Darwin

If at least this part of Darwin's theory is correct, then neo-Darwinian scientists today are an endangered species.
In their desperate attempts to discredit anything that even remotely makes sense, Darwinists like to ask the question, "Is ID (Intelligent Design) science?", to which, of course, they answer "no" based on a random ridiculous claim of the day. But that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, "Who the f**k cares?!?" If you had one theory that happens to be correct but isn't "scientific" (whatever that means) and another one that's perfectly "scientific" but happens to be wrong, you'd have to be an idiot to pick the one that's wrong. And by even just asking the question "Is ID science?", Darwinists are designating themselves as being exactly this kind of idiot. They'd rather be wrong than acknowledge the existence of any kind of intelligence.

So if you let somebody convince you that the question of whether ID is "science" is important, you've already been duped and have little chance of figuring out the truth about anything. You're not concerned with what's true or correct. You're concerned with something completely irrelevant, and while engaged in a dumb argument about nothing, you're completely missing the point.

But since this question is often being raised, let's look at just how scientific evolution itself really is.

Darwinists say ID is not falsifiable and cannot be tested, so it's not scientific. But evolution happens through random mutations, and there's no way to prove whether the mutations are or aren't random, and natural selection is not falsifiable either, and cannot be tested, so it's not scientific. This is only one of the many indications that Darwinism and the theory of evolution are at least as unscientific as ID supposedly is. There's an obvious double standard and selective blindness here. But in fact, I would say that things in the evolution camp are much worse, which I will make abundantly clear.

What follows is a list of reasons why the theory of evolution isn't scientific. Not that it really matters much - what matters is that it's wrong - but since evolutionists like to wave the flag of science in your face, let's just show how dishonest that gesture is. If the "not science" accusation is considered a viable weapon to shoot down ID, then let's give these 'evolution' dimwits a taste of their own medicine.
  • The theory of evolution was imagined by a guy who knew nothing about the cell, heredity, and genetics. The theory was later shown by genetics, and the discovery of DNA and the complexity of everything in the cell, to be totally implausible. But instead of acknowledging that it doesn't work, evolution is being promoted as fact. We're told that species evolve into other species, even though nobody can explain how it could happen step by step, and nobody has ever seen it happen. That's not science. That's dogmatism of the worst kind.
  • Darwinists absolutely cannot explain the origin of life. Their attempts to do so invoke mechanisms that have never been observed in nature. That's not science. They are often reluctant to even admit that DNA contains very sophisticated code. They have no way of dealing with that fact. The only origin of a code that we've ever observed is design. Therefore the only theory of the origin of the code in the DNA that can be called scientific is that it was designed, because that's the only theory that reflects our real-world, observable and provable experience. But instead, Darwinists suggest ideas that are completely improbable and have never been observed to work. That's as unscientific as you can get. It's like observing all your life that nails end up in wood as a result of being hit by a hammer (or similar device), and then seeing a nail in wood and claiming that it must have accidentally sunk in. Why? Why ignore what you've been observing your whole life? The idea that atoms self-assemble into complex, functional living cells is not scientific. Saying "Yes, it's very improbable and nobody has ever seen it, but it happened!" is like saying "Yes, I know nobody has ever seen a Unicorn, but they exist!" No scientist takes such claims seriously, except in the case of evolution.
  • The idea that 'things could have started simple' and evolved gradually is nonsense. The smallest bacteria make hundreds of proteins. Nobody has a clue how a cell could function with, say, just a few dozen proteins. Just making a protein requires over a hundred already existing proteins. Replicating DNA requires 32 proteins. Suggesting all of these things could work with less, even though nobody has a damn clue how, is not science. It's just bullshitting one's way out of the fact that evolution doesn't work. These ideas are completely unrealistic and serve only to artificially keep alive the evolution zombie. Either you can show how it could work, or you're just making things up.
  • The interdependence of things in the cell and in living organisms shows that evolving such systems gradually doesn't make any sense. You can't make proteins without DNA, but you need proteins to read, transcribe, and replicate DNA. There are so many chicken-and-egg problems in biology that it's ridiculous. What's the explanation? "We can't really explain it exactly, but we know it happens." How do they "know"? They don't. They believe it. It's a dogmatic belief, not science.
  • If something is supposed to happen by random chance, we have to ask, what probability is there that this could really happen? If we find that the probability of such things happening is one in 10100 or one in 105000 or one in 1040000 or more, as it is with evolution, we know that our theory is garbage. If we asked 5-year-old children how life came to be, it is unlikely that they would have a worse theory than something that has a one in 1040000 chance of happening. Please spend a few minutes thinking about the fact that it would be difficult to make up something that's less probable than evolution.
  • When evolutionists concoct their theories on how something could have evolved, they focus on what they want to happen, not on the 9,999,999,999 things that could go wrong at every step. This is because they take species 1 and species 2, decide that 2 evolved from 1, and try to find ways how it could be possible, which means they have to make things up. Anything even marginally helpful, no matter how improbable, is accepted. This is somewhat understandable, though as stated above, the improbability of evolutionary mechanisms is way above the improbability of anything else. What's worse is that all potential problems, generally quintillions of times more probable than the required lucky events, are ignored. It's like explaining that a broken car was fixed by smashing it randomly with a hammer. All the focus is on how the hammer could, against all odds, hit the right spot. What's ignored is that you need many tries and every single hammer blow is likely to break things more. A theory that puts infinite hope into something infinitely improbable and brushes aside a huge number of things that are very likely to go wrong is not scientific. It's the antithesis of Ockham's razor.
  • The only kind of "evolution" ever observed has been minor mutations that happened to lead to some survival advantage under the present conditions. To extrapolate from this towards infinity, ignoring biological realities, mathematics, simple logic, and common sense isn't science. A single observed mutation in DNA has no way of explaining how a whole new gene could arise by chance. Let me repeat that, because this is really important. A single observed mutation in DNA has no way of explaining how a whole new gene could arise by chance. They are two separate problems, orders of magnitude apart. Any science actually done on that topic shows that new genes won't evolve by chance even with the entire age of the universe at our disposal.
  • Evolution ignores the main physical evidence: the fossil record. The reaction to discovered fossils is along the lines of "Wow, that's weird. How are we going to make this fit our evolutionary model?" Nothing in the fossil record makes sense in the context of evolution, but the apparent imperative is to somehow do our best to make it make sense. Occasionally something is found that seems to support the evolutionary model, and then they all say, "Ha! See? We told you so!" Then you ask what about the 99% evidence against evolution, and they all pretend they didn't hear you. Science should go from evidence to creating plausible theories. Evolution starts with an implausible theory and tries very hard to fit the evidence into this theory, even though it keeps failing.
  • According to the theory, the path from one species to another should be a gradual continuum. In the sense of evolution, there are no final forms of organisms. Everything is supposed to perpetually and randomly change. If evolution is driven by mutations and natural selection, then it should never stop. Mutations always occur, and natural selection has no way of stopping. But what we see in the fossil record is the appearance of organisms out of the blue, then long stretches of time where they are unchanged, and then their sudden disappearance. Observed reality is completely at odds with the "scientific" predictions of Darwinism, yet the promotion of this nonsense as "proven science" never changes. Ignoring inconvenient evidence is not science.
  • Speaking of predictions, Darwinists accuse ID of being unable to make any predictions (which is neither true nor relevant, but you get used to that kind of twisted logic when dealing with Darwinists.) But what predictions can Darwinism make? There is absolutely nothing specific that the theory of evolution can predict. All it can say is that species may randomly change into other species over time. ID predicts that they won't. So far our observations have not shown a single species, alive or extinct, evolving into another, so ID's prediction is consistent with what we see. Darwinism has only one very vague prediction, and it has not been confirmed by observation once.
  • Darwinists constantly glorify any evidence that even remotely speaks for evolution (which it often does only in their heads) and ignore evidence against it. Real science is less concerned with supporting evidence and more with evidence against the theory being tested. If you observe five facts that support your theory, you're far from proving that it's correct. But if you observe one single fact that disproves your theory, your theory is wrong. It's over. You can go home. Think about it some more and look for another solution. There's very little evidence for evolution and heaps of evidence against it. Darwinists either explain this undesirable evidence away by their implausible fairy tales or ignore it completely. That's not science - just wishful thinking.
  • A step-by-step evolution of complexity is assumed, with no evidence. Nobody has been able to explain how irreducibly complex systems could have evolved one step at a time, yet we're supposed to accept that they have, because some very smart (according to themselves) men say so. If an idea has no evidence to support it and no theoretical model to explain it, it's not scientific. "We believe it's possible" is not science.
  • Random mutations and natural selection are both poor candidates for producing novelty. Mutations produce mostly garbage, and natural selection can only eliminate the worst of that garbage. Neither of the processes has a plausible way of creating anything new. Promoting the idea that noise creates functionality, when all our experience tells us otherwise, is not scientific.
  • Evolution contradicts established scientific principles, namely information entropy. We're told that the information content in the DNA increases over time with no intelligent input, yet this makes no sense. Entropy dictates that the information content will decrease (which we actually do observe whenever we care to look). The only thing that can infuse new, functional information into a system is intelligence. Accidents don't do that. The theory of evolution is anti-science.
  • Darwinists work backwards from speculative conclusions towards interpretation of facts. They have decided that evolution must be true, and for every new discovery, they have to make up a story for how it fits into the sanctified evolutionary model, which usually involves some significant mental gymnastics and suspension of disbelief. Science should be about looking at what actually happens and figuring out how it happened, not about deciding how things happen and then making up theories about how the evidence fits their pre-formed belief.
  • Evolutionists dogmatically insist on falsities, ignoring well-known facts. One of the many examples is the appendix in the human body. This organ is known to have at least two functions, acknowledged by even something as mainstream as Wikipedia. Yet we keep hearing that the appendix is a "vestigial" organ and can be explained only by evolution. Many examples of similar claims relentlessly repeated despite having been proven false (often decades ago) can be found in Jonathan Wells's book Zombie Science. The obvious reason why false evidence keeps being thrown in our faces decade after decade is that there is no true evidence for evolution.
  • Evolutionary explanations usually say why things evolved, not how. If it cannot be shown how something has evolved step by step, insisting that it did is not different to a religious belief. "Giraffes have evolved long necks so that they could reach higher." HOW? "This monkey has evolved a long, thin finger so that it could reach inside holes to extract insects." HOW??? Scientists cannot explain how anything evolved. Ironically, explaining why is only hinting at intelligent design. Evolution is supposed to have no purpose. So explaining why something evolved doesn't even make sense in the mainstream science paradigm. In evolution, the answer to "why" always has to be "for no reason at all".
  • After 160 years, the theory of evolution is more controversial than ever, still trying to make things work. Instead of it strengthening during the 16 decades of scientific research, the theory of evolution has become increasingly dubious. If 160 years of science have made the theory less plausible than ever, it would seem that this theory and science aren't very compatible.
  • In dealing with what is or isn't science, evolutionists hold the view that the only real science is natural science, i.e. materialist science. But materialism is an ideology, no more proven to be true than the Bible. Materialism, just like religion, is a dogmatic belief. So saying that the only science that counts is materialist science is about the same as saying that the only science that counts is religious science. Evolutionists hold a certain belief and define science as operating within the limitations imposed by that belief. This then gets very stupid very quickly. You end up being told that your consciousness doesn't really exist, your decisions aren't made by you but by your genes, and other nonsense. Objectivity evaporates as learning about reality is limited by arbitrary assumptions.
Darwinism is a disgrace to science. It ignores many scientific principles. It ignores facts and evidence and instead insists on a dogmatic belief, just like religion. Darwinists need to wake up and stop treating their unassailable theory like a sacred cow. They're doing exactly the things they accuse Creationists of.

The theory of evolution is not just wrong. It is unscientific, nonsensical, illogical, and mathematically impossible.