Evolutionists sometimes accuse Creationism of being a pseudoscience, but what if we hold evolutionism to the same standards it critiques others by?
Pseudoscience is “a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status. It’s also been defined as “an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions.”
Darwinism, whether you’re talking Darwin Classic, Neo-Darwin or the up-coming Post-Darwin [Extended Evolutionary Synthesis [EES]], is supported by speculation accepted uncritically as fact. It’s not really testable, observable or repeatable. It cannot be tested by the scientific method at all and some of their own have admitted such. Evolutionists claim that we see evolution in action today, but they have purposely conflated unobservable microbes-to-molecules macroevolution with observable, testable microevolution [which supports the creationist position of variation within kind!]. Macroevolution, or common descent, has never been observed.
Darwin brought up several lines of argument whereby his theory might be falsified. Each of these objections still stand:
- The lack of transitional forms
- The incredible complexity of such organs as the eye
- The development of instincts
- Sterility in cross-breeding of species
The problem is while evolutionism might be false, it cannot be practically falsified because its proponents refuse to let it die. They gloss over the objections, fire ad hominem attacks at critics and evolve the theory every time it’s fragility gets too obvious. It’s shielded from criticism by a High Wall of Protection. It’s proponents suppress any dissent by carefully controlling access to jobs, publication and peer reviews. Their reactions to dissent can best be characterized as religious discrimination for they attack the dissenters verbally, sometimes personally and purposely contrive smear campaigns designed to destroy their reputations, careers and chances of tenure.
Worse, they indoctrinate our children in this pseudoscience in government monopoly schools. No mention is ever made of evolution’s fatal flaws. No alternatives to the theory are ever mentioned. This pseudoscience is then re-inforced by the Leftist media who have abandoned unbiased investigative reporting, if it ever existed, to promote their liberal views.
Darwinism has all the marks of a pseudoscience:
But what shall we do if men of science have now exchanged the truth for a lie?
Don’t ask them. Evolutionism is the Big Lie of Big Science. The lie gets bigger every year, but it’s now stretching well past the bounds of credulity. It is believed for no other reason than that there is only one other viable rational explanation: an Intelligent Creator. So the barest hint of dissent from the Darwin party line will evince accusations of ignorance, banal ad hominem and insistence that we just let Big Science do our thinking for us without ever bothering to answer our concerns and objections. They do this to ridicule us back into line.
“Of course the Emperor has clothes on! How dare you even suggest he’s naked! Any educated, useful fellow can see it! The tailors told us so and they’re experts! You must not be very smart, just like they said! We can see it because only smart and useful people can see the Emperor’s New Clothes, just like the tailors said. You must not understand how tailoring works!”
Despite their mockery, this really isn’t very smart after all, but I suspect it’s the only recourse they have.