Darwin's Religion and Scientism. Cult of Evolution - Fraud and Materialism.
Follow the money. Darwinian $cience is a religion.
Scientism and the cult of Darwin. There is more religious dogma in the Church of Darwin than to be found in the Catholic Church. Gospels, Old and New Testaments, miracles, resurrections, virgin births, prophets, saints, magnificent and sudden appearances and visitations, incredible complexity through magic and mystical processes, holy relics, new revelations……such is the Church of Darwin.
To really offend ‘the $cience’ and the bien-pensant, criticise the millions-billions- soon trillions-maybe Brazilians-of years, cult of Darwin. Howls of disbelief, ad-hominem attacks, claims of stupidity and anti-science are hurled at any who dare to question the most stupendously un-scientific cult imaginable – the stuff happens religion and materialism of Darwin, itself a by-product of the mechanical philosophies from the 16th century and the ‘Enlightenment’ where the ‘science’ proffered a religious belief in abiogenesis, a scientifically impossible claim, still held dear by the Darwinian cult today and offered that everything is mechanical, operating and developing by chance, God, nature, or nothing as the watchmaker who moves on and disappears into his workshop after manufacturing the product.
Darwin would be convicted in court
A few years ago Dr. Philip Johnson wrote a great book called ‘Darwin on Trial’, exposing the $cientism of the Darwin religious cult. If you took the Darwinians into a court room, and debated the evidence, the trial would be over in less than a day, and a judge or jury no matter their materialist-religious-belief system, would find the Darwin cult guilty of fraud. As with all Scientism, you don’t follow ‘the science’, you simply follow the $cience and money. The Darwinian religion is a univocal cult which controls the media, academia, the schools, and public discourse. Billions are spent each year in propaganda, new fraudulent ‘missing links’ found every month to wild media applause and found in Attenborough documentaries; new ‘proofs’ that the millions and billions might indeed be trillions or Brazilians of years. Endless ‘evidence’ that no matter what actually happened, fast or slow, gain or loss of functionality, fossilised while mating, fossilised while running, or not fossilised, the shoulder blade fossil or bone found which magically is reproduced into a simian-human missing link cited in colourful drawings showing an entire family on the savanna. No matter what the ‘evidence’ says, it always supports ‘Evolution’. This is not a science, but a scientism, devoid of facts and bereft of common sense. As Darwin asked, ‘how could an eye evolve’ by stuff happens? Or the 70 trillion working cells of an adult human, so profound in complexity and integration that we still don’t really understand how it all works.
A theory which purports to explain 'everything' can explain almost nothing. Hence it becomes a dogmatic cult which defends itself no matter how absurd its own proposition. There is very little in Darwinism which is either scientific or valid. Perhaps some minor micro-adaptation of specie specific flora and fauna is the best one can offer. The only positive comment that can be said for the idea that humans evolved by random chance from a soupy mixture and a sponge, is that the 'phase progression' theology simplifies matters, so that 'scientists' don't have to think, experiment, prove or go through the labours of a true scientific method. Better in their view to spend time on cant, fantasies, ad-hominem attacks against critics and propaganda.
Johnson was an academic and leading critic of Darwin's cult. He was not invited to 'scientific' aka Darwinian-activist conferences or parties for his troubles in analysing Darwin using science and logic. Cults don't like to be challenged. He was hated by the 'establishment' which had and has, so much to lose from a thorough debunking of Darwinian mythology. A travesty of the sponge-became-a-human supernatural story is that it is taught to children as a 'fact'. Flying pink elephants are more real than evolutionary processes emanating from a soupy mixture.
Using real Science Darwinism fails
Johnson is purely scientific in his assessment. He does not bring up 'creationism', a word which is a pejorative for clever people. Criticize the cult of Darwin and the rejoinder is that you believe in Fred Flintstone, pet dinos, and that earth is 3 hours old. Debate is stifled and so too is understanding and true science. Darwin and other cult members in the mid-19th century were not scientists, showed no proof for their theory, did not experiment, and knew that huge gaps existed in their construct. Yet they persisted. Control ? Power ? Base motives not science is at the root of Darwin's cult. Eject man from his central place. Ignore reality and real evidence. Develop inane stage theories of evolving life. Reject God and design; place man next to the ape; erect relativism and state omniscience; deride morals and constraints.
Johnson makes the following scientific points which the Darwinian cult has never bothered to address:
-Darwinists cannot explain the origins of life, nor how a 'soupy' mud patch gave rise to the most complex substances in the universe – the cell and its nanotechnology.
“Which came first, the nucleic acids (DNA or RNA) or the proteins? And how did the first living molecule function and evolve in the absence of the others?”
-DNA complexity makes a mockery out of the 'Tree of Life' which is found in evolutionary propaganda. A rose and a human have a common DNA ancestor?
-The vast majority of genetic mutations are harmful and lose genetic material. Not all 'change' is positive or leads to 'the fittest'.
-No evidence exists for transitional forms which should be in the fossil record in their tens of millions if life evolved and species mutation from lower to higher forms was correct.
-Birds come from reptiles according to the cult of Darwin, but how and why would a reptile turn scales into intricate feathers and systems supporting such a feature? How can reptile DNA mutate to bird DNA and how would a reptile know that flying was advantageous? How would intermediary creatures in this process survive? How would the machinery – complicated, intricate – develop in such a process to allow the end result to be achieved?
'Just as the feather cannot function as an organ of flight until the hooks and barbules are coadapted to fit together perfectly, so the avian lung cannot function as an organ of respiration until the parabronchi system which permeates it and the air sac system which guarantees the parabronchi their air supply are both highly developed and able to function together in a perfectly integrated manner.”
-Complex organs and functions must evolve at once. Whales must have nose channels or blowholes disconnected from their mouths [or they drown] plus a vast complexity in respiratory technology not possessed by other mammals. If any of the pieces are missing, there is no whale form.
-Mathematician D.S. Ulam stated that it was highly improbable that the eye could have evolved by the accumulation of small mutations because the number of mutations would have to be so large, and the available time was not nearly long enough for such a development.
-19th century geologist Cuvier proved through archaeological evidence that catastrophic change was a normal cycle on earth. Species arrived and species were destroyed through natural and cosmic cataclysms. The Permian extinction of 245 million years ago, and the Cretaceous eradication of 65 million years ago [or K-T] stand out as confirmed examples. Darwinian ideology does not allow for catastrophe. Climate and time are unhindered and unassailed and march serenely on forever.
-The Cambrian 'explosion' of life 600 million years ago when literally new life forms appeared from nothing has never been explained by Darwin acolytes.
-Mammalian life includes bats, cats, whales, humans, apes, rabbits and pigs. These creatures share little in common when you look at their cell organization and detailed genetic code. Darwinists have never explained how a 'common ancestor' meta-mutated complex DNA, RNA and amino acids to account for the differences in mammals. Nor for instance, how reptiles begat mammalian life, a process never seen, repeated or explained.
“On the contrary, the embryonic cells that give rise to limb bones exhibit patterns of division, branching, and cartilage production which differ from species without conforming to predictions based on the theory of common descent.”
-Natural selection has never been observed – a fact Darwin was well aware of. Indeed “the molecular evidence does nothing to provide the hypothesis of creative natural selection with the empirical confirmation it so badly needs. Natural selection is a force for building adaptive complexity only when it is formulated as a tautology or as a logical deduction unconnected to any empirically verifiable reality.”
-The cult of Darwin offends and abrogates the 5 basic principles of science: 1) Science must be guided by natural law, 2) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law, 3) It is testable against the empirical world, 4) Its conclusions are tentative and 5) It is falsifiable. Darwinism fails on all 5 points.
Johnson goes on for some 200 pages with 43 pages of research notes, on all that is wrong with the cult of Darwin. And a cult it is, though Johnson ascribes to it a label of religion.
“Mixing religion with science is obnoxious to Darwinists only when it is the wrong religion that is being mixed.”
Darwinian cult belief
How true. The obnoxious admixture of Hegelian-Marxian cant and phase theory, refreshed with atheism and informed by an abundance of arrogance and irrational fantasy does produce a concoction that is not only cultish but toxic. To be generous we can say that Darwin's cult does have some utility when it describes minor and species-specific adaptation. But the idea that a sponge evolved into a human is so stupid and banal, that Islam, National Socialism or Communism looks smart by comparison. Yet this corrupted irrational fantasy is 'fact' and the 'science is closed'. Sounds a lot like the cult of GlobaloneyWarming or the Climate Thingy.
The Scientism of the Darwin cult is even admitted by its own laity and membership.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed." (N.H.Nilson, famous botanist and evolutionist)
"Modern apes ... seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans ... is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter." (Lyall Watson, Ph.D., Evolutionist)
Darwin admits he has no evidence
Darwin, the seminary school drop-out, wrote to his friends that this theory of evolution did not hold up to much scrutiny. And indeed, it does not. Evolution is not science; it is a testimony of faith. Two assumptions underlie evolution: 1) there is stability in climate and systems which is never or rarely disturbed and 2) natural selection with the 'fittest' surviving; will mutate genetic traits causing the genome to acquire information. In actual fact micro-genetics studies clearly show that the human genome will lose, not add information. As well, not one single example of natural selection can be offered – a fact confirmed by the seminary drop-out, who did not have one single minute of scientific training.
"Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." (Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters)
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, chapter "Difficulties")
Gecko becomes T-Rex
Darwin's theory, taught as fact, is really a cult and an irrational laughingstock. Pointing this out does not mean you believe that Adam walked with T-Rex; or that the planet is 6.000 years old. Identifying and confirming the nonsensical theory of evolution is something that a rational, curious and sound mind should pursue. Darwin's theory is so absurd that it leads to the following Darwinian claims:
-Climate is stable and never changes. This is ridiculous. The geological record is clear that there are regular catastrophic changes to the earth's climate, rotation, pole positions and even rotational speed. The strata of geology are littered with the mass disappearance of flora and fauna and then later, mass appearances of new species, some of which are inferior to earlier species.
-Abiogenesis or life arising from nothing. Darwinist theology prays to the belief that the primordial soupy mixture created complex cells and multi-celled creatures. Life from inanimate material. This is scientifically impossible and was dis-proven during the mid 19th century – when the clergy school failure was writing his work.
-Fish or some swimming creature, crawled out of the water, or mud, somehow was able to breathe on land [fish can't breathe out of the water], and then turned into land creatures. Not one single experiment can support that hypothesis.
-Small rodent mammals eventually became apes and then humans. This is genetically impossible. Humans have little in common with apes once you study the DNA, RNA, genetic code, organs, skeletal structure, and brain organization. Humans, contrary to media lies, share nothing in common with mice and rats. There is no proof that the rat species over 'long periods of time' mutates into anything else other than rats.
-Darwinist theologians preach that monstrous freaks like Dinosaurs evolved from lizards. It is scientifically impossible for the gecko to turn into a T-Rex, or a common lizard to transmogrify into a monster, without exogenous irradiation of gene structures. The only possibility for the existence of Dinosaurs is that the earth was bombarded by chemical radiation which over time, transformed some species into monsters spouting bone plates on their body, many horns, weirdly shaped heads on massive frames, and other freakish traits. This would indicate a catastrophe in climate, a magnetic field reversal and cosmic radiation raining down on the planet. Darwinian theory disavows such 'change'.
-High Priests of Darwin's cult scream that species evolved slowly over time. If this was the case, why are there huge gaps in the geological and fossilized record?
Evolutionists argue against themselves
As some former evolutionary 'scientists' stated:
"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides means of 'seeing' Evolution, it has provided some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (David Kitts, Ph.D. Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory, Evolution, Vol.28 (Sep.1974) p.467)
"Eighty to eighty-five percent of earth's land surface does not have even 3 geological periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order... it becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods." (John Woodmorappe, geologist)
Darwin himself said the fact that angiosperms suddenly appeared 300 million years ago was 'troubling'. Sudden drops and rises in the oceans and even mountains were 'perplexing'. Darwin admitted that the human eye was either fully formed or it wasn't. You can't have half a wing, half a leg; or half a nose. The giraffe either has the sponge to manage blood flow in front of its brain or it doesn't [if not, each time it lowers his head, his brain would explode]. The shark's DNA has not changed whatsoever in 300 million years. Monkeys and Apes appeared fully formed some 37 million years ago, a fact that Darwin knew and surely another 'perplexing' problem in a list of thousands, for the Darwinians to explain.
Breeding of Husbandry applied to Nature?
Darwin was reluctant to release his book. Contrary to the media and educational elite [mis-information establishments], it was not because the 'Church' would attack him and his theories. In fact, Catholic Catechism in a banal fashion supports his ideas. Darwin was reluctant to publish his work because it was a crock of lies, innuendo, fashionable 'stage theory' natural Hegelianism and non-scientifically based assertions, and he knew it. He simply applied Victorian breeding done by intelligent and designed humans, within an intelligent and designed set of breeding processes, to the natural world. That is all he did.
"It is good to keep in mind ... that nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micro mutations. Darwin's theory of natural selection has never had any proof, yet it has been universally accepted." (Prof. R Goldschmidt PhD, DSc Prof. Zoology, University of Calif. in Material Basis of Evolution Yale Univ. Press)
"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible." (Dr Ambrose Fleming, President, British Assoc. Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought)
It is an embarrassment that the modern human willingly and unquestioningly imbibes the liturgy from the cult of Darwin as science. This fact alone disproves the notion of evolving intelligence. One doubts that the ancients would have been so dumb as to embrace stage-theory fantasy as fact.