"Darwinism is the totalizing claim that his [mutation-selection] mechanism accounts for all the diversity of life. The evidence simply does not support this claim. What evidence there is supports limited variation within fixed fixed boundaries, or what is typically called microevolution. Macroevolution--the unlimited plasticity of organisms to diversify across all boundaries--even if true [which it's not], cannot legitimately be attributed to the mutation-selection mechanism. To do so is to extrapolate the theory beyond its evidential base. This is always a temptation in science--to think that one's theory encompasses a far bigger domain than it actually does. In the heady early days of Newtonian mechanics, physicists thought Newton's laws provided a total account of the constitution and and dynamics of the universe. Maxwell, Einstein and Heisenberg each showed that the proper domain of Newtonian mechanics was far more constricted. So, too, the proper domain of the mutation-selection mechanism is far more constricted than most Darwinists would like to admit.

Indeed the following problems have proven utterly intractable not only for the mutation-selection mechanism but also for any other undirected natural process proposed to date: the origin of life, the origin of the genetic code, the origin of multicellular life, the origin of sexuality, the scarcity of transitional forms in the fossil record, the biological big bang that occurred in the Cambrian era, the development of complex organ systems and the development of irreducibly complex molecular machines. These are just a few of the more serious difficulties that confront every theory of evolution that posits only undirected natural processes. It is thus sheer arrogance for Darwinists like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett to charge design theorists with being stupid or wicked or insane for denying the all-sufficiency of undirected natural processes in biology, or to compare challenging Darwinism with arguing for a flat earth.

... Why does Darwinism, despite being so inadequately supported as a scientific theory, continue to garner the full support of the academic establishment? What is it that continues to keep Darwinism afloat despite its many glaring faults? Why are alternatives that introduce design ruled out of court by fiat? Why must science explain solely by recourse to undirected natural processes? Who determines the rules of science? Is there a code of scientific correctness which instead of helping lead us into truth, actively prevents us from asking certain questions and thereby coming to the truth? We are dealing with something more than a straightforward determination of scientific facts or confirmation of scientific theories."

- Intelligent Design by William A. Dembski (InterVarsity Press, IL, 1999), p.113, 114

“The science of neo-Darwinism was poor all along, and supported by very few facts. I have become ever more convinced that, although Darwinism has been promoted as science, its unstated role has been to prop up a philosophy—the philosophy of materialism—and atheism along with it. ... The scientific evidence for evolution is not only weaker than is generally supposed, but as new discoveries have been made since 1959, the reasons for accepting the theory have diminished rather than increased.”
- Darwin’s House of Cards: A Journalist’s Odyssey Through the Darwin Debates by Tom Bethell, p. 20, 45

"The attempt to explain the origin of life solely from chemical constituents is effectively dead now. Naturalism cannot answer the fundamental problem of how to get from matter and energy to biological function without the infusion of information from an intelligence. Information is not something derived from material properties; in a sense, it transcends matter and energy. Naturalistic theories that rely solely on matter and energy are not going to be able to account for information. Only intelligence can. I think that realization is going to progressively dawn on more and more people, especially younger scientists who have grown up in the age of information technology. ... Information is the hallmark of mind. And purely from the evidence of genetics and biology, we can infer the existence of a mind that's far greater than our own--a conscious, purposeful, rational, intelligent designer who's amazingly creative. There's no getting around it."
- Professor Stephen C. Meyer Ph.D, Director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture

[updated May 25th, 2021]

by Colin Denny Donoghue

Do you think your great, great, great (and so on) grandfather, was a fish, and further back, pond scum? Do you think a banana is your distant cousin?
If so, I recommend thinking about that more (e.g., is that idea disempowering?), and researching whether that idea is really true or not (it's not, as books like Zombie Science by Jonathan Wells make clear).

The mainstream acceptance of Darwinian Evolution Theory as a fact, namely the theory that all life descended from single-cell organisms (which came into existence without any intelligence to give the needed complex genetic information), and then one species turned into another species (despite this never being observed), demonstrates the power of forceful persuasion. If a false idea is pushed on people repeatedly from "experts," and any questioning of the idea is forcefully slandered and rejected outright, trying to intimidate people to accept their view, many people will be intimidated, and are then less likely to do their own research and discover that the idea being pushed is false. This is exactly what you find with those pushing Darwinian Evolution, they often resort to name-calling/slander, ignore the evidence that macro-evolution (i.e., one species becoming another species) doesn't actually happen, and try to frame the debate as "Science vs. God" (as if those that believe in God are necessarily anti-science, when they're not), or otherwise slander those that are rejecting Darwinian Theory.

But even if you get passed that type of opposition to those questioning Darwinism to the more rational/professional-sounding, you're still being presented with misinformation. For example you can find articles on the internet that say certain fossils are definitely "transitional" from one species to another, and other articles that say some microscopic observation "proves" that one species can turn into another, but this all turns out to be little more than hand-waving, time and time again it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Be prepared for this; don't just take their word for it, look critically to see if the evidence is really substantial, and read and listen to critiques of these studies if you can find them, luckily there are a few good scientists out there that will explain why this evidence is bunk (check resources below). If you just take the word of these scientific "authorities" then you are really just like Christians who believe in Church dogma without question. (And there is intersection between God-believers and atheists here too since many people now believe that Darwinian Evolution is just part of the design of the Creator.) Just as Christians have been misled by what church authorities say (especially the false teachings of the so-called Apostle Paul), many science-loving people have been misled by so-called authorities in the Scientific community; in both cases the public needs to look into the truth for themselves, especially concerning matters of such importance as the origin and nature of humanity. Just as there are those that point out the misinformation in nutrition studies backed by meat/dairy-industries (telling you dairy, eggs and butter are good for you), or chemical and cell-phone industries that tell you that their product is "safe," there are those pointing out the misinformation concerning human biology. Remember that "science" is often, and this is a historical fact, used to push misinformation on the public. It's prudent to be suspicious of the validity of various online articles, Wikipedia entries, social-media posts, along with popular magazine articles, and content in State-issued science textbooks, etc., and take a close look at the evidence refuting the so-called "proof" of Darwinian Evolution. Despite its suppression, you can find a lot of technical scientific literature, and common sense, showing that basic tenets of this theory don't fit with reality, despite all the heated assertions of those pushing it on humanity; the fact of the matter is that Darwinian Evolution Theory flunks the science test. The following is just a brief summary of some of the main problems:

No real fossil evidence of transitional forms between species/kinds at all; "Lucy" and other so-called "evidence" of a transitional species is laughable in quality and has been thoroughly refuted, as the videos and listed books below, along with many other sources, show. Whether pointing to an ancient bird fossil and saying it's "half reptile" without scientific basis (plus a useful/good reptilian leg mutating, becoming less useful, while slowly becoming a good wing over generations, doesn't help their survival chances by the way!), or pointing to parts of a verified ape species and saying they're human, it's all just a mess of so-called evidence that has been scientifically disproved time and time again; every supposed "transitional fossil" turns out not to be so when you look deeper into it (getting passed all the misinformation). If there were really all these transitional species, there should be massive numbers of examples of them (since the process of gradual evolution supposedly happens over millions of years), but the Darwinian evolutionists can only point to artist renditions and things like a single tooth of "Nebraska Man" (that turned out to be from a pig!), "Java Man" (that turned out to be a human), etc. This is probably why those pushing Darwinian Evolution tend not to talk for long about specific fossil evidence of transitional species from one kind of animal to another, or if they do it's pointing at more monkey, ape or human skulls. Speaking of this commonly encountered tactic of avoidance of undisputed scientific evidence, interestingly in the 2015 "Mistakes and Hoaxes" issue of Popular Science magazine they have two separate articles on bunk evolutionary science: the first on the "Piltdown Man," declared as another "missing link" but turned out to be a hoax, and the second article on how the idea that man evolved from apes doesn't actually hold up to the evidence. Admitting these facts is very good, yet, for no scientific reason, they still insist there is a "common ancestor" between humans and apes, even though they cite no specific evidence for one! They just say there is, and that's it. That's not real science. This heavily slanted irrationality is typical of false belief, rather than of evidence or experience taking precedence with one's claims about reality. They refuse to let go of the evolutionary theory which has been proven bunk over and over, and side-step the reality, referencing nothing in particular, and apparently hope no one will notice! This same exact thing is found in the HBO documentary Questioning Darwin, in which they speak of "infinite evidence" for macroevolution, but then don't get into the details of any! Again they just expect you to believe the "experts." This "science" documentary, just like the very misleading PBS TV Series Evolution, completely ignores all the scientists that reject Darwinian Evolution as unscientific. Also showing its scientifically hollow core, it is filled with long tangents on the romanticized life of Darwin, plus a few cherry-picked Christians that believe in an absolute literal interpretation of everything in the Bible; the makers of this documentary (like current Wikipedia writers) were clearly trying to discredit the idea of Intelligent Design (and Christianity), but, to anyone with some basic awareness of the issue, obviously failed, just as the PBS series failed, though both will sadly probably still work as effective propaganda on many. It appears the alternative possibility of Intelligent Design is so unacceptable to these evolutionary theory propagators that they will continue to twist (or just declare!) so-called facts to fit an evolution/atheist world-view so that design appears "disproved," even after it has been admitted in mainstream publications that it's their own previous claims on evolution that are the only thing that has been proven false.

National Geographic magazine (the same magazine that recently had a perverse cover photo of a boy dressed as a girl, pushing the transgender "revolution") had a cover story titled "Was Darwin Wrong?," and ridiculously highlighted the bulldog as proof that he wasn't! A bulldog is still a dog! It's not a new species! Even though supposed transitional species just keep getting disproven over and over again, atheist scientists keep trying to fabricate evidence to fit their macro-evolution story, the latest and most popular being "proof" of land animals morphing into whales; if you actually look into this possibility you will discover reality (and real science) does not support it.

"Assuming a generation time of twenty-five years for humans and five years for the ancestors of cetaceans [i.e., whales], Sternberg pointed out that fixing [i.e., establishing the population with the new mutation] just two mutations in the latter would take millions of years longer than the time available in the fossil record. So there isn't enough time to fix even two mutations, yet we need hundreds or even thousands of new mutations. Obviously, eight million years is not long enough to accumulate enough accidental mutations to turn a "walking whale" into a real whale--even if neo-Darwinian theory were right about the power of mutations (which it isn't)."

- Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., p. 113

Related to the above problem of lacking fossil evidence for gradual progressive change in life-forms going from one species to another, there is no satisfactory explanation/evidence for how Darwinian Evolution mechanisms could have facilitated the "Cambrian Explosion," otherwise known as "Darwin's Dilemma." The fossil record of the immense number of new species suddenly appearing on Earth directly contradicts Darwin's "tree of life" hypothesis; there is not a slow gradual progression from simple to more complex life forms as his theory claimed.

Other evolution theorists posit "cladogenesis" (i.e., one species jumping to/"branching out" to be another kind of animal without transition) as an alternative to the problem of lack of evidence for transitional species, but they also deliver no solid evidence/observation/explanation for their idea; in fact all that has been observed is the extinction of many species over time, not new ones popping up from older ones via physical birthing; therefore this other aspect of evolutionary theory is also not scientific at all, and it also contradicts the very definition of evolutionary theory! These evolutionists now say evolution occurs suddenly without transition (hence the "genesis," no irony using that term huh?), but that's exactly the opposite of what the theory has been proposing: gradual changes in species that result in a whole new species!

Evolutionists claim that so-called "micro-evolution" leads to "macro-evolution" (i.e., Darwinian Evolution of one kind into another), but again this is just speculation without confirmed observation. The common claim by evolutionary theorists that "from one-celled organisms evolved all life on earth" is a baseless statement (no authoritative specific evidence, only circumstantial); that's not good science! Even the the term "microevolution" is not accurate:

"It is usual at this point to make a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, and to add that microevolution is obviously true. You differ from your parents, and you may do so in a thousand ways; we all differ from each other in small ways. Therefore, the argument goes, microevolution is a fact. But it is misleading, surely, to identify small individual differences as "evolutionary"--even if only in a "micro" way. Variations between generations were known to us long before Darwin, without ever being regarded as small steps in the direction of something completely new--incipient speciation, for example. They are a fact of life, not evolution in miniature." ...

"In 1980, the science writer Roger Lewin described a gathering of about 150 leading evolutionary theorists at the University of Chicago. Their conference was entitled "Macroevolution," and their task was "to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species." Lewin wrote the following in Science magazine: 'The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomenon of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No.'"

- Darwin's House of Cards by Tom Bethell (Discovery Institute Press, Seattle WA, 2017), p. 94, 97.

"The proliferation of antibiotic resistance is clearly an example of microevolution, but it just as clearly not an example of macroevoltion. Bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics do not thereby become new species. Yet many people in the scientific establishment routinely equivocate on the word "evolution," switching back and forth between microevolution and macroevolution as though they were the same thing. In some cases theequivocation might be due to misunderstanding but in other cases it is a deliberate attempt to mislead. When anthropologist Eugenie Scott was serving as executive director of the aggressively pro-evolution National Center for Science Education, she wrote about how to deal with "anti-evolutionism." Scott would introduce college students to evolution "as an issue of the history of the planet: as the way we try to understand change through time. The present is different from the past. Evolution happened, there is no debate within science as to whether it happened, and so on." Only afterwards would she bring in Darwin's "Big Idea," which is what "we want students to know about organic evolution." This is called "bait-and-switch." Start with an idea everyone accepts, then slip in something more controversial and hope no one notices." [False equivocation and bait-and-switch are classic propaganda techniques.]

-Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., p.155

Changes within a species have been observed, like with the beaks of finches ("Darwin's finches"), the color of beach mice or moths, and the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. There has been no observation or evidence of mutation creating a new kind of animal (despite great efforts, especially with many generations of fruit flies, and irrational focus on changes in some flowering plants), and yet this is given as the main means of evolution! Evolutionists, who couldn't find examples of speciation with animals, suggested redefining the word species to include different breeds of dog; this is classic bullshit artistry, redefining terms to fit your bunk argument. Very limited speciation has only been observed with some flowering plants, but nothing of enough complexity occurring to account for the major changes that need to be explained by Darwin's common ancestry tree of life for all life forms, including us. With animals mutations are observed to recombine already existing information, or to result in a loss of information (a.k.a. genetic entropy); it doesn't add new information to the genome that would account for molecules-to-man evolution; which follows the Second Law of Thermodynamics. (See chapter eleven of the book Darwin's Doubt for responses to the supposed "proof" of new information emergence counter-claim of Darwinists.) The consistent observation is overwhelmingly that the human genome has been degrading over time, not evolving into superior form. Mutation is overwhelming destructive, not constructive. No mutations have ever been shown to produce new beneficial anatomical features that could turn land animals into whales, and when examining the amazing details of whale biology, becomes even more clearly impossible (no transitional species could survive).

"From a materialistic point of view, organisms are reducible to molecules, so the central dogma can be summarized as DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us." ...

"Historian of biology Jan Sapp has documented how gene-centered thinking became the dominant viewpoint in biology during the twentieth century. But evidence has accumulated that such a narrow view distorts reality. If "makes" is taken to mean "fully specifies," then it turns out that DNA does not make RNA, RNA does not make protein, and protein does not make us." "... the claim that "DNA makes RNA makes protein" is false. but it is the central dogma's final step--making us--that it fails the most dramatically. ... Animal development creates a complex three-dimensional multicellular organism not by starting from the linear information in DNA... but always starting from an already highly complex three-dimensional unicellular organism, the fertilized egg. ... In her 2000 Harvard University Press book The Century of the Gene, MIT professor Evelyn Fox Keller had written, "For almost fifty years, we lulled ourselves into believing that, in discovering the molecular basis of genetic information, we had found the 'secret of life.'" But "the primacy of the gene as the core explanatory concept of biological structure and function is more a feature of the twentieth century than it will be of the twenty-first." This is so, she argued, because it has become clear that the program for living things "consists of, and lives in, the interactive complex made up of genomic structures and the vast network of cellular machinery in which these structures are embedded. It may even be that this program is irreducible--in the sense, that is, that nothing less complex than the organism itself is able to do the job." But if this fantastically sophisticated program is irreducible, if nothing less complex could do the job, then how could it have evolved to its present state by one mutation at a time--genetic or otherwise? Zombie science lumbers past this question without taking it seriously. Fruit flies with useless extra wings or missing legs have taught us something about developmental genetics, but nothing about how evolution might build new form and function. All of the evidence points to one conclusion: No matter what we do to the DNA of a fruit fly embryo, there are only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly. Not even a horse fly, much less a horse. ... So the central dogma continues to mislead scientist and non-scientists alike. True, some DNA sequences encode some RNAs, and some RNA sequences encode proteins, but in general the central dogma is false. DNA does not contain the genetic program for an organism, and DNA is far from being the secret of life. Continued faith in it is rooted in materialism. The fault doesn't lie with our genes, but with zombie science." - Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., p. 86, 90-91, 92-93, 97

No scientific explanation for the immense complexity of DNA (or the brain, etc., of all of the incredible life-forms found on Earth) occurring via random mutations. To say the immense complexity that comprises all the life-forms of such awe-inspiring beauty and functionality could come into existence simply via mutation, random chance and time is baseless irrationality (basically equivalent to saying a whirlwind in a junkyard could produce a fully functioning and polished Ferrari, if the whirlwind just had enough time!)... it's evidence-less theory, that also goes against the Second Law of Thermodynamics (we observe material things decay over time when left to themselves, they don't become more ordered). To posit that the amazingly functional biological complexity found on Earth (like humans) happened by Darwinian processes alone, without Intelligent Design of life-forms or of the supposed Darwinian life-making process, is accepting probabilities that are so astronomically low as to be impossible for all practical purposes. For example, based on the observed complexity of DNA, in order for that to exist by chance as it is in its fully functional and amazing form in even "simple" organisms, it's been calculated that we're talking about something like a chance of 1 in 10-to-the-600th power (1 followed by 600 zeros), a number so ridiculously large it's well beyond any comprehension, or relevance. Good science always rejects impossible probabilities, yet Darwinian Evolution proponents give a pass on this requirement, to blindly support their bunk theory. And regardless, on top of this mathematical implausibility, the idea of DNA manifesting randomly contradicts what scientists have observed and discovered about DNA:

There is no evidence that DNA can exist without already existing DNA to create it; all observation shows no DNA manifestation from existing material substances. Evolutionists propose "abiogenesis" happens, i.e. "the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter," yet once again they can provide zero observational evidence for this ever occurring! Both DNA replication and correct reading of its code require information, information in enzymes that are precisely specified by the DNA itself; absolutely no by-chance creation of DNA by something of lesser complexity has ever been observed. The Law of Biogenesis states that no life can come from non-living matter, and this is for good reason, it is an observational fact that is in complete opposition to their abiogenesis theory.

The amazing automatic DNA self-repair process, which is carried out by a fully developed repair machinery that is already in place when you begin with life, and is necessary in order to maintain the integrity of the DNA. Trying to explain this very elaborate repair mechanism by random chance and mutation is really absurd; even "the most modest bacterium has over 200 repair mechanisms at play at all times."

Natural selection is not a macro-evolutionary process, there is always a genetic barrier that prevents someone from breeding dogs into cats (or any other species). Darwinists utilize an insufficient natural process to try to remedy the problem of macro-evolution's impossible probability. The impossible remains impossible over time, yet they want you to believe some unobserved biological magic happens just because of the passing of a lot of time. Natural selection is a tautology: "Animals that have the most offspring (the fittest), will have the most offspring." This is taken as the means for the diversity of life on Earth? That's absurd.

One very common (and very bunk) claim made by Darwinisits is that similarity between some life-forms is proof of a common ancestor. Shared DNA is not proof of speciation (i.e. one species becoming another species). An analogy: Shared lego building blocks between lego creations doesn't prove that one lego creation can transform into another lego creation. A Darwinian scientist once used photos of similar cars (corvettes) in back-to-back model-years to supposedly demonstrate how macro-evolution happens, forgetting that each car was designed and made by intelligent beings! His "science" was bunk, just as is that which says my ancestors include bananas. Humans share about 50% of their DNA with bananas, but that doesn't prove that humans and bananas have a common ancestry, it only proves that they share some of the same building material. (And by the way the claim that humans and chimpanzees have DNA that is 98% similar has been shown to be false, the number is about 70%.) Since having the majority of the same DNA building blocks is not sufficient to prove macro-evolution or explain how exactly organs, etc. would drastically change from one form to another, evolutionists resort to simple drawings they make up to try and deceive the public and/or rationalize their bunk theory. And when there are not similar enough looking species to line up next to each other in illustrations, those illustrations are often doctored in ways that there is no fossil evidence for whatsoever (putting in webbed feet, making Neanderthals (who were ancient humans) look more like apes, etc.). For the ape-to-human-connection they we able to convince many people because there are many extinct monkey and ape species they could point to, and fill in the gaps with "Lucy" etc.. This is their more convincing (while still very false) macro-evolution story, but then with animals like elephants or trilobites they have little to nothing to offer in their story-telling, so they usually don't talk about the latter. Again, some similar genetics or body structures does not demonstrate common ancestry, but just some common building materials and at times somewhat similar bodies. Returning to the example of similar cars (all of which were designed and created by an intelligent being), putting them side-by-side to prove that one morphed into the other is not "science," it's just a story that can seem plausible; lies often can seem plausible to people, but if they look and think more carefully they will discover that they are lies.

Inference of intelligence (i.e., of Intelligent Design) from biological/physical evidence is valid science, to claim that scientific evidence can never indicate the operation of an intelligent being, is clearly false, e.g. scientists have been listening to signals in space for many years hoping to find some signs of intelligent extraterrestrial life. Inference of intelligence is also of course key to archaeology and forensic science.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

The problem of "irreducible complexity," i.e., if you backtrack one step in the supposed evolutionary process of an organism, like say remove one of the components of the flagellum (a whip like appendage that moves around to propel a bacteria, spun by a precise biological motor), it wouldn't work at all, so the species would be at an extreme disadvantage, e.g. not being able to move. In Darwin's book The Origin of Species, in the "Difficulties on Theory" chapter, Darwin said: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." And that's exactly what has been demonstrated by the flagellum, along with other biological components (see also book references below for even more details). Also speaking of the origin of life-forms, the clearest and most important example of irreducible complexity is the origin of life, which Darwinists have given no solid explanation for whatsoever, theorizing that it possibly involved "amino acids piggy-backing on crystals" and/or "advanced aliens"! Even "basic" proteins are actually of such a complexity that expecting them to form without design also doesn't hold up to analysis. How the initial building blocks of life actually turned into complex cellular life is completely unaccounted for, they just give unscientific ideas like that, or the classic "lightning strikes in a primordial soup could do it," even though this has never been observed or produced in a laboratory.

Darwinian Theory has no solid explanation for consciousness, free will, or conscience. Speaking of consciousness, use your own to ponder this question: How could dead matter evolve into consciousness? And related to this, where did our conscience come from? And where did free will come from if there is no free will among atoms, etc. which always unwaveringly obey physical laws? Darwinian Evolution Theory, and the ultra-materialist anti-spiritual perspective that goes along with it, seems to be even against the obvious fact of our own consciousness and free will, by saying that we're governed simply by chemical processes and survival instincts.

These rational scientific observations are repeatedly ignored and sidestepped by Darwinian Evolution proponents, who in my experience often resort to hate-filled name-calling at this point in the conversation, along with statements like "If you believe in God prove its existence!" or they will otherwise just give sweeping statements like "We're all related!" and "Evolution is a fact!" (as if that's fulfilling the request for specific evidence!); all of the replies like these totally abandon the science of evolution as the topic of discussion, a debating failure/loss. Some even seem to be trying to redefine the meaning of science (just as they have also tried to redefine the meaning of evolution with "cladogeneis" and redefine the term species to "prove" evolution between two species that are really still the same species). Science is: "The evidence-based study of the material/physical world/universe, using observation and experimental investigation utilizing the scientific method," so saying that being able to produce solid evidence, reproducible experimental results or mechanistic/physical explanation isn't necessary is quite a stretch of legitimacy. In so doing (along with their dubious redefining of terns), they are showing what's really going on beneath their scientific veneer: they're actually pushing a false belief, not a science, and their hateful attacks on people that believe in Intelligent Design/a Creator, and/or others who are simply pointing out the lack of evidence for Darwinian Evolution, is just lame and dumb (making their slanderous remarks on those intelligently questioning Darwin a clear example of psychological projection).

"In the face of these forced admissions of failure to find supporting scientific evidence, how can these men of science continue to press so dogmatically for their shaky views? No wonder they fight to keep students from hearing the opposing arguments. Their positions would crumble under the impartial investigation of honest research." ~ Joe Crews, How Evolution Flunked the Science Test, p. 20

This all shows that a) their theory is not actually sound, and b) they are more interested in defending their ideology than in following the scientific method and honoring whatever the truth is. They want people to believe bananas are our distant cousins (which is an extremely incredible idea, whether you are religious or not), and then ignore requests to show solid evidence for this claim. This inability to point to specific evidence is ongoing as I add this additional note now; the comments I keep receiving on this post from the Darwinian-Evolution-defenders consist of one diversion after another and/or one personal attack after another, but still no solid scientific evidence. Here's a good comment I found in reply to some of the aggressive/slandering anti-science pro-Darwinian Evolution trolls that abound online: "You should not make comments. You aren't helping the evolutionists' cause because all your speech is filled with hatred and scorn but no actual scientific refutations! ... - the things in this video [below] have certainly NOT been debunked. You are either lying or are just ignorant." The slanderous non-scientific comments being referred to, that I have also seen many times, just add further support to the scientific position rejecting Darwinian Evolution as fact. When Darwinian evolution has been put on trial by those who care more about the truth than pushing an atheistic world-view, it has been found clearly guilty of impersonating solid science.

~~~

As I said at the top of this post, the theory of Evolution has been pushed very forcefully on the population, by supposed experts, and so many "educated" people just take it as fact because they "trust the scientific community." In the same way, people follow the blood-sacrifice/magical-incantation version of Christianity that is pushed on them via the church establishment, because they trust in that too. Misplaced trust in, and one could even say the worship of, the false idols of hierarchical and authoritarian institutions is a long, sad and tragic story that continues to this day, disempowering and misleading countless people, generation after generation.

So what is so disempowering and misleading about the theory of Evolution? It's simple and subtle, but powerful. The main take-away from this theory, that remember says humans evolved from a "primordial soup," is: "You came from pond scum." Therefore the subconscious association made is "You are scum." And therefore also "There is nothing Divine about you," also supporting, "God does not exist."

These beliefs do have an affect on the minds of men; for example the mass-murderer Jeffrey Dahmer:

"If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…" ~ Interview with Stone Phillips on the NBC television program Dateline, Nov. 29, 1994.

And then there is how "Darwin’s theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies," so clearly, the bunk science of Darwinian Evolution Theory has negative implications well beyond giving false information about biology.

~~~

It would be wrong to not address the latter subject of Divinity in more depth here, since it is of course very worthy of discussion, and is usually part of the debate concerning the origin of life, so I will do so now, but briefly, since this post is more about disproving Darwinian Evolution than it is about trying to convince people there is a Divine Creator. Many atheists point to evils in the world as proof that there is no loving Divinity. This perspective operates on certain assumptions, though as far as I've seen, usually never directly stating the assumptions, probably because their perspective would become instantly less solid-sounding if they did:

Assumption #1: "There is no evil force opposing the Creator." This is quite an assumption, being that it goes against thousands of years of theology, history and psychology that clearly point to exactly the opposite. They assume that the Creation hasn't been corrupted by separate evil, and isn't continuing to be corrupted further by separate evil, even though the evidence for that grows daily.

Assumption #2: "A good God wouldn't permit evil." And you know this without a doubt... how exactly? You know the entire metaphysical reality and what is ultimately necessary and/or for the best? This is basically the "I'm enlightened" atheist perspective... yet I'm pretty sure they're not enlightened/omniscient. Also the question of evil has very intelligent responses from current and ancient philosophers, e.g. that in order for there to be people with free will evil has to be allowed as a possible choice, otherwise we would all just be programmed robots, which would be a world without love or freedom, and so not worth creating.

Assumption #3: "Natural Disasters and Birth Defects prove there's no loving Creator and that Intelligent Design is false." A study of the Earth's amazingly complex and against-all-odds life-sustaining operations makes fixation on natural disasters irrational, and also ignores their unavoidable existence within the Ecology/Earth-Sciences that is overall life-preserving (e.g. Plate Tectonics: "For life, advanced or primitive, to exist for more than a few million years, a planet’s crust must easily crack into movable plates that can slide both past and underneath one another.") As for birth defects, again this is irrational fixation, ignoring the fact that the majority of babies are still, even with the problems of genetic entropy, extreme increases in toxic chemicals, radiation, etc. born perfect. (Similarly atheists will point to "Junk DNA" and vestigial organs as evidence there is no designer, while both fixations again ignore the bigger reality, and also ignore the repeated revelations concerning what was at first thought useless turned out to be not so). They also ignore the fact that leading causes of birth defects are caused by evils of human society that were not part of the original natural design at all, e.g. chemical/radioactive weapons, recreational and pharmaceutical drugs, x-rays and other tools of modern medicine, etc. Creation has been increasingly corrupted; to ignore the pure origin and focus only on the present is irrational. So Assumption #3 ignores the details of physiological/geological reality and history, and that does not make for a good basis of argument (nor does any assumption).

~~~

Returning to the reality-ignoring theory of Evolution, the main affect of this theory on humanity, like all malevolent propaganda, is disempowerment. Think this evaluation of Evolution theory as propaganda is a stretch? Well, the reality is: Transmitting a very simple and subtle, but also very detrimental false idea, repeatedly and forcefully to your subconscious mind, is the very hallmark of effective propaganda. Darwinian Evolution theory which is pushed on the population fits that formula perfectly, it is "Big Lie" propaganda that is pushed out in the open (like the official 9/11 story, from which the main subconscious takeaway is "I need the Government to protect me, the Government = the good guys."). There are of course other subtle forms of propaganda out in the mainstream too, like the popularized "revolutionary" street artists whose main imagery depicts common people as rats/vermin, or who plaster the word "Obey" everywhere, neither of which is revolutionary at all, despite whatever "clever" rationalizations are given in explanation. The subconscious doesn't deal with those rationalizations, it deals with "I'm scum," "I'm vermin," "I should obey," and "Government is good/needed and keeps us safe." Those that seek to control populations (yes, there really are such authoritarian people, if you doubt this read a little history), especially in current times, seem to know that the power of belief serves them better than anything else, and if you get the population to believe extremely disempowering ideas like that of scum-of-the-earth Evolution and distorted blood-sacrifice/magical-incantation Christianity, then the masses are much much easier to control; both science and religion have been clearly manipulated via establishment institutions to serve the purpose of mind/population control. You can dismissively call this a conspiracy theory, but then that would just ironically reveal another false belief you've been indoctrinated to hold, i.e. that conspiracies don't actually happen on a regular basis; conspiracies (i.e. people working secretly together for a selfish/harmful purpose) are commonplace in the corporate, political and economic realms of society; that's just a common-sense fact. Once you see clearly how the main scientific and religious ideas pushed on us are complete bullshit, and you see why those ideas would be pushed, it's no stretch of the imagination, it's actually waking up to the truth.

The following are excellent resources on the theory of evolution for evaluation, keep in mind that the science academy/institutions have been heavily censoring the publication of reputable articles concerning Intelligent Design and/or showing the faults of Evolutionary Theory (and firing/"disciplining" any scientists that even mention Intelligent Design), so these books in particular are how the quality information has thus far been best presented to the public (though the videos/interviews and websites below also contain excellent information):

Books

Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer Ph.D.
Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer Ph.D.
Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells Ph.D.
Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?: Why Much of What We Teach about Evolution is Wrong by Jonathan Wells
Undeniable: How Biology Confirms our Intuition that Life is Designed by Douglas Axe
Darwin’s House of Cards: A Journalist’s Odyssey Through the Darwin Debates by Tom Bethell
Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology by William A. Dembski
No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence (2nd Edition) by William A. Dembski

The Case against Darwin: Why the Evidence Should Be Examined by James Perloff

Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism by James Perloff

The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God by Lee Strobel

Not by Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution by Lee M. Spetner Ph.D.
Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome by Dr. John C. Sanford

Articles

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/on-pathological-science-darwinian-evolution-and-the-devaluing-of-man

Websites

Podcasts

http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/

Videos

---

"Scientists Prove Human Evolution Being a HOAX."

Part 1:

Part 2:

---

"Frog to Prince"

---

"Evolution vs. God" (video)

---

~~~

"No one has ever seen a quark, and we believe that no one ever will. They are so tightly bound to each other inside the protons and neutrons that nothing can make them break out on their own. Why, then, do I believe in these invisible quarks? ... In summary, it's because quarks make sense of a lot of direct physical evidence... I wish to engage in a similar strategy with regard to the unseen reality of God. His existence makes sense of many aspects of our knowledge and experience: the order and fruitfulness of the physical world; the multi-layered character of reality; ... the phenomenon of Jesus Christ... I think that very similar thought processes are involved in both cases. I do not believe that I shift in some strange intellectual way when I move from science to religion. ... In their search for truth, science and faith are intellectual cousins under the skin."

~ John Polkinghorne, Quarks, Chaos and Christianity, p. 98-100

"Faith does not imply a closed, but an open mind. Quite the opposite of blindness, faith appreciates the vast spiritual realities that materialists overlook by getting trapped in the purely physical."

~ Sir John Templeton

Front-Line Thought

Sunday, August 2, 2015

The Bunk Science of Evolution, and the Disempowerment Agenda

"Scientists Prove Human Evolution Being a HOAX."

Part 1:

"Frog to Prince"