First part here.

The religion of Darwin is malleable, extendable, flexible, but never scientific or commendable.  The military-industrial complex which funds the Darwinian religion and its various sects including ‘Evolution’, Neo-Darwinism, Synthesised-Darwinism, Natural-Selection and other tautologies and impossibilities, rewards good behaviour, cult indoctrination and punishes the heretical, the critical or even piety deemed too casual.  You won’t be hired in academia, or given a journal publication, if you don’t spread the Darwinian Gospel and support its Church.  Everything which happens in nature, is simply Darwinian.

Bethell, ‘Natural selection is enlisted to explain either the origin of a species or its extinction. Did the organism flourish? That’s natural selection for you. Did it die out? That’s the failure of natural selection. First it got the job done and but then it put the organism in a fix with no solution.’  ‘Harvard’s Richard Lewontin (an atheist, materialist) once wrote, “the theory becomes a vacuous exercise in formal logic that has no points of contact with the contingent world. The theory explains nothing because it explains everything.”’

As Popper and others have pointed out, a valid hypothesis can be tested and disproven.  This is impossible with the Darwin religion.  Any output, any observation, any fossil, any gap, any biological development or non-development, is supportive of its religious tenets.  If you ask a Darwinian “how did the human brain ‘evolve’?”, the answer from the religious acolyte will be something along these lines, ‘we don’t know exactly, but obviously the bacteria to human ‘evolution’ over time, occurred through simple, single functional accretions, driven by natural selection, genetic drift, and mutations which produced a random aggregation of atoms and material to make the brain possible.  The brain exists.  Therefore, evolution is true.’  None of these postulations is based on science, mathematical probability, logic, observation or common sense.  Therefore, it is simply stupid to state that bacteria became Bach.

Bacteria never change.  They are always bacteria.  They and all species always revert back to a mean.

Bethell: ‘The French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grasse (1895–1985) spent a lot of time studying bacteria. A Lamarckian, Grasse remarked: What is the use of their unceasing mutations if they do not change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.’

The largest experiment for the religion of Evolution is Lenski’s e-coli laboratory at Michigan State University, with over 60.000 generations of e-coli bacteria being ‘evolved’ and compared.  This is regularly hailed by the ‘Science’ media as a resounding proof of evolution’s ‘power’ in ‘action’.  The e-coli after 60.000 generations, equivalent to 2 million human years, are still however, bacterial microbes.  The only functionality difference is a loss of function, not a gain.  Lenski’s 35-year experiment has disproved evolutionary theory in-toto.  Yet, you will hear nothing about it.

‘…..when trillions of bacteria replicate over 60,000 generations, numerous mutations are to be expected. Yet the most important “evolutionary” changes observed so far have involved the loss of old genetic functions rather than the acquisition of new ones.’

And what of DNA, RNA and proteins?  What is the mathematical chance that an organism is going to evolve (the human), with 50 trillion cells, 200 different types of cells and 1 trillion atoms per cell, 2 million or more proteins, replete with a programming code language (amino acids, nucleotides), software, an operating system, a self-repair and maintenance system and an ability to self-replicate at the cellular level, but also the miracle of embryology at the individual level?

‘This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything, rather less than the average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20²⁰⁰ and is approximately equal to 10²⁶⁰, that is, a one followed by 260 zeros! This number is quite beyond our everyday comprehension. Richard Lewontin then pointed out the chicken-and-egg problem. “The proteins of the cell are made from other proteins, and without that protein-forming machinery, nothing can be made. There is an appearance here of infinite regress (What makes the proteins that are necessary to make the protein?)”’

‘Crick (DNA, double helix co-founder) understood that something as complex as a protein evolving by chance was highly improbable. So he became interested in “directed panspermia.” Once self-replicating bacteria originated somewhere in the universe, they could be spread by intelligent life-forms using spaceships to propel the minute critters through interstellar space. Crick used the word “directed” to imply that someone had deliberately sent bacteria to other planets. His theory was “obviously very speculative,” he allowed.’

So Darwinists now look to Chewbaca and aliens to save their theory.

Bethell’s conclusion is the only obvious one that can be made about the Church of Darwin: ‘the science of Darwinism amounts to little more than the “wedding” of materialism and Progress. We have seen that if materialism is true, then Darwinism—or something very much like it—must also be true. But materialism is highly implausible and has been widely challenged. At the same time, it only takes one partner to break up a marriage, and as we now know, Progress has wandered off the straight and narrow. As a result, the break-up of Darwinism seems likely in the years ahead.’

Darwinism is not a science and as an endeavour to improve science it is a failure and yes Bethell is right.  Someday it will be thrown into the trash where it belongs.