They Would Be Gods - 35 - Evolutionary Lies and Pseudo-Science

THEY WOULD BE GODS: OUR PAST RECONSIDERED, OUR FUTURE FOREWARNED

PART IV: ORIGINS

by Anthony Forwood (2011)

http://www.lulu.com/shop/anthony-k-forwood/they-would-be-gods/paperback/product-15534669.html 

35: Evolutionary Lies and Pseudo-Science

Charles Darwin was a meek young man with few aspirations in life, and fewer successes, when he was given the opportunity to sail to South America on a ship named the Beagle, to study the flora and fauna of that part of the world. Various general ideas about evolutionary development and the divergence of life forms were already beginning to formulate among certain scientific minds during the years preceding his publication of Origin of Species, and Darwin’s grandfather Erasmus (a Freemason) had a great amount of influence on Darwin’s thinking with his own ideas on the subject. The ideas Darwin had on evolution incubated for twenty-eight years after he had completed his voyage before he finally wrote out his theory and had it published. Darwin was a Christian and knew that these ideas would upset a great many religiously-minded people, so he was reluctant to publish his ideas before his death. He was nevertheless encouraged to on the advice of Sir Charles Lyell when he saw that another man, Alfred Russell Wallace, was about to publish a theory that was virtually identical to his own. When he finally did, Origin of Species was an overnight sensation, with the first edition selling out in its very first day.

Darwin was largely helped in his success by none other than Thomas Henry Huxley (another Freemason), who had prepared the public with a very favorable pre-publication review of Darwin’s book in The Times, and had then gone on to defend Darwin’s theory in a famous debate at Oxford University the following year.

Other similar theories were already being considered, such as that of Lamarck, but for whatever reason, Darwin’s theory received so much more immediate favor and attention. What made Darwin’s theory accepted, more than anything, was the fact that he had the support of certain prominent scientists, such as Huxley and Lyell. There were undoubtedly other behind-the-scenes influences as well. Of course, it certainly helped that he was able to describe natural processes in a way that was clear-cut and logical. This was an appealing subject for those who were being won over to science more and more. It was even more appealing to those in society who saw that evolutionary law might be used as an excuse for their desire for power and dominance, since it boiled down to a matter of ‘survival of the fittest’.

Among this latter group were undoubtedly those men and women who already saw themselves as superior to the greater population, and who sought evidence to support that belief. These were the very upper-crust of society, those who came from a long line of status and wealth, the aristocrats and blue-bloods, those who were already concerned with their genetic lineages and their ‘divine right’ to power. To them, Darwin’s theory would provide a means to defend their self-proclaimed right to succeed over the ‘less fit’ humans.

But, for different reasons than this, Darwin was somewhat unsettled by what his theory meant – that nature was cold and mechanical, and that ‘divine spirit’ had no part in the make-up of the human species. He hadn’t written it with the human species in mind, having only focused on studying the lower species during his research, but the eventuality that human evolution must be considered in a similar light was nonetheless certain.

Others were quick to see this too, particularly the clergy, whose bitter opposition, although fought long and hard, may have only served to strengthen the position of Darwinian evolutionary theory in the public’s mind. It was certainly strengthened within the deeper levels of society, within certain circles of power and influence, including the scientific and intellectual communities, and also among those with wealth and power. These were all people who could influence its acceptance in spite of the opposition.

The promotion of the Darwinian evolutionary theory has led us to believe that we evolved from primates two and a half million years ago, that competing for survival is natural, that evolutionary development is governed by the purely random mechanistic processes of mutation that we have no conscious control over, that life itself is a purely random and meaningless occurrence in the universe, and that consciousness is understood only as an aspect of nature that arises in complex physical systems as a process in the functioning of those systems, and nothing more. These beliefs have distorted our understanding of the true nature of reality and have kept us focused on thinking about ourselves and our world in certain ways that tend to limit our expectations and direct our thoughts and actions. The apparent reasonableness of these beliefs, when propped up by ideas such as Darwin’s theory, discourage us from ever considering other possibilities.

There is not any great abundance of evidence that humans actually evolved from primates in the manner that we commonly believe, and the gap caused by the ‘missing link’ in our evolutionary chain has only been further confused by DNA evidence showing that there is no direct genetic link between Neanderthal man and modern Homo Sapiens. What this means is that a number of divergent branches of semi-intelligent hominid species were living on this planet during various overlapping time frames. Since this appears to be the case, then we are quite possibly not the first, nor the only species of intelligent hominid to have existed on Earth over the ages. It appears that we’re just one of a series of advanced hominid species that have come about by whatever means. If anything, this DNA evidence tends to correlate the archeological record with Sumerian texts that describe the gods creating the current human species only after one or more previous attempts had already been made.

The archeological record has been made to fit the Darwinian evolutionary theory more than this theory has been made to fit the archeological record. What doesn’t fit the theory is ignored or dismissed and the little that might fit is often exaggerated so that it does. The Darwinian theory of evolution is plausible enough to appear as fact, but it has so much potential to be completely wrong and is so shortsighted about our true human potential that it seems incredulous that it could be accepted and promoted with such confidence by rational scientists for as long as it has been. What else could be the cause of this than the purposeful work of a controlling hand?

Virtually all professionals start their careers by making a choice as to what field they will focus on, and upon enrolling in a university or college, they are indoctrinated in the dogma of that field for a certain number of years, learning the belief systems surrounding that chosen field in great detail and becoming very familiar with it. They essentially incorporate these beliefs into their overall belief system regarding the world, and their perceptions tend to change to fit their learned understandings. After this long period of indoctrination, they then set out to earn a living in the career in their selected field, with the intention that they will work in this field for the better part of their lives. They’ve put in a great deal of preliminary effort and personal financing and have committed their professional life to their chosen field and the beliefs surrounding it, and all of this makes them that much more determined in  protecting their profession. If they were to come across anything that refutes the knowledge that they’ve spent years learning and applying, they will naturally be inclined to not want to accept it and will look for ways to discredit it. In this way, scientific fields that rely on the belief in evolutionary theory, such as archeology and anthropology, tend to protect their fields from anything that might refute this theory, so that it continues to be accepted as fact by the majority of people.

The archeological record has been pieced together with the understanding that Darwinian evolutionary theory is correct and that no other influences could bear on the diversity of flora and fauna that exist on our planet. The dinosaurs that roamed our planet for approximately one hundred and fifty million years have left so many fossilized specimens for us to examine, and yet even among these we can’t find a clear and consistent pattern of evolution among them. In fact, out of all the varieties of species that we know to have ever existed, apart from minor differences between those species that we therefore consider to be closely related, there are no connecting chains of progression within the entire animal and plant kingdoms, nor within the fossil record, that would reveal anything more than these occasional coincidental differences, while there is too great a diversity between those that are considered to be not closely related to explain their evolutionary relationships. There is no physical evidence that reveals a definite progression of increasing divergence between the less similar species that make up the various genus’, orders, families, etc. Certainly none that necessarily reveal the influence of natural threats and random mutations to cause developmental changes that ensured survival. Where, for instance, is the bridge between plant and animal species?

Darwin’s evolutionary theory is really no more than hypothesis that remains unconfirmed, and although it may account for small and coincidental changes in a species, it has yet to be established as the primary cause of the more significant differences between life forms. As such, we shouldn’t rely on it too strongly in determining our own human origins, since there are still other possibilities that have not yet been considered that might bear upon the greater diversity that we see. We’ve already seen in a previous chapter that our current conception of human evolution has been complicated by certain anomalous finds that have had to be ignored or dismissed in order to maintain our preconceived idea of evolutionary development.

Apart from the need of scientists and other professionals to protect their careers, we should consider why those with the power to do so might wish to promote Darwinian evolution so vociferously. The cold, mechanistic view of the world as seen through the eyes of science has helped greatly in giving support to the Darwinian evolutionary theory, since in this mechanistic view, nothing beyond physical processes are significant, and the Darwinian evolutionary theory is based solely on physical processes.

Modern science grew up with Newtonian physics as its foundation, and so it has always sought explanations that fit into this useful but rather limiting understanding. Only recently, with the advancement of quantum physics, has science been forced to acknowledge that consciousness plays a much more important role in the scheme of things than was previously supposed. This is primarily due to what is known as ‘the observer effect’, which shows that quantum processes – the interactions of matter at the quantum level – are indeterminate until the moment that they’re actually observed. But even so, this realization is at present only a concern to scientists working within the field of quantum physics, and not to the greater scientific establishment as a whole, so if it’s even known about in other scientific circles, it’s still ignored. Only when this aspect of quantum physics is better understood and its significance is considered in relation to the greater scheme of things will research be done that might lead us to understand its proper place in the process of evolutionary development.

The idea that consciousness presides over matter, and not the other way around, can only be seen as a threat to those who would wish to control us. If consciousness is a primary – even necessary – force in the actualization of physical events or processes, as it is proving to be in the field of quantum physics, then what more might it be? Or, to put it another way, what have we yet to learn about ourselves and our actual being-ness that we’ve been diverted from even considering because of this mechanistic outlook? This question ultimately leads to some very deep considerations, not the least of which involves the question of what becomes of our consciousness at death. But regarding physical evolution, what effect might consciousness have on its development, if any? At this point, we simply don’t know, but I suggest that we might begin to learn by considering the aspect of choice and free will that a species has within its environment. The possibility that evolution is at least partly directed by the influence of conscious determination is an extremely valid one. And if it is, we have good reason to understand why consciousness has been so devalued by the scientific establishment for so long, and why we might be being purposely deceived about our natural human heritage.

It has already been discussed here to some extent how our beliefs and understandings have been purposely distorted in order that an alien group might control and dominate us, and we should consider this a little further in relation to our common understanding about evolution.

The Royal Society of London in England, the National Science Foundation in the USA, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Smithsonian Institute, the Carnegie Institute, all of which have an immense amount of influence as to what is accepted or rejected as being established scientific fact, have played major parts in controlling the entire scientific establishment of the western world since these institutions were first founded. Any invention or discovery is under their control even before a patent can be filed or a scientific paper published. Anything that these institutions don’t wish to accept will rarely ever reach the attention of the wider public. Antigravity devices and zero-point energy generators are two such technologies that have been suppressed from the public while being secretly developed by certain parties, and these parties are connected to the alien group. The Darwinian theory of evolution has been heavily promoted as fact without any substantial and indisputable evidence to support it. We are led to believe such inaccurate sciences in order to keep us away from certain deeper truths so that a few may benefit themselves and hold the rest of us under their control, rather than to allow knowledge to be used for the greater benefit of all.

As we saw from reviewing the many anomalous finds reported by Cremo and Thompson in Forbidden Archeology, the true archeological record has been censored to hide evidence that would throw our current understanding of human evolution out the window. Darwinian evolutionary theory has been promoted as fact because it suits the needs of a power-hungry group to divert us from learning about our true origins. It has also been used to support the belief in the self-limiting falsehoods of the purely mechanistic scientific worldview that it’s based on, which makes the human species (and all other life forms) out to be nothing more than mere accidents in a random process that doesn’t recognize free will or put consciousness in a more accurate place within the scheme of things.

The exploration of consciousness has itself been mostly ignored in science, except within the limiting fields of psychology and psychiatry, being otherwise excused as too subjective an issue to undergo the scientific method of objective analysis. Whatever the case, little effort has been made to understand this aspect of reality, and only ever within the context of a mechanistic worldview. In the latter parts of this book, we will look at some of the more secretive or less publicly known about research that has gone on in this area, and explore the ramifications of it. The truth will be seen that research into consciousness offers huge potentials that are being diverted towards our own downfall both as individual members of the human race, and for the human race as a whole.

Darwinian evolution, which relies on a purely mechanistic scientific framework, and which promotes the concept of survival of the fittest, is well suited to not only excuse, but even encourage the competitive and warring mentality that has gone on throughout human history and which we see today more than ever before. Our current concept of evolution makes it acceptable to treat living creatures, including other human beings, as mere objects to be exploited by those who have the power to do so. This serves the alien group very well, because it reduces our value in ourselves and our fellow humans, making us believe that we are essentially no more than a meaningless accident in the greater scheme of things. Our individual empowerment has essentially been curtailed through a form of mind-control, by conditioning our thoughts and beliefs and thereby limiting how we think about things. This makes it easier for this alien group to keep themselves and their agenda undetected by us. If their existence was commonly known, we’d be much more likely to realize the truth of what they’re doing.

We’ve been conditioned to believe that competition is natural and even necessary to all life forms, and Darwinian evolutionary theory is used to support this, in that it proclaims that only the fittest survive. Few people realize, however, that competition isn’t really as prominent in other species as is cooperation, and it’s only the human species that attempts to sustain their existence through it. In nature, both plants and animals tend to work together for a greater mutual benefit to each other and to their environment, and there’s rarely any real competition in nature at all, other than in certain species establishing and maintaining mating or territorial rights, which, once established, are commonly accepted and adhered to in a cooperative fashion. The only time that any other species besides humans have otherwise been seen to become competitive is when overcrowding reaches a point of saturation, and the species must compete out of necessity. Competitiveness is no more natural in humans, who have been conditioned to be that way. Any idea that one might have that our earliest ancestors were constantly engaging in battles with each other would be more conjecture than anything, and could only be based on our modern conceptions of ourselves. Neanderthal man and Cro-Magnon man lived side by side for ten thousand years without leaving any signs that there was conflict between them. It’s only when overcrowding has occurred in a particular region that early humans would have been forced to compete, and only if they couldn’t emigrate to other regions. A more accurate way to describe the drive of evolution might be to say that it’s a matter of supply and demand, rather than survival of the fittest. An environment that provides a large supply of food for a species is in greater demand than one that can only provide a small supply, but when overcrowding occurs the supply quickly becomes depleted and the resulting increase in demand over this dwindling supply creates competition. The alien group has known this for a long time and has used this knowledge in various ways to manipulate human society for their own purposes over the millennia by forcing us to compete amongst ourselves in spite of the abundance that might be made available to us through other avenues of pursuit that would lead to a greater sharing of resources.

It’s hard to find any evidence that survival of the fittest is an accurate description of the evolutionary process. At the very best, only a small percentage of any particular species’ population, comprising only the very weak and frail, will actually die off because they’re less fit, and for the remainder it’s more often than not purely a matter of chance whether they survive or not. The natural food chain places a great many species in a position where even the fittest have no great advantage over any but the very weakest of their kind, and it’s really only a matter of an imbalance between the number of predators and the number of prey that determines a species’ survival. Supply and demand. If survival of the fittest were such a primary factor in the evolutionary process, we should see a great deal more aggression between members of a species than we actually ever do.

By focusing our beliefs on the mechanistic principles of life, we are being diverted from understanding anything outside of those principles. Mechanistic science has become the framework that we filter our perceptions and understandings through in order to make sense of ourselves and the world around us, but this framework doesn’t reflect a complete and accurate picture. Excluding the aspect of consciousness and the whole inner world of mind and how these are involved in and affect our experiences has enabled those who control our beliefs to misdirect us into thinking that we’re less than we really are. This leads us into accepting that we’re just objects to be taken advantage of, and since we accept the principle of survival of the fittest, we go along with those people who have positioned themselves as the more fit, entrusting them to protect us and lead us into whatever sort of future they might design for us. As long as we accept the principle of survival of the fittest, we will see no reason to reject the domination of those who wield power. If we were to understand this in terms of supply and demand, however, we would quickly realize that those in power are in power only because they have taken possession and control of greater and greater portions of the supply that would otherwise be there for all of us. By doing this, they’re able to force us to comply with their own demands before they will provide our needs for part of that supply. They have usurped the natural order of cooperative survival.

I’m getting ahead of myself a little, but I want the reader to realize that science, and through it our perception of ourselves as human beings, has been distorted in order that those in power might retain their self-proclaimed privileged status that they have gained through manipulation and deceit. As long as we believe that evolution creates superior offshoot species in a purely random way that suggests that those with the advantage deserve a higher position in the scheme of things, and that consciousness – and therefore intelligence and free will – is to be regarded as inconsequential, we will be complacent to let those in power lead us and direct our efforts so as to help them gain even more power.

The theory of Darwinian evolution has been used to great effect to support this perception of ourselves, and although this theory reflects certain more or less accurate observations, it is by no means the most accurate theory of evolution available. At the very least, the role of consciousness and the aspect of individual self-determination needs to be considered as a factor in this otherwise purely mechanistic understanding.