cor-lwh.gif (62 bytes) Evolution (check you brains at the door) cor-rwh.gif (63 bytes)
| Home | Articles | Resources | Persecution | Links | Contact |
Who are the people who call themselves the "guardians of reason," if not bigots of the pagan religion called evolution? Aren't they really modern-day priests of the Holy Inquisition, entrenched in their religious beliefs? Natural selection:

"Survival of the fittest."

Why isn't it the arrival of the fittest?

If someone tells you that you are backward because you reject evolution as a valid theory, that there's scientific evidence for evolution etc., ask that person to define evolution.
We have e-Machines, e-Mail, e-Commerce, and also...  e-Volution!
There are those people running around who call anybody names who stands for the truth and, incidentally, are in their way...
Some of the biggest fallacies of those promoting the Darwinian theory of evolution:

1. Assuming that most other people who don't believe in this story are dumb (really, it's very hard escaping such an observation).

2. Mixing definitions of different theories and terms. Before you even start talking or arguing (and wasting your valuable time) with these people, ask them to define what they understand by the words evolution, theism, religion, truth, belief and a few other terms that you may need to use in your conversation. Some will give you hundreds of examples of microevolution, which is a perfectly valid scientific theory and there is plenty of evidence for evolution understood as an adaptation of living organisms to a changing environment, within certain limits. But they don't stop there. They will then conclude that therefore evolution, as a whole (as they choose to define it), is a fact.

3. Defining evolution as a naturalistic process which brought into existence everything we see around. Also, stating clearly (as in many textbooks) that there is no supernatural power, entity, or deity, involved in the process.  Where did this one come from?  They shouldn't be needing such a definition - let the facts speak for themself, right?  WRONG!!  Not for some of those demagogues.  I don't know why should we deal with someone's personal beliefs (where is the proof, other than some "arguments" of a rather philosophical nature), when we are supposed to be talking "science" here. In other words, "Please, sir, show me the facts."  To me it is a philosophy and a pantheistic religion masquerading as a "scientific theory".  And, as a philosophy and/or religion, it should remain in its own realm and not be mixed with science which, by its own definition, should rely on empirical data.
It really amuses me when evolution-believing people enter a chat room, post a newsgroup message, or post a web page that tries to compare evolutionary theory to Einstein's theory of relativity, saying that they are both equally valid and proven theories...  This is simply not true. Again, make sure you know which theory they are talking about; micro, or macro evolution.

4. Asking anybody who dares to confront them with the reality to present a replacement for their fraudulent theory.  When someone confronts them and shows that what they teach in schools has been discredited and proven wrong 50 years ago, or in some cases in the 19th Century and the new evidence doesn't match their predictions, they ask for an alternative to be provided!  No, no, no...  It doesn't work like that.  I don't have to come up with any theory to replace theirs. It is enough to show that this theory doesn't fly. It is not my problem that they hate to say "I don't know". I would rather say "I don't know" than promote lies.

5. Stating that every one who rejects evolutionary theory, rejects reason, thought and science. Such a person falls into at least one of the following categories:

- such a person believes that Earth is only a few thousand years old. I guess this is supposed to be really bad, heavy accusation - putting such a person in the category of "nuts", or "wacko's". Well, we would have to re-examine certain assumptions about the physical properties of the universe we live in (Some scientists, though, sound like they came from some other universe, with a different set of laws of physics. But we will leave it for another occasion.).

- is a Bible-believing person, or some other "religious nut"

- is in opposition to any thought and science (as they define it)

Notice, there are many good scientists who are not buying into this theory. Some of them are self-proclaimed atheists.  And, yet, when they speak up against the holy cow, they immediately lose the favor of the anointed priests of science and start being called all kind of names and labels are put on them.  It is funny to watch as an atheist is called a "Christian", a "fundamentalist wacko", a "Bible-thumper", or something of that nature, just because he/she published a work or made a statement that did away with a few of the myths of evolution, and thus tarnished the concept that "all scientists believe in evolution".

R-Kiver 1999
| Home | Articles | Resources | Persecution | Links | Contact |
cor-blwh.gif (63 bytes)

|| ©   1999-2011 ||

cor-brwh.gif (63 bytes)