Indeed, when I challenge them with the main thesis of Meyer’s book, they say they don’t have to answer because the Temple of Darwin has instructed them that anything that challenges their creation myth cannot be science by definition...LOL!
“Analysis and critique of the concept of Natural Selection (and of the Darwinian theory of evolution) in respect to its suitability as part of Modernism's origination myth, as well as of its ability to explain organic evolution.
Finally, then, it is my conclusion that the Darwinian (Synthetic) theory of organic evolution, insofar as it is crucially driven by the concept of natural selection, is not suitable to be a part of Modernism's creation myth. At a time when the world is becoming crowded, it seems little conducive to peace to believe that competition, which is the basis of natural selection, is the source of all good (including ourselves), however well such a belief might fit with our current economic system.
As to its ability to explain the evolution of organisms (as opposed to the evolution of gene systems), it has not, after some 60 years of development, delivered a very convincing mechanism. It cannot explain origins, or the actual presence of forms and behaviors. It can generally explain only the evolution of adaptive differences as results of historical contingency, for only one or two traits at a time. It is limited to historical explanations, as it acknowledges no evolutionary tendencies that are not the result of accident preserved in genetic information. History is the source of everything in this theory, and that is just too simplistic to be plausible in a complex material world. I think it could be said that, were there another theory of organic evolution, the neoDarwinian one, fraught with problems as it is, would have more trouble surviving. As it is, it is the “only game in town”, largely because of the competitive activities of the neoDarwinians themselves.”
In the case of Darwinism “ the narrative story is treated as “history” and this created history is being equated with
science. It certainly qualifies as false knowledge.