Evolutionists Disillusioned with Evolutionary Stories

Lisa Myworries, the supervisor of the Winkie Guards at the Darwin Ranch, was rather subdued when I bumped into her (almost literally) at the store in town. She noticed the mood at the ranch and how they go from thrilled to somber. This time is the latter.

Charlie's cheerleaders are happy to be told Just-So Stories and unleash the flying monkeys on those of us who are unwilling to be satisfied with the unscientific statement "it evolved." It has been documented that there are secular scientists who have the audacity — the unmitigated gall — to doubt Darwin.

Pond, Unsplash / Cowboy Bob Sorensen (cropped)
That number is growing. A couple of people published a paper on problems with gradual evolution. "Survival of the fittest" oversimplifies things, and still fails to explain how complicated structures came into being in the first place. Something I have noticed, and Calvin Smith discussed quite well in "Science or Philosophy?", is that people believed in fish-to-fool evolution before they had any semblance of scientific evidence. It is not science that moves their belief, it is a denial of the Creator. Yet they won't reject the unscientific philosophies of evolutionism.
Most people say that evolution is true, so why do a growing number of scientists doubt it? These skeptics don’t question evolution’s premise that nature alone is somehow responsible for crafting creatures out of stardust. The debate centers on how nature might have achieved this incredible feat.

Where and how did the first complicated structures (like eyes) arise through natural processes? Indiana University Biologist Armin Moczek told The Guardian, “We still do not have a good answer. This classic idea of gradual change, one happy accident at a time, has so far fallen flat.”

To read the rest, journey to "Scientists Reach for Evolution's Replacement."