The Purpose-Driven Darwinist

It seems reasonable to assume that people who have been schooled, earned doctorates, and obtained jobs in the secular science industry would know about particles-to-paleontologist evolution would understand their own paradigm.

While any area of science will have disagreements, evolutionists are as organized as ball bearings in a blender. They do not know how evolution works, forgetting that it is supposed to be blind, pitiless, and indifferent; teleology is streng verboten. They appeal to purpose anyway.

Despite great faith, professional and other evolutionists demonstrate that they do not understand their own paradigm. They deny the genius of God.
Mostly made at PhotoFunia (click for larger)

Before we look at the misuse of the concept of evolution by those who should know better, let's take a look at how misotheists have a faulty understanding of the concept. As we have seen many times, those who are in rebellion against God will accept and repeat practically any platitude that seems to support their views.

For example, a vehement misotheist who not only hates God, but is a bigot against Christians (especially biblical creationists) made some foolish statements, as is his wont. Remember, evolution is foundational in the religion of atheism. No creationist is "allowed" to be right, and every statement must be rejected. Creationists are wrong on every point. We lie. Because atheism.

A few days ago, someone was angered that I said that "It evolved" is not a valid scientific explanation. His reactions are akin to Daffy "Robin Hood" Duck jabbing around his quarterstaff and saying, "Ho! Ha ha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!"

'It evolved' *is* an explanation because evolutionary theory contains mechanisms of evolution. Unlike 'god did it' where everything is traced back to the arbitrary will of whatever god.

Note the arbitrary assertions and the straw man of "God did it". The claim of "evolutionary theory contains mechanisms of evolution" is false, since evolutionary conjectures are in tremendous disarray (such as retracted and faked papers that passed peer review, and the reproducibility crisis, for starters). When we see "It evolved" as an answer, plausible explanations and models are lacking.

Since 'it evolved' contains mechanisms of evolution (the ways by which species evolve like natural or sexual selection etc.), it means it is, by definition, a rational and scientific explanation (explanatory power, predictive capability, falsifiable)...no matter how much Bobby desperately lies about it.

An ad hominem, disrespect, repeated assertion, and false accusations of lying are not refutations. Evolution is a historical view, and is not testable, repeatable, observable, falsifiable, and the other elements necessary for actual science. "Predictive capability" is a risible claim, as evolution and natural selection are used as explanations for all sorts of things — it explains everything, therefore, nothing. Meanwhile, here are just a few of the successful predictions by creation scientists.

Also, disagreement is not lying, and accusations of lying without evidence to back up the claim makes him the liar.

Since believers can't and even refuse to show their god exists, it means that every 'argument for God' is a god of the gaps fallacy aka 'goddidit'. In an attempt to explain the unknown, believers appeal to what is unknown all the more, namely their magical, imaginary god.

Red herring, bigotry, more arbitrary assertions — he has exhibited his misotheistic worldview and anti-Christian bigotry not only here, but on other occasions as well. We can see who he is and what he does, so there's not point in my spending more time eviscerating his pseudo-intellectual diatribes. It's clear that he has blind faith in naturalism, but lacks understanding. His Daffy Duck-style of dueling smacks ends up smacking him in his own face.

If you want to read the rest for yourself, put on your hazmat suit before wading into the stuff at this link. Unless he's already blocked you. He does that, and then uses other accounts to talk behind our backs, but he's not the only one that can get around being blocked.

I saw a link on why squirrels lie flat. (We often see them laying on the patio or the ground while eating.) Do "experts" really know? Effects or possible benefits are not explanations of why. One site really takes the rag off the bush: "The fur color on the outer side of a squirrel evolved to help the squirrel blend in with its environment". Just throw out "evolved" to sound sciency and stuff, but it's not only unsubstantiated, it's bad evolutionary theory! The real reason is global warming.

There are several links above supporting the claim that evolutionists do not understand their own belief system. They apply to those with atheism spectrum disorder as well as paid professionals. Now we come to the article that is featured today. Mr. Coppedge emphasizes how purpose is assigned to evolution by invoking the false gods of Evolution and Natural Selection, or even how critters are involved in the process. I reckon evolutionists want both purposeless and purpose, all the while denying the genius of God, the Master Engineer, and essentially saying, "EvolutionDidIt". That's science of the gaps, old son.

Darwinist scientists and reporters routinely personify evolution, turning it into a god or idol that does things on purpose. They should be ashamed of themselves. They should never say:

  • [This organism] evolved [a trait]. That ascribes agency to the organism.
  • [This trait] evolved to [perform this function] or evolved for [this function]. That ascribes purpose to evolution.

There is no agency or purpose in Darwinism, because it is a strictly materialistic, unguided process. That’s if the Stuff Happens Law could even be dignified with the word “process” which carries a hint of an algorithm or goal.

What Darwinians should say is, “By chance, this trait appeared in this animal for no reason.” It would not even be correct to add, “but the animal found it useful.” What is “useful” if not a purpose-driven word? Stuff happens. Given Darwin’s anti-teleological assumptions, that is all his disciples can say.

Here are recent examples of this shameful habit among Darwinian storytellers. By repeating fallacies like these week after week, year after year, they mislead students and the public.

To read the rest and see examples, head on over to "Evolutionists Don’t Understand Their Own Theory".

Comments