Science or a Religion Called Darwinism??? Part 1

Why is this a question? We will revisit this at the end. I need to note from the outset that I have no problem with theistic evolution (or whatever you want to call it), and I am not at all interested in arguing about which specific belief should be taken (although I do have my opinion). I am more interested in exposing the lies and misrepresentation of supposed facts for the cause of Darwinian Evolution. I am also interested in showing the ways that scientists have overstepped their bounds in order to maintain their belief in this theory. Anyway, read through this three part series and let me know what you think.


What we are not doing: Debating the finer points of evolution and Darwin’s theory. If you are interested in learning more there are a number of great books, but one small and simple one is "Answers", by Josh McDowell.

What we are going to do: Discuss the role science plays in knowledge, what evidence is there for evolution, and discuss the question “Are science and Christianity at odds?” I will weigh heavily on a book by Nancy Pearcy called "Total Truth".

What is the role of science?
Science is a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways.

The primary focus of Science is to observe the physical universe, that is what can be experienced through the five senses and report what has been learned.

Science can say nothing about things that are experienced by other means than the five senses. How many of you believe that we can only know things through the five senses? That is likely what you have been taught. However, this idea was not something that was taught until the last 300-500 years following the enlightenment the Enlightenment. People used to have a more comprehensive view of knowledge in that we can know things outside of the five senses as well. The idea that we can only know things in that way is actually self-defeating. You cannot prove by the five senses that this is the only way to know things. I talk much more about knowledge and how we go about knowing things at all (particularly as it pertains to science) in my post, Knowing Part I and II. Check it out for further explanation.

My point is not to say that science is bad, evil or even dangerous. Science is a wonderful thing that we must have and is very helpful in our world, but science has crossed the line when it says anything that is not simply observed through the five senses.
C.S. Lewis said “Science works by experiments. It watches how things behave. Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, “I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 AM on January 15th and saw so-and-so,” or “I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so.” Do not think that I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is. And the more scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would agree with me that this is the job of science – and a very useful and necessary job it is too. But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes – something of a different kind – this is not a scientific question. If there is “something behind”, then either it will have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in some different way.”

Science has ceased doing scientific things when it tells you anything about the origin of the universe, whether or not there is a god, whether something is moral or immoral, or anything that is not able to be observed.

Tests to see if it is science or not science from high-school and junior high text books:
“Evolution theory is the foundation on which the rest of biological science is built. Is evolution a fact or a theory? We could say both.”
Do you see a problem with this statement? Yet, it came directly from a students text book!!!

“In order to explain evolution – to even recognize that evolution had occurred – it was essential for Darwin to realize that the Earth was very old. The long periods of time it would have taken for millions of species to have evolved from a common ancestor could be accounted for only if the Earth was very old”.
Does anyone see a problem in this line of thinking? It presupposes certain things to be true without evidence provided. This kind of thinking would be destroyed in any other arena of thought. Yet, it is accepted as the truth in this text book.

“Darwin observed that wild animals and plants showed variations just as domesticated animals and plants did. Darwin did not understand the reasons for these variations, but he realized that many of them were inherited.”
Any problems here? No, he is simply observing and reporting. Not making assumptions.

From the Berenstain Bears: “Nature is all that IS, or WAS, or EVER WILL BE!”
Carl Sagan, Darwinian Evolutionist used to say “the Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be”. How does science prove this through observation?

Listen to this and tell me how this is testable:
“A huge cloud of swirling dust and hot gases glows in the eerie darkness of space. Over many billions of years, gravity begins to pull the dust and gas toward the center of the cloud. In time, the cloud condenses into a giant sphere of matter. A planet has formed. Half a billion years pass. The planet has begun to cool, and solid rocks dot its surface. Volcanoes spring up everywhere, shaking the planet with their constant eruptions. A poisonous atmosphere begins to form. Another 200 million years pass. The planet is now cool enough to allow liquid water to flow on its surface. Thunderstorms begin to drench the planet with rain – year after year after year. In time, planet-wide oceans form. Although it will take another 300 million years, eventually living things will call these oceans home. Slowly but surely, these living things will become more and more complex and begin to change, or evolve. Over the next 3.5 billion years, many living things will come and go on this planet as it floats in space. But one day very special living things will arise – living things that can pick up this textbook and discover what life is all about. Try it!”
Wow, this is nothing more than a fairy-tale, unsupported by actual scientific evidence. This is merely accepted, because it is the best they can come up with if they want to maintain that evolution, as an origin of all things, is true. There is no support for this story. There is support for things slowly evolving, but not to a new species. Science has gone too far teaching this in school text books. This is a new religion called “Darwinism”. I do not deny that things evolve. However, the fact that things evolve does not mean that all things came about as a result of things evolving into completely new creatures. There is evidence that species improve, but there is no evidence that things become new and different species. Huston Smith said, “Darwinism is supported more by atheistic philosophical assumptions than by actual scientific evidence”.

In my next post, we will look at some facts that exploit the lack of evidence for Darwinism and how textbooks have lied about certain supposed facts they have taught as truth.
Disclaimer: I am very hesitant to jump to conspiracy theories. I don't like using such harsh language as this, but I think that when you see the evidence behind the facts that are presented in school text books, you will be appalled. Come back tomorrow and blog away!!!