How Darwin Storytelling Permeates Society
Everywhere you go, you get Darwin Just-So Stories. You can’t travel or read the newspaper without them.
The BBBB (Big Brother Bearded Buddha) is the totalitarian dictator of science. His doctrine is never questioned. Whatever you observe in nature, “it evolved” according to the Stuff Happens Law (i.e., natural selection). No alternative explanations are ever given a hearing, because they have all been expelled. When society’s doctors, teachers, park rangers and tour guides have all been steeped in the teachings of Charlie & Charlie (i.e., Lyell & Darwin) since their youth, that’s all they know. They have also been trained to mock ‘creationists’ and Darwin doubters vehemently in knee-jerk fashion. Just look what happens whenever a politician meekly professes belief in God as Creator. The BM (Big Media) go nuts in mockery of anyone who does not bow the knee to BS (Big Science) that, despite its creationary origin, has sold out to Darwin. For a politician, it could be a career-limiting move.
Few are the reporters who can look at a Darwin just-so story logically, and show that it is just silly.
Here’s a recent example from a local Sunday paper (30 Sept 2018). A reader asks a question, and a local Darwin priest (in this case, Keith Roach, M.D., a contributing editor to the paper) is ready with his storybook. There is always one answer: Whatever exists, it evolved. Even in the case of private parts, no intelligent design can be claimed.
There is a question that has intrigued me for years: What is the purpose of underarm and pubic hair? I guess, for that matter, what is the purpose of any body hair, and hair on your head?
ANSWER: Hair provides protection from the sun, and regulates body temperature. Many evolutionary biologists believe our distant ancestors began losing most body hair when we began walking upright.
Axillary (underarm) and pubic hair are thought to be conserved [against natural selection] because they reduce friction, wick moisture away from the skin, and provide a small degree of protection and as part of sexual selection, possibly due to pheromones, hormones that act outside the body to attract others.
Notice that the reader asked about the purpose of something. Does Darwinism know anything about purpose? The doctor acknowledges several good functions for hair, but attributes them all to evolution. Why not thank our Maker, that He thought of everything for our comfort? Oh, but that would be religious! That would be a denial of science! Silence! Bring in the “evolutionary biologists” bearing the imprimatur, and let them give the official ‘scientific’ version of what happened. The priests of Darwin close their eyes, envisioning deep time. They see unknown apes turning into humans, climbing out of the trees. The beings stand upright. Their hair falls off. At least, most of it falls off. Darwin has been vindicated again!
How silly is Dr Roach’s story? Let us count the ways.
- How do you get purpose out of a purposeless process?
- What does walking upright have to do with loss of body hair? Nothing. Naked mole rats crawl underground. Pigs have very thin body hair, but walk on all fours. Meerkats stand upright often, but have body hair all over. Humans actually have body hair almost all over their skin, even on the smooth parts, but much of it is short, thin, and nearly invisible (vellus hair).
- Gorillas spend little time in the trees. Why didn’t they lose their body hair, if this is a law of nature?
- Why would blind evolution not ‘conserve’ the very thing—hair—that regulates our body temperature and provides protection from the sun?
- Because of the ‘cost of fitness,’ every hominid who kept its body hair had to die.
- If hair loss was a consequence of human evolution, why do males have beards and more body hair than females? Are they less fit?
- What hairy female hominid would date a naked male? Wouldn’t she think it was weird? She would be repulsed by the freak.
- Is reducing friction so vastly important to human life as to require the death to all who lacked axillary and pubic hair?
- How many women are attracted to underarm BO?
- If underarm pheromones attract mates, why do we use deodorant?
- Dr Roach, please list all the mutations that were selected in this change from full hair to limited hair.
- If loss of body hair is such a good thing, why haven’t all mammals evolved into naked forms by now?
- Who cares what “many evolutionary biologists believe”? How many did he ask?
- Is Dr Roach aware of the criticisms of sexual selection among evolutionary biologists themselves? (e.g., 30-Jan-2016).
- Why not invite critics of Darwinism into this explanatory exercise?
This is not an exhaustive list by any means. If a list like this were given print space in the newspaper, people would laugh out loud at the Darwin story after thinking about it. Instead, it gets passed off to a vulnerable public as “scientific explanation” giving the world “understanding” – thanks to Charles Darwin, the BBBB.
A little thought shows that an evolutionist could explain anything by the same storytelling method. He can appeal to the same ‘mechanism’ of natural selection (in quotes, because it is not a mechanism at all, but a post-hoc rationalization) to explain opposite things: full body hair, and nakedness. Darwinian explanations are vacuous.
If you look at the actual functions of even these mundane realities, you would come to a drastically different explanation: that whoever made us took great care and concern for our pleasure. He reduced the chafing in parts of the body that see skin-on-skin contact. He wicked away moisture in those parts, too. He made the human sexes distinct, each beautiful in their own way, to be attractive to one another. Even small benefits that do not necessarily increase survival were provided for, showing evidence of a loving, caring Creator.
Of interest to men: Have you ever noticed that the two testicles are asymmetric on two axes? One hangs lower, and one is a little farther from the body. This asymmetry appears to reduce collisions, which could cause discomfort or pain during running and other activity. The Darwinian explanation would have us believe that every male without these small adaptations perished until they became established in the population. Doesn’t it make more sense to see that our Creator thought of everything, even small things that don’t appear to affect survival?
Remember that in Darwinism, every tiny beneficial change, down to the level of the fold in every protein, had to happen by accident. Think of the trillions of beneficial mutations that would have to occur out of nowhere. Each one, furthermore, would have to be ‘selected’ far enough to predominate in the entire population of evolving humans, or they would evaporate. Dr Roach tries to have it both ways. He wants gradual mutation and selection to cause every change from ape-like ancestors, but he wants other things to be “conserved” against Darwin’s inexorable force.
Until enough people see the fallacies in Darwinian stories, and rise up and laugh out loud, the nonsense will continue.