While evolutionists are quite fond of parroting the phrase, "Creation Science isn't science", they insist that the theory of evolution is true science. I question how many evolutionists would disagree with the following.
**********************************************************************
[1] Genuine science is objective and invites scrutiny and investigation.
[1a]It does not ridicule the critics of its conclusions, but instead silences their criticisms by setting forth the evidence from which those conclusions are drawn
[2] Genuine science seeks the truth that explains the observed evidence.
[2a]It does not prejudice the investigation by ruling out, from the start, hypotheses that may very well provide the best explanation for the observed evidence.
[3] Genuine science rejects any hypothesis that consistently fails to fit observed scientific evidence.
[3a]It does not persistently assume that the fault lies in the evidence rather than in the hypothesis itself.
**********************************************************************
I have long claimed that the TOE is anything but true science. In reality it is nothing more than a rehash of very old pagan religious beliefs, with a few new twists thrown in for good measure.
At {
Sitestar Internet Operations | }, the website source for material quoted throughout this post, the material made available would seem to be in agreement with me that evolution is not a true science but is indeed a system of religious beliefs, when we insist upon using the accepted definition of science. Below are futher comments from the same site.
**********************************************************************
.......Evolution, disguised as a viable scientific theory, is actually a tool of religious propaganda and cultural domination, used by those who hold to the religion of Naturalism.
**********************************************************************
Now, while evolutionists would prefer to deny the ancient beginings of their religious beliefs, history cannot be denied. The religion of naturalism, or evolution, is older than nearly every recognized religious belief in practice today. It has been slightly modified to fit in with todays mindset, but its' basic tenets remain intact.
**********************************************************************
Naturalism is the belief that all things, including the origin of life, can be explained purely in terms of natural phenomena, without the intervention of a supernatural being or deity. Ironically, many of the dogmatic proponents of Evolution may not even be aware that this is the religion they hold. Most seem unable to distinguish their religion from their "science", and thus pursue their opposition to a Creator on what they suppose are purely "scientific" grounds.
One of the most glaring evidences that Evolution is unscientific is the refusal of its proponents to respond to its critics in a fair-handed way. Instead, critics of Evolution are subjected to scorn and ridicule, and dismissed as mental midgets or religious crackpots. When the Evolutionist says that life originated without the intervention of a supernatural Being, he is making a religious assertion, not a scientific one. The fact that he may be a scientist by profession, or that he conducts his science in light of this presuppostion does not change the fact that it is a religious claim. It is no more "scientific" than the Creationist's assertion of an intervening Creator.
**********************************************************************
In this thread, I will present articles that confirm the religious nature of the evolutionary beliefs as well as articles that show it is not the true science that it proponents claim it to be. This is not to say that scientific measures are never taken in the study of evolution, only that science is often abandoned, as it must be, to support many of the assertions made by evolutionists. Let us begin by having evolutionists comment on the following observation.
**********************************************************************
The Mechanisms of Evolution are Fatally Flawed.
Evolution makes great but empty claims that it is based upon scientific evidence. In reality, Evolution is based primarily upon hypothetical mechanisms for how life might have begun and developed complexity and function...
*Abiogenesis - the belief that life arose from non-living matter through random interactions among naturally-occurring chemicals,
*Random Mutation - a proposed mechanism of how new genetic material might have come into existence,
*Natural Selection - a proposed mechanism of how beneficial genetic traits are selected and preserved,
*Vast Periods of Time - the belief that the universe is billions of years old, and the naive assumption that that is sufficient time to work the Evolutionary miracles needed to turn "primordial soup" into the vast diversity of plants and animals existent today.
Evolutionists appeal to these hypothetical mechanisms in an attempt to demonstrate the plausibility of evolution as an explanation for the origin of life. Because of their natural depravity, many people find this an attractive alternative to the idea of a holy, all-powerful Creator. Having rejected the idea of a divine Creator from the outset, they readily suppose that any argument for the plausibility of Evolution constitutes proof of Evolution. But just how plausible are these hypothetical mechanisms of evolution? Could they really accomplish the fantastic feat of bringing modern-day life into existence purely by natural causes?
**********************************************************************
Let us refrain from the erroneous statement that evolution makes no attempt to deal with the origin of life via abiogenesis. By making this false claim, evolutionists show their deceptive bias while denying the mechanisms that demand recognition in order for the theory of evolution to even be plausible. Every idea has its beginning and the beginning of the evolutionary process is abiogenesis. To deny this fact is to shine the light of ignorance on an already flawed hypothesis. The study of the "origin of the species" must recognize its' starting point and learn to deal with it in an honest and open manner. No novel is regarded as being complete by removing the preface, introduction, and beginning chapters. Neither can the TOE be regarded as being complete by removing its causal beginnings. (We will ignore the absence of an explanation as to how the chemicals necessary for abiogenesis came into existance, for now anyway!) If you insist on claiming that the ToE makes no attempt to deal with how life arose, please begin your re-education at the following site,
{
UCSD IT Service Portal - Information Technology}, which will help you to understand where you went wrong in your thought process. Once you have recognized that abiogenesis and the Toe are inextricably linked, you will be better equipped to accept the obvious flaws in the ToE that will be revealed in this continuing thread.
™ Version 4.2
