Gab@StFerdinandIII - https://unstabbinated.substack.com/
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: Corona, 'The Science' or Scientism, Islam, the State, the cult of Gender Fascism, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion...
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
Darwinism and the religio-poli-cracy of Evolution relies on having faith in the God of Time to take nothing to everything. Microbiology, irreducible complexity, mathematical probability and real science destroy the facile Victorian theology that random chance can generate species transmutation and metamorphosis. No evidence for this exists. Evolution also has nothing to say about the origins of life, or arrival of life forms including the arrival of the ‘fittest’.
Given that real science and maths destroy the simplistic mechanical-materialistic view of Darwinians, they fall back on the God of time. If the universe is 13 billion years old, and the Earth some 4 billion, perhaps the Darwinian faithful intone, given various ‘quantum fluctuations’ merged with electromagnetic energy, suffused with chance and experimentation, the variegated life forms on Earth could have formed.
Is the Darwinian belief in long ages really supported by ‘The Science’? The evidence is certainly unkind to the religion of Evolution.
Even if you believe the cosmos is 4 Trillion-Brazilian years old, there is no mathematical probability that your ~70 trillion cells, with circa 6 feet of DNA coding per cell, or 67 billion miles of DNA per person, formed by chance within even that limitless amount of time. Time is a chimera when it comes to the secular religion of materialism. ‘Time’ can never create the conditions to allow the building of functional and coded design that runs for 67 billion miles in the case of a single human’s DNA, not to mention the endless complexities of flora and fauna species. Yet the ‘long ages’ is all Darwinians have when it comes to their holy Trinity of time, mutations, and chance and even those claims are more propaganda than scientific.
Let’s have a look at long-age ‘dating techniques’. More here
Monkeys to Men, in just 5 or 6 million years! Apes supposedly ‘evolved’ some 40 million years ago from the magic lab of ‘Evolution’. About 5-6 million years ago a fork from the ape genus developed and eventually ‘evolved’ to become the distinct Homo Sapiens species some 100.000 to 200.000 years ago. ‘Settled science’, everyone knows, teacher say, BBC say.
The difference between Humans and apes or chimps, or between wolves which pace ‘The Science’ apparently ‘evolved’ into whales, runs into the many billions of DNA letters. This simplistic view of massive complexity and design is astounding. There is no direct path from the simple to the complex.
In science the opposite is true. There is route of decomposition from the complex to the simple, as organisms decay and entropy or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics takes hold. Simple parts do not unite through a materialist process, to form the complex whole. There is no evidence that this can happen with individuals or species, nor within components of individuals. A bacterium’s flagella for example, or the human brain, are not formed in pieces, parts or over time. It is all or nothing. More here
====
“The greatest kindess one can render for any man is to lead him to the truth.” St. Thomas Aquinas
One of the most influential French mathematicians in the past 100 years was Marcel-Paul Schützenberger [1920-1996], and he was a Darwin Doubter. In fact he was publicly quite antagonistic to the cult of evergreens-became-the-screaming-mad climate 'expert'. He also specialized in complex nano-technology and mathematical computer simulations, merged together into something termed 'Combinatorics'. He knew that neither math nor technology could possibly support the outrageous tales made by the cult of Darwin. “The evolution of living creatures appears to require an essential ingredient, a specific form of organization. Whatever it is, it lies beyond anything that our present knowledge of physics or chemistry might suggest; it is a property upon which formal logic sheds absolutely no light. Whether gradualists or saltationists, Darwinians have too simple a conception of biology, rather like a locksmith improbably convinced that his handful of keys will open any lock. Darwinians, for example, tend to think of the gene rather as if it were the expression of a simple command: do this, get that done, drop that side chain. Walter Gehring's work on the regulatory genes controlling the development of the insect eye reflects this conception. The relevant genes may well function this way, but the story on this level is surely incomplete, and Darwinian theory is not apt to fill in the pieces.” (Interview Origins and Design 17:2)
Schützenberger's work supported the now obvious and confirmed conclusion that random mutations consistently produce degeneration, not ‘progress’. In fact not one single positive mutation can be named by the Darwinists. No entry exists for positive mutations, cited by Darwinists as changes in the genomic code to take a flat worm, to a fat man. More here
===
R. F. Shedinger has written a very interesting book on aspects of Darwin’s life and philosophy that most people are unaware of. In schools and the mainstream (fake news) media, you get the usual hagiography, much as you do with quacks and criminals such as Jenner or Pasteur, or the anti-reality philosophers like Einstein. Maybe it is time that people had a critical look at the theology of Darwinism and its utter paucity of proofs or logic. There is nothing scientific about evolution.
There are many frauds in the history of science. God-like status has been given to many men, who were plagiarisers, liars, cheats, con-artists, second-rate philosophers, quacks and who provided no mechanical-objective-replicable proof for their ideas. Many if not most famous scientists including Galileo, Newton, Michelson, Morley, Einstein, Hawking, Dawkins and Darwin all belong within this spectrum to some extent, to name but a favoured few. Aspects of some of their work might be scientific or relevant, but much of what is accepted as ‘science’ is simply gibberish. More here
“It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong.” Voltaire in "The Age of Louis XIV", 1751.
Evolution is a philosophical enterprise premised on ‘natural selection’, mutations, time and materialism. Evolution as the only default answer for any biological process, explains precisely nothing. As with ‘climate change’, any activity or result is due to ‘evolution’. It cannot of course explain the creation of life, our world, or why there are 2 million species with such finely tuned and wonderfully designed systems.
Darwin’s word salads explain everything and therefore mean nothing:
Did the organism flourish? It was naturally selected of course, given its ‘competitive advantages’.
Did it die out? It was selected to expire and become extinct. It was ‘uncompetitive’.
Did that species thrive and conquer its competitors? It possessed competitive advantages due to mutations and genetic allele shuffling.
Did that species go extinct? It was not competitive enough and the functional accretions of allele shuffling failed in comparison to its competitors.
Why does that fossil body plan exactly ressemble the same creature today? Due to punctuated equilibrium there was a sudden change in structure but given that it was perfectly adapted there ensued stasis and equilibrium. Trust us, this fossil is 14 billion, trillion, brazilian years old.
No facts, no mechanical proofs, just rhetoric. Harvard’s Richard Lewontin (an atheist, materialist) once wrote:
“the theory (Darwinism) 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.”
Lewontin is spot on.
As Karl 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 how the brain ‘evolved’, 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.’
The Darwinian explanation for any biological process is devoid of science and pregnant with rhetoric, tautology, unproven claims and nonsense.
None of the above postulations which you find in any evolutionary discourse, is based on science, mathematical probability, logic, observation or common sense. Therefore, it is simply anti-science to state that bacteria became Bach. Bacteria never change. Bacteria will always remain bacteria and revert back to a mean.