Darwins House: A Religious Shrine?
Britain withdrew Darwin’s home, Downe House (outside London), from consideration as a UN World Heritage Site, and Nature seemed downright disappointed.1 An article quoted Darwin scholar James Moore saying, “Muslims go to Mecca, Christians go to Jerusalem, Darwinians go to Downe.” This seems to equate Darwinians with believers in a religion, but Nature quoted this proudly.
What would be the statement of faith of a Darwinian religion? The article quoted Randal Keynes, great-great-grandson of Darwin and the one who originally submitted the nomination of Downe House to UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee for consideration. Keynes felt that the house symbolized the following values: “the understanding of the natural world by observation, hypothesis, experiment, free and wide exchange of information and ideas, theory-building and communication.”
The British government, worried that the UN would reject the nomination on grounds that the site was neither naturally or architecturally unique, decided to withdraw it before the vote. Nature called this a “setback” but said the nomination will be back in two years, in 2009 – the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth and 150th anniversary of The Origin of Species.
On a related note, Richard Lane of the Natural History Museum wrote Nature complaining about their criticism that the Darwin Centre Phase Two was too small. They can’t expect it to display Darwin’s entire insect and plant collection to the public, he said; buildings cost money. Some of it will be on display and the rest will be available for researchers. That will have to do for now.
1Henry Nichols, “Darwin down but not out,” Nature 447, 896 (21 June 2007) | doi:10.1038/447896a.
2Richard Lane, “Darwin Centre will be fit for its range of purposes,” Nature 447, 908 (21 June 2007) | doi:10.1038/447908e.
Look no further if you need evidence that Darwinians worship their little bearded buddha. They said it (see also 07/18/2006, 02/13/2004 commentary). They’ve got their Mecca. All they need now is finch-beak-shaped minarets to remind the faithful to bow toward Downe House six times a day and pray for the destruction of creationism. They already have their terrorism down to a science (Evolution News #1, #2; book burning, too: #3).
Let’s see how the Darwin faithful are keeping up to the Statement of Faith.
- The understanding of the natural world: if they really understood it, they would see design, stasis and decay, not evolution. Their method of understanding is to presuppose evolution as a fact and to fit every bit of data into their a priori belief system.
- by observation: Have they observed the Cambrian explosion? fossils out of order from Charlie’s myth? living fossils? catastrophism?
- by hypothesis: The Darwinians are good at speculating on causes, but hypothesis is only the starting hunch for a scientific quest (see 01/15/2004 commentary), not science itself.
- by experiment: Tell us, Darwinites, how you plan to experiment on history. Tell us how you plan to show us one phylum evolving into another, when they all appeared simultaneously in the earliest layers of the fossil record. Extrapolating minor changes is a logical fallacy.
Need we also remind readers that Darwin did not invent experimental science? The experimental method goes back to 11th century Christian Europe at least, when Hugh of St. Victor, Richard Grosseteste, Roger Bacon and others urged observation and experimentation as a means of glorifying God and obeying the Genesis mandate. The values that lead to scientific investigation can be traced back to King Solomon – or even Adam.
What experiments did Darwin do to try to confirm his theory? None! He observed a lot of animals and plants that live in the present – barnacles, orchids, pigeons, the plants in his fields – but never experimented on how they might become new species. He only speculated on how they might evolve over unseen ages of time.
- Free and wide exchange of information and ideas: Great idea. When do they start? (06/22/2007). No controversy with creationists and ID people here.
- Theory building: This is meaningless without explaining what is meant by theory. Only a very loose use of the word would permit Darwin’s “one long argument” to be considered a theory. Critic David Berlinski said that the evidence adduced in support of Darwin’s theory, like oscillating sizes of finch beaks, does not even rise to the level of anecdote.
- Communication: Another great idea, if only. The Darwinites are masters at indoctrination (see CMI for one recent analysis of how schools mislead and indoctrinate students with flawed arguments). Communication implies the communion of ideas between two parties, not the one-way imposition of dogmas onto a target audience.
There’s a word for people who profess one thing and do another. We don’t care to visit Downe House because of all the hypocrites in the Church Mosque of Darwin.