Darwinism Darwinist rhetorical tactics Intelligent Design

Evolution Arguments Are Not Holding Water

Spread the love

Being an evolutionist means never having to say you’re sorry. Just look at Richard Dawkins who will say pretty much anything at any time, no matter how much it contradicts science or just plain logic. If he ever gets into trouble he can always lapse back into a rant about those creationist rascals and the audience will automatically erupt with applause. And so arguing evolution with an evolutionist is a lot like the Monty Python argument skit. They will pull out all manner of canards, misdirections, and fallacies, depending on their mood at the moment. One common example is the use of normal science as confirmatory evidence.  Read more

4 Replies to “Evolution Arguments Are Not Holding Water

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Darwinian ‘science’ in a nutshell:

    Jonathan Wells on pop science boilerplate – April 20, 2015
    Excerpt: Based on my reading of thousands of Peer-Reviewed Articles in the professional literature, I’ve distilled (the) template for writing scientific articles that deal with evolution:
    1. (Presuppose that) Darwinian evolution is a fact.
    2. We used [technique(s)] to study [feature(s)] in [name of species], and we unexpectedly found [results inconsistent with Darwinian evolution].
    3. We propose [clever speculations], which might explain why the results appear to conflict with evolutionary theory.
    4. We conclude that Darwinian evolution is a fact.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ilerplate/

    “Much of the vast neo-Darwinian literature is distressingly uncritical. The possibility that anything is seriously amiss with Darwin’s account of evolution is hardly considered. … The methodological skepticism that characterizes most areas of scientific discourse seems strikingly absent when Darwinism is the topic.”
    Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini

    “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”
    Marc Kirschner, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005

    “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”
    A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000).

    Darwinian Evolution is a Unfalsifiable Pseudo-Science – Mathematics – video (2016)
    https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1132659110080354/?type=2&theater

    The primary reasons why Darwinism is a pseudo-science instead of a proper science are as such:
    1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis (Demarcation/Falsification Criteria)
    2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis
    3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection are both grossly inadequate as ‘creative engines’
    4. Information is not reducible to a material basis, (in fact, in quantum mechanics it is found that material ultimately reduces to a information basis)
    5. Darwinism hinders scientific progress (i.e. falsely predicted Junk DNA, vestigial organs, etc.. etc.. etc..),

    Verse and Music:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    but test everything; hold fast what is good.

    Touch The Sky (lyric video) – Hillsong UNITED
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1RQciil7B0

  2. 2
    Mung says:

    Do evolution arguments not hold water because natural selection acts like a sieve?

  3. 3
    Seversky says:

    I see Biola’s still getting their money’s worth.

  4. 4

    Well said, bornagain77 @1

Leave a Reply