Darwinism’s Green Box
by Servando Gonzalez
Last week I had a minor respiratory infection that kept me apart from my computer for a few days, and I seized the opportunity to catch-up with my reading. Among the tall pile of books I had waiting for me, I selected one with an enigmatic title: Michael J. Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box (New York: Free Press, 2006), the 10th anniversary edition of a work initially published in 1996. Despite the author’s apology in the Preface for his unavoidable need to go into highly technical details, the book is a rollercoaster as exciting as a fiction thriller. I really enjoyed reading this book.
But there is nothing fictitious in this book. On the contrary, it is science at its best, and true science is always thrilling.
Without downgrading the scientific level, Behe has managed to write an entertaining, highly readable piece of scientific literature, sprinkled with touches of humor and wit. His use of a mousetrap as an example of an object of irreducible complexity is second to none. The mousetrap is also an example of how an apparently simple object actually can be very complicated.
In his book, Behe demonstrates, trough the analysis of several apparently simple natural mechanisms -- the cell’s cilia, the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting mechanism, and a few others --, that these things cannot be the product of blind natural selection but of intelligent design. Being a scientist, Behe does not speculate who the designer might be, but he simply states the factual, obvious evidence of its existence.
Behe’s analysis of the mechanism of the bacterial flagellum is highly revealing, and perhaps shocking to some readers. Figure 3-3 of the book (page 71) shows two detailed drawings of the mechanism that propels the flagellum. One of the graphics shows in great detail the filament, the hook, and the motor. By any standard, it is a very complicated piece of engineering.
To me in particular, however, Behe’s conclusion that the irreducible complexity of some apparently natural mechanisms must be the product of intelligent design did not come as a surprise. I remember that, when I was a high school student in Cuba in the mid-fifties, I saw a drawing of a bacteriophage virus in a biology book. After looking in detail the icosaedral head, the perfectly straight tail, and the tail fibers, the first thing that came to my mind -- at the time I was an avid reader of science fiction -- was that it could not be a natural thing, but a machine created by a highly developed technology.
When I saw the drawings of the flagellum’s mechanism in Behe’s book, I immediately remembered the virus, but now the explanation that came to my mind was that is was a product of nanotechnology. Surprisingly, the word nanotechnology does not appear in the book’s index, and I did not find it in the parts of the book I read -- following the author’s wise advice, I skipped some of the very technical parts of the book.
This book should be mandatory reading for any person interested in science in general and Darwinian evolution in particular. Behe has given a devastating blow to the evolution myth. Moreover, it is particularly revealing that, as he explains in the Afterword, in the ten years since the first book was written, the Darwinists have been unable to provide scientific proof of his alleged mistakes.
Unfortunately, the main merit of Darwin’s Black Box is also its main flaw. Using scientific arguments to uncover the lies of a bunch of unscrupulous, opportunistic liars and disinformers passing as scientists is self-defeating. The fact is acknowledged by Behe himself in the Afterword, where he states, “All sciences begin with speculation; only Darwinism ends with it.” Fighting Darwinism and evolution from the point of view of science gives the Darwinists a dignified status they don’t deserve.
During the San Fermin festival in Pamplona, Spain, a few fighting bulls are set out free to run along the streets of the old city quarter on their way to the bull ring. As it has become a tradition since 1924, a group of daredevils run in front of the bulls. As their only protection, the runners are allowed to carry a rolled-up newspaper to fend off the bulls. If one of the bulls comes too close to a runner, he throws the newspaper in another direction, and the bull follows the newspaper instead of the runner.
Using scientific arguments to show the errors of the supporters of evolution is like following the rolled-up newspaper, because evolution theory has absolutely nothing to do with science. Further proof that evolution theory is a myth is that, despite overwhelming evidence against Darwinism, the thinking of evolutionary biologists does not evolve, which makes me suspect that evolution theory itself may not be the product of the evolution of scientific thought, nor the product of intelligent design, but the product of intelligence design. Let’s explain myself in more detail.
In his treatise The Art of War, Sun Tzu states that all warfare is based on deception. In the case of psychological warfare operations, they are not simply based on deception; they are deception.
In the Afterword to this edition, Behe himself recognizes the futility of his effort to stop the spread of the Darwinian evolution madness. According to him, hundreds of articles by known authors in the field have been published in the scientific and mainstream press in a concerted effort to discredit his arguments. A book by one of his fiercest detractors was warmly endorsed by the Natural Academy of Sciences.
Being an ethical scientist, Behe carefully avoids the used of the dreaded ad hominem arguments, and always treat his colleagues, even his most unethical detractors, with extreme respect. However, since this article is not written from a scientific point of view, but from the point of view of intelligence and espionage, the ad hominem approach is not only necessary, but also mandatory. So, forget about the newspaper and let’s go for the Darwinist runners. I will begin by analyzing the supporters of evolution theory, who are they, who finances them, and who benefits with their theories.
Behe blames scientific chauvinism for the reluctance of evolutionary biologists to accept the irrefutable factual evidence of intelligent design in nature. He seems to forget, however, that among any group of human beings there is a percentage of opportunists, liars, dissemblers, and persons totally lacking in ethics, and scientists are not different from other groups of people.
To me, the first intriguing fact about evolution theory was discovering that there are biologists and evolutionary biologists. But, surprisingly, there are not anti-evolutionary biologists, not even non-evolutionary biologists -- at least not openly. The only observable, verifiable reason for this is that while forming part of the pro-evolution crowd brings recognition, promotions, and an uninterrupted flow of grants money, being anti-evolution only brings ostracism, blackballing and career stagnation.
A recent example of perishing by publishing anything disproving the Darwinian myth is the case of Guillermo Gonzalez (not related to this writer). Gonzalez, an Assistant Professor of astronomy at Iowa State University was denied tenure in 2007, despite his impressive academic achievements and the fact that in early 2004 his department nominated him for an “Early Achievement in Research” award for an outstanding record in research.
It is not a coincidence, however, that Gonzalez’s book The Privileged Planet, published in 2005, supports the intelligent design theory. Some of Gonzalez’s colleagues believe that intelligent design is nothing but “creationist pseudoscience” in disguise. Therefore, full of self-righteous indignation, they wrote letters (behind Gonzalez’s back) to the academic committee in charge of promotions expressing their misgivings against giving tenure rank to Gonzalez.
Scientists, like the rest of mortals, know which side the bread is buttered, and Gonzalez’s case is an obvious danger sign flashed to potential transgressors. So, if you are a biologist, and do not buy the evolution cockamamie, better stay in the closet -- a least until you get tenure. But, be careful. Even that could change in the near future.
So, what is an evolutionary biologist? An evolutionary biologist is basically an unprincipled, unethical, opportunistic, ambitious individual who is generously paid for spending his working hours looking for facts he can twist to look like evidence of evolution. The facts he cannot twist, he simply ignores.
As I mentioned above, the ascendance and eventual dominance of evolution theory to its current levels may not be the product of chance evolution, but of an intelligently designed exercise in deception. There is some circumstantial evidence indicating that Darwinian evolution, is actually a psychological warfare operation, of the type used by intelligence agencies all around the world, directed against the Judeo-Christian ethics, particularly the idea that human life is sacred because it is a gift given to us by a Creator.
Granted, the sacredness of human life is a religious, not a scientific concept. It is based on beliefs, not on facts. Most people would agree, however, that it has more socially redeeming value than the idea that life evolved from inanimate matter because of an accident in nature.
Behe mentions in his book the important fact that all scientific attempts to create life out of inanimate matter have ended in total failure -- perhaps with the exception of the Prague Golem, but he was an abomination unable to speak or feel but the basest emotions. Up to this moment, life on this planet has never been created, only transmitted.
It is known that the greatest mass murderers of the past century -- Fascist Hitler, and Communists Stalin and Mao -- were Darwinists. It is not surprising, then, to discover that the would be mega-murderers of this century, the ones who have openly mentioned their plans to kill no less than the 85 percent of the population of this planet -- give or take a few billions -- are also Darwinists. They are the ones who have been financing, through their non-profit foundations, the Darwinist machinery in schools, universities, research labs, and the academic and mainstream presses.
Since Darwinism became a tool of the eugenicists, the goal of its promoters has not been finding any type of scientific truth, but denying the existence of an intelligent design. By eliminating the main ethical obstacle against killing other human beings -- who, according to evolution theory are just evolved pieces of inanimate matter -- the most important moral obstacle for eugenics automatically disappears. Darwinism is a good moral justification for people planning to kill other people.
By today’s standards, Darwin was a reactionary individual. He believed that blacks were savages who had not evolved from primates to modern man. Most Darwinists, however, see themselves as progressive liberals, in sharp contrast with the reactionary conservatives who believe in creationism. According to the Darwinists, intelligent design is nothing but religious creationism under a different name.
But equating intelligent design with creationism is disingenuous. The fact that I am fully convinced that the Macintosh I am using to write this article is the product of intelligent design, not of chance evolution of a PC running on Windows, does not make me a creationist. Moreover, the image of god I visualized after peeking into the innards of this marvel of nanotechnological engineering we call a flagellum was not the biblical one, but more closer to a bunch of nerds dressed in lab coats.
Why, then, did the Darwinists keep saying that intelligent design is creationism in disguise when obviously it is not? It seems that, unable to find more twistable facts supporting their claims of evolutionary change, they have to resort to outright lies to confuse even more the already confused public.
But there is something even more difficult to explain: at the very bottom of the food chain bankrolling the Darwinists, one can always find several of the foundations who act as cover fronts for the most reactionary Wall Street banks, big oil, big pharma, and the military-industrial-academic complex. If nanotechnology is what we find inside Darwin’s black box, plenty of money provided by these foundations is what we find inside Darwinism’s green box.
Since the beginning of the past century, and thanks to the concerted efforts of the system of public education, the universities, the mainstream press and television, human beings have become more gullible, more docile, more easily controlled -- including the evolutionary biologists themselves.
Most of today’s victimizers have been the innocent victims of previous brainwashers. I would not discard the remote possibility that some evolutionary biologists sincerely believe their own lies. The ouroboros is an ancient alchemical symbol represented by a serpent biting its tail. The CIA calls the phenomenon blowback. It might also be called self-deception by intellectual inbreeding.
In his studies of cybernetic mechanisms Norbert Wiener discovered the importance of feedback, particularly negative feedback. Negative feedback is what keeps a ship on course and a particular field of science alive. But evolutionary biologists do not like negative feedback. Actually they fear it. No wonder the Darwinian ship crashed long time ago against a reef of facts and is sinking, though not as fast as it should.
On the other hand, I have to admit that, though Darwinian science is doing poorly, the Darwinian psy-op is working fine. When you control the system of public education, the universities, and the academic and mainstream press, as the Wall Street banks, big oil, big pharma, and the military-industrial-academic complex do, you can easily fool most of the people most of the time.
Just recently I discovered that Behe has written another book, The Edge of Evolution -- a sort of sequel to Darwin’s Black Box --, in which he is going to prove beyond any reasonable doubt the creationists’ error. Some early reviewers claim that this one is even better than Darwin’s Black Box. Even though I doubt it, for the sole reason that it is almost impossible to write two masterpieces in a single life, I advise the readers to read this new book.
I, for one, however, will not read The Edge of Evolution, because if I read it I would feel even more angry and frustrated by the impossibility of changing other people’s minds through facts, logic, and reasoning, particularly the minds of people like the Darwinists, who think that words are more important than facts.
As my grandfather used to say, don’t try to convince a mule unless you have a big stick in your hand.