As we have seen, the inconsistencies in the evolutionary methodology are staggering; the evidence, non-existent at best and simply imagined (a product of wishful thinking) at worst. The questions that the evolutionary hypothesis asks, as well as the “answers” it gives, are not scientific at all, but philosophical. As a philosophy, then, the theory of evolution is the foundation for a religion – the religion of humanism. As a religion, it is simply, yet, another attempt by humanity at reaching God (at best) or otherwise replacing God (at worst).

The irony of this theory is found in the fact that it is the elites of society that are the proponents of this madness, which takes advantage of the misfortunate who cannot or otherwise don’t think for themselves. They ridicule those of faith all the while their theory rests on nothing more than a pipe-dream. There is far more evidence for divine design than any other theory, combined. They wag their fingers at organized religion, while by definition theirs is but a religion organized into an agenda. They accuse the church of corrupting the masses, but their agenda is force-fed by many in the public school systems, parroted by many in the media, legislated by many career politicians, and (most importantly) funded by many of the richest in the world. And they mockingly accuse dissidents of stupidity when their theory (as we have examined) follows no known Natural Laws; which is compounded irony when their theory is based on the “natural” (rather than supernatural).

The thrust that drives Darwinism and all subsequent ideologies is nothing more than a religion – The religion of Atheism. First, one can be a self-proclaimed Atheist if one wishes, but that one cannot at the same time claim it to be rational to be an Atheist. An Atheist, by definition, demands that “there is no God.” However, to demand that there is no God, one must be able to investigate the entire universe – all planetary bodies and masses – simultaneously; one must be able to span the entire space and time continuum (and beyond) to determine that, in fact, there is no God; which would actually, then, only determine such a one to be self-contradicting – that one being God by definition. For only God could do such a thing. Therefore, that which an Atheist offers is only an opinion, which carries with it no evidence (scientific or otherwise). Likewise, secondly, if all the material evidence in the world could be studied, it would not prove or disprove the existence of God. Even if the principles of Darwinism were true (which, as we have seen, they are not) they would neither prove nor disprove God. The study of material, obviously, does not consist of the study of the immaterial. One can study the physical world, but never stumble upon that which is beyond the physical.

Everything that is in existence exists because it necessarily had a “First Cause” which brought it into existence. There is no other possible logical conclusion. Such a First Cause could not have been created or otherwise have a beginning (or ending) point. It does not take faith to believe these facts, but only logic; logic is the tool used to study the evidence to deduce this conclusion. By faith I call this First Cause “God,” which is not a leap. I logically deduce that “God” has made Himself known through everything created, and that God has made Himself especially known through Jesus Christ (by raising Him from the dead, thus supporting everything Jesus said when He lived). You’re going to have to do something with that fact, too; for the evidence – historical, eye-witness, literary accounts – is clear.

There is no real scientific evidence for evolution; none, zero, zilch. There is not a single documented scientific proof on record, anywhere, from anytime, in existence. There is no evidence of evolution in any species at present. No one has ever at any point seen evolution happen. There are no known new species. No one has ever sited a new species or produced a new species by mechanisms of natural selection. There is no fossil evidence, and though there is no order in the fossils, a pattern has simply been imposed to which there is no record of evidence to support the assumption. In fact, there is no record that evolution is even possible.

In spite of the attempts, “horizontal variations” (for example, the difference in breeds of dogs) does not support the notion of evolution. The argument concerning “mutations,” likewise, as far as all known mutations are concerned, proves only that they are always (without exception) either neutral or harmful and never for the benefit of the species (as evolution insists).

In regards to astronomy (for example, the “Big Bang Theory”), the theory is riddled with contradictions to the Laws of Physics. In actuality, the evidence suggests that the material and its movement in the universe had an “outside source” from which it came.

The principles of chemistry demands that the notion of evolution has no rational basis, but again, only conjecture. In fact, its laws contradict the notion of random, accidental natural processes. That the building blocks of life were produced out of a chemical primordial soup is, logically (and practically) untenable. The specific sequence in a polymer chain, the synthesis of proteins and DNA/RNA requires necessary “control from an outside source.” Random chance is based not just on improbability, but on impossibility.

Furthermore, the Second Law of Thermodynamics contradicts the very premise of evolution. This law dictates (from all evidence, conversely) that the whole universe is running down into complete disorder. 

On the other hand, what does all the evidence in fact suggest? It suggests, first, that there was and is an “outside source” that brought everything into existence and, secondly, that outside source sustains everything in its function. Real science draws the conclusion that, logically speaking, a “First Cause” necessarily produced all the material and such a First Cause is necessarily separate and completely “other than” that material. This First Cause not only set these things in motion but also sustains the motion by Laws of Nature (Logic, Physics, Thermodynamics, and etc.) derived from a mindful design, due to their intricate and enormously completed function and/or existence. That First Cause I call “God” because He likes that!

The denial of the intelligent design (the mindful, purposed, organized creation) of the universe is not a new notion. That a self-aware Being (i.e. God) generated all that materially exists was challenged as early as Ancient Greece, where (so-called) scientists advocated an evolutionary hypothesis. Like the advocates of evolutionary (so-called) science today, their faulty logic ran counter to the fundamental laws of science. I refer to it as a “so-called” or “falsely so-called” science because it is only a philosophy (and not a logical one at that!). Real science starts with the material – the evidence, if you will – and either deduces or induces (through a series of tests, etc) objective conclusions based on said material or evidence. Evolutionary (so-called) science begins with presuppositions, either deduces or induces the material or evidence into the presuppositions, and then concludes with subjective conjecture and assumptions based on the presuppositions. Good philosophy can be a science, but bad science is the basis for an irrational philosophy.

Darwin himself recognized that his theory had many difficulties, and that if these difficulties were not rectified the theory would collapse under its own weight. In his writings he noted four such difficulties:

1)      The lack of transitional forms – No fossil evidence of the evolutionary process

2)      The incredible complexity of organs – the complexity of the eye, for example

3)      The development of instinct in animals – counterintuitive to the evolutionary process

4)      The sterility in the crossbreeding of species – crossbreeding negates survival

These difficulties (and many others) have not been rectified. The genetic aspect of the evolutionary theory has no practical or theoretical support. Logically speaking, it is an indefensible model. The theory has been shown to be invalid by objective geneticists and, practically, by the conclusive evidence. 

Good theology demands that God is the “intelligent designer” behind the universe, as logic insists. Material cannot decide to create itself then in fact create itself when it is, as of yet uncreated. There must be a source outside of the material that brings into existence that material. Otherwise, the material (like a “god”) has always been present. The Scriptures exclaim that God (the “source” outside of the material) brought everything into existence “ex nihilo” – “out of nothing” (Gen. 1:1). Only a conscious Being, outside of material, could bring into being that which has now come into being; it cannot come into being on its own (John 1:3). Furthermore, the Scriptures explain that God made both plant and animal kingdoms, fully grown, and all other subsequent plants and animals have been produced out of those first made by God (Gen. 1:11-31). The fossil records support this fact by giving evidence to a sudden onset or existence, with no evidence of “upward” evolutionary adaptation (but only horizontal; i.e. adapting to its surroundings). Again, the supporter of the evolutionary theory argues simply that we have not yet found that missing evidence. How convenient. But if we have not yet found the evolutionary evidence what, then, supports the theory?

February marks the birth month of Charles Darwin. To mark this occasion, I am offering a month-long blog series against Darwinism, the evolutionary hypothesis, and any other subsequent form of philosophical/religious, politically correct, nonsensical humanism. I aim for the common person to understand the arguments I will present, so I am consciously attempting to avoid the technical details of the debate. My desire is to awaken the church from its complacency and downright fear of that which is purposely confusing. I also wish to compel people to read, investigate, and research the material on their own. The only reason, in my opinion, that this “notion” (falsely so-called a science) called “Evolution” is extent is because we are ignorant of the facts (rather, the lack of facts on its part). Part One should rightly shake the foundations of any person with a conscience.

The original title of the book published in 1859 by Charles Darwin was, On Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Later printings and editions of the book would have the second half of the title (“the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”) removed. The term, “survival of the fittest” would later be coined in association with this book, but not by Darwin. This title alone should cause issue and hesitation for anyone who cares; especially in light of the fact that, not only is the month of February celebrated by Darwinists, but it is also Black History Month. Dedicating this month to the awareness of the struggles and injustices (as well as the great accomplishments and continuing battles) of a race should call into question any notion in Darwinian thought.

As the atrocities of the Nazis in WWII Europe are well documented, so is the Nazi adherence to Darwinian biology and medicine. Darwin himself promoted the medical practice of Eugenics, which the Nazis practiced. It is well know that Nazi Germany preferred to improve the overall quality of the human race (specifically the “German race”) by selectively breeding biologically “superior” people and forcibly eliminating genetic defects by sterilizing, aborting, and euthanizing “inferior” people. Not so well known, however, is that Darwin himself explained, “The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.”

It is this philosophical notion (falsely so-called “science”) termed “evolution” that claimed, not that long ago, that vestigial appendages, such as the appendix, the tail bone, and the tonsils are sorts of evolutionary leftovers, and useless. Yet now, through real science (which, by definition is “the study of” [processes], and not simply philosophical/religious conjecture) has found them useful in the human body and function. Today, Darwinism continues to place conjecture and assumptions before concrete evidence. Rather than studying a process objectively, the Darwinist comes with presuppositions, and when he/she cannot give evidence for his/her philosophical/religious beliefs he/she simply assumes it’s there but that we haven’t found it yet. How convenient.

God, the Creator and Sustainer of life, explicitly claims that every human being is “beautifully and wonderfully made.” He knows the plans that He has for each person; before they come out of the womb, He has plans of abundance and not lack. “For God loved creation generally, and humanity specifically, so much that He sent is only Son. He did not come to judge them, but to rescue them from perishing.”