Against Darwinism: Final Part

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.

Comments are closed.