Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Islam, the State, the cult of Gay and Queer, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, 'Science', Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion....a nice variety for the human-hater, amoral, anti-rationalist to choose from. It is so much fun mocking them isn't it ?
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
Evolution is not a science, it is a theology of a cult. A theory which purports to explain 'everything' in reality 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 analyzing 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.
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 are 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. Farcical.
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 ? Yeah.
-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 archeological 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.”
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.