It might take one hour at the bio-chemical level to disprove this religion.
The ‘Enlightenment’ promoted by its creators – Atheists and Protestants – has led to a lot of anti-science:
The Enlightenment separation of science and purpose seemed like a good idea at the time, but it wasn’t. Reason is a unity, and arbitrary divisions of reason can lead to cognitive disaster..
Darwinism has long been dead as a science.
past few decades as supplements to neo-Darwinism: neutral theory, the effects of a multiverse, complexity theory, and self-organization theories. None of them work.
Evolution is a hypothesis, more aptly described as a religious belief, a theory desperately looking for material, experimental, even logical proof.
When one starts to treat Darwinism as a hypothesis about the biochemical level of life rather than as an assumption, it takes about ten minutes to conclude it’s radically inadequate. It takes perhaps another ten minutes to realize that the molecular foundation of life was designed, and for effectively the same reason that Anaxagoras, Galen, and Paley reached the same conclusion for visible levels of biology (although, because of progress in science and philosophy, the argument is now necessarily much more detailed and nuanced than their versions):
DNA cannot self-form. Neither can RNA. These Evolutionary assumptions have never been proven. They are just taken as ‘factual’.
To understand the profound inadequacy of Darwinism, we must first understand evolution’s foundation. Molecules are the basis of physical life. DNA, the carrier of genetic information, is itself a molecule.
In turn DNA encodes another class of very complex molecules, proteins, which can join together to form literal machines—molecular trucks, pumps, scanners, and more—that carry out the work of the cell. Among other duties, those machines build the structural materials of everyday life, such as shells, wood, flesh, and bones, which also are all made of particular molecules carefully arranged in particular ways.
DNA by itself, in structure and function disproves Evolution. Such complexity cannot arise by chance. It is mathematically impossible.
The DNA regulatory sequences of bacteria are relatively small and almost always found right next to the genes they control. Eukaryotic genes have those too, but they also can be controlled by DNA sequences called “enhancers” that can be either close (even within the gene itself) or very far away—tens or hundreds of thousands of bases up or down the double helix.
The DNA of a single cell is quite lengthy—several feet for humans—yet is condensed into a microscopic area.
…identified genes as sequences of DNA, and Watson and Crick’s discovery of the double helix showed the elegant way that genetic information could be passed down through the generations.
Genetic control cannot occur by chance.
An additional way that information may be passed down to offspring is by “epigenetic” tags. During the lifetime of an organism DNA can be modified by a process called methylation (think of it as like adding diacritical marks to letters of the alphabet), and the modification can affect whether a gene is turned on or off. For example, a flowering plant called toadflax comes in two forms—one with the petals arranged in a circle and one with petals set off to the sides. The two differ in one particular gene that controls flower symmetry, but the difference is not in the nucleotide sequence of the genes, which are the same.5 Rather, the radially symmetric variant gene is highly methylated.
How did amino acids and proteins form? Why? Why would ‘random natural processes’ produce 20 amino acid bases, who recombine to form complex protein strands of 50-150 amino acids, each one with a defined function and the body (every cell) contains such functionality which has a purpose and reason. How long would such a ‘random chance process’ take to work out the illimitable number of possible combinations before finding the ‘right one’. The organism would be long dead and extinct before this happened.
DNA does not occur in splendid isolation. It’s always associated with proteins, and the strength of the association can determine whether a gene is active.
The modern receptor could not give rise to a protein like the ancestral one by a Darwinian process, because the route is blocked by multiple small barriers that no one had any idea existed until now. It’s hard to overstate the importance of the conclusion. As the authors write, it very likely applies to the great majority of proteins, which perform complex tasks by dint of their complex structures. The reason of course is that natural selection will fit all proteins—not just steroid receptors—to their current tasks without regard to whether a selected mutation hinders some potential alternative use or not. Neutral mutations will accumulate with the same utter disregard for distant utility. Drift plus selection will mire a protein in its functional place.
Mutations degrade, they don’t add value.
With surpassing irony it turns out that, as with the polar bear, Darwinian evolution proceeds mainly by damaging or breaking genes, which, counterintuitively, sometimes helps survival. In other words, the mechanism is powerfully devolutionary. It promotes the rapid loss of genetic information. Laboratory experiments, field research, and theoretical studies all forcefully indicate that, as a result, random mutation and natural selection make evolution self-limiting.
Evolution has retarded and blocked real science. In their zeal to promote their religion, secular ‘science’ has negated actual scientific discovery and foisted a philosophy that is based on chance, randomness and connects humans to bacteria and apes. It is an anti-human, anti-reality program of illiteracy and fraud.