Just as I have met many agnostics and atheists over the years who say 'I don't mind Jesus at all, it is the Christians I don't like' .
In a similar but opposing vein, I don't mind some of Darwin's work, it is just some of the Atheists, most of the Communists, almost all of the Nazis and pretty much ALL of the Social Darwinists types I don't like.
Unlike many of his modern worshippers, I have been to Darwin's cottage and stood by his impressive tomb at Westminster. I have actually read his work.
I feel I have come to know the man and the theory quite well over the years.
Do I agree with Darwin's theory? No. Of course not.
It is a theory. He did not even believe in it. He had some faith in it, he had hopes for it... but 'BELIEVE'? No. That is the realm of modern Darwinism. Of modern Scientific Dogma.
Darwin stood against the dogma of the day, and when his ideas became acceptable - his work BECAME the new dogma of a new day. Ironically, I think he would have liked that.
He was, after all, a creature of the Academe.
Darwin had no problem with a 'regent priesthood' of academia, he just felt that HE should be the Arch-Bishop. In order to do that he needed to overthrow the previous orthodoxy of, what he perceived to be Cartesian and Scholastic (dualist) approaches to the issue of 'Origins' - or the origin of life.
Now I am sure I do not have to rhyme off all the folks who took umbrage with old Chuck's theory. Everyone from the worlds biggest names in philosophy, palaeontology, history, mathematics, physics, biology, and even the mind behind the DNA revolution.
Many have seen and do see incoherence and big 'problems' with the idea.
I am among that number.
But for all that, Darwin's biggest critic may have been Darwin himself, at least in his lifetime.
Charles Darwin, in all his years of travel and research - in all his fossils and all his time in the oldest beds and shales he could find access to - had hit a wall.
It is a period in the geological record we now refer to as 'The Cambrian Explosion' was this wall.
It is a subject that is often glossed over in schools with a few brief and facile paragraphs in biology textbooks - as opposed to entire pages on finch beaks and erroneous 19th drawings of embryos - but it is incredibly important to understanding the limits of Darwin's ideas. His own limits.
It is also quite interesting and very relevant to recent discoveries in the fossil record.
Darwin's pinned his theory on this period. He theorized that all life on earth had evolved from a single 'common ancestor', and that this ancestor's spawn had slowly evolved by a process known as natural selection.
The idea goes something like this: Way back when 'something' happened that created specific organic proteins. Then again 'something' combined these proteins into a living cell (so far - almost 100 years on- totally impossible in the lab). Then these cells evolved into 'transitory' life forms, that combined to become multicellular organisms.
This all happened in the biggest of all 'somethings': The Cambrian Explosion.
This Cambrian period is unlike any on the fossil record. Suddenly, from seemingly nowhere pop up all sorts of full functional organisms. These strange otherworldy beings ruled or world for millions of years and then almost completely died out.
Darwin theorized that all modern life had descended from those few survivors of that extinction event. It should be noted, at this point, that the 'somethings' referred to above do NOT infer a divine or supernatural influence.
Darwin had theorized soley material causes, apparently unconcerned with regression or (medieval or modern) notions of potential. Like so many of his proto-scientistic contemporaries, Darwin was extremely selective in his use of philosophy.
But he was quite pragmatic, and is often described as a 'realist'. He knew when he faced an obstacle.
Darwin's biggest obstacle was the Cambrian, and he knew it!
Darwin could not find his transitory fossils in the pre Cambrian. There was nothing of note. He was forced to reconcile with this idea, and seems to come to the conclusion that the fossils were too fragile to be common, and/or that the then current science (19th century) and methods involved were too primitive. He was assured by those ideas, and felt quite confident -after a lapse- that they would one day be discovered. Should nothing ever be discovered, or should other complex life be discovered (worse than nothing) his whole theory would need a rethink.
But to this esteemed scientist, this enigma was unthinkable.
Science would prove him correct, once the technology had been designed and the beds could be discovered. The Gordian knot would be cut!
Darwin's promissory materialism - his utterly modern blind faith in the progress of science, technology and the future - was only half right.
Both the beds and the technology do exist today, but the discoveries are not what the early evolutionists, led by Darwin, would have expected to find at all.
A fact illustrated by how these rather recent discoveries are constantly attacked and spun out of recognition by the academe and their lackeys in the MSM.
What has been found?
Fully formed, complex sponge colonies dating from the precambrian. Large colonies of complex symbiotic nature.
Creatures from way up the tree of life.
Several branches up, in fact.
When Chinese scientists first discovered the spores they were ridiculed and scorned for it. Cranks. Hoaxers. Commie slaves. The dreaded title 'ID'.
You name it.
Now we have not only had repetitions of the first find, but full blown complex sponge colonies. Not just the eggs, the whole critter. Whole critters. Lots of them.
It seems Darwin's little garden did not end at the back wall, just his ideas and theory did.
There is a forest of life that exists outside his materialist equation - that is to say WITHIN the materialist paradigm.
It seems Darwin's model is outmoded. It has been selected for removal by nature.
Is that irony or what. His attempt to remove teleology from the Origins argument with his seminal work led to the research that in turn resulted in the 'Natural Selection' of his theory. Nature herself, has killed of the notion with the very fossils Darwin attempted to dethrone her with.
For all our differences, I cannot help but feel a bit sorry for the old Master and Prof.
Perhaps man's need to explain everything in material terms, rather than the origin of life, is the real emergent epiphenomenon we see here?
one of the recent MSM article with academic spin intact: