Reading time: ~8 min read
Science is Darwinists' most important disguise. Darwinism first emerged under the guise of "science." Darwinists also appeared saying, "We are scientists." Every reaction against Darwinism has been misrepresented as "an attack on science." All forms of doubt regarding the theory of evolution are depicted as a kind of "backwardness or assault on science." Darwinists have misrepresented all kinds of false evidence as if it were a scientific finding. To put it another way, Darwinism has misused science for the last 150 years.
So is Darwinism really science?
Darwinism is a deception. There is nothing scientific about it. Darwinism is simply as false endeavor aimed at getting people to believe a lie. Science is Darwinism's last refuge. Darwinism makes itself immune by the use of science. It defends frauds that it calls science. It describes Darwinists, who produce false evidence and tell fairy tales, as scientists. But it accuses the people who realize that Darwinism is a deception, and strive against it, of a betrayal of science. Science is Darwinism's greatest weapon. It has deceived countless people to date by wearing a scientific mask. And it is still using science to perpetuate that deception. That is why Darwinist scientific journals, Darwinist documentary channels and Darwinist scientists use it.
The British paleontologist and evolutionist Derek V. Ager says this on the subject:
We all know that many apparent evolutionary bursts are nothing more than brainstorms on the part of particular paleontologists. One splitter in a library can do far more than millions of years of genetic mutation. ....163
This is so very true. Evolutionist myths such as the supposed primordial Earth, the living species that emerged through mutations and natural selection, the mythical common ancestors and the strange-looking creatures that had not yet completed their development that appear in school text books and in newspapers, journals and on television are all the product of Darwinist scientists' own imaginations. They have never arrived at any assumed end over the years by way of natural selection. As Derek Ager says, genetic mutations also failed to produce that result. But they still imagine that to deny these scientific facts and continue to propagate the same false claims will increase the likelihood of the deception that is Darwinism spreading across the world. That is why Darwinists use scientific words, in order to make the Darwinist deception look more scientific. There are no scientific experiments or evidence that have been proven and corroborate evolution. All we have are frequently used scientific terms and formulae. One can often encounter such interesting terminology or chemical formulae in books by any Darwinist author. When someone ignorant of the subject looks at such books, he may really imagine that it contains a scientist's scientific knowledge. But appearances are deceptive. The only thing described in such a book is the myth that living things emerged and assumed their present forms as the result of blind chance. No Darwinist author has anything new to say, nor any scientific evidence to present. The chemical terminology and formulae are merely in order to complete the Darwinist deception and, in their eyes, give it a realistic air.
The evolutionary paleontologist S. M. Stanley provides an example of Darwinist methods of misusing science:
Evolution happens rapidly in small, localized populations, so we're not likely to see it in the fossil record.164
These words are misleading. The extract refers to evolution taking place in local populations, but there is no evidence. It is even admitted that no evidence will be found, but even this is given a scientific gloss. The fact of the matter is this; no evolution can be seen in the fossil record, because no evolution ever happened.
National Center of Science Education (NCSE) director Eugene C. Scott made the following statement on the subject:
Many high school (and even, unfortunately, some college) textbooks describe theories as tested hypotheses, as if a hypothesis that is confirmed is somehow promoted to a theory, and a really, really good theory gets crowned as law. Unfortunately, this is not how scientists use these terms, but most people are not scientists and scientists have not done a very good job of communicating the meanings of these terms to students and the general public.165
Under these conditions, someone whose experience is limited to what is shown and told to him may well form the impression that Darwinism is valid, if he has no power to think and reflect in an unprejudiced manner because with its conditioning technique, Darwinism somehow responds to the reader's expectations. It offers a simplistic account of life, in its own foolish eyes, and says this is "scientific." It says, "There is no need to question it, as it is true and proven." "Scientists confirm it," it says. "This is the only scientific explanation for life, and no other accounts are scientific," it says. "The whole world agrees," it says. And through these lies, one of the worst deceptions in history has been built up. And that is all it takes to convince someone who knows nothing about Darwinism, or what a gross deception it is, and whose entire experience is limited to these accounts.
The fact is however, that such people are misled at every stage of this conditioning. Darwinists kept the more than 350 million fossils that definitely refute Darwinism and prove the fact of Creation carefully hidden away; the fact that it is mathematically impossible for a single protein, the building blocks of life, to form by chance was carefully kept hidden away. So it has also been impossible to make out the scale of the deception. What people who have been deceived in this way do not know is this: Darwinism is neither science, nor scientific. Darwinism has been questioned, and it has been proved that it is untrue and unsupported by any scientific evidence. The scientists who espouse Darwinism are people who are dogmatically and fanatically devoted to this superstitious faith. The only explanation that science provides for life is Creation. All scientific findings show that living things were created in a single moment in all their perfect states. It is again this false conditioning and indoctrination that lies behind the manner in which Darwinism enjoys acceptance across the world. Therefore, the subjects that convince such people are no more than sleight of hand. Even scientists may sometimes be taken in by this deception. The British paleontologist and evolutionist Colin Patterson makes an interesting confession on this subject:
Then I woke up and realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth in some way. I feel that the effects of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge, I think it has been positively anti-knowledge"166
Brian Leith, a documentary film producer, gives another example of gradual awareness of the subject:
In the past ten years there has emerged a new breed of biologists who are considered scientifically respectable, but who have their doubts about Darwinism.167
Another important piece of evidence confirming the accuracy of the American economist Jeremy Rifkin's words that " Evolutionary theory has been enshrined as the center-piece of our educational system, and elaborate walls have been erected around it to protect it from unnecessary abuse."168 is the way that they turn a blind eye to these frauds by Darwinist scientists and are not even embarrassed or offended when the true facts emerge. The best-known scientists in the world deliberately maintain this deception in order to be able to mislead people. Jonathan Wells cites an example:
What about Stephen Jay Gould, a historian of science who has known for decades about Haeckel's faked embryo drawings? All that time, students passing through Gould's classes were learning biology from textbooks that probably used Haeckel's embryos as evidence for evolution. Yet Gould did nothing to correct the situation until another biologist complained about it in 1999. Even then, Gould blamed textbook-writers for the mistake, and dismissed the whistle-blower (a Lehigh University biochemist) [Michael J. Behe] as a creationist. Who bears the greatest responsibility here- textbook-writers who mindlessly recycle faked drawings, people who complain about them, or the world-famous expert who watches smugly from the sidelines while his colleagues unwittingly become accessories to what he himself calls the 'academic equivalent of murder'?
The revelation that the peppered moth story is flawed came only recently compared to the truth about Haeckel's embryos. Yet every biologists who works of peppered moths has known for over a decade that moths don't rest on tree trunks and the textbook photographs have been staged. Many biology textbooks carry photographs of light and dark peppered moths on tree trunks to illustrate this famous story. Yet biologists have known for over a decade that the story has problems.169
The way that Darwinists misappropriate science and, furthermore, give the impression they are maintaining and preserving it, is in and of itself a huge deception. In fact, contrary to what it claims, Darwinism acts in complete violation of science. It tries to cover up the scientific evidence. It makes claims that contradict the results of laboratory experiments. Even though the fossil record proves that transitional forms never existed, they still propagate the lie that living things evolved in such a way as to leave countless intermediate forms behind them. Scientific fraud is a concept born with Darwinism. Darwinists misuse science museums and scientific publications and deliberately present frauds to people. They use scientific books and journals to spread the myth of evolutionary history, something that never happened. They draw a picture of a life form that never existed and try to give the impression that "this is our past." This religion, diametrically opposed to science, tells one of the worst lies ever under a scientific mask.
References
- Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, p. 158 ↩
- Henry M. Morris, The Long War Against God, Master Books, 2000, p. 27 ↩
- Eugenie C. Scott, Evolution vs. Creationism, University of California Press, London, 2005, p. 14 ↩
- Colin Patterson, "Evolution and Creationism", Speech at the Museum of Natural History, New York, Kasım 1981, p. 2 - Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, p. 224 ↩
- Brian Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism, Collins, 1982, p. 11 - Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, p. 229 ↩
- Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York, Viking Press, 1983, p. 112 - Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, p. 224 ↩
- Jonathan Wells, Evrimin İkonları, Gelenek yayınları, January 2003, pp. 213-214 ↩