Alan Steinfeld writes: This year marks the bi-centennial of the birth of the man,
known as the father of evolutionary theory, Charles Darwin. There are over 500
events planned in 39 countries in recognition of his achievements in science and
reason. But this is a dubious honor. Mainly because of numeroous destructive
ideologies that Darwinian thinking have provoked in the 20th and 21st centuries.
- The survival of the fittest
- That might makes right
- "Chance mutation" is how evolution happens”
-Materialistic rationalism as the ultimate ideal of what is possible
-And the complete ridicule of the idea that there could be an organizing
intelligence to Nature.
This is all happening because mainstream scientists around the world claim
that Darwin's On The Origin Of Species, is the most significant book of the
last two centuries. Published on November 24, 1859, its main thesis states:
“individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have
the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind. On the other
hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious
would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable variations
and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection.”
But lets look at the fallacies laid out in this book and ongoing Darwinain
Charles Darwin, The Man
"A great man of science ... knows everything about everything, except why
a hen's egg does not turn into a crocodile and two or three other little things."
-Charles Kingsley, The Water Babies
In 1835 Charles Darwin, age 26, set out on the HSS Beagle for a species
collecting expedition around South America. On board he read for
amusement an essay by the clergyman, Thomas Malthus: "Principle of
Population" It said: "Animals have a fearsome fecundity. No matter
how fast the food supply went up, the supply of eaters went up faster.
The result was a population, which was ultimately controlled by starvation."
To the young Darwin this meant, that there would be a continuous struggle
among the eaters for the available food. Only the strongest therefore would
survive. Darwin said, "… it at once struck me that under these circumstances
favorable variations would tend to be preserved and unfavorable ones to be
destroyed. The result would be the formation of new species.”
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance, but the illusion of
knowledge” -Daniel J.Boorstin
Unfortunately for Darwin no real science has yet been developed to explain
how one species becomes another. In fact what we call Darwinian evolution
are theories of a science based on assumed facts. I hope to demonstrate that
Darwin utterly failed to do what his famous treatise proposed: discover
“the origin of species”.
Variations through adaptation certainly occurs, but in the thousands of cases
studied no new species has emerged despite the enormous variety of adapted
mechanisms. Microbiologist James Shapiro writes: “In fact, there are no
detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical
or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable
that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject
–“Evolution”- with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic thesis
works in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity.” [Narby]
Biologists also fail to explain why the phenotype (the physical appearance)
of some species can vary widely while the genotype (the core genetics)
remain relatively constant. The most obvious example is the range of
morphology that exists in the canine family. Dogs from Chihuahuas to
Great Danes are all part of the same breedable population, called a species.
In this case of these two canine toyes, breeding is possible but not advisable.
William Bateson (father to Gregory) concluded in 1922: "In dim outline,
evolution is evident enough, but that particular and essential bit of the
theory of evolution which is concerned with [the] origin and nature of
species remains utterly mysterious." [Taylor]
“Science is the art of creating suitable illusions, which the fool enjoys
or argues against, but the wise man enjoys for their beauty or ingenuity,
without being blind to the fact that they are human veils and curtains
concealing the abysmal darkness of the unknowable.” ~ Carl Jung.
Another fallacious assumption of Darwin’s was that the members of the
same species would be in competition for food sources. This would
eliminate the less efficient individuals producing a stronger species.
He stated this formally in Origins: "As many more individuals of each
species are born than can possibly survive; and as consequently, there
is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being,
if it varies, however slightly, in a manner profitable to itself, under the
complex and sometimes varying conditions of life will have a better
chance of surviving and thus be naturally selected. “
He failed to realize that “competition for survival” is not always the
case and that many species develop mechanisms to avoid it; such as
specialization within an environment or the defining of territories. The
example of wolves show that they hunt in packs and share the kill. [Taylor, p31]
It is a group effort that brings down the prey. Darwinism rests upon
a survivalist mentality, rather than the weight of true scientific evidence.
In addition natural selection does not explain how occasionally a
breakthrough into a new niche or a new mode of adaptation takes place.
Why would the ancestors of dolphins and whale would return back to the seas?
In their absurd position modern biology finds itself in by adhering to Darwin’s
false beliefs that "the diversity of life is inconceivable". [Taylor]
Chance- Neo-Darwinism and Its Flaws
There is no such thing as chance and what we regard as blind circumstance
actually stems from the deepest source of all.”- Friedrich von Schiller,
The Death of Wallenstein
Evolutionists who have that built theories upon Darwin’s are called Neo-Darwinists.
One of their foundational ideas is that variations occur by chance. While it is not
difficult to believe that small changes might have occur this way, it is difficult to
believe that a structure as complex as the eye came about in that way. Darwin
himself said, "when I think of the eye, I shudder.”
But this theory of chance has led such well-known Neos such as Stephen Jay
Gould to decree that the creation of life has been “a glorious accident;” meaning
that life on earth was a freakish happen stance. Accordingly it is unlikely to have
occurred and unlikely that it could ever occur again. This leaves no room for
understanding how the subtle complexity of organic molecular such as amino
acid chains, that form the building block of life, could ever nave been created.
By believing in this factor of chance mutation cosmologist, Fred Hoyle responded
by saying, "this is as likely as a wind blowing through a junkyard assembling a
Boeing 707." Noble prize laureate Albert Szent- Gyorgyi observed that biological
reactions are chain reactions where organic molecules fit together more precisely
than the cogwheels of a Swiss watch. In 1974 he said that if evolution could be
improved by random mutations: “sounds to me like saying that you could improve
a Swiss watch by dropping it …”[Ferguson] In The Great Evolution Mystery author
Gordon Rattray Taylor concludes: "If the basic assumption that evolutionary variety
depends on chance is proven false then the lynch pin of Darwin's theory is gone" [Taylor]
To think that change in generations of organisms occurs only due to internal random
mutations constitute implies that individual life-forms exist in a vacuum not as a
whole fabric of an overall ecology. This idea began to be challenged in the 1960s.
Anthropologist Gregory Bateson realized that evolution was not a matter of the
survival of the fittest but the survival of the organism-in-the-environment. Around
the same time General Systems Theory was affirming that “you cannot understand
a cell, a rat, a brain structure, a family, or a culture if you isolate from its context.
Relationship is everything.” [Ferguson] Emerging out of this thinking came the Gaia
theory where evolution was seen as the total ecology of “world-as-organism.”
Consequently Darwin’s evolution provides no reliable vision of the future and any
patterns that may appear are merely speculative. According to scientific philosopher
Alfred N. Whitehead, “There can be no living science unless there is a widespread
instinctive conviction in the existence of an order of nature.” General System theorists,
such as Ludwig von Bertalanffy, understood that there must be principle of wholeness
and self-organization at all level of existence. [Ferguson] This is a primary point
missed by Darwinians. For evolution appears to be fueled by an innate intelligence
of life moving towards greater wholeness in recognizing change in the world around it.
As change occurs, greater awareness is achieved and this gives birth to more sophisticated
forms to house the greater perception.
Increased awareness of the environment is the key to a more successful survival.
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin said, “Evolution [is] ever more perfect eyes in a world
in which there is always more to see." He called this the Law of Complexity-
Consciousness and said, "Evolution proceeds in the direction of increasing complexity
which is accompanied by a corresponding rise in consciousness."
"We are all interdependent hordes of living-on- and being-lived-on-beings in a
great partnership of evolution together to share information and perception to
create a community of cells.” -Lewis Thomas, The Lives of the Cell,
By using the work of cellular biologist Bruce Lipton, former professor at Stanford
University, I will show that the patterns of evolution are not created by chance.
They are based upon a fractal configurations of nature. Lipton and others, say
that evolution is a two step process going from the One to the Many. This progresses
in ongoing levels of development: from cell to multi-cellular organism and into social
First Lipton defines evolution as “ the gaining of greater awareness. At the most
fundamental physical level of a single cell we can see that awareness is defined
by a protein like protuberance coming off the membrane called a receptor site.
Receptors like sense organs are interfaces between the outer and inner environments.
They survey the environment and feed information back to the rest of the cell.
It lets the organism know that if something is harmful- move away from it; or
if something is beneficial -move towards it. There is only one site for each stimuli
in the environment and they can only exist in a single layer. The more receptor
sites the greater the awareness of the environment and the more survival is assured.
But there is a limit to the amount of receptor sites a cell can have, because If the
membrane were to get too big it would rip open, the cytoplasm would pore out
and the cell would die.
There is however an overriding drive in the mechanism of life is to gain more
awareness. But how could a cell membrane of limited size increase awareness?
The inventive novelty of nature is seen in this first steps of evolution, which is a
complete departure from Darwinian theory: Simple cells, having no internal
structures, grouped themselves together to form colonies to increase their
collective awareness. The naturalist Luther Burbank hinting towards the idea of
synergy in the early part of the 20th century said: “When simple cells joined together,
they exhibited organizing forces in new directions which were impossible for
The second step in this fractal evolution was even more revolutionary: the many
cells of the colony merged in singularity; the membrane folded inwards to increase
receptor capacity. In other words the cells incorporated. Different cells specialized
in a certain types of awareness and formed organelles, little organs inside the cell wall.
Organelles have their own DNA and small membranes with receptors that encase their
operations within their own cell wall. This created a new oneness in the form of a
complex single cell, known as eukaryotic cells. On the cellular level the survival of
the group became more important than the survival of the individual.
The next development was to go from a single eukaryote to many grouped together
to form a another level of complexity; and eventually create the single a multi-cellular
organism. And life proceeded from many to one to many, etc…
The Earth Membrane and Humanity
"Viewed from space, the astonishing thing about the earth is it aliveness. Aloft and
floating, it lives beneath a moist gleaming membrane of bright blues swirling whites.
It takes a membrane to be able to hold out against equilibrium, strive against entropy
and filter and maintain perception." ~ Lewis Thomas
In 1830, Francis Galton, a biologist and a relative of Charles Darwin, wrote: "Our
part in the universe may be analogous to the cells in an organized body and our
personalitymay be essentially elements of an immortal and cosmic mind."
In 1993, Lipton said,“Humans are the functional equivalent of the glycoproteins
[receptors] on the surface of the membrane of this giant cell [the earth]. We are
the receptors and effectors that are capable of responding to the universe's signal
and effecting change for the planet.”
For the cable program New Realities, Lipton laid out the next phase of our evolution.
To see this clip of the interview go to this site under: Mind/Science/Lipton
To read the transcript of my interview with Bruce Lipton go to: Transcribed Interview
At that end of the interview I had an epiphany. I realized, that we absolutely need
to know we are all equal parts in a greater living being. Then we can unite as conscious
elements to share awareness for the common benefit of a planetary civilization.
We are this juncture in our collective evolution. We are the fingertips of consciousness
reaching out in novel directions to bring greater awareness to our common perception.
We can come together as another singularity of a whole planet, evolve out of our
cosmicisolation and establish relationships with other Ones. The theoretical physicist
Nassim Harremin says: “The level of consciousness of a civilization is always equal to
their capacity to reach new fractal scales of relationship to their world.” It is only in our
unity that we will formally meet the other planetary civilizations, become part of the
greater galactic community and rise to the next level of our fractal evolution. Author
Yatri, says, “Evolution is simply the way home…the ultimate aim of evolution is for
Existence to re-awaken as Primal Consciousness, having tasted the novelty of creation.
Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection or the Preservation of
Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, 1859
de Chardin, Pierre Teilhard, The Phenomenon of Man
Ferguson, M. (1980). The Aquarian Conspiracy. Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher, Inc.
Gould, S. J. (1977). Ever Since Darwin. New York: W. W. Norton.
Harremin, Nassim (2007) Crossing the Event Horizon, Google video.
Hoyle, Fred, The Cosmic Life Force, Paragon House, New York, 1988
Lipton, Bruce H. The Biology of Belief, website: http://www.brucelipton.com
Lipton, Bruce H. (2001, October). The Human Genome Project, The Golden Thread
magazine. vol. 1, no. 3
Knowles, A. (1994, July). Evolution issue. Natural History Magazine. New York:
Museum of Natural History.
New Realities interview: Alan Steinfeld with Bruce LiptoN (2000): www.newrealities.com
Narby, Jeremy, The Cosmic Serpent, page142 quotes James Shapiro, National Review;
vol.16, September, 1996, p62-65
Smith, John Maynard, The Problems of Biology, Hoyle's quote, page 49.
Taylor, Gordon Rattray, The Great Evolution Mystery, Harper & Rowe, New York,
Thomas, Lewis (1975). The Lives of a Cell. New York: Bantam Books.
Latest Podcasts on Eastern Spirituality
Sunday, 01 March 2009 05:43
Why Darwin is DangerousWritten by Nya Gregor Fleron
Last modified on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 03:44
Read 11789 times
Published in Latest Articles
Latest from Nya Gregor Fleron
Leave a comment
Make sure you enter the (*) required information where indicated.
Basic HTML code is allowed.
Wednesday, 26 October 2011 22:18
posted by Welcome
More posts of this qaulity. Not the usual c***, please
Monday, 24 October 2011 03:17
posted by Lark
I see, I spupsoe that would have to be the case.
Tuesday, 26 July 2011 19:51
posted by Honney
No complaints on this end, siplmy a good piece.