EVOLUTION or CREATION.

Passive or Active. THOUGHT CONTROL?

Folks,I am continuing with my Darwin/Wallace report and intend to post Part 3 this evening so must buckle down to one thumb typing on it. Part One is a list of my sources plus my motivation,Part Two tells of the life of Charles Darwin up to the publication of Origin of Species and in Part Three I am telling the story of the OTHER “Father of Evolution” Alfred Russel Wallace,a much more interesting and likeable man than Darwin and a radical with political ideas that would sit well today but not with the ruling authorities so in those few words have I revealed why A.R Wallace is not only not “the Father of Evolution” but pretty much wiped from conventional history and if mentioned at all,spoken of as a bit of a weirdo. And he wasn't a Clergyman as he is often referenced to have been,I've heard it said on TV,is that one more weapon in the Darwin defence,well the other man,the oddball in the jungle,was a Vicar,so obviously he's a non-contender. The true story is VERY DIFFERENT. Yet another example of state education being used to make us more IGNORANT.

I'm not concerned with whether the process of Evolution is true or not. It seems credible that creating the complex world would take a long time but God has got all the time in the world so that's no problem. I'm interested in WHY - so obviously why this IDEA had to be introduced when and how it did and why it MATTERED SO MUCH that it had to be Darwin's concept. Why him? Why did it matter and to whom? Ah,that's the nub of the matter isnt it? Because The Theory of Evolution was NEVER just about butterflies,and pigeons,and worms and tree ferns. And Darwin knew this. He writes it down. He records his fear. (In that household they wrote EVERYTHING DOWN. All Emma Darwin's disgusting recipes in which everything is swimming in fatty butter,milk and cream that kept her lactose intolerant husband sat on the toilet for hours every day (it's on the record),Darwin had a curtained cubicle IN HIS STUDY for when he had to make a dash for it and visitors recorded the smelly fug of the place,you still a fan of da guy? But I honestly think that Darwins fear was not,or much more than,the denial or removal of God,as by the mid 1800s a majority of Englands working population didn't go to church and were indifferent to religion. Most “church” was in reality a social club and maybe none the worse for that. I cite Flora Thompson relating in her Lark Rise to Candleford that in the village only one family were religious,and J.B Priestley in recalling his chapel upbringing relates how it kept you busy and occupied what with church twice on Sundays,Sunday school,Concerts,Fellowship Meals,Charabanc Outings, Witness Processions,the youth of his day may have felt oppressed by the weight of duties on them but he said (with a chuckle one feels) they never had a chance to be bored.

But I must save all this speculation for my final REPORT. What occurred to me this morning in my waking moments is that CREATION is an active word and suggests looking at the world and life in an ACTIVE way. But EVOLUTION with its resonances of infinite slowness and inevitability encourages a PASSIVE frame of mind. A mind that “follows the science”,that unquestionably accepts authority,that waits for Big Mummy and Big Daddy to boss them around. I know the advocates of Science will say it's the other way round and that it is Religion that is authoritarian and Science that freed humanity to create the modern world of ease and convenience. Which maybe proves that SCIENCE has morphed into a RELIGION

.