I'll skip the introduction and get straight to the point:
Contrary to the Richard Dawkins religious cultists, Darwinism is not science, rather, much like the musings of Karl Marx, it is a complete fraud.
The reason Darwinism cannot -- or I should say should no longer -- be labeled a 'science' is because this bogus subjective observational concoction Charles Darwin unleashed on humanity cannot even be tested under strictly controlled conditions and protocols, i.e. the scientific method.
The scientific method:
Folks, Darwinian evolution can't even make it past "stage 4."
I know it pains Darwinists to admit their faith is no more verifiable than the beliefs practiced by Osama bin Laden and Jehovah Witnesses but this is an incontrovertible fact.
So rule #1 when debating a Darwinist is this:
If a Darwinist dares to attempt to "one-up you" by pompously proclaiming Darwinism to be 'science' knocking your primitive beliefs are 'religious', they are lying. Call them on it and DO NOT LET THEM CHANGE THE SUBJECT. Forget the Bible or any other red herring they will try to throw at you while you watch them frantically swing away helplessly like an octopus falling out of a tree (DEAC's avatar). All you're trying to establish at this juncture is that Darwinism isn't science.
Next, once you've established a level playing field with a Darwinist, you can slowly begin to de-construct their laughable theory. This won't be easy, because at this point you're likely to get a reaction similar to a five year old finding out that Santa Clause doesn't really exist. Caution: most Darwinists aren't ones for handling reality very well -- duh! -- so you'll have to move swiftly and tactfully by filling this vacuum without sounding like Sen. Barack Obama's spiritual mentor Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
So if not Darwinism, how did we get here? Where and when did life begin?
Ah, now we're getting to crux of why so many Darwinists cling to one of the most irrational religions on record.
Folks, it has nothing to with 'science' and EVERYTHING to do with the human ego. Like many of the values that are firmly entrenched within the intelligentsia, Darwinism maintains it's momentum from group think and peer review. If a lone scientist in this close-knit community dares to present an alternative theory, they are ridiculed, chastised and in some cases, even threatened.
But let us suppose that Darwinism could be completely debunked. It doesn't take a psychologist to figure out the heavy social implications this would carry. Secular humanists would be finally forced to admit that, yes, humans were seeded/created/assisted under the direct 'design' of some sort of superior form of intelligence.
Why, that almost sounds too intimidating for those poor misguided souls who base their values strictly on what their heart tells them and -- *cough* -- 'reason' because of course it is. Rejecting Darwinism means that -- God, forbid -- it's highly probable that someone/somewhere is watching us every nanosecond and that -- God forbid (again) -- we might someday face a form of judgment and be accountable for our thoughts, feelings and BEHAVIOR -- just as it is written in the Bible.
ACCOUNTABILITY and ULTIMATE JUDGMENT: Joe C's wet dream; not so appealing for the secular humanist who would rather crank up the volume of whatever noise he/she is listening to, than face reality.
For the record, this is exactly why Charles Darwin unleashed his garbage theory -- his entire 'mission' was to debunk the Bible and it's moral code. Talk about unscientific bias -- no 'agenda' there, nosiree bob.
The modern cult of Darwinism confirms what the great CK Chesterson once said:
"When you don't believe in God, you will believe in anything."
(Like every one who believes in God, I have my days when I doubt my faith -- of course I admit this. Certainly, I acknowledge I have many questions that will never be answered. Yet on those days, all I have to do is subject myself to the patent stupidity of any random DEAC post -- the ultimate poster boy of modern secular thought -- and I'll instantaneously find myself back on the straight and narrow, as God is my witness. )
So that is the psychological megaton weight you will be dealing with if you're brave enough to debate a Darwinist.
What about the 'science' behind Darwinism?
Here's the inconvenient truth about Darwinism. The more we learn about our amazing universe and the infinite complexity of biological organisms, the more absurd the theory of Darwinism becomes. In other words, the more we learn, the less we know and therefore, the less likely we went from a singular cellular organism to Beethoven and Barry Bonds. Note I didn't say this 'proves' a designer -- just as any intellectually honest Darwinist would never claim any scientific evidence to support his/her own theory -- only that ID will one day replace Darwinism as the de-facto explanation for human existence.
Although Darwinist keep trying, there will never EVER be any miracle scientific 'breakthrough'(s) -- a "smoking gun" -- confirming Darwinian evolution, because the entire theory is quickly becoming the least plausible of all explanations.
There are three main pillars to Darwinism -- two of them universally accepted among scientists. The last one being the most controversial and -- as you will see -- also the most laughable and implausible.
#1. Common Descent:
Let us begin on common ground.
Common descent basically states that all living beings emanate from some common ancestor: a unicellular organism. This is not implausible but still proves nothing as far as our Darwinist friends are concerned.
So far, so good for our Darwinian friends.
#2. Natural selection: micro-mutations within a species
Similar to Darwin's original observation and what Dawkins states in his book (btw, for those who care, Richard Dawkins isn't even a biologist :missingte), discussing the different types of dogs or cats, a species can adapt according to it's own surroundings. Different variations, or 'themes' as they are called, of the original species. But even at this stage, Darwinism is already on thin ice bordering on intellectual dishonesty. For example, when attempting to explain away the process of "natural selection," Darwinists carefully insert convenient non-religious words like "natural forces." Ask a Darwinist what he/she means by "natural forces" and you're likely to get that deer-in-headlight stare followed by something to the effect of "well, that's what I was taught in biology class." :wink:
Moving right along...
#3. Random mutations or random variations : From earth worm to Albert Einstein (and everything in between) courtesy of lady luck
Here we come to the crux of this asinine theory and gigantic -- I mean MASSIVE -- leap of faith on behalf of Darwinists.
Much to the chagrin of Darwinists, science has 'evolved' (pun intended) -- especially in the last few decades. For example, where Darwin once believed the foundation of life (the cell) was essentially nothing more than piece of jelly, it turns out as luck would have it is far more infinitely complex than even he could have imagined. Far from a blob of jelly, a single cell is engineered like a finely tuned Swiss watch -- a nano factory in itself, if you will.
So as science unearths new cellular discoveries, it becomes exceedingly difficult to believe that a single cell -- never mind a cluster of independent cells coordinating with one another to form, say, a new organ, an eye etc. -- could achieve such a feat by "random mutations" no matter how many eons elapsed and no matter how many rolls of the dice.
A monkey can break a watch rather easily smashing it around -- just as random mutations occur all the time. Easy. No brainer. The problem Darwinists face is how does one construct an infinitely complex interactive system on the biological level which at it's root relies on millions of "random mutations?" And not simply 'random' mutations, but positive mutations (ADVANCED beneficial mutations) all working in unison toward the same common objective.
Answer: You don't.
Furthermore when you break down or tamper a gene, it almost always results in a deteriorative effect: negative mutation.
What Darwinists are asking you to believe borders on the absurd, is virtually mathematically impossible and -- this is very important -- HAS NEVER BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY OBSERVED OR TESTED.
Folks, NOTHING remotely functional on this planet ever happens by 'accident.' Everything (man-made or natural) was designed with conscious intent -- EVERYTHING.
If I saw a computer on Neptune, I would infer that it had been designed. This was the common (obvious) world belief...until Darwin.
Does this 'prove' ID or 'disprove' Darwinism? Of course not -- not on the biological level, no. But then Darwinism has never been 'proven' on the biological level either.
Just understood one thing:
The notion that 'science' by definition must EXCLUDE the obvious (design) is an agenda based statement.
It's a NON SEQUITUR designed to EXCLUDE the ID theory.
The entrenched scientific community is notorious for denying new discoveries. When the Big Bang theory was first introduced, scientists HATED it and REJECTED it. Why? Because it suggested a "banger" -- a beginning.
Now matter Darwinists try to spin it, eventually they find themselves back to where Darwin began his misguided journey. It's up to YOU to decide which theory sounds the most plausible: order vs chaos.
I can almost hear the Wolfies of the world chomping at the bit...
But Joe, everything in modern biology is predicated on Darwinism. Without Darwinism modern medicine would cease to exist, universities would have to close etc. :lolBIG:
Wrong. Penicillin, just to give one example, wasn't derived from the fraudulent theory of Darwinism. Needless to say if you hear this argument, you know you've done your job and that Darwinism is headed for the dustbin of history. Sorry, Darwinists, modern medicine is not based on "natural selection" rather it is predicated on the fact of that life is built up of molecular systems (DNA, proteins etc.). Whatever new modern biology discovers on that level, Darwinian theory immediately scratches it's head and begins to try and fit it into it's crackpot 'theory.' And some people call this 'science'?
hno:
But Joe, if a perfect God made man, why do cells develop cancer? Why do people develop MS? This is the biologist's way of disguising the age-old RELIGIOUS question of "why is there suffering in the world?" It has nothing to do with science.
My reply: we humans create finely tuned engineered structures and machinery all the time -- but they do eventually break down. Planes crash, bridges collapse when subjected to nature's fury, parts fail and need to be replaced. Nothing in our PHYSICAL dimension is EVER indestructible or perfect -- NOTHING.
As to why God allows suffering, famine, disease, mass-murder etc....I don't pretend to have those answers -- I don't.
I understand why humans gravitate toward a nonsensical theory like Darwinism. It's a theological yearning -- an inability to satisfy their hunger of man's age-old questions and the meaning of life. In other words, people who believe in Darwinism DON'T WANT THERE TO BE A DESIGNER so they reject him out of hand -- hardly objective or rational.
Folks, people cling to Darwinism because they don't want to believe a loving God could allow the amount of suffering we witness in this world. People cling to Darwinism because they want to live a life without accountability. THAT'S why some humans choose to believe in Darwinism...which at it's root is a PSYCHOLOGICAL issue.
That's all fine and dandy, but it has almost nothing to do with actual 'science.'
Contrary to the Richard Dawkins religious cultists, Darwinism is not science, rather, much like the musings of Karl Marx, it is a complete fraud.
The reason Darwinism cannot -- or I should say should no longer -- be labeled a 'science' is because this bogus subjective observational concoction Charles Darwin unleashed on humanity cannot even be tested under strictly controlled conditions and protocols, i.e. the scientific method.
The scientific method:
- Define the question
- Gather information and resources (observe)
- Form hypothesis
- Perform experiment and collect data
- Analyze data
- Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
- Publish results
- Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
Folks, Darwinian evolution can't even make it past "stage 4."
I know it pains Darwinists to admit their faith is no more verifiable than the beliefs practiced by Osama bin Laden and Jehovah Witnesses but this is an incontrovertible fact.
So rule #1 when debating a Darwinist is this:
If a Darwinist dares to attempt to "one-up you" by pompously proclaiming Darwinism to be 'science' knocking your primitive beliefs are 'religious', they are lying. Call them on it and DO NOT LET THEM CHANGE THE SUBJECT. Forget the Bible or any other red herring they will try to throw at you while you watch them frantically swing away helplessly like an octopus falling out of a tree (DEAC's avatar). All you're trying to establish at this juncture is that Darwinism isn't science.
Next, once you've established a level playing field with a Darwinist, you can slowly begin to de-construct their laughable theory. This won't be easy, because at this point you're likely to get a reaction similar to a five year old finding out that Santa Clause doesn't really exist. Caution: most Darwinists aren't ones for handling reality very well -- duh! -- so you'll have to move swiftly and tactfully by filling this vacuum without sounding like Sen. Barack Obama's spiritual mentor Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
So if not Darwinism, how did we get here? Where and when did life begin?
Ah, now we're getting to crux of why so many Darwinists cling to one of the most irrational religions on record.
Folks, it has nothing to with 'science' and EVERYTHING to do with the human ego. Like many of the values that are firmly entrenched within the intelligentsia, Darwinism maintains it's momentum from group think and peer review. If a lone scientist in this close-knit community dares to present an alternative theory, they are ridiculed, chastised and in some cases, even threatened.
But let us suppose that Darwinism could be completely debunked. It doesn't take a psychologist to figure out the heavy social implications this would carry. Secular humanists would be finally forced to admit that, yes, humans were seeded/created/assisted under the direct 'design' of some sort of superior form of intelligence.
Why, that almost sounds too intimidating for those poor misguided souls who base their values strictly on what their heart tells them and -- *cough* -- 'reason' because of course it is. Rejecting Darwinism means that -- God, forbid -- it's highly probable that someone/somewhere is watching us every nanosecond and that -- God forbid (again) -- we might someday face a form of judgment and be accountable for our thoughts, feelings and BEHAVIOR -- just as it is written in the Bible.
ACCOUNTABILITY and ULTIMATE JUDGMENT: Joe C's wet dream; not so appealing for the secular humanist who would rather crank up the volume of whatever noise he/she is listening to, than face reality.
For the record, this is exactly why Charles Darwin unleashed his garbage theory -- his entire 'mission' was to debunk the Bible and it's moral code. Talk about unscientific bias -- no 'agenda' there, nosiree bob.
The modern cult of Darwinism confirms what the great CK Chesterson once said:
"When you don't believe in God, you will believe in anything."
(Like every one who believes in God, I have my days when I doubt my faith -- of course I admit this. Certainly, I acknowledge I have many questions that will never be answered. Yet on those days, all I have to do is subject myself to the patent stupidity of any random DEAC post -- the ultimate poster boy of modern secular thought -- and I'll instantaneously find myself back on the straight and narrow, as God is my witness. )
So that is the psychological megaton weight you will be dealing with if you're brave enough to debate a Darwinist.
What about the 'science' behind Darwinism?
Here's the inconvenient truth about Darwinism. The more we learn about our amazing universe and the infinite complexity of biological organisms, the more absurd the theory of Darwinism becomes. In other words, the more we learn, the less we know and therefore, the less likely we went from a singular cellular organism to Beethoven and Barry Bonds. Note I didn't say this 'proves' a designer -- just as any intellectually honest Darwinist would never claim any scientific evidence to support his/her own theory -- only that ID will one day replace Darwinism as the de-facto explanation for human existence.
Although Darwinist keep trying, there will never EVER be any miracle scientific 'breakthrough'(s) -- a "smoking gun" -- confirming Darwinian evolution, because the entire theory is quickly becoming the least plausible of all explanations.
There are three main pillars to Darwinism -- two of them universally accepted among scientists. The last one being the most controversial and -- as you will see -- also the most laughable and implausible.
#1. Common Descent:
Let us begin on common ground.
Common descent basically states that all living beings emanate from some common ancestor: a unicellular organism. This is not implausible but still proves nothing as far as our Darwinist friends are concerned.
So far, so good for our Darwinian friends.
#2. Natural selection: micro-mutations within a species
Similar to Darwin's original observation and what Dawkins states in his book (btw, for those who care, Richard Dawkins isn't even a biologist :missingte), discussing the different types of dogs or cats, a species can adapt according to it's own surroundings. Different variations, or 'themes' as they are called, of the original species. But even at this stage, Darwinism is already on thin ice bordering on intellectual dishonesty. For example, when attempting to explain away the process of "natural selection," Darwinists carefully insert convenient non-religious words like "natural forces." Ask a Darwinist what he/she means by "natural forces" and you're likely to get that deer-in-headlight stare followed by something to the effect of "well, that's what I was taught in biology class." :wink:
Moving right along...
#3. Random mutations or random variations : From earth worm to Albert Einstein (and everything in between) courtesy of lady luck
Here we come to the crux of this asinine theory and gigantic -- I mean MASSIVE -- leap of faith on behalf of Darwinists.
Much to the chagrin of Darwinists, science has 'evolved' (pun intended) -- especially in the last few decades. For example, where Darwin once believed the foundation of life (the cell) was essentially nothing more than piece of jelly, it turns out as luck would have it is far more infinitely complex than even he could have imagined. Far from a blob of jelly, a single cell is engineered like a finely tuned Swiss watch -- a nano factory in itself, if you will.
So as science unearths new cellular discoveries, it becomes exceedingly difficult to believe that a single cell -- never mind a cluster of independent cells coordinating with one another to form, say, a new organ, an eye etc. -- could achieve such a feat by "random mutations" no matter how many eons elapsed and no matter how many rolls of the dice.
A monkey can break a watch rather easily smashing it around -- just as random mutations occur all the time. Easy. No brainer. The problem Darwinists face is how does one construct an infinitely complex interactive system on the biological level which at it's root relies on millions of "random mutations?" And not simply 'random' mutations, but positive mutations (ADVANCED beneficial mutations) all working in unison toward the same common objective.
Answer: You don't.
Furthermore when you break down or tamper a gene, it almost always results in a deteriorative effect: negative mutation.
What Darwinists are asking you to believe borders on the absurd, is virtually mathematically impossible and -- this is very important -- HAS NEVER BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY OBSERVED OR TESTED.
Folks, NOTHING remotely functional on this planet ever happens by 'accident.' Everything (man-made or natural) was designed with conscious intent -- EVERYTHING.
If I saw a computer on Neptune, I would infer that it had been designed. This was the common (obvious) world belief...until Darwin.
Does this 'prove' ID or 'disprove' Darwinism? Of course not -- not on the biological level, no. But then Darwinism has never been 'proven' on the biological level either.
Just understood one thing:
The notion that 'science' by definition must EXCLUDE the obvious (design) is an agenda based statement.
It's a NON SEQUITUR designed to EXCLUDE the ID theory.
The entrenched scientific community is notorious for denying new discoveries. When the Big Bang theory was first introduced, scientists HATED it and REJECTED it. Why? Because it suggested a "banger" -- a beginning.
Now matter Darwinists try to spin it, eventually they find themselves back to where Darwin began his misguided journey. It's up to YOU to decide which theory sounds the most plausible: order vs chaos.
I can almost hear the Wolfies of the world chomping at the bit...
But Joe, everything in modern biology is predicated on Darwinism. Without Darwinism modern medicine would cease to exist, universities would have to close etc. :lolBIG:
Wrong. Penicillin, just to give one example, wasn't derived from the fraudulent theory of Darwinism. Needless to say if you hear this argument, you know you've done your job and that Darwinism is headed for the dustbin of history. Sorry, Darwinists, modern medicine is not based on "natural selection" rather it is predicated on the fact of that life is built up of molecular systems (DNA, proteins etc.). Whatever new modern biology discovers on that level, Darwinian theory immediately scratches it's head and begins to try and fit it into it's crackpot 'theory.' And some people call this 'science'?
hno: But Joe, if a perfect God made man, why do cells develop cancer? Why do people develop MS? This is the biologist's way of disguising the age-old RELIGIOUS question of "why is there suffering in the world?" It has nothing to do with science.
My reply: we humans create finely tuned engineered structures and machinery all the time -- but they do eventually break down. Planes crash, bridges collapse when subjected to nature's fury, parts fail and need to be replaced. Nothing in our PHYSICAL dimension is EVER indestructible or perfect -- NOTHING.
As to why God allows suffering, famine, disease, mass-murder etc....I don't pretend to have those answers -- I don't.
I understand why humans gravitate toward a nonsensical theory like Darwinism. It's a theological yearning -- an inability to satisfy their hunger of man's age-old questions and the meaning of life. In other words, people who believe in Darwinism DON'T WANT THERE TO BE A DESIGNER so they reject him out of hand -- hardly objective or rational.
Folks, people cling to Darwinism because they don't want to believe a loving God could allow the amount of suffering we witness in this world. People cling to Darwinism because they want to live a life without accountability. THAT'S why some humans choose to believe in Darwinism...which at it's root is a PSYCHOLOGICAL issue.
That's all fine and dandy, but it has almost nothing to do with actual 'science.'
arty:
