By October 24, 2013 32 Comments Read More →

Huge Contradictions in ‘Scientific’ Thinking Revealed: Theory of Evolution in No Way Explains Origins of Life

WIKI_USIM_-_Science_LabMike Adams, Natural News
Waking Times

Ask any scientist where life on our planet came from, and they’ll usually give you a one-word answer: “Evolution.” Immediately thereafter, they will usually give you a condescending look that also implies you’re an idiot for not knowing this “scientific fact” that everyone else has accepted as true.

It turns out, however, that the scientist is suffering from a delusion. Evolution doesn’t even encompass origins of life. Rather, evolution (i.e. “natural selection”) explains a process by which species undergo a process of adaptation, fitness and reproduction in response to environmental, behavioral and sexual influences. No rational person can deny that natural selection is ever-present and happening right now across bacteria, plants, animals and even humans, yet natural selection can only function on pre-existing life forms. It does not give rise to non-existent life.

Darwin, in other words, did not study the “reproduction of rocks” because there is no such thing. He studied animals which were already alive.

Thus, the “Theory of Evolution” utterly fails to address the ORIGIN of where the first life forms came from. How did natural selection have anything to work on in the first place? You can’t “evolve” life forms from dead rocks, after all… unless the evolutionists are now embracing the theory of spontaneous resurrection of dead objects into living organisms.

So the question remains: Where did life ORIGINATE?

Evolutionists prefer to skip over that all-important question. So let us pick up their slack and explore this subject with honest skepticism.

Evolution as a theory of the origin of life is a FAITH, not science

According to scientists, you can never argue with scientists because they uniquely have a monopoly on all knowledge. Their beliefs can never be questioned because they are beyond any need to be validated. “Scientific truth” is true because they say it is, and the faith-based belief that evolution explains the origins of life cannot be questioned either.

Yet question it we will! So let’s see how this goes: The entire cosmos starts out as an unimaginably dense point that explodes in an event cosmologists call the Big Bang. All the physical matter we know today has its origins in that event, yet, importantly, there was no life in the Big Bang. No biological organism could have possibly survived Inflation, for starters. And before Inflation, the density of matter would have crushed anything resembling biological life.

According to physicists, the Big Bang itself followed no pre-existing laws of the cosmos. In fact, all physical laws that we know of — gravity, electromagnetism, etc. — came out of the Big Bang. Even the very fabric of reality was created by it (space and time).

The Big Bang is the faith-based miracle of modern science. “Give me one miracle,” they’re fond of saying, “and we can explain everything that follows.”

Except the miracle of the Big Bang itself goes entirely unexplained. How could everything suddenly come from nothing? How could an entire universe come into existence without a cause? These questions are routinely ignored. Instead, we are told that we should believe in the Big Bang as a matter of faith and trust that it is the only exception to the laws of the universe. This is, of course, a matter of faith, not fact.

And what about the origins of life in all this? Today, supposedly 13.8 billion years later, we see life all around us. Logically, somewhere between the Big Bang — where no life existed — and today, life must have appeared.

But how?

Scientists believe in magic

Again, if you ask most scientists about the origins of life, they will blindly and dutifully answer “evolution!” Yet without life already existing, there is nothing to evolve. So where did LIFE come from?

Ultimately, the answer given by scientists is that life spontaneously sprang from lifelessness. Seriously, that’s their real answer. They have more technical-sounding names for it, and there are hundreds of books written on various theories that might explain it, but ultimately, scientists believe in magic. Because “magic” is the only way you can really explain life rising from lifelessness.

So evolution really doesn’t explain the origins of life after all. Magic does. Life arose from lifelessness in exactly the same way the Big Bang suddenly happened without cause: it’s all done by magic! (I guess that makes two miracles, not one, but who’s counting?)

All of a sudden, the idea of a Creator who seeded the Big Bang or seeded the universe with life seems a lot less whacky than the “magical” explanations of many conventional scientists. It is far more feasible that our universe was created by an omniscient, highly-advanced consciousness than it somehow springing into existence for no reason whatsoever.

Atheism, soullessness and permanent death

Conventional scientists, of course, will go through tremendous contortions to try to remove any idea of a designer, engineer or Creator from their worldview. That’s because nearly all of them are devout atheists who also disavow any belief in consciousness, free will, the soul, God or spirituality. According to their own explanations, they themselves are mindless biological robots suffering from the mere delusion of mind created as a kind of artificial projection of mechanistic biological brain function.

See my mini-documentary “The God Within” for a more detailed exploration of this:

The twisted philosophy of many scientists also raises bizarre ethical lapses, such as their belief that killing a lab rat, or a dog, or even another human being is of no ethical consequence since all those creatures are not actually “alive” in any real way. This is why drug companies, vaccine manufacturers and science in general feels no remorse for conducting deadly experiments on children, blacks, prisoners or minorities.

The worst trait of conventional scientists is not merely that they are wildly self-deluded into believing they have no real consciousness; it’s actually the fact that they are simultaneously wildly arrogant, even combative about forcing their twisted beliefs onto others.

Their faith-based beliefs are always described as “facts” while they proclaim other people’s beliefs are “delusions.” You cannot argue with any group of people who are wholly convinced their beliefs are facts because any critical thinking you might invoke is automatically and routinely rejected as a matter of irrational defense.

The vaccine faith test

As an example of this, ask any doctor or pharmacist this question: “Is there such thing as an unsafe vaccine?

The answer you will be told is a condescending “No!” In the faith-based beliefs of the scientific status quo, no vaccine can ever be harmful by definition. Vaccines are beyond questioning in their belief system, and so the very question of asking if a vaccine could possibly be anything less than 100% safe doesn’t compute. It contradicts their faith, in other words.

It’s like asking a devout Christian whether there might be no God. The question is so contradictory to their belief system that it cannot be processed.

You can test this further by asking a vaccine-pushing doctor, “Is there anything that could be added to a vaccine that would make it unsafe?”

After careful thought, an honest doctor might answer, “Well, sure, there are all sorts of toxins that could be added to a vaccine that would make it unsafe.”

Ask them to name some examples. Sooner or later, they should stumble onto the self-evident answer of “mercury,” a deadly neurotoxin which remains present in many modern vaccines.

Ask the doctor, “Has any safe level of mercury ever been established for injection into a child?”

The answer, of course, is no. Logically, no vaccine containing mercury can be considered “safe” regardless of the level of mercury it contains. Thus, by merely asking a few direct questions, you can easily get an honest doctor to shatter their own false belief about vaccines — a belief based on the faith-driven delusion that there is no such thing as an unsafe vaccine (no matter what it contains).

If, at any point in this questioning process, you get stonewalled by this person, recognize they are abandoning reason and reverting to their faith in “Scientism.” Scientism is a system of belief in which all creations of pharmaceutical companies, biotech companies and chemical companies are automatically assumed to hold God-like status. They are beyond questioning. They are supreme. They can never be questioned or even validated. In fact, no validated is required nor even desired. Who needs to validate “facts” anyway? Everyone already knows they are true, right?

All drugs are assumed to be safe and effective unless proven otherwise. This is why doctors warn patients that their dietary supplements are “interfering with their medications” and not the other way around. The drugs are assumed to have originated from a higher order, as if they emanate from a place of sacred, divine status: Big Pharma!

Many scientists are incapable of recognizing their own logical fallacies

Many scientists, sadly, do not grasp the chasms in their own belief systems. They are incapable of realizing that many of their own beliefs are based in a system of faith rather than a system of rational thought.

When scientists talk about evolution, they do so from an all-encompassing arrogance that assumes they are correct by default. Anyone daring to debate with them must prove they are wrong, yet they themselves have no obligation to prove they are right. The faith of Scientism requires no proof, only faith. It is assumed correct as a key principle of the religion of Scientism.

This is not unusual in religions. Christianity, for example, assumes God exists and does not need to “prove” it. His existence is accepted as a matter of faith. This is neither right nor wrong; it is characteristic of a belief system that science claims to reject. Yet science follows the exact same pattern.

Even the theory of natural selection based on purely mechanistic genetic inheritance contains enormous gaps in logic and is therefore a matter of faith. For starters, there isn’t enough data storage in the human genome to fully describe the physical and behavioral inheritance of a human being. The massive failure of the Human Genome Project also comes to mind: Here’s a project that promised to solve the riddle of the origins of nearly all disease. Once the human genome was fully decoded, disease would be eliminated from humankind, we were all promised.

These promises are now little more than laughable examples of delusional thinking from a failed Scientism project that mostly yielded bankrupt biotech companies rather than miracle cures.

Most scientists believe all people are mindless robots

Another glaring contradiction among many scientists is their comedic belief that everyone else is a mindless biological robot except themselves! Yes, they alone have intelligent thought based on free will, inspiration and creativity. We should read their books alone, as their books came from original thoughts powered by unique minds.

Yet this very belief contradicts their entire view of everyone else. All “minds” are illusions, they claim, and there is no such thing as consciousness. If you believe what they say, then all the books written by Dawkins, Hawking or other devout Scientism worshippers are, according to their own claims, worthless drivel produced via an “automatic writing” process powered by mindless, soulless chemical reactions housed in a mechanistic mass of neurons floating in a skull. Their books, therefore, utterly lack all meaning and serve no purpose. The words they contain are merely “knee-jerk writings” from humanoid automatons.

How can consciousness have evolved if it serves no purpose?

And there’s another huge contradiction in the scientific community. Most conventional scientists claim that consciousness is an illusion which somehow arose out of natural selection so that individual members of a species could operate under the illusion of free will. Yet, at the same time, they claim this false “mind” has no actual impact on the real world because it is, by definition, an illusion.

So how can an illusory phenomenon drive natural selection and evolution if it has no impact on the real world?

This is a stinging contradiction demonstrating the false beliefs of the materialists (i.e. mainstream scientists). Given enough time and effort, I could name a hundred more obvious contradictions they shamelessly promote as “facts.”

In truth, many scientific “facts” all boil down to “beliefs.”

Today’s twisted “science” is just another kind of religion

Why am I covering all this here on Natural News? Because if we are to move forward as a civilization, we must transcend the silly belief that anything pursued under the flag of modern-day “science” is automatically and factually superior (perhaps even divine) to all other forms of understanding.

Any system of thought which cannot tolerate questions or challenges to its beliefs is no science at all.

For your amusement and explorations, some useful questions you can ask Scientism followers to quickly exposed their false beliefs include:

  • Is there such thing as an unsafe vaccine? Or are all vaccines automatically safe by definition?
  • Do you beat your dog? If animals have no souls and no consciousness, then do you agree it is of no ethical consequence to torture dolphins and elephants? What about primates? Cats? Neighbors?
  • If free will does not exist, then no one can be held responsible for their actions. All actions are, by definition, “automatic” and of no fault of the person because there cannot be any “choice” in an unconscious brain. If you believe this, then do you also support freeing all murderers and rapists from prison because they are not responsible for their actions? What purpose does punishment serve if violent criminals have no “choice” because they have no free will?
  • If the human genome doesn’t contain enough information to describe a complete human form, then how is inheritance purely mechanistic?
  • If consciousness is an illusion, by what mechanism does the brain create this illusion? And for what purpose? What evolutionary advantage could this serve if the “illusion of consciousness” cannot have any “real” impact on behavior? By definition, natural selection should de-emphasize useless brain functions. So how did consciousness survive for so long?
  • If natural selection can only function on pre-existing life forms, where did the first life come from? How did it arise? (Magic?)
  • What caused the Big Bang? If nothing caused it, how do you explain a universe governed by “laws” which, itself, sprang into existence by not following laws?
  • If the laws of the universe came into existence during the Big Bang, and if other parallel universes might have different constants governing variations of the physical laws we know and understand, how does our universe “remember” its selected laws? Can physical constants change? Can the speed of light change? Does it vary in a repeatable pattern?

… and so on. With questions like these, it is a simple matter to expose conventional Scientism believers as incompetent thinkers.

It’s time to dethrone the High Priests of Scientism

If we are to move forward as a civilization we must dethrone the high priests of Scientism and get back to a process of real science where questions are welcomed, humility is restored, and discovery, not arrogance, reigns supreme.

This is the process I embrace here at Natural News, and it is why millions of readers across the world now turn to Natural News instead of arrogant science publications like Scientific American, a faith-based Scientism magazine that now functions as little more than a corporate sellout propaganda “Bible” for believers. Any publication that says people should not know what’s in their food (GMO labeling) is, of course, not engaged in real science because real science is the pursuit of knowledge, not the burying of facts for corporate interests. No legitimate science would want the public to be denied knowledge.

Bottom line? Modern-day “science” is riddled with enormous contradictions and knowledge gaps. The most devout followers of this “science” define themselves as meaningless, mindless biological robots living out purposeless lives. They all believe that murder, rape and even child molestation have no ethical considerations whatsoever because no one is responsible for their own actions due to free will being “an illusion” as they explain it. Jerry Sandusky is ethically equivalent to Mother Theresa, according to the soulless beliefs of modern-day science.

These Scientism followers will never acknowledge any gaps in their own knowledge, as they believe they are uniquely gifted with a divine, irrefutable truth which cannot be questioned and need never be validated. No evidence is required to support their core faiths such as “mercury in dental fillings is harmless” or “chemotherapy saves lives.” All pronouncements of drug companies, biotech firms and chemical companies are automatically accepted as The Word of God in that they are all-knowing, all-powerful and never to be questioned.

To succeed as a civilization, we must collectively recognize the fallibility of this faith-based system of false belief and return to a process of true discovery that transcends the failures of modern-day science.

And don’t even get me started on the rise of killer robots and artificial intelligence. That’s another case where the arrogance and delusional thinking of modern-day science may quite literally result in the apocalyptic, permanent destruction of humankind.

For further reading for those who dare to question the false beliefs of Scientism

Essential knowledge for all:

Science Set Free: 10 New Paths to Discovery by Rupert Sheldrake

Supernormal: Science, Yoga, and the Evidence for Extraordinary Psychic Abilities by Dean Radin

Our Final Invention: Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era by James Barrat
About the Author

Mike Adams (aka the “Health Ranger“) is the founding editor of, the internet’s No. 1 natural health news website, now reaching 7 million unique readers a month.

With a background in science and software technology, Adams is the original founder of the email newsletter technology company known as Arial Software. Using his technical experience combined with his love for natural health, Adams developed and deployed the content management system currently driving He also engineered the high-level statistical algorithms that power, a massive research resource now featuring over 10 million scientific studies.

In addition to being the co-star of the popular GAIAM TV series called Secrets to Health, Adams is also the (non-paid) executive director of the non-profit Consumer Wellness Center (CWC), an organization that redirects 100% of its donations receipts to grant programs that teach children and women how to grow their own food or vastly improve their nutrition. Click here to see some of the CWC success stories.

In 2013, Adams created the Natural News Forensic Food Laboratory, a research lab that analyzes common foods and supplements, reporting the results to the public. He is well known for his incredibly popular consumer activism video blowing the lid on fake blueberries used throughout the food supply. He has also exposed “strange fibers” found in Chicken McNuggetsfake academic credentials of so-called health “gurus,” dangerous “detox” products imported as battery acid and sold for oral consumption, fake acai berry scams, the California raw milk raids, the vaccine research fraud revealed by industry whistleblowers and many other topics.

Adams has also helped defend the rights of home gardeners and protect the medical freedom rights of parents. Adams is widely recognized to have made a remarkable global impact on issues like GMOs, vaccines, nutrition therapies, human consciousness.

In addition to his activism, Adams is an accomplished musician who has released ten popular songs covering a variety of activism topics.

Click here to read a more detailed bio on Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, at

~~ Help Waking Times to raise the vibration by sharing this article with the buttons below…

  • Rachel Thompson

    The Theory of evolution never intended to discover or define the origins of life. It wasn’t on Darwin’s mind, what was, was how and why things change and that things do in fact change. That Species evolve is proven. Evolution is biology and the theory explains much. Without evolution, modern medical science would still be doing blood letting. The origins of life cannot be known via Darwin. It’s limited.Geology, physics and paleontology has a better chance of coming up with a model for origins, but even so, it would engage and interface with biological sciences. Franky, the idea is moot. The only reason to chase it is to prove god, and there is no evidence of god, so good luck with that.

    • bremmermandrake

      The first thing the doctors do is order blood test, Hello that is blood letting they examine the blood just like they use to, only with better equipment. Most of the lies told by science today is to make them look better true science has been around for thousands of years. Not like the crap they teach today.

  • Fred Pauser

    What a silly article!!! It is true that scientists do not know exactly how life came to be, but there is evidence for the Big Bang, and there is evidence for how physical matter evolved, and for how the earth came into existence, and we have knowledge of the physical qualities of the early earth just before life came to be. It’s a pretty strong logical hypothesis that the laws of nature caused the beginnings of rudimentary life on earth leading to the long process of biological evolution. Scientists are working on the steps by which life developed from the materials of the early earth. There is NO magic or faith involved!!

    Some scientists are religious, some are agnostic, some are atheists — Adams stupidly classifies all scientists as atheists. Science itself has nothing to do with religion one way or the other.
    Some scientists buy into the vaccine propaganda, and some are anti-vax.

    Some scientists belief life has purpose (Paul Davies) some believe life is purposeless (Richard Dawkins).

    To sum up his article, Adams seems to conclude that all science (at least in regard to evolution) is scientism. Ridiculous!

    I’ve seen some of Adams’ videos. He seems to be pretty intelligent. How could he write such CRAP?

  • Wokan Tonka

    You are a Heyoka yourself if you won’t put that comment on this page. Trying to prevent true light from being spread. This site and the people who run it are still inside the the square box. You are just as negative as all the other illusionist for preventing truth from being seen.

    You should be using eco friendly hosting from but instead you are just as evil as every other fuck and are contributing to the destruction of this planet, and preventing light from being spread. Much shame comes upon you from your elders!

  • Eddie

    All explanations are just explanations, neither science, religion nor anyone else has come up with an actual cause. If there was a god obviously that god would need a cause. Let’s just work with what we actually know and forget all theories. Fact is, we can make life something great, if we so choose. Conformity is the biggest barrier to real progress.

  • Chris

    This is Garbage!

    • Chris

      Furthermore I’m insulted as a free thinking man, that someone who claims to be enlightened in modern theories on the openness of ones mind would generalize and write with the eloquence of a high school teen.There is relentless generalizing, claiming that all scientists believe one way, and all religious folk believe another. The idea that this author, with no authentic credentials, has blown the lid off the scientific community is insulting to any intelligent person.

  • There are many folk who delight in rubbishing theories, both religious and scientific, non of which will be ever proven to the satisfaction of all…

  • susanne

    Guys see gravity driven universe by Roy Masters and learn how gravity is a push not a pull…it changes everything!

  • Chris

    What an awful article! Criticism and questioning is always healthy, but please do it in an intelligent way! This article is just a chaotic rant from an author venting opinions with no interest in seriously researching his subject. There is so many things wrong here! WOW!

    Science is not perfect, I give you that, but it has provided so much in our understanding of life and the universe…and yes, it’s not the only tool for understand reality neither. Just a few quick things: science doesn’t work by faith (even when some extremist scientists sound like that): it’s about constant inquire, experimentation, data collection, replication. It’s a model. It works. It’s limited too. Sometimes Dawkins gives science a bad name, in the same way Osho gives meditation a bad name (No intention to offend Osho’s followers: the guy said some interesting things here and there….just like Dawkins!)

    The origin of life from inorganic matter has been explained NOT by evolution, but by biopoiesis, which is basically: chemistry. Never heard of the Miller-Urey experiment in the 50’s?

    Science and atheism are not obligatory companions: actually I know many people in sciences with spiritual beliefs, including myself. I also know many extremely ethical and compassionate atheists. So please, don’t give this BS about ethics and atheism!

    There is science and there is science: our capacity to challenge GMO’s and the lousy science behind (supported by corporate greed)…guess what? it’s coming from scientists themselves!

    Natural selection is not “purely mechanistic genetic inheritance”: epigenetic mechanisms have been studied since the 1940s. If you are so desperate to go on your diatribe that natural selection haven’t been proved, read about the studies by Peter and Rosemary Grant on the Darwin Finches in the Galapagos. Just to name one example.

    I could go on for awhile, but the truth is…I have better things to do. If it’s not clear by now, I just want to express how disappointed I am with Waking Times by publishing such a terrible article!

    • Hi Chris,

      Sorry to disappoint. I’ve personally selected or written over 2,750 articles for this site, so please be forgiving if you don’t like one.

      Perhaps you might enjoy this one by Rupert Sheldrake…

      Highest Regards,

      _Dylan Charles, Editor

    • bizeditor84

      Chris’s comment reflects a knee-jerk reaction, not an informed response. First to note: The Miller-Urey Experiment did not by any measure show how living organisms could arise from inorganic matter. The Experiment showed that, under controlled conditions set by researchers, certain amino acids could result from electrical discharges in a specially created atmosphere. Amino acids are not life, they are not alive.

      Second: Chris asserts “natural selection” is not “purely mechanistic genetic inheritance” — but, of course, Mike Adams’ article didn’t say that. Go back and read it. Mike points out the undisputed fact that “natural selection” works upon organisms that are presented to the environment by the operation of genetics. Chris’s comment misses the mark entirely.

      Third: Chris asserts that “epigenetic mechanisms have been studied since the 1940s” — but so what? Epigenetic mechanisms do not refute genetics, they augment genetics.

      Finally: Chris refers to more study of finches on the Galapagos. The variations in the beaks and other features of finches on the Galapagos is not disputed — Mike’s article itself agrees that “natural selection” occurs. So raising the Galapagos finches issue adds nothing to the discussion.

      I found Mike’s article thought provoking.

    • Portia

      Awful to you only because it challenges your thought processes.

      The answers to all lie within not without among priests- men of god or science. Its only our failure to look within due to programming that has many confused.

    • bremmermandrake

      This article is over your head, it seams you lack comprehension by the way you describe what you just read, or are you one of the people who don’t read the whole story and just give your lock step opinion. Then the truth is proven by the attack of this article by the closed minded comments.

    • Rachel Thompson

      I have to agree 100%, well said. I’m atheist, but to your words above I say amen broher.

  • “The consciousness of a non-vegetarian is blocked — in many ways. He has been accumulating gross matter in himself. That gross matter functions as a barrier. That’s why all the three religions that were born outside India, and have remained non-vegetarian, could not come to the idea of reincarnation. They could not experience it…

    The idea of evolution has been here in the East for ever — and in a far more subtle way than it has been given to Western science by Darwin. Darwin’s idea is very raw: he says monkeys have become man — although Darwinians have not yet been able to prove it, because they are still searching for the link between the monkey and the man. And the problem arises: why did only a few monkeys become men? What happened to other monkeys? And monkeys are basically imitators — if a few monkeys had become men then all the monkeys would have imitated. What happened to the other monkeys? Great imitators they are — why only a few men? And the monkeys are still there!

    Thousands and thousands of years have passed and monkeys are still monkeys. And you don’t come across a monkey suddenly becoming a man… one fine morning he wakes up and he is a man. Nobody has ever seen this miracle happen. The question is: where are the links between monkey and man? — and the difference is great, it is not small…

    The Western concept of evolution, the Darwinian concept of evolution, is very gross. The Eastern idea of evolution is very subtle. It is not a question of the body of a monkey becoming the body of man — it has never happened; of the body of a fish becoming the body of man — it has never happened. But the inside of the fish goes on growing; it goes on changing from one body to another.

    The growth, the evolution, has not happened from body to body: the growth has been happening in consciousness. When a monkey attains to a certain consciousness, the next birth will be that of man not of a monkey. He will die as a monkey and will be born as a man. The evolution is not going to happen in the body of the monkey itself. That body has been used by the soul — or whatever you call it, the continuum — the body of the monkey has been used, now the soul is ready to take a better body, a body where more possibilities of growth will become available.

    The soul moves from one animal to another animal. The bodies are not evolving, but souls are evolving. The candles are not evolving, but the flames go on jumping from one candle to another. The flame goes on rising higher and higher. The evolution is of consciousness, not of the material, physiological body. That is where Darwin missed the whole point.

    But in the East for at least ten thousand years we have been aware of it. The awareness came through meditation and the awareness was based in vegetarianism — because people started remembering their past lives. It was a basic technique with both Buddha and Mahavira: whenever a disciple was to be initiated, the first thing that both Buddha and Mahavira required was that he had to go into his past lives. Great methods were developed so that one could move into past lives. And once you start moving into past lives, this life will be utterly transformed. Why? Because once you see that all the stupid things that you are doing now, or wanting to do, you have been doing for many many lives… you have done those same things many times, and each time nothing was attained…

    The idea of reincarnation is not a philosophical idea: it is an experience, it is utterly scientific. People have remembered their lives. When you have grown a little deeper into meditation… we are going to do all those techniques here too. But those techniques will require that you be absolutely vegetarian, otherwise you will not be able to go beyond THIS life. Your mind cannot move — it has to be so light, feather light, that it can simply pass from one existence into another. And the lighter it is, the deeper it goes.”

    Osho – Philosophia Perennis, Vol 2

    • Des

      I Could not disagree more Kent. We Humans Do Not Evolve from Apes. You are Using Religious Doctrine to explain Life, Etc. I Could talk for ages but i will not. Hinduism is another trap. Why believe in the Doctrine of an Elite who cannot provide basic sanitation for the vast majority of its followers?

      The Bhramins are a Scourge of India.


    • Portia

      “Thousands and thousands of years have passed and monkeys are still monkeys. And you don’t come across a monkey suddenly becoming a man”

      Thank you for this confirmation.

      • Spartacus

        Someone else who doesn’t understand evolution. Evolution does not work in reverse. The common ancestor split way back, the fossils exist. One developed a brain capable of problem solving, the other didn’t. The one that didn’t cannot reverse engineer itself and become another species, eg human. Humans did not evolve from monkeys, monkeys evolved from a strain that didn’t evolve from the common ancestor in the same way that the human strain did. Chimps share human DNA, but lack the ingredients that make us different. It would be akin to asking why haven’t humans evolved into Chimps. It’s a matrix with a common start point, there is no path back to the start point for evolution as evolution is determined by environments, and these cannot be replicated in reverse.

        • Peter Moon

          When we go home, when we return to our true selves, we shall laugh uproariously at these pathetic materialist explanations of the “origins of life”, and we shall laugh even more heartily at the seriousness, the gravity, with which they have been contemplated. I know where I came from, and it certainly wasn’t from an ape – I didn’t arrive here as the result of billions of years of evolution…

          Darwinism, evolutionary theory, is the ideology of the sociopathic would-be world controllers, of the arrogant eugenecists, an ideological virus in other words that has, like the monotheistic religions, caused untold harm to the human psyche. Time to get clear of all the deceptive nonsense that has been promulgated in order to advance the psychopathic Luciferian agenda….

          • Peter Moon

            sorry – eugenicists

  • Victor Gagnon

    Great article! Love it!

  • Francis

    “It’s time to dethrone the High Priests of Scientism.” I think we should dethrone priests in any context. All religions are negative division tools. Including the misused and disguised sciences.

    Kim, school is a great judge of nothing but ones ability to be mind screwed. Bad argument. The smartest folk on this planet are nobodies with only the education they desire themselves.

    Yes there is the crowd out there that cannot pull from both sides of any topic, true losers. Like the Author of this article. But most already know that spontaneous generation of life is both possible, and yet still likely never happened.

    Evolution is not meant to be an explanation of creation, as Darwin said himself. It is the origin of ‘species,’ not life. Get that?

    • Francis

      P.S. Mike Adams is not a loser, he is actually a great and intelligent guy. But with this topic he is stirring waters where real problems should be at the forefront.

  • Kim Hayes

    Add ‘Spontaneous Evolution’ by Steve Bhaerman & Bruce Lipton to your reading list. They do a great job of exposing Darwin for who & what he really is…….a medical school drop out that was wealthy in upper class England. He was about to become a clergyman, which is what one does when one has no career and is wealthy at that time in England. He only was invited along on ‘The Beagle’ as a dinner companion to the Captain. Only after the Medical Doctor on board who was also the naturalist left the ship did Darwin then become the naturalist on the Beagle. Alfred Russel Wallace studied, researched and devolved his theory of natural selection in Papua New Guinea. He sent it to Darwin and asked him to submit it to the Royal Society for him. What did our upper class English ‘wannabe’ do…..he committed the biggest scientific crime there is…..he put his name ahead of Alfred Russel Wallace on the paper and abstract and took credit as the senior author. The rest is history!
    He is a liar, thief and scoundrel of the 1st degree and Priests of Science today worship & genuflect at his unethical knee. Quite fitting, as most of them are cut from the same cloth.
    Having said that, luckily today, right now at this moment in time many honest scientist’s are coming forward with alternative theories and hypothesis and being vindicated. The scientist, Rupert Sheldrake is a driving force in this free thinking and stimulating movement.
    Mike Adams does a fabulous job in questioning authority & everything as we all should do.

    • E Grogan

      So you read one book and you’re an expert? Hardly. My husband is a biologist who worked with Nobel prize winner, Liz Blackburn, who created a special job just for him. He’s studied nature, biology and science all his life. He has studied Darwin and his life for 55 years. Here’s what he says:
      Wallace’s writing was more about his travels than science. He came up with the general idea of evolution and went to Darwin for his opinion. Darwin was very excited because he had the same idea. He suggested they both present their papers as he agreed with Wallace. Malay Archipelago was the name of Wallace’s work. If you read both papers, you can see that Darwin’s paper was more fleshed out than Wallace’s. BTW, what does Darwin’s class have to do with his theory? Nothing. Darwin came from upper classes but did something with his life, which was to study Nature thoroughly and constantly. The book you cite was by people with axes to grind and it is obvious in their trashing of Darwin with completely bogus lies.

  • Vinctus

    What an appalling, childish article. The article attacks a straw man, ‘scientists’, yet fails to actually mention any. Last I looked, natural philosophers or ‘scientists’ believed in very little. Instead, at least at the heart of pure science, they employ the scientific method as a function of logic and evidence.

    The big bang has been hypothesised but not proven, particle physicists still wrestle with the problem daily. The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. These ideas are placeholders, working ideas until something better and with more evidence comes along. That is why the scientific method exists. That’s what seperates it from dogma.

    Heisenberg, Einstein, Schroedinger, Planck, Jeans, Eddington – these men all explored and thought a great deal about the nature of the spirit, how is it possible to accuse such men of cold materialism?

    And, just because it irked me – yes the speed of light can change, such as when it passes through a liquid. “Is the speed of light an immutable barrier and universal constant?”, is the question I think Mike’s poor underutilised brain was scrabbling about for.

    The root cause of most of the things that seem to be upsetting our friend here are due to the distortions of Corporatism. Perhaps Mike should redirect his bile toward that which is most deserving of it. A shame to see such rubbish on an otherwise fascinating and thought provoking site.

    • bizeditor84

      Vinctus’s comment starts with a pure insult — which I would consider “childish” that does not even approach being a valid argument on the merits. His final sentence, name-calling with the word “rubbish,” is equally without substance.

      Mike Adams’ argument does put words into the mouths of people in the “science” camp, so that portion of his argument is weaker than other parts. Mike’s discussion overall, however, is squarely on the mark. Mike observes much about the public face of the science community.

      Meanwhile, in his second sentence, Vinctus does exactly what he accused Mike of doing — he asserts what “scientists” believe in or don’t believe in, without naming any of them.

      In fact, as poll results and informal surveys have confirmed, people in academia tend to “believe in” evolution despite the many problems with that theory and the contrary evidence. So, Vinctus’s claim that “scientists … believe in very little” is an unsupported claim.

      But Vinctus’s statement that “Evolution is just a theory” is true — and it is 180 degrees in opposition to the “science” community. Read just about anything written by Eugenie Scott and the other evolution advocates — they state unequivocally that “evolution is a fact.”

      Mike’s article could be more precise, perhaps better refined in some ways. But Vinctus’s comment adds nothing to the discussion.

      • George Spiggot

        Yes, and of course, a theory like evolution cannot be subjected to the rigors of the scientific method since no one can observe a process which purportedly takes place over billions of years…Evolutionary theory is not an empirically testable hypothesis – and really it is time to admit the obvious: evolutionary theory has been developed and promulgated for ideological reasons.

        It’s good to see the dogma of evolution being challenged – and by people who are not necessarily “creationists” or Christians. These false dialectical oppositions are set up as a trap to prevent anyone thinking originally.

        • This site is populated by ignorant people who have no idea what science is or what truth is beyony what one gets from articles written for people illiterate in the subject. I will discuss just one point.

          “Yes, and of course, a theory like evolution cannot be subjected to the rigors of the scientific method since no one can observe a process which purportedly takes place over billions of years…”

          indicates an author who is ignorant of the nature of science and what a theory is. I would suggest that he read Karl Popper, and Stephen Hawking on the nature of truth. There is none in science. Theories are not “True” They make predictions that can be falsified, and are useful or not. Evolution has many predictions, and many have been verified. Even if a theory is falsified, it can remain useful, as in the “germ theopry of disease” which is falsified by most chronic and all genetic diseases, but remains useful

          General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are logically and mathematically incompatible, so they can not both be true, but boy are they useful. As to the “background” in science that Mr. Adams claims. My suspicion is that at some time he took a basic science class and failed it.

          If you wish to read about the problems with science, I suggest that you read “The Trouble with Physics” which is written by an actual scientist with an actual degree who does actual testable research and produces actual useful theories, not statements that, as Wolfgang Pauli said are “not even wrong”

          • John Dempster

            You’re ignoring the main point that Spiggot is making- that is that evolutionary theory has been primarily promulgated for ideological reasons. The problem of scientism is much more fundamental than you realize. Perhaps you should read Nietzsche on the “Metaphysics of Truth”….

            Anyway, the bottom line is – science pertains to the mind, to thought, which, as Krishnamurti understood, is always old because it is tied to memory. It is never new, never real, and so ultimately, science will never gives us reality, and hence never the “truth” about reality….Science is utterly bankrupt.

          • George Spiggot

            Forgive me for being so ignorant. I take it you can excuse me somewhat, since we’re living is a world based mostly on deceit, lies, falsehoods, propaganda, and bullshit of all kinds – all designed to confuse us and keep us disempowered and divided…

            I thank you for clarifying that scientific theories aren’t actually true. That is very liberating to know. The claim that man evolved from apes isn’t actually a truth claim. It never resonated with me anyway. Scientific theories aren’t making truth claims….They are just a useful tool for making predictions which can be verified or falsified- which means, of course, that science is still implicated in making truth claims, but just about the predictions, and not the actual theories??

            But if it is agreed by real scientists and by philosophers of science that theories like evolution have nothing to do with truth why is evolutionary theory being sold to the general public by fundamentalist preachers like Dawkins as established and accepted “fact”, as “true” beyond doubt, true because it is backed up by so much hard evidence? Is Dawkins a liar, then, not really a true scientist? Has he failed to understand that no scientific theory is actually true, as Popper, et al, would have it? Doesn’t someone need to explain this to him, so as to clear up the confusion, and free the public from these misconceptions?
            You say also that “even if a theory is falsified it can remain useful. How is a theory falsified – by the number of falsified predictions? So is a theory verified by the number of predictions which are verified? But could it be that even if the predictions based on the theory were verified the actual theory itself could still be false and how would you know, and how can you claim that theories are not true in the first place if they can be falsified or verified in some way? Or am I missing something?

            Also, if Dawkins doesn’t himself understand the nature of scientific theories, why was he appointed the Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008? A position, I believe, which was financed by Microsoft Corp. Anyway, he really needs to apologize to the public for misleading them regarding evolutionary theory, if what you’re saying is correct, that is.

Thank you for sharing. Follow us for the latest updates.

Send this to friend