Spoiler alert!!!! And all atheists MUST be Darwinists! They all must believe that we are created by the natural selection of random mutations, thus no need for God. (Now there may be socialists who do not want to publicly claim they are atheists for the sake of appearances, but their actions speak otherwise.) Look at what has happened with government attacks on religious freedoms. People are banned from going to church, but can go to Walmart. People are punished by the state for gathering to worship, but violent criminals are allowed out of jail.

    The socialists have clearly demonstrated their hatred for God and religion. But they have one HUGE insurmountable problem! They must have a scientific theory for creation other than God, and Darwinism is the only thing they have—there is no other scientific theory other than DNA came from outer space. They are stuck with a lethally flawed scientific theory in Darwinism, and it is my job to remind them at every turn of their inadequacies. They cannot remove God from public debate with a fabricated false argument. So, let’s explore what we are seeing with this coronavirus crisis, and why it really matters beyond health and economics.

    Atheists/socialists, secular humanists or materialists have clearly stated that a crisis cannot go to waste. Every crisis is useful for taking power, and taking power requires taking away religious freedom. American citizens are actually being threatened with prosecution for attending church, all in the name of protecting us. But protecting us from what? An emergent medical crisis is being turned into an economic catastrophe by the media (infotainment industry) and politicians. If you think I’m a conspiracy theorist, let’s just look at facts and observations—not sensationalism.

    As a practicing ER physician since 1982 I have had an opportunity to observe various epidemics. From the outset during this crisis, I have been very suspicious of this coronavirus pandemic. Many things just aren’t right.

    First and foremost, how many medical crises result in medical providers being sent home and having their pay cut? All over the nation (aside from a few hotspots) physicians and nurse practitioners are having their hours cut, forced on furlough, or being forced to take 10-25% pay cuts. Emergency departments are seeing a 50% drop in ER visits. That is inconsistent with any healthcare crisis in history.

    {I believe there may be one confounding observation that led people to believe in higher mortality rates. What we have seen is high mortality rates in senior citizens with comorbidities, but nearly zero in children and young adults and adults. Other viruses tend to spread a lower mortality rate over a wider range of age groups, so a higher mortality rate in coronavirus in one specific age group will appear more significant and more deadly overall.}

    Second, from the beginning we were told that there was a high mortality rate, as much as 4%. However, there is no way to determine any mortality rate unless the prevalence is known, i.e. how many people in the population have the disease? We never knew how many people were infected. You determine mortality by dividing the number of people with the disease by the number who die. There was never testing done to determine the prevalence, so all mortality rates were guesses or lies.

    Third, nations were put on lockdown based on a mathematical model?! What model? Where is that data? Who did it? We were told 2.2 million deaths would occur in this country, and over time those numbers have decreased to 20,000? Any student in medicine, biology or statistics would receive a big fat red F on that project.

    Fourth, right from the beginning this crisis was way too political. Unfortunately, politics means manipulation and lying. Coronavirus is far too susceptible to manipulation, and as I already mentioned it was a handy excuse to prevent people from expressing their religious rights.

    Now, as of 28 April 2020 we have excellent research and statistics from very intelligent people who are not employees of the government. I would like to share one professor’s research, Professor Yitzhak Ben Israel from Tel Aviv University—available on His research illustrates my concerns for what is really going on right now.

    Professor Yitzhak Ben Israel plotted rates of coronavirus infections of US, UK, Sweden Italy, Israel, Switzerland, France, Germany and Spain. He found that irrespective of whether a country quarantined or went about business as usual like Sweden did, the coronavirus peaked and subsided in the exact same way! It follows a pattern of beginning exponentially and fading quickly in about 8 weeks, which is what we have been seeing.

    He has some interesting information on the person who developed the model that threw us all into mass hysteria. Professor Neil Ferguson has a history of wildly over estimating death rates through his prediction models. He predicted that up to 150,000 people could die in the UK from mad cow disease (177 deaths to date). He predicted 2.2 million deaths in US but changed it to 20,000 (4% of first prediction). At one point his models were condemned as “not fit for purpose.” Why in God’s name would anyone make important decisions on that data? Oh yes that’s the question isn’t it? We’re trying to get rid of God.

    And fortunately, Professor Ben Israel is not alone. Dr.s Katz from Yale and Ioannidis from Stanford conducted research which is in agreement. From the Guardian: A study from Stanford found the virus was 50 to 85 times more common than official figures indicated. Now we have some data that can actually give a mortality rate. So instead of 4% mortality rate, the actual rate is 0.12% to 0.2%. Therefore, we are discovering that many more people have been infected, probably over a longer period of time.

    Many studies are still ongoing. Good studies. There is good evidence that medications are going to be quite helpful. The virus is winding down on its own. We are over the worst of it. We are not done yet, there will still be deaths, and unfortunately the politics will continue up until election day. But why?

    Here are some facts that should worry us all:

    • Physicians were told to code deaths as caused by covid-19 if a patient died with the infection or was suspected to have had the infection despite the fact that the cause of death may have actually been something else. This is outright unethical and a blatant lie the only purpose of which can be to make the disease worse than it really is.
    • Hydroxychloroquine has been castigated by the infotainment industry as an “experimental drug!” This drug has been around forever—decades. There is nothing experimental about it. It has an off label use for covid-19 and physicians use drugs for off label purposes all the time.
    • Where are the psychiatrists? The infotainment industry had no trouble finding psychiatrists who gleefully diagnosed President Trump as unfit for duty and with all sorts of psychiatric diagnoses without ever examining him. So where are they now when we know 22 million people being unemployed will lead to suicides, abuse, substance abuse, depression and anxiety? Crickets. Our psychologists and psychiatrists have failed us.
    • Why do politicians and the infotainment industry ignore CDC statistics regarding death rates that are far worse than covid-19:
      1. Flu 2018-19: 35.5 million sick and 34,200 deaths (similar in 2012-13)
      2. Sars 2002-3: 712,184 sick and 33,049 deaths
      3. 2018: Suicide 48,344
      4. Kidney failure 51,386
      5. Flu and pneumonia 59,120
      6. Diabetes 89,946
      7. Alzheimers 122,019
      8. Strokes 147,810
      9. Chronic lower respiratory 159,486
      10. Accidents 167,127
      11. Cancer 599,271
      12. Heart disease 655,381

    Dr’s Katz and Ioannidis both make the point that because politicians and the infotainment industry have artificially created this fear, people are not going to physicians and having procedures done. More deaths from all the above causes will happen than from covid-19. This covid-19 mass hysteria was created by politicians and the infotainment industry to gain power, or out of sheer stupidity. The fact that most politicians and infotainment employees are atheistic, secular humanists has clearly been demonstrated by the attack on religious freedoms. Let’s not forget the most disgusting, soul wrenching and perverted government action in recent history—the governor from MI forbids religious gatherings but calls abortions life sustaining surgery!

    So, I’m going to conclude this right here and use it as a Segway for the next podcast where I’ll discuss the pathology of socialism and Darwinism. I’ll also demonstrate how the atheistic, secular humanistic judicial activists have been attacking religious freedoms, especially Christianity, in this country for years.

    If you’re interested, I’ll post a copy of this transcript on my website.



    Justice Hugo Black egregiously manipulated Jefferson’s words and intent. Black’s malfeasance stands as possibly our nation’s most disgraceful example of an attack against Christianity and misuse of the legal system. Why would a Supreme Court justice behave in such an inappropriate manner? The answer may lie in Black’s history:

    Black might have had darker motives behind his opinion. He had been a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920’s when the Klan was deeply resentful of the growing influence of Catholicism in the United States. According to Hugo Black, Jr., his father shared the Klan’s dislike of the Catholic Church: “The Ku Klux Klan and Daddy, so far as I could tell, had one thing in common. He suspected the Catholic Church. He used to read all of Paul Blanchard’s books exposing the power abuse in the Catholic Church. He thought the Pope and the bishops had too much power and property. He resented the fact that rental property owned by the Church was not taxed: he felt they got most of their revenue from the poor and did not return enough of it.”

    Reading Hugo Black Jr. raises the frighteningly familiar concept of Marx’s class struggle. As if this was not bad enough, Black also declared that the religion clauses of the First Amendment, which were intended to be a check on the federal government, were now applicable to state and local governments, and in this way, the “wall of separation” would henceforth attach to every case or controversy arising under the establishment clause of the free exercise clause.

    Black succeeded in creating a new definition of “wall of separation” and then mandated that this new definition would forevermore be applied to all cases dealing with religion. The court in Everson interpreted the “separation” phrase as requiring the federal government to remove religious expressions from the public arena. This is the complete opposite of the First Amendment’s meaning. Now the First Amendment is no longer a limitation on government interference. It is now a limitation on religious expression and principles.

    Black is transparent and his motives are quite clear when he opted not to publish Jefferson’s letter in full, which is actually very short. Instead, he published only the eight words to which Black attaches his new definition. What we see here is Black using the techniques of avoiding the whole truth and mis-defining words. Barton Summarizes the perverse nature of Black’s decision:

    Furthermore, the Court did not give the context of the phrase, or Jefferson’s numerous other statements on the subject; in fact, it did not even mention that previous Supreme Courts had used Jefferson’s letter to preserve religious principles in public society rather than remove them. In short, that 1947 Court was the first to divorce Jefferson’s metaphor from its context and then apply it in a manner exactly opposite to Jefferson’s clearly articulated intent.

    How did all this go wrong? What was the legal situation that was such a First Amendment catastrophe? The catalyst that threw our nation into one of religious intolerance was created in Everson. In the 1940’s in some jurisdictions, most schools were Catholic, and it is within this environment that the controversy was addressed. A New Jersey statute authorized its local school districts to make rules and contracts for the transportation of children to and from schools. The township board of education authorized reimbursement to parents of money for the bus transportation of their children. Part of this money was for the payment of transportation to Catholic parochial schools, which of course, gave their students religious instruction. The New Jersey statute was challenged as a “law respecting an establishment of religion.” This is the nidus of the problem. Mere transportation was deemed respecting the “establishment of religion.” The court set about redefining transportation.

    Justice Black summarized the importance of religious freedom and religious practices from the founding of the original colonies to his present day. Black used one paragraph to describe what the “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment meant but ended his paragraph by opening a door to judicial mischief:
    The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by laws was intended to erect “a wall of separation between Church and state.” [Emphasis added.]

    The bold sentence is the point where Black completes his manipulation. Black set the stage early in the paragraph. He slipped in the following sentences to support his conclusion: “Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.” Black is plainly wrong on two accounts. First, federal government disallows the establishment of a national religion. It says nothing about the states. Many states had a preferred religion . . . Secondly, the First Amendment says nothing about aiding a religion. In fact, our federal government has always aided religion and still aids religion today. Black shifts the scope from a narrowly intended theory to this amazingly overbroad, generalized list of non-tolerance and non-support. It is here that justice Black morphed Jefferson’s words from Jefferson’s original concept of a wall of non-interference, as we saw above, into a concept of a wall of non-support. Ironically, Justice Black goes on to decide the case in favor of the New Jersey statute and even remarks:

    That Amendment requires the state to be neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers; it does not require the state to be their adversary. State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions then it is to favor them.

    Again, Black is distinctly wrong. The First Amendment does not require the federal government to be neutral to religion. Once again Black shifts the scope of the subject when he states, “State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions than it is to favor them.” The word “state” can be used to mean the state as in a federal government or a state as in thirteen states. He is not clear but his ambiguity echoes his attempt as seen in the first paragraph when he uses, “Neither a state or federal government” to change the focus of the First Amendment from the federal government to the states.

    Justice Black gives with one hand and takes away with the other. He concludes his opinion by stating, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here.” Justice Black created a bomb but decided not to use it in the Everson case. Ironically his decision aided religion in the short term.

    Barron et al, in their textbook Constitutional Law, summarize the significance of the Everson case. Everson’s incorporation of the non-establishment principle as a part of due process liberty, which limits state power, essentially doomed the narrow concept that the national government would not interfere with state prerogatives in the religious sphere. As Barron, et al note, “justice black in Everson condemned ‘aid to religion’ as an invalid establishment.”

    Was Justice Black unable to comprehend the Constitution? Unfortunately, the answer to that question is probably no. It is more likely that Black’s tortured manipulation of Jefferson’s letter was a purposeful first shot fired in the Supreme Court’s attack on Christianity based on Black’s fear of Catholicism.

    Mark Levin, Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America (Washington: Regnery, 2004) 43. Here Levin quotes from Gerald T. Dune, Hugo Black and the Judicial Revolution (New York: Simon & Shuster), 269. Quoting form Hugo Black, Jr., My Father (New York: Random House, 1975), 104.
    David Barton, Separation of Church & State: What the Founders Meant (Aledo: Wallbuilders, 2007), 5.
    Id., 14.
    Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S. Ct. 504, (1947).
    Jerome Barron, C. Dienes, Wayne McCormack and Martin Redish, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policy, 5th ed. (Charlottesville: Michie, 1996), 1238.
    Id., 1239.



    Hanna Arendt provides a masterpiece of philosophy by illuminating the underlying ideology of both Darwinism and Marxism. Through her exemplary logical genius, she demonstrates how the basic natural laws of Darwinism and Marxism are actually never-ending movements within history; and it is this motion within history that is at odds with what can be considered the static right and wrong of Christianity.

    In her book The Origins of Totalitarianism (Harcourt, 1951), Arendt makes an insightful comparison between Darwinism and Marxism. She notes that Nazism and Bolshevism depend heavily on Darwin and Marx res respectively and that both ideologies are not static but rather never-ending historical movements. Arendt states:

    Underlying the Nazis’ belief in race laws as the expression of the law of nature in man, is Darwin’s idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human beings, just as under the Bolsheviks’ belief in class-struggle as the expression of the laws of history lies Marx’s notion of society as the product of a gigantic historical movement which races according to its own law of motion to the end of historical times when it will abolish itself.

    The similarities, or rather the expression of the same underlying philosophies, of Darwinism and Marxism lies in the concept that the movement of history and the movement of nature are one and the same. Arendt explains:

    Darwin’s introduction of the concept of development into nature, his insistence that, at least in the field of biology, natural movement is not circular but unilinear, moving in an infinitely progressing direction, means in fact that nature is, as it were, being swept into history, that natural life is considered to be historical. The “natural” law of the survival of the fittest is just as much a historical law and could be used as such by racism as Marx’s law of the survival of the most progressive class.

    Similarly, Marx uses the driving force of history as the outward expression of the development of “labor-power,” which to Marx was a natural biological force. Arendt spends some time describing how Engels sees the affinity between the underlying convictions of Darwin and Marx because he understands the decisive role that the concept of development plays in both theories. Arendt speaks of a tremendous intellectual change that took place in the middle of the 1800’s, which consisted of a “refusal to view or accept anything ‘as it is’ and in the consistent interpretation of everything as being only a stage of some further development.” Arendt summarizes (and I believe correctly so) the role development plays in the two philosophies of Darwin and Marx:

    Whether the driving force of this development was called nature or history is relatively secondary. In these ideologies, the term “law” itself changed its meaning: from expressing the framework of stability within which human actions and motions can take place, it became the expression of the motion itself.

    In summary, Arendt encapsulates the reality of Darwinism and Marxism, “Totalitarian politics which proceeded to follow the recipes of ideologies has unmasked the true nature of these movements insofar as it clearly showed that there could be no end to this process.” It is no coincidence that as history changed, and will continue to change, relativism becomes the life blood of totalitarianism. Christianity with its commandments, creates never changing right and wrong. Totalitarianism, as expressed by Darwinism and Marxism, requires continually moving ethics and morals, which can only be supplied by what will eventually become terror.

    Hanna Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (Harcourt: New York, 1951), 463.
    Id. Here Darwinists will protest that Darwin’s evolution does not necessarily lead to progress, however, this ignores the physiologic reality that evolution has produced increased differentiation, speciation and complexity. Science can produce no evidence of devolution.
    Id., 464.


  • The Negative Impact of Darwinism on Society (11/16/2019)

    How does a scientific theory produce a negative impact in society (other than by creating weapons that destroy society)?

    How does Darwinism produce a negative impact in society?


    These are two completely different questions. A true science has no inherent negative social impacts. On the contrary, Darwinism most definitely possesses requisite negative consequences in our society. Darwinism’s negative social influences arise from its status as a pseudoscience. Why do I say Darwinism is a pseudoscience and not a science? Two characteristics remove Darwinism from the realm of scientific theory: Darwinism has no predictability and is not falsifiable.

    First, a scientific theory must have the power of predictability. If I shoot a cannon ball with a specific trajectory and a certain velocity I can predict exactly where it is going to land because of the laws of physics. The laws of Darwinism cannot predict what organism will change into what new organism, or even if an organism will change at all. And how could it? Darwinism is evolution by the natural selection of random mutations. Letting things randomly mutate and seeing what happens can never be called a scientific theory.

    As far as falsifiability goes, Darwinism can be the answer to every question asked of it. Why do snakes have forked tongues? Because of Darwinism. Why do frogs not have forked tongues? Because of Darwinism. Why did some lizards learn to fly and become birds? Because of Darwinism. Why do we still have lizards that cannot fly? Because of Darwinism. How did elephants develop trunks? Because those mutations were selected. Why do giraffes have 7 very large vertebrae rather than 10 shorter vertebrae? Because those mutations were not selected.

    Darwinism’s lack of predictability and falsifiability push Darwinism into the realm of pseudoscience and political science. Darwinism’s only function is to remove a supernatural explanation from public discourse. By falsely claiming Darwinism is a scientific theory that explains the creation of humans, Darwinist shut out any as of yet unexplained theory or supernatural theory. Darwinism is used by atheists (or other materialists) to remove God from public debate. And this has been done through legislation. Darwinism is wedded to the judge-made doctrine of separation of church and state in order to protect the state from religion, rather than protecting religion from the state as is the intent of our Constitution. The consequences of this are profound.

  • Richard Dawkins Tortures Reason to Suggest Evolution Created Religion (11/16/2019)

    In His Book “The God Delusion” Chapter 5 “The Roots of Religion” Richard Dawkins Demonstrates Logical Fallacies Common to Darwinian Authors

    Richard Dawkins is a well-known author, atheist and Darwinian theorist. In his book The God Delusion (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2006), Dawkins argues that faith is irrational and potentially deadly. He attempts to demonstrate the extreme improbability that God exists. In doing this, Dawkins adopts a rabid faithfulness to Darwinian evolution.

    Dawkins lists necessary elements of Darwinian evolution. Dawkins tells us that compared to mathematics and physics, Darwinism is, “a remarkably simple theory, childishly so.”[1] With this I must agree. The mechanism that Darwin believes is responsible for evolution is merely the natural selection of random mutations.

    According to Dawkins and Darwin, evolution has no direction which Dawkins makes quite clear when he states, “Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered . . . has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all.”[2] Naturally, one would assume that assigning human characteristics to evolution would therefore be forbidden. However, we will see that this is apparently not the case. In a momentary lapse of illogic, Dawkins defines biology as, “the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”[3] This is not a meaningful definition of biology. And frankly it has no relevance to biological life.

    Dawkins’ worldview creates the bizarre situation where the mechanism of creation in biology, which he feels is an illusion, can applied to the creation of religion, which he believes is a delusion. To promulgate a theory for the creation of religion that is consistent with Darwinism, Dawkins uses the logical fallacies of a priori arguments, circular reasoning, the argument from ignorance and the ubiquitous anthropomorphisms that haunt all Darwinian authors. In chapter five, Dawkins establishes his worldview from which one a priori argument arises. Dawkins states his worldview then asks, “Knowing that we are products of Darwinian evolution, we should ask what pressure or pressures exerted by natural selection originally favoured the impulse to religion.”[4]

    Attempting to answer his question, Dawkins begins his line of reasoning in a self-defeating manner. He uses anthropomorphisms to describe how the childishly simple mechanism of natural selection works. Among other statements he claims that natural selection: “targets and eliminates waste,” “Nature is a miserly accountant,” “grudging the pennies,” “watches the clock,” “punishes the smallest extravagance,” etc.[5] But Darwinian evolution is a random, physical process and although it may be poetically pleasing, attributing human characteristics to Darwinism is self-defeating.

    Oblivious to the self-defeating nature of anthropomorphism, Dawkins quotes anthropomorphic arguments from Darwin himself, “natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being.”[6] A true science such as physics, chemistry and biology does not need, and scrupulously avoids human characteristics. Ironically, according to Dawkins anthropomorphisms are forbidden.

    As Dawkins attempts to demonstrate the mechanism of Darwinian evolution, he uses a very simple equation—anything that is a “benefit” will be selected whether it is sociological, psychological, religious, etc. Find a benefit and insert Darwinism as the argument from ignorance—the legal system, art, music, morals, anything will work in a circular argument. By using circular and tortured logic, Dawkins states that religion must have a benefit because it exists and therefore was selected. He finds it necessary to explain what those benefits may have been. Dawkins categorizes benefits of religion as, “group selection,”[7] “religion as a by-product,”[8] “memes”[9] and “psychologically primed.”[10] Dawkins goes on to postulate that, “The design stance and the intentional stance are useful brain mechanisms, important for speeding up the second-guessing of entities that really matter for survival, such as predators or potential mates.”[11] The curious person will no doubt ask, where does all of this second-guessing, group selection and meme usage, etc. occur in the brain? What nucleotides code for the brain mechanisms? Unfortunately, Dawkins has no idea.

    Undaunted by lack of evidence, Dawkins presses on. He asks a rather poetic question, “Could irrational religion be a by-product of the irrationality mechanisms that were originally built into the brain by selection for falling in love?”[12] Until Dawkins can tell us where the sequence of nucleotides that are responsible for falling in love reside (we know Darwin cannot), this is a frivolous question.

    Undeterred by the lack of any molecular biology in his philosophy, Dawkins equates genes and memes![13] And to do this he must make the incredible statement, “The exact [emphasis mine] physical nature of a gene is now known . . .”[14] From ignorance is born arrogance.

    Another glaring example of Dawkins’ ignorance of things medical is this description of embryology, “It [the analogy of memes and genes] concerns embryology which—the fact is often misunderstood—is completely distinct from genetics.”[15] Embryology is nothing but genetics! I suspect his outrageously uninformed statement arises from the need to keep evolution childishly simple. We all know genetics is extremely complicated and getting more complicated with each new discovery.  As if this weren’t bad enough, in chapter 6 Dawkins takes the entire group of logical fallacies and applies them to explain how morality was created by natural selection.[16]

    What has Dawkins shown us in The God Delusion? In no single page did Dawkins demonstrate (or even suggest) where one nucleotide in all of DNA mutated from what, to what in order to produce any anatomic or physiologic change. Darwin at least had an excuse for this failure—he had no idea that DNA existed. Dawkins has no excuse.


    [1] Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: Norton, 1996), xv.

    [2] Id., 5.

    [3] Id., 1.

    [4] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2006), 190.

    [5] Id.

    [6] Id., 191.

    [7] Id., 198.

    [8] Id., 200.

    [9] Id., 222.

    [10] Id., 208.

    [11] Id., 213.

    [12] Id., 215.

    [13] Id., 222.

    [14] Id., 223.

    [15] Id., 229.

    [16] Id., 240.

Follow by Email