The Fallacy Of Darwin’s Thinking Pattern

A primary individual who deeply affected the thinking pattern of scientist into our own time, as well as future political agenda, was Charles Darwin. There is no doubt on part of this author, that the logic presented inside this work will be questioned, if not outright condemned along the lines of Darwinism’s well established rapport inside scientific research universities and circles. As a result of our anticipation in the approach destined to be taken by our adversaries, we are forced to ask the ever prevailing question of “who,” who was Darwin? To be more precise, though not intending to interject any element of sarcasm; who was Darwin to ever question any line of thinking that liberated intellectuals may deductively determine for themselves?

Charles Darwin was born in Shrewsbury, England, on the twelfth of February 1809, at his family home, called The Mount. He was child number five of doctor and wealthy financier, Robert Darwin, and his wife Suzanne Darwin. He was the grandson of two prominent abolitionists; Erasmus Darwin and Josiah Wedgwood.

Both families were Unitarian, where Charles attended the Unitarian Chapel with his mother. To grasp more of a lever on our comprehension and for the purpose of understanding the impact of its potential influence, we are forced to examine the ideology of the Unitarian.

The ideology of Unitarianism is that the concept of God as one being, rather than three, was accepted to be held up as an epitome. This view differed markedly from the general ideology of Catholicism, which endorses the holy trinity, of God in the Father, The son, and The Holy Ghost. Christ is perceived as being human, rather than divine. They believe that Christ in his moral instruction, was inspired by God, so therefore he qualifies as savior, but is not God himself.

From a quick scan in regard to the background of Charles Darwin, we can glean information indicating that Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus, had already proposed ideas of evolution inside his medical journals, which young Charles in company with his father, had avidly read. He also spent time helping his father give medical treatment to the poor of Shropshire, England. He attended the University Of Edinburgh Medical School, maybe the most prestigious Medical School in Great Britain at the time, with his brother, Erasmus, but he found surgery disgusting and his studies boring. Instead, he seems to have preferred spending time in the company of an ex-slave named John Edmonstone, studying taxidermy for one hour a day, in what became a forty day stint.

It has been purported that Edmonstone had been born in Guyana, South America, where he moved to Glasgow with his master, Charles Edminstone. Edmonstone, the slave, taught taxidermy to a number of students, including young Charles Darwin. Edmonstone has also accompanied Charles Waterton ¹, whom he had learned taxidermy from, in the South American rain forests. It appears that Edmonstone and Darwin spent much time conversing in regard to the large variety in animal and plant life found there; as may deduced from the later actions of Darwin, and his own time spent in Galapagos.

Other than the fact that Darwin originated from those who had a life founded inside privilege and wealth, had a grandfather who had conceived the ideology of evolution and was a well respected advocate, was raised by family who held religious views that were in dissension from the standards of their day, and disliked surgery, preferring to study taxidermy over engaging in the act of surgery; what else of importance to our claims of prejudice and fallacy locked away deeply inside the mind of Darwin, was it that highly influenced his later conclusion regarding any origin of life species?

We must delve deeply in our studies to identify the threads of solid prejudice. Already we have notated a dissension with the established church as being the environment in which Darwin was raised up. We may have no problem in accepting that he overheard both of his grandparents and his own parents making personal, condescending remarks in regard to the established church and it’s shortcomings; maybe even going as far as to openly criticize the idea of holy trinity in privacy of the family home. Our response to the statements already concluded upon, lending us the question that we are forced to ask in reply to what has already been stated is; simply “yes” to what has already been said, but was there more that held a solid direct bearing on young Darwin’s influence?

It appears that there may well have been a personal prejudice against not only church ideology, but even the central theme of the ideology itself. In simple terms, what we are seeking to answer is the question of whether or not Charles Darwin was an outright atheist, or something very close to it in his personal convictions; and if he was, in reality were his published conclusions a veiled attempt to destroy the validity of a supreme being from beyond influencing the development of life here on earth, and in doing so even the very foundation of the church itself?

When we dare to question appropriately, and subsequently back this questionnaire up with solid investigation, the truth always reveals itself. His father, Robert Darwin², was a member of the Freethinker Society of England. When we examine the issue of this society, what we may conclude is that the platform of this association, was one that primarily held in disregard the idea of any supernatural body, or the possibility for it. Matter of fact, part of their theology even declared such beliefs to be “dangerous.” Examine this clip from Wikipedia:

A free thinker is defined as a person who forms his or her own opinions about important subjects (such as religion and politics) instead of accepting what others say. Freethinkers are heavily committed to the use of scientific inquiry, and logic. The skeptical application of science implies freedom from the intellectually limiting effects of confirmation bias, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, or sectarianism.

Regarding religion, freethinkers often hold that there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of supernatural phenomena. According to the Freedom from Religion Foundation, “No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah. To the freethinker, revelation and faith are invalid, and orthodoxy is no guarantee of truth.” and “Freethinkers are convinced that religious claims have not withstood the tests of reason. Not only is there nothing to be gained by believing an untruth, but there is everything to lose when we sacrifice the indispensable tool of reason on the altar of superstition. Most freethinkers consider religion to be not only untrue, but harmful.”



-By H.L. Dowless