Online Joan d'Arc article entitled Official UFO Disclosure and Darwinian Evolution

at

www.ufodigest.com

Please post far and wide.

Official UFO Disclosure and
Darwinian Evolution
by Joan d'Arc

Posted: 14:30 July 24, 2008 - UPDATED: July 29, 2008

July 23, 2008 was an historic day! I awoke to hear on the Internet an astounding interview on Kerrang Radio (UK) with Astronaut Edgar Mitchell, who announced matter of factly, "yes, we have been visited." Did this sudden announcement signal the beginning of Official UFO Disclosure? I transcribed much of the conversation wherein Edgar Mitchell finally briefed us all. www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/6168/

The radio announcer asked Dr. Mitchell, "Are we alone in the Universe?" to which he responded, "Oh, I know for sure we're not alone in the Universe." The radio announcer expressed his shock at this disclosure and wondered if Mitchell was "pulling his leg" with "astronaut humor." Mitchell assured him the Roswell crash was real, and a number of contacts are real and ongoing. "Why is it being covered up?" he asked. The U.S. chose to do this after World War II, explained Mitchell, but it's starting to open up now in the international press. Mitchell also discussed the Catholic Church's recent press releases that we are not alone in the Universe. He explained that the amount of covert attempts to cover-up and the amount of disinformation is decreasing. Mitchell stated, "there's more nonsense out there about this than is real, but it IS a real phenomenon. … Some of us are privileged enough to have been briefed on some of it." He stated, "We're not alone in the Universe. We have been visited."

Dr. Mitchell went on to briefly discuss Roswell in 1947, saying he grew up in Roswell and it was a real extraterrestrial crash there. He admitted involvement in intelligence and military circles, and UFO committees and groups, and admitted it has been "well covered up in the past sixty years." He claimed there has been "quite a bit of contact" and that "contact is real and ongoing," but that he does not know where the visitors are from. He admitted to "back-engineering" of spacecraft, but claimed the "homegrown" vehicles "are not as sophisticated as what the visitors have." When asked if there will be an actual disclosure this year, Mitchell said there are serious organizations moving toward disclosure, and that it has already begun, since the Belgian, French, Brazilian and Mexican governments have opened their files and some British files were recently released. He indicated, "I think we're heading toward serious disclosure, but I can't say how fast." He said "public acceptance is increasing and disinformation seems to be decreasing." When asked "what will the reaction be?" he said it's "ho-hum so what's new?" and that "well over 70% of people accept it as fact."

"Do others involved in the moon landings know about this?" Mitchell responded, "Some of them do." When asked if the visitor's intent is hostile or peaceful, Mitchell stated, "It's pretty obvious that if it were hostile we'd have been gone by now. Or could have been. We had no defense if that's what their real intent was." When asked what they look like, he claimed there to be many groups, but described only one of them, "You've seen some of the pictures … little people that look strange to us. … pretty accurate." Finally, when asked if he was worried for his own safety, Mitchell replied, "Oh no. They're not knocking anybody off for that anymore."

Good News For Modern Man?

Mitchell indicated that over 70 percent of people accept extraterrestrial visitation as fact. I find that number to be unbelievably large. He perhaps is referring to globally, not in the U.S. If true, I believe Mitchell underplays the reaction of the remaining 30 percent, who are in profound denial in an isolated, outback cosmos—namely the scientific "Darwinists." He underplays the effect on science—a "naturalist" paradigm unbelievably rigid in its fundamentalist and insular premise that "intelligent" life is Earth-based only.

Is Official UFO Disclosure good news for modern man? Well, it is and, then again, it isn't. The effect on Darwinian evolution will be profound. This is what the cover-up is and has been all about. After all science is not about flexibility but is about security; and the alarm for this potential breach in security was pushed by NASA in 1960, when it tasked the Brookings Institute to think through the implications of the possible discovery of artifacts on the moon or other planets on which we may land or send probes.

The Brookings Study was concerned about the impact of extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) on religion, but it also feared the impact on science. In part, the Brookings Study noted that "scientists and engineers might be the most devastated by the discovery of relatively superior creatures, since these professions are most clearly associated with mastery of nature." The study also noted, "Advanced understanding of nature might vitiate all our theories."

Darwinian evolution epitomizes mankind's mastery over nature. Indeed, as I have noted in my book, Space Travelers and the Genesis of the Human Form, the evolution story dramatizes the "natural" transfiguration of mankind through a linear procession of metamorphoses that eventually separate him from the animals of his ancestry. Evolution is Western man's totem; essentially, it represents mastery over our own nature. Since the entire realm of modern biology and chemistry is based on the Darwinian paradigm, the discovery, or should I say, the official disclosure, of extraterrestrial intelligence would completely shatter the Darwinian mythology of humanity's accidental climb out of the muck of our local habitat Earth.

From the perspective of Darwinian theory, mankind may be seen as the winner of a preposterous survival lottery which, we are told, given the incredible odds should not have occurred even once. Thus, if the humanoid form evolved from the great ape lineage on planet Earth, the mathematical odds are incredibly against the possibility of that same chain of random and incremental steps, contingent upon an interplay with a similar biological environment, occurring elsewhere in the Universe. Therefore, the assumptions of Darwinian evolution presuppose the humanoid form to be an entirely Earth-based phenomenon.

Darwinian evolution is a metaphysical genesis tale of life on Earth. In her book Evolution as a Religion, philosopher Mary Midgley argued that "evolution is not just an inert piece of theoretical science," but is also "a powerful folk tale about human origins." It must be pointed out that creationism and evolutionism have one main factor in agreement: they are both Earth-centric genesis tales. Both oppose the idea of intelligence at large in the Universe, including the idea of space travelers. In both theories, the Earth is the center of the Universe and WE are IT!

It must also be understood that the theory of evolution essentially views the human or humanoid form as merely an accident in a chain of accidents. For instance, Stephen Jay Gould argued that the evolution of the human form is not a "repeatable occurrence." In the Journal of British Interplanetary Society (1992), E.J. Coffey also argued that "the survivors resemble the winners of a lottery rather than creatures better designed than the unlucky majority who do not survive."

For quite the same reasons as above, British astronomer, Sir Fred Hoyle, proponent of the Modern Theory of Panspermia, mathematically dismissed the chance of Darwinian evolution being an actual occurrence, arguing that "even if the whole Universe consisted of organic soup ... the chance of producing merely the basic enzymes of life by random processes without intelligent direction would be about 1 over a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it; a probability too small to imagine." Hoyle concluded that "Darwinian evolution is most unlikely to get even one polypeptide sequence right, let alone the thousands on which living cells depend for survival."

Given that there are trillions of different kinds of cells in the body, all in delicate balance with each other, each of these varied cellular structures would also have to develop by chance. In a Times-Advocate interview in December 1982, Hoyle declared that this mathematical impossibility is well known to scientists, yet nobody seems willing to "blow the whistle" on the absurdity of Darwinian theory. Hoyle claims "most scientists still cling to Darwinism because of its grip on the educational system," and because they don't want to be branded as "heretics." Let's hope this allegation is at least partially true.

Others have "done the math" as well. British molecular biologist Francis Crick, who received the 1962 Nobel Prize for the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA, wondered if we weren't from around here. After discovering the astonishingly huge and complex information storage capacity of the DNA molecule (humans have three billion coding letters in each nucleus), Crick could not imagine any conditions under which this information vehicle could have evolved from non-living chemicals. He argued that since the earth has too short a history for life to have developed here, it must have developed on another planet in a solar system several billion years older than ours.

Crick's aversion to religion led him and Leslie Orgel, in 1973, to put forth the theory of Directed Panspermia. To get around the idea of God, Crick proposed that the primordial seeds of life were shipped to earth in spaceships billions of years ago by intelligent beings. After proposing this idea, Crick was left in the predicament of explaining the origin of the ET beings, and finally had to acknowledge the paucity of the idea, saying, "Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I swear I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts." (Life Itself, 1981)

Although an atheist, Crick was quoted as saying, "An honest man, armed with the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense the origin of life appears to be almost a miracle." William Hamilton in his essay "Astrogenesis" suggests, "The real paradigm shift is to consider that the Universe is a life-producing nursery and that the genesis and evolution of life is not earth-centered but rather is distributed among the stars of the galaxies."

In his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn defines a scientific revolution as a "non-cumulative developmental episode" whereby an older paradigm is replaced in whole or in part by an "incompatible new one." Such scientific revolutions begin with a growing sense that "an existing paradigm has ceased to function adequately in the exploration of an aspect of nature." The emergence of new theories is usually preceded by a period of "pronounced professional insecurity," since it involves large-scale paradigm destruction. Kuhn explains, under normal rules a scientific theory "is declared invalid only if an alternative candidate is available to take its place."

Unfortunately for them, academia and its inflexible materialist skeptics have persistently disallowed any alternative candidates from the Vitalist arena to impose on their Nature party: such as Lovelock and Margulis's Gaia Theory (in this case they made it conform to Naturalism before allowing a baby toe in); Rupert Sheldrake's Theory of Formative Causation (they absolutely spit on the idea of morphogenetic fields); Extraterrestrial theories such as Panspermia, Visitor Genetic Breeding or Planetary Seeding experiments ("little green men" anybody?); the mathematical theories of Intelligent Design ("Creationism in a cheap tuxedo"); and we all know where they stand on the "Super-natural" theory of Creationism (oh well, I say, if it walks like a duck).

Many people I talk to are under the assumption that Darwinism is playfully malleable and open to their mishmash of supernatural ideas. I try to inform them that Darwinian evolution is an all-or-nothing theory; it will not allow inclusion of any Vitalist or Supra-natural process—or, goddess forbid, any anthropomorphism. It is very exacting on that rule. If you are espousing any form of Supernaturalism, you are clearly not a Darwinian. Perhaps you are a Vitalist.

The essential problem is, according to Kuhn, scientists cannot do research in the absence of a controlling and overarching (i.e., tightly closed and uncompromising) paradigm: in this case Naturalism (Materialism) as opposed to Supernaturalism (Vitalism). Under normal circumstances they do not and can not pull the floor out from under themselves by either switching paradigms or allowing an alternative toe in the door. But in the face of Official UFO Disclosure, the door will be blown out for them.

Extraterrestrial space travelers and Darwinian evolution are incompatible! Do not underestimate the reaction from the fundamentalist Scientism camp: the discovery of Extraterrestrial Intelligence, and specifically of the extraterrestrial humanoid form, blows Earth-centric evolutionary biology straight out of the water!

BAM! SPLASH! HIGH AND DRY!

"Pronounced professional insecurity" does not even begin to describe what unbending Darwinists will go through under Official UFO Disclosure, should it actually occur. The Catholic Church has already announced its acceptance of extraterrestrial beinghood. Science has not. It will not be the followers of fundamentalist religions but the followers of rigid, unyielding Scientism who will be in the herd of lemmings headed straight for the edge of the cliff.

Joan d'Arc is the author of Space Travelers and the Genesis of the Human Form, and Phenomenal World, published by The Book Tree (www.thebooktree.com"). She is the co-publisher of Paranoia: The Conspiracy Reader (www.paranoiamagazine.com) and is the founder of the website "BIPED: Beings for Intelligent Purpose in Evolutionary Design" (www.biped.info). She is also the founder of HunterGatheress Journal (www.huntergatheress.com).

people.tribe.net/ionamille...f387994f4e