The “evidence” they use for darwinism is really evidence for Creation

Paul Rothbein mentions the scientific method. I didn’t see the referenced comment but Mr. Rothbein seems to be unaware that there is no scientific method that can corroborate darwinian evolution.

As a matter of fact, most people are unaware of two facts about the history of “darwinian evolution”.

(1) The “evidences” for it in the real world of biology they use are “evidences” of design built into the genome. With each new discovery that points to Creation, they say it’s evidence for their myth. As one well-known darwinian said, they can’t let a divine foot in the door so they believe all kinds of absurdities.

a. Fossils. Darwin said the fossil record of continuity would be uncovered with further digging. But he said it was already a counter evidence. A century later, Stephen Gould offered the even worse today lack of fossil evidence as evidence for his own theory of “punctuation” that happens so fast you can’t find any. “It’s as if it never happened”.

Then they started discovering “humanoid ancestors”. Neanderthals whose bone structure is the same as a Homo sapiens that had lived a long, long, time, say, the hundreds of years recorded in the Bible before the Flood.

b. Spontaneous biogenesis: Louis Pasteur used the scientific method to show that non-living things cannot spontaneously generate living tissue. Before that, it was widely believed to happen all the time because of rot. In fact Hoeckel was not the only darwinian who believed it. But he went ahead and drew his fraudulent pictures of such imaginary spontaneous micro-organism. He also drew his proven fraudulent drawings of embryos. He was castigated by his university for it with a mild rebuke.

And yet they still use his drawings in high school biology textbooks. My kids were subjected to them in the 1990s, and I’m told they are still there to this day in some.

The problem of how a one-celled organism could spontaneously form bedevils the believers in the religious myth of darwinism to this day. (Jeremiah 2:27)

c. Mendel: Mendel showed that traits are inherited and do not change spontaneously, even if skipped by one generation. His research was ignored until darwinism had subverted academia.

d. DNA. That super-molecule was enough to convince one of the co-discoverers that it could not appear spontaneously on Earth. Computer scientists should have sat up and took notice back then, they might have accelerated computerization much quicker. A completely spontaneous computing system, complete with symbolic language derived on a base of a quartenary-letter alphabet that is organized to code for the entire body plan with all biological systems of the functioning of an organism. And the variety within every “kind” of organism.

But no, they started trying to figure out how it could appear.

e. “Junk DNA”. Turns out they almost immediately started finding vital functions performed by such “vestigial DNA”. Just today there was another one on the radio, a neurologist talking about a gene from a strand of such former “junk”, that transplanted to a mouse embryo, increased the brain size in the mouse.

f. Epigenetics. About 10 years ago, during the first decade of the 21st century, I remember a scientific revolution reported happening in biology, because epigenetics studies had upended “everything” according to one biologist and they’d have to back to the beginning and “start all over” again.

g. Giants. 9 feet and more. Not just Saul, but bigger. There is evidence in various places, but since these are mentioned in the Bible, no divine foot is allowed. Foot-long cockroaches, mastodons that make elephants look like midgets, giant sloths, and so on and on. Why not? Before the Flood, when creation scientists say there was probably double or more atmospheric pressure, the kind necessary for a giant cockroach to survive, for example.

There is lots more of course, for the curious. Darwinians should get curious about what they haven’t been told.


%d bloggers like this: