Reading time: ~7 min read
Darwinisms' "enchantment" is predicated on getting people to avoid thinking. For this reason, Darwinists intensely distract the people whom they address with visual and aural inculcation. They are determined to distract people from reality by forming an enchantment effect. Many people give up thinking, examining, researching when confronted with these calculated indoctrination, and surrender to these supposedly scientific explanations which have been submitted to them.
But the interesting thing is that this spectacle of indoctrination which distracts people and keeps them from thinking, in fact, basically harbors an irrational logic. Darwinist publications may explain the generation of a cell over hundreds of pages by using scientific and technological terms when what they want to say can be summed up quite briefly: Muddy water + coincidences + time = Life! Sophisticated words, obtuse Latin definitions, technical and complex terminology is typically included in these publications to maximize the Darwinist indoctrination effect, However, there is absolutely no complex, subtle logic or explanation behind the Darwinist expressions.
A part from the "The Miracles of Life" documentary of the PBS TV show 'Nova' serves as a good example in this regard:
Four and a half billion years ago, the young planet Earth was a mass of cosmic dust and particles. It was almost completely engulfed by the shallow primordial seas. Powerful winds gathered random molecules from the atmosphere. Some were deposited in the seas. Tides and currents swept the molecules together. And somewhere in this ancient ocean the miracle of life began... The first organized form of primitive life was a tiny protozoan. Millions of protozoa populated the ancient seas. These early organisms were completely self-sufficient in their sea-water world. They moved about their aquatic environment feeding on bacteria and other organisms... From these one-celled organisms evolved all life on earth.119
Many people who watch this explanation may certainly not know the possibility of single cell occurring by coincidence is 1 in 10950, in other words, impossible. These people do not know that on the magnificently balanced planet we live , the probability of occurrence of changes, or a formation by coincidence is more than 101000, and occurrence of such a change is impossible.120 The same audience probably doesn't know greater possibilities should have taken place for the "miracle of life" and this includes even more statistical impossibilities. For this reason, to watch and believe this imaginary scenario is not so hard for people who do not have information in regard to the matter.
In this PBS documentary, the formation of the Earth, the imaginary story of the formation of the very first cell, and the diversity which this very first cell started, is presented as a simple matter that it is sufficient to convince a person who doesn't want to think about the matter much. Ready-made information is presented to this person. After all, this person doesn't know that;
- a single protein can not have occurred by coincidence,
- after the impossibility of the occurrence of the very first protein, the second, third, fourth and finally the one millionth, the same impossible coincidental occurrences are equally impossible.
- although it is impossible, even if we assume that it occurred by coincidence, it is impossible to unite the first protein which occurred in one end of the world with the protein which occurred in the other end of the world
Up to this point, the person who thinks that everything occurred very simply would find it reasonable that;
- the occurrence of cell organelles by coincidence, which is impossible according to the calculus of probabilities,
- all of these organelles staying together without being dissolved until the cell has come into being,
- the fairy tale of the emergence of the cell by coincidence in muddy water, which is even impossible to create under the control of scientists in laboratories, and is defined as "more complex than a galaxy" by scientists with its magnificent semi-permeable membrane.
This is an extremely simple answer for someone and it doesn't require the necessity of research, or deep thought on the matter. Furthermore, the person doing the explaining is quite often a well-known and respected scientist. There is no need for the passive individual to consider, or make careful observation of the miraculous nature that we find in the protein structure. The person watching the documentary is left with the idea that a cell is nothing more than a bubble. The viewer is left with the impression that "it's very simple for a cell to have formed in a puddle of muddy water", as in the way mold forms in a glass of fruit juice left out for too long; the difference here, of course, is that molds, mildew, and fungi forms as a result of cellular bacteria. These are single-celled beings that form as the result of outside forces; the do not occur spontaneously, or form of their own volition, nor do they form by coincidence. Additionally, Darwinists don't bother to explain things such as the formation of the Earth, or how the early atmosphere of Earth would have killed the imaginary first cell, how protozoa turned into metazoa, and they gloss over the fact that bacteria had already existed; therefore, how could protozoa be the first life form on Earth? Indeed, each of these are points that cannot be explained with Darwinist pseudo-science, and can only be answered by "the origin of life" (in other words, Almighty Allah) which has brought Darwinism to its end. Darwinists can only tell fairy tales about how various species originated, and how the imaginary anthropoid creatures they conjure up were somehow the distant ancestors of all mankind.
There are many people in the world who simply accept what they hear, read, or see without critical evaluation of the facts. Darwinists use this weak point, and fully exploit this tendency. Most people who fall into the Darwinist trap have these tendencies, and thus accept Darwinism, even if they don't see any scientific proof or reasonableness in the theory.
A good example on this subject is a book for children entitled, The Wonderful Egg. A story with a highly illogical outcome is told in this book. A mother dinosaur leaves her nest of eggs unattended for a brief while, and interestingly, the "first bird" hatches out of one the eggs. The "bird" born from a mother dinosaur grows up over the course of the story, and miraculously has wings and feathers; in time, it starts to fly to the branches of a tree. However, the most interesting (and perhaps tragic) part of this book is not in the story itself. Rather, it is that this book, which proposes a stunning absurdity, was supported and recommended by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Council on Education, and the Association for Childhood Education International.121
That any scientist could come up with such an outlandish idea boggles the imagination. Every schoolchild knows that birds have an anatomical structure which supports flight, with appropriate organs, feathers, wings, a specialized respiratory system, and that birds absolutely did not come out of reptile eggs. Yet the adherents of the Darwinist ideology will put forward even the most laughable theories, and they know that when these theories are disproven, they will have to debase themselves. Nonetheless, for the Darwinists, all that matters is the unconditional defense of Darwinism.
Scientific editor Gordon Rattray Taylor's confession regarding this topic truly explains the error simple logic to which Darwinism submits:
Evolutionary history is a mass of such modifications; one could almost say it consists of them. Scales become feathers. Legs become wings. Stomachs become swim bladders. Even at the level of biochemical processes, substitutions and elaborations occur. All Darwinism has to say about such miracles is that they are due to chance.122
The following is from a newspaper article which doctor Nicholas Comninellis from Missouri University gave a place to in his book;
Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.123
References
- Hank Hanegraaff, Fatal Flaws "What Evolutionists Don't Want You To Know", W Publishing Group, 2003, p. 50-51 (emphasis added) ↩
- Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, p. 212 ↩
- Hank Hanegraaff, Fatal Flaws "What Evolutionists Don't Want You To Know", W Publishing Group, 2003, p. 26 ↩
- Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Sphere Books Ltd., 1984, p. 10 ↩
- Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, p. 218 ↩