God, Man and Animals: An Examination of Darwinism

Louis Egbe Mbua

The survival of the fittest ideology or theology or both, invented by Charles Darwin 150 years ago, continues to cause consternation and disbelief within the ranks of commonsensical wisdom lovers. While a vast number of scientific thinkers have drifted into this mode of thought, in this day and age, a new wave of debate is raging: challenging the validity of Darwin's theories. The most contentious issue is that Darwin himself did not actually propound or did not know or both: that an animal cannot transform itself into a human being without the prompting of another living being but that there were natural varieties amongst the same specie. Thus, over the last two centuries, the new faith of evolution appeared to have won the battle against those who believed that man and animal were created by God; and that they were created separately according to their kinds on the same 24-hour day. When Darwin published his highly controversial book " The Origin of Species" in 1859, he was immediately challenged by his tutors at Cambridge and other eminent scientists of the day. His Geology tutor, Adam Segwick, at Cambridge wrote to him:

"I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly; parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow; because I think them utterly false & grievously mischievous -- You have deserted -- after a start in that tram road of all solid physical truth -- the true method of induction -- & started up a machinery as wild I think as Bishop Wilkins Locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based on assumptions which can neither be proved or disproved"

Objectively, it appears that Adam Segwick was overwhelmingly right in his fierce scepticism and outright denunciation of Darwin's unorthodox scientific methods. On closer examination, we realise that Segwick went further to deride Bishop Wilkins "Locomotive to the moon". Since we know that Niel Armstrong has actually sailed to the moon with a rocket in 1969, 110 years after Segwick's fearsome attack, we may argue today that Bishop Wilkins was a visionary; and was correct to suggest such an idea.

However, the difference here is that Segwick was criticising Darwin's method of induction and not the idea of "origin of species" or "sailing to the moon". Furthermore, he was more interested in practical proofs than theory. It follows that the fundamental difference in views, I believe, between Bishop Wilkins and Darwin is that, at least we can actually see the presence of the physical moon; but nobody had or has ever seen an animal evolving into a human. This is because the art of procreation for humans and animals is clear: the mating of male and female; and then the combined fertilisation of the same specie to produce the progeny.

Since this process continues to exist today, we have no alternative but to believe that this is the origin of species; and not a product of accidental evolution. A lion can only find another lion of the opposite sex attractive to procreate. As a result, the entire evolutionary theory of man evolving from animals is fraudulent because this implies that animals and humans have wilfully and naturally mated together at one point in time. This is not happening today; so we must agree that it has never happened in nature. Now, suppose we assume that this most unlikely of events happened. The question is this: why has this act stopped and at what precise time did this most unlikely act stop? As long as these questions cannot be or have not been answered by evolution faithfuls, then the theory appears to fit the egos of the thoroughly irreligious or the religiously misplaced depending on one's philosophical point of argument.