Was Charles Darwin Psychotic? A Study of His Mental Health

[Christian Zionist]

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=112

Was Charles Darwin Psychotic? A Study of His Mental Health

Communism is based on the theory of evolution which denies any absoute power beyond human beings.  Beilef in evolution makes mankind to be not accountable to God for their wicked deeds.

[adam613]

Great post christianzionist. I have heard that too recently from Ann Coulter's book that Charles Darwin had some issues that seem to suggest he had an anti-g-d agenda that led him to his theory of evolution.

Here is one more book that has serious doubts about evolution.


The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design
by Jonathan Wells

In the 1925 Scopes trial, the American Civil Liberties Union sued to allow the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution in public schools. Seventy-five years later, in Kitzmiller v. Dover, the ACLU sued to prevent the teaching of an alternative to Darwin's theory known as "Intelligent Design" -- and won. Why did the ACLU turn from defending the free-speech rights of Darwinists to silencing their opponents? In The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., reveals that, for today's Darwinists, there may be no other choice: unable to fend off growing challenges from scientists, or to compete with rival theories better adapted to the latest evidence, Darwinism - like Marxism and Freudianism before it -- is simply unfit to survive.

Dr. Wells, a biologist and senior fellow at the esteemed Discovery Institute, begins by explaining the basic tenets of Darwinism, and the evidence both for and against it. He reveals, for instance, that the fossil record, which according to Darwin should be teeming with "transitional" fossils showing the development of one species to the next, so far hasn't produced a single incontestable example. On the other hand, certain well-documented aspects of the fossil record - such as the "Cambrian Explosion," in which innumerable new species suddenly appeared fully formed -- directly contradict Darwin's theory. Wells also shows how most of the other "evidence" for evolution -- including textbook "icons" such as Peppered Moths, Darwin's Finches, Haeckel's Embryos, and the Tree of Life -- has been exaggerated, distorted . . . and even faked.
Wells then turns to the theory of Intelligent Design (ID), the idea that some features of the natural world, such as the internal machinery of cells, are too "irreducibly complex" to have resulted from unguided natural processes alone. In clear-cut layman's language, he reveals the growing evidence for ID coming out of scientific specialties from microbiology to astrophysics. And he explains why, since ID is not based on the Bible or religious doctrines, and doesn't draw any conclusions about who (or what) is the cause of design in nature, it is not a form of Biblical creationism or natural theology.

But religion does play a role in the debate over Darwin -- though not the way evolutionists claim. Wells (who holds doctorates in biology and theology) shows how Darwin reasoned that evolution is true because divine Creation "must" be false -- a theological assumption oddly out of place in a scientific debate. In other words, Darwinists' materialistic, atheistic assumptions rule out any theories but their own, and account for their willingness to explain away the evidence -- or lack of it. (This hostility to religion may also explain the appeal of Darwinism, which from Darwin's day down to our own been used to justify radical changes in moral norms in areas such as eugenics, abortion, and -- in the case of Nazi Germany -- even racial extermination.) Finally, Wells details how Darwinists have succeeded in imposing a government-supported monopoly on the biological sciences in this country -- and how opponents of Darwinism are being driven from their careers by Darwinist heresy-hunters.


-The collapsing case for Darwinism -- and the mounting case for Intelligent Design

-How, though Darwin is often credited with citing "overwhelming evidence" for his theory of natural selection, all he actually provided was "one or two imaginary illustrations" of how it might work

-Why many of Darwin's contemporaries regarded the same data he cited as evidence, not of common ancestry, but of common design

-One pro-Darwin science writer who candidly admits that the chain of fossil ancestry is "a completely human invention created after the fact"

-How, despite centuries of artificial breeding and decades of experiments, no one has ever observed one species turn into another ("speciation")

-Why most alleged instances of "observed" speciation are actually analyses of already existing species that show how speciation might occur -- but never that it has

-Darwin vs. Darwin: how he conceded that his theory was contradicted by known evidence (or lack thereof), though he hoped later findings would vindicate him - which still hasn't occurred after 150 years

-How Darwin's "strongest single class of facts" -- the early vertebrate embryos -- shows the opposite of what he thought it showed

-The Cambrian Explosion -- aka biology's "Big Bang": how it contradicts Darwin's branching "Tree of Life"

-Word games Darwinists play (example: exploiting the diverse meanings of "evolution" to distract critics)

-How science textbooks continue to feature "evidence" for Darwinism that has long since been proven fraudulent

-"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution," one Darwinist claims. Then why were most major biological disciplines founded either before Darwin, or by scientists who rejected his theory?

-Why the clinical practice of medicine has no use for Darwinism, despite claims that it is impossible to practice medicine without applying its principles

-Evolutionary biologist: "Perhaps it would be easier, and in the long run more productive, to abandon the attempt to force the data . . . into the mold provided by Darwin"

-Modern microbiologist: "Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another"

-National Academy of Sciences member: "Darwin's theory ... serves no important role in guiding modern experimental biology. That branch of science simply makes no practical use of Darwin's theory"

-How Darwin's theory provided the pseudoscientific foundation for the Nazis' racial extermination policies

-How Haeckel's famous faked embryo drawings were widely used to promote abortion in late twentieth-century America by convincing people that human embryos were little more than fish

-How the most common definition of Intelligent Design in the news media is flatly incorrect

-How living cells -- which Darwin thought were mere blobs of protoplasm -- actually consist of countless molecular machines that have all the hallmarks of design

-How design can be inferred not only in living things but also in various features of the cosmos, such as gravity

-How the Earth itself seems uniquely designed not only for life, but also for scientific observation

-How Darwin changed the definition of "science" itself to mean providing materialistic explanations for everything

-How Darwinism is widely used in public education to discredit traditional Christianity and promote atheism

-How Darwinists have openly declared that they will destroy the careers of professors and students who criticize them or defend intelligent design -- and they're doing it

[Christian Zionist]

Thanks Adam for the compliment.

I think to say that we should not take the Biblical account of Creation literally is a flawed logic.  That is compromising with the critics which opens a can of worms.  For example some people might argue that we should not take the following Biblical accounts literally:

* God's promise to Abraham, Issac and Jacob.
* God doing miracles using Moses (10 plagues and other miracles).
* The 12 twelve tribes of Israel coming out of Egypt to inherit Canaan.
* Jericho walls crumbling.
* Supernatural power in the Ark of the Covenant.
* Prophet Elijah taken to Heaven in fiery chariots and many other Biblical incidents.

[MassuhDGoodName]

IT IS 100% WRONG TO DEMONIZE THE GREATEST MINDS IN HISTORY SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES AND TO WRITE BOOKS EXPRESSING THEIR THOUGHTS.

CHANCES ARE, THAT NONE OF YOU WHO HERE ARE CRITICIZING CHARLES DARWIN HAVE EVER ACTUALLY READ HIS WORKS COVER TO COVER (AND THAT INCLUDES ANN COULTER, WHO IS A PHONY SELF-AGGRANDIZING FRAUD OF LIMITED INTELLECT AND EQUALLY LIMITED KNOWLEDGE OF BOTH HISTORY AND ALSO POLITICS).

FIRST OF ALL, DARWIN DID NOT THEORIZE THAT LIVING BEINGS EVOLVED INTO THEIR PRESENT STATE FROM LESSER EVOLVED LIFE FORMS.  THIS IS A COMMONLY HELD TOTAL MISCONCEPTION.

DARWIN STATED THAT THERE IS STRONG EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE FOLLOWING HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE OCCURS REGULARLY IN NATURE:
A VOLCANO ERUPTS, SPEWING THICK ASH MILES HIGH, THE CLOUD ENCIRCLING THE EARTH, REMAINING AND CREATING AN "ARTIFICIAL DARKNESS WITH COOLER TEMPERATURES" [this has occurred  many times in history].  THE MOTHS NORMALLY EATEN BY BIRDS IN AN AREA VARY IN PIGMENTATION...THE LIGHT COLORED MOTHS BEING THE FAVORITE PREY OF BIRDS DUE TO THEIR EASY VISIBILITY.  BECAUSE OF THE VOLCANIC CLOUD, LIGHTLY COLORED MOTHS BECOME AS DIFFICULT TO SPOT AS THEIR DARKER COLORED RELATIVES.  RESULT:  THE GENES CARRYING THE LIGHTER COLORATION ARE ABLE TO REPRODUCE AND BE PASSED ON AND COMBINE WITH OTHER GENES OF LIGHT COLORATION AS WELL AS WITH THE GENES OF DARK COLORATION.  RESULT:  A MEASURABLE CHANGE IN THE EVENTUAL GENETIC LINE INCLUDING THE STRENGTHENING OF THE LIGHT COLORED MOTHS' GENETICS...SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS LATER, WHAT REMAINS MAY BE A SOMEWHAT "EVOLVED" SPECIES WITH CHARACTERISTICS MORE SUITED FOR SURVIVAL.

THE EXAMPLE ABOVE IS WHAT DARWIN CONCLUDED ABOUT LIFE ON THIS PLANET.  HE NEVER ONCE STATED THAT MEN EVOLVED FROM APES, OR ANY SUCH THING.

HE WAS A GREAT SCIENTIST AND A GREAT MIND...AS OPPOSED TO ANN COULTER WHO IS AN OBNOXIOUS LOUD MOUTH MAKING MONEY BY APPEALING TO IGNORAMUSES.

KARL MARX WAS ANOTHER GREAT WORLD THINKER.  THE FOOLS TODAY WHO USE HIS NAME TO CLAIM THEY ARE "MARXIST-LENINISTS" AND "MAOISTS", ETC... OBVIOUSLY NEVER READ A SINGLE WORD WHICH HE WROTE.

IS IT WRONG TO BLAME JESUS PERSONALLY FOR THE MISUSE AND MISUNDERSTANDING OF HIS TEACHINGS?
ONCE AGAIN, THOROUGH KNOWLEDGE OF THE "NEW TESTAMENT" PROVES CONCLUSIVELY THAT MOST WHO CLAIM TO FOLLOW JESUS NEVER ONCE TOOK THE TIME TO READ THE BOOK WHICH CONTAINS HIS THOUGHTS AND WORDS.

I, MASSUHDGOODNAME, WROTE ALL OF THE ABOVE AND STAND BEHIND WHAT I WRITE.  I DARE ANY OF YOU TO BACK UP YOUR RIDICULOUS STATEMENTS ABOUT "EVOLUTION", ETC... WITH DOCUMENTED ACTUAL QUOTES OF DARWIN, ETC.... .  AS FOR DARWIN'S MENTAL STATE, I PERSONALLY NEVER MET THE MAN, BUT I HAVE PERSONALLY CORRESPONDED WITH ANN COULTER IN THE PAST, AND I CAN ASSURE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU THAT SHE'S ABSOLUTELY NOT PLAYING WITH A FULL DECK.

[Christian Zionist]

MassuhD, I am surprised to read the contents of your post. 

Okay there are arguments and counter arguments, but just think about the bad social effects of evolution.

All God hating atheists fervently believe in evolution.  The belief in evolution dissuaded millions from their faith and gave birth to evil philosophies like communism.  Liberals use evolution to drive God out of school.   

Darwin was not a great mind.  He was a pervert.  Do you think Darwin is in heaven? 

Think about the millions of people killed by communism.  Do you think they would have murdered countless people if they had believed in the Bible.  Come on MassuhD!  Let us put things in perspective.

Bible was given by Jews to the world and I believe some of the Jews in this forum could very well be direct descendents of the writers of the Bible.   For me as a gentile, I have no problem in taking the account of Creation literally.   How did Darwin become more reliable than the God of the Bible? 

Darwin had a reprobate mind and Moses walked and talked with Almighty God and got the Torah as a revelation.  God spoke with Moses face to face.  How can a Jew or Christian who want to worship the true God dare to think that Darwin might be true.  It is an insult to our Creator.

[wonderfulgoy]

Most evolutionary theories are like works of science fiction ... Darwin wrote in his conclusion to 'Origin of Species' that mankind as it is presently constituted would eventually die out and some 'favourably mutated' alternative species would inherit the planet.  That would kind of render the Torah null and void IF IT WERE TRUE.

But those with any sense know that human beings, as we see them today, are the high point of G-d's good creation.

[Rhuan]

I personally think that evolution can potentially fit in with the story in genesis. Wether it is the truth or not, I do not know.

[Zionist Revolutionary]

It appears that MassuhDGoodName was hacked or something.

Likely by a Muslim/Affirmative-Action Ape/White Liberal who wanted to ruin his name.  His above post was nonsensical, it is simply redundant to respond to any of the points "Massuh" typed.

I call into question that he actually wrote this.  I think he was hacked, or someone found his password or something.

[davkakach]

Evolution is a fact.  Creation evolves.  Plants, animals and human beings evolve physically, and a few human beings also evolve spiritually.  The difference between us and the leftists and atheist scientists is that we believe that the cause for this evolution is G-d, whereas the atheists attribute it to random mutations, the majority of which are inferior and get weeded out in a survival of the fittest-kind of reality.  They see Creation as still chaotic, whereas we see divine purpose in our lives and in everything that surrounds us, and we know that chaos was done away with on the first day of Creation (whether you treat "day" as a literal day, or like me, you treat it as a certain period of time).

[adam613]

>Evolution is a fact.

Then why is it called the theory of evolution. Even the one's that support evolution call it a "theory".

>Creation evolves.

Davkakach, there are serious scientists that disagree that many functions of our body could not have "evolved". . And to just mold any new discovery as WELL THAT ALSO IS EVOLUTION is intellectually dishonest. Here is a chemist who disagree's who wrote a book called "Darwin's Black Box".

Ten years ago, Darwinists could credibly boast that no "serious" scientist took issue with Darwin's theory of evolution. Then came biochemist Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box -- and everything changed. Drawing on cutting-edge discoveries in biochemistry, Dr. Behe revealed that life at the molecular level exhibits unmistakeable evidence of design, beyond Darwinian randomness. Using the examples of vision, bloodclotting, cellular transport, and more, he showed how the biochemical world comprises an arsenal of chemical machines with so many finely calibrated, interdependent parts as to be "irreducibly complex" -- meaning that they cannot have evolved by stages, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part would be completely nonfunctional

Now, Darwin's Black Box has been reissued in a Tenth-Anniversary Edition with an all-new afterword in which Behe explains that the complexity discovered by microbiologists has dramatically increased since the book was first published -- and that the evolutionists have had no success in explaining it.

[davkakach]

By evolution I mean that certain species of animals appeared before others.  I treat "evolution" as a chronology of appearances of species, and I don't care about theories which try to explain how and why.  Even if man descended from apes (which is not entirely unreasonable, considering certain "members" of our society), the change was divinely inspired.

I should probably use the word "chronology" instead of "evolution"...

[adam613]

>By evolution I mean that certain species of animals appeared before others. 

Uh-huh. Like I said you will twist evolution to mean whatever you want it to me even though it is not what darwin or the other so called scientists who support evolution said. You seem to want it both ways davkakach. I don't mind a heated discussion but I don't like you avoiding the issues I brought up in my last post in which certain complexity in many parts of the human body "disagree" with the theory of evolution and by you "changing" the definition of evolution to fit your tastes to ignore the issue's brought up in the last post. 

[davkakach]

>By evolution I mean that certain species of animals appeared before others. 

Uh-huh. Like I said you will twist evolution to mean whatever you want it to me even though it is not what darwin or the other so called scientists who support evolution said. You seem to want it both ways davkakach. I don't mind a heated discussion but I don't like you avoiding the issues I brought up in my last post in which certain complexity in many parts of the human body "disagree" with the theory of evolution and by you "changing" the definition of evolution to fit your tastes to ignore the issue's brought up in the last post. 

There are bigger issues facing the Jewish people right now.

[Christian Zionist]

Evolution is a fact.  Creation evolves.  Plants, animals and human beings evolve physically, and a few human beings also evolve spiritually.  The difference between us and the leftists and atheist scientists is that we believe that the cause for this evolution is G-d, whereas the atheists attribute it to random mutations, the majority of which are inferior and get weeded out in a survival of the fittest-kind of reality.  They see Creation as still chaotic, whereas we see divine purpose in our lives and in everything that surrounds us, and we know that chaos was done away with on the first day of Creation (whether you treat "day" as a literal day, or like me, you treat it as a certain period of time).

Evolution is a fact?

When did some one see that happenning?  Why evolution is not happenning now?

Evolution theory makes God of the Bible a liar!

G-d created man but he made animals.  Creating is spiritual when G-d breathed His life into Adam's nostrils and he became a living creature!  Creation is making something which did not exist before!  Making is making out of something which was already existing like making a furniture out of forest woods.  Only man was created in His image but animals were not!

Evolutionists say that man is just another animal because we have evolved from other animals. The Bible says that man is specially created in the image of G-d to have dominion over the animals. Little is discussed about the differences betwen man and animals. Consider these differences:

1. Only man can benefit from accumulated knowledge passed on to the next generation as history.

2. Only man is religious.

3. Only man has an innate sense of morality, of right and wrong, of violated conscience.

4. Only man makes and uses fire and tools.

5. Only man produces art.

6. Men sing, apes don't.

7. Only man communicate abstract thoughts in sentences, writes, invents and composes.

8. Only man conceptualises eternity.

9. Only man surrounds death with ceremony and funerals.

10. Man is unique physically, biochemically, neurologically and posturely with an upright heel-toe walk.

Why mankind is not evolving now from animals?    Evolution really stinks and there are too many missing links!


The following Tanak verses would become a lie if evolution is true!

Sixteen Bible passages say that G-d created life on earth:

1. "In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth". Genesis 1:1

2. "So G-d created man in his own image, ... male and female". Genesis 1:27

3. "The Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created ..." Genesis 6:7

4. "The day that G-d created man upon the earth". Deuteronomy 4:32

5. "Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might ....." Isaiah 40:26

6. "Hast thou not known? Hast thou not heard, that the everlasting G-d, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? There is no searching of his understanding." Isaiah 40:28

7. "I have created him (humans) for my glory". Isaiah 43:7

8. "I have made the earth, and created man upon it". Isaiah 45:12

9. "Hath not one G-d created us?" Malachi 2:10