![]()
Evolution.
This gets a mention because of the inherently religious nature of evolution. Evolution absolutely depends on the philosophical positions of materialism and naturalism, and is thus dictated by a religious worldview. Evolutionist Richard Lewontin makes this dependence very clear (emphasis added):
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
When evolutionists (or evolution adherents) say "evolution is a fact" they are not stating scientific truth. They are making a faith statement based on their desire for evolution to be true; evolution gives them an excuse to not believe in a creator to whom they would have to be accountable. For more information
about this topic see
Answers in Genesis or
Creation
on the Web, or even try out the genetic change modeling tool
Mendel's Accountant which makes it quite clear that the very idea of evolution is pure fantasy. The articles
Creating With Chance and
Hawking Claims That Life Can Form By Chance nicely highlight how irrational it is to believe in a materialistic origin of life, while
this article lists 15 fatal flaws for an evolutionary origin of life.
This video simply explains why evolution does not make scientific sense, and
Can mutations create new information? (a semi-technical article) explains why "The examples of mutations we have are not of the types required for evolution to advance."
Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, said the following in a public lecture presented at New York City’s American Museum of Natural History on 5 November 1981:
One morning I woke up … and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff [evolution] for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it.
...
I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that you think is true?” I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago … and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said: “Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.”.’
![]()
![]()
Printed on 20 January 2021 at www.cults.co.nz.
Close window