And on the seventh day Darwin rested

Let’s start with a simple observation: just about every great thinker in recorded history believed in God – and by history I mean either side of 1858, the year Darwin created the world.

‘Just about’ is an important qualification because, fully applying oneself to the task, one could dig up a few personages who were both serious thinkers and atheists. However, there would be so few of them that they could only serve as exceptions that prove the rule.

Within the civilisation formed by Abrahamic religions, believing in God – especially after 1858 – means rejecting the materialist explanation of being and existence, and accepting the Biblical one.

For thinkers, great or otherwise, this means starting from the original act of faith (referred to as hypothesis in scientific circles) and then holding it to scientific, philosophical and logical investigation.

Hence most serious thinkers must believe that the Biblical version withstands such investigation better than the competing one. That, however, isn’t what our systematically brainwashed public believes.

Anyone going through what passes for our educational system isn’t only not taught how to think logically, never mind philosophically, but is actively discouraged from doing so.

As a result, the people boasting within their ranks Aquinas, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Leibnitz, Maxwell, Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg et al are commonly seen as silly Bible-thumping flat-earthers, whereas the group accepting on faith the incoherent rants of Dawkins et al are rational, sophisticated individuals benefiting from every achievement of modern science.

Yet, by showing that our cherished notion of gradual progress isn’t just excruciatingly vulgar but also intellectually unsound, science blows materialism out of the water.

So how do we answer the question of where our material world, with us in it, came from? Only five common answers exist.

ONE: Billions-zillions of years ago the world was in a state of chaos. Then, for some obscure reason, often described as the Big Bang, the chaos imploded and since then has been evolving from the simple to the complex – from some primary cell all the way to Richard Dawkins.

TWO: The world has existed in eternity.

THREE: The world self-created out of nothing.

FOUR: God originally created the world as some kind of primary matter and then guided its evolution to its present state.

FIVE: The world was created by God in its complete form and has been deteriorating ever since.

Of these, only FIVE doesn’t clash with the Laws of Thermodynamics: the First Law, stating that nothing comes out of nothing (ex nihilo nihil fit), and the Second, stating that, left to themselves, all natural processes develop towards increasing entropy, that is chaos and disorder.

Scientists object that both Laws talk about a closed system, which the Earth isn’t because it receives energy from outside sources, mainly the Sun. However, they flounder when asked how then the two Laws were discovered in the first place – and they are laws, not theories like Darwinism. For that to happen, they had to be proved to work universally, meaning they also apply to the problem at hand.  

Hence ONE contradicts the fundamental, empirically established Second Law of Thermodynamics. Evolution, a spontaneous, gradual increase in the complexity of proteins all the way to man, is impossible – no matter how many trillions-zillions of years we assign to this process. The Law says that under no conditions can chaos develop into order.

TWO also clashes with the Second Law. If our universe had no beginning in time, by now it would have sunk into chaos. No organised structures we observe in such abundance (such as man himself) would exist.

THREE clashes with the First Law, according to which energy, and therefore matter (e = mc²), can’t appear out of nothing. And before things evolve, they have to be.

FOUR, which is theistic evolution popularised, among others, by Teilhard de Chardin,runs into the same objections as ONE. It doesn’t matter whether evolution was started by Darwin or God – if ameliorating development towards greater order and complexity were possible, the Second Law wouldn’t have been discovered at all.

FIVE, thus, is the only version that agrees with both laws. God created matter – it didn’t appear out of nothing by itself, which the First Law says is impossible. Original sin then compromised not only man but also the material world, which since then has been steadily deteriorating in accordance with the Second Law.

Believing in Darwinian evolution as an all-encompassing explanation is therefore tantamount to rejecting the Laws of Thermodynamics, which is a possible position to take. It doesn’t, however, quite tally with the belief that atheism is based on science, while religion comes from nothing but blind faith.

For almost two centuries now Darwinism has been given the benefit of the doubt it doesn’t merit. Since it has wide political and social applications, this slipshod, unscientific theory has been touted as fact.

It isn’t. If it were, it wouldn’t be called a theory any longer. In fact, few theories in the history of science have survived for more than a generation or two. They are either proved to be scientific facts (like the Laws of Thermodynamics) or else consigned to museums of past curiosities.

Darwinism survives because it neatly dovetails with modernity’s other pet theories, such as Marxism. Both equip it with the false notion of progress, on which it depends for self-vindication.

That notion is as vulgar as our materialist modernity itself – for all the sophisticated gadgetry with which it masks its vulgarity and intellectual paucity.