Bookmark and Share

Monday, May 5, 2014

The Dark Side of Charles Darwin, by Jerry Bergman PhD

Or maybe the Psychotic side of Chuckie ?

by StFerdIII

 

Bergman is a Canadian PhD scientist who at one time was a cult-member of the Darwinian science-fiction that flat worms became the financial worker. Like many other former atheo-paths science and reasonableness got in the way of evolutionary fantasy. Single cells, composed of DNA, genomic software code and the complexity of an urban centre do not 'mutate', unless they are being destroyed through disease. Sadly for Darwinists we did not evolve from tulips or turtles. Maybe someone can inform Hollywood and the makers of big-money computer-illustrated movies.

 

Bergman is now a vocal and eloquent critic both of Darwin and his cult. This book goes through the extant literature and makes the claim – quite likely in my view – that Darwin, like so many other 19th and 20th century materialists and dialecticians, suffered from severe neurological and mental problems. In fact the evidence is quite overwhelming in this regard. Personally I have always considered Darwin to be both a non-scientist; and a writer of science-fiction, whose psychology in the vein of other attractive writers, was quite likely unhinged.

 

Bergman is quite correct to go to the underlying personality disorder of Darwin. Bergman makes the following conclusions based on evidence, facts and a wealth of source material:

 

-Darwin suffered from no fewer than 15 different psychological and neurological problems [see Chapter 5] including agoraphobia, mental health imbalances, and possibly even a general psychosis towards humans

 

-Darwin was a shut-in invalid from the time he was thirty until his death; a recluse who used more than 20 doctors to administer his various maladies

 

-Darwin's own family and friends were certain he suffered from a mental disorder or disorders

 

-As a young man Darwin took great delight in killing, hunting and even stoning to death wild animals ranging from rabbits to deer. This dedication to death was not that of the casual hunter, but of a person possessed by an irresistible tendency to commit acts of violence

 

-Darwin stole most of his 'theory' from others, including his grandfather and was known during his youth for stealing and lying both at home, and at Oxford [where he basically failed and left]

 

-Darwin supported eugenics [killing of the sick, unfit and old]; racism [he wrote that Whites must exterminate Blacks to push evolution along]; and in the inferiority of women [who were less developed in evolutionary terms, than men]

 

-Natural selection was rejected during Darwin's life-time and long after by scientists and biologists. We now know that natural selection is both tautological, and irrelevant. Yet Darwin did not offer one singular proof of this theory in any of his works

 

-Darwin's main purpose was metaphysical, to overthrow 'god' as he put it, and to install atheism as the new religion

 

-Darwin ignored the origins of life, and maintained that his theology did not need to address the problems of why and how life originated, a 'miracle' which in effect negates his whole theology, this does not comport itself to science or the scientific-method

 

-Darwin's world-view was one of 'hell', survival, war, the struggle for existence, none of which is born out by observation, nor can it explain the opposite traits one finds in both civilization and even at times in nature

 

Bergman's summary of Darwin is that he was firstly a non-scientist, a man who stole much of his material. However elegant his writings, there is no substance to the theory that grass became the gardener. Character traits which include lying, thieving and unwanton violence are all too evident in Darwin's makeup. Doctors, family and friends all attested that he suffered from a wide-variety of mental, neurological and psychological conditions, leading one to suppose that the man might have been psychotic. As with Hitler, Marx, Stalin and other atheist-materialists, Darwin's mental infirmity, mirrored in his lack of scientific rigour and relevancy; would not be a surprise.