Genetic Entropy

I am forced to highly recommend to the reader a book by Dr. John Sanford, of Cornell, called exactly that: Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. In it, Dr. Sanford, with 80 technical papers and 30 patents including the revolutionary "gene gun," outlines the Enormous Problem, both in theory and in actual life, of the progressive degradation of the human genome in terms of our fitness to survive.  Not only are mutations unable to account for macroevolution as commonly advertised, they destroy useful information daily, and natural (or artificial) selection simply has no power  to prevent this.  That is, as we should have suspected all along, mutations normally and naturally and constantly degrade every genome, and the incidence of potentially useful mutations is so minute as to be overwhelmingly consumed by the steamroller of entropy and random error.

These are well-kept secrets that rule out the Primary Axiom that presently and destructively rules our society world-wide. That would be the necessary assumption of "No God" only random variations of materials and materialism.  Michael Behe, known to some of you as the promoter of "irreducible complexity" of such complex machines as the bacterial flagellum, says of the book, that, "He shows that, not only does Darwinism not have the answers for how information got into the genome, it doesn't even have answers for how it could remain there."

The book can be pretty technical for some, but it is written so that a person with a basic biology background can understand it and greatly profit by it.

Nonetheless, one observes that Darwinism has hardened and crystallized into an ideology with profound materialistic implications for culture and politics; but only in the sense of self-destruction; of destroying (they think) everything metaphysical when their proofs are increasingly "Hollywood" like, self-referential to the point of utter blindness, and as I have said elsewhere, like a serpent devouring itself by swallowing its "tales"  --which some have rightly called "just so" stories like Kipling's, a materialist  religious mythology, and a frog-to-prince fairy tale.

Speaking wisely of fairy tales:

Here's a quote from Chesterton's Father Brown, from the story, "The Sins of Prince Saradine":

"All right," said Father Brown. "I never said it was always wrong to enter fairyland. I only said it was always dangerous."

So what accounts for the solidified, encrusted, and rancid fat of our dominant worldview?

"The powerful words of poet W.H. Auden describe what is often the case in a world filled with sickly sweet illusion:"

'We would rather be ruined than changed;
we would rather die in our dread
than climb the cross of the moment
and let our illusions die.' "                  from "A Slice of Infinity', Jill Carattini

We would rather embrace self-contradictory teachers and cultures, than go to the trouble of investigating major truth-claims for ourselves.  We congratulate ourselves on our wisdom (read "good taste") and our rhetoric that is afraid to countenance any other view; esp. a subservient view in which we are accountable for, "every careless word."  Considering how destructive our words can be, this would seem to be the correct view, not "whatever..."

Do recall Ibsen's Axiom, as illustrated by the Old and New Testaments;..."the majority is always wrong." And hates God to boot.  Darwinism is merely our excuse to indulge ourselves.

Nonetheless, as opposed to real change, in our character, say, the harshest truth of our existence is right here:

"We would rather be ruined than changed."

 I would rather not be ruined, at all events...