Evidence Disproving Evolution

myself | 10/11/02 | gore3000

[gore3000]

Evidence Disproving Evolution

The basis of a valid scientific theory is that it be able to explain all the scientific data in the field it is concerned with and that no evidence contradicting the theory be true. This is a harsh test, but one which all legitimate scientific theories must pass. This is a test which the theory of evolution has failed in spades as the following abundantly shows.

Religion and Science:

Access Research Network Discovery Institute -- Origins -- Creation Science -- Creation/Evolution Sites -- Creation & Evolution Links from the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Club -- True Origins -- Answers in Genesis -- Faith Facts -- Center for Renewal of Science and Culture -- Center for Scientific Creation -- Creation Research Society -- Biblical Creation Society -- Christian Apologetics -- Institute for Creation Research

"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse;. a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows evolution." From: Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

Intelligent Design:
Darwin's Mistake by Stu Pullen -- Rebuttals of Criticisms of Darwin's Black Box -- Dembski - Another Way to Detect Design -- Behe, Michael J. - ARN Authors Page -- Leadership U. Designer Universe: Intelligent Design Theory of Origins -- Flagellar Structure and regulated transcription of flagellar genes -- Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max -- Intelligent Design Research Community -- Intelligent Design Theory Resources -- Intelligent Design. The bridge between science and theology. (William Dembski). -- Evolution vs Creation (Intelligent Design) WorldView -- Detailed defense of "Icons" by Wells -- Dembski on Intelligent Design -- Dembski: No Free Lunch -- Behe's Book -- A True Acid Test:Response to Ken Miller : Behe, Michael -- Intelligent Design Articles -- Phillip Johnson's Page -- Ohio Science Standards - IDN	A Moment in History... That a maker is required for anything that is made is a lesson Sir Isaac Newton was able to teach forcefully to an atheist-scientist friend of his. Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system which was to be put in a room in Newton?s home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can image, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences. Newton's atheist-scientist friend came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship. "My! What an exquisite thing this is!? he exclaimed. "Who made it?? Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody." Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said: "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this. Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone. "Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has." "You must think I am a fool!? the visitor retorted heatedly, "Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is." Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?" From: Sir Isaac Newton Solar System Story, "The Truth: God or evolution?" by Marshall and Sandra Hall

Biology Disproving Evolution
Alternative Splicing -- Scientists snap first 3-D pictures of the "heart" of the transcription machine -- Molecular Biology Book -- Cell Interactions in Development -- Oldest Living Plant -- Fruit Flies Speak Up -- The Nature of Nurture: How the environment shapes our genes -- Nanobes (Nanobacteria) are crystals -- Regulation of the Cell Cycle 2001 Nobel Prize -- Amniota - Problems with the Philogeny of -- Basic Principles of Genetics Mendel's Genetics -- Photosynthesis -- Population Variability and Evolutionary Genetics -- Fossil Hominids mitochondrial DNA -- Genetics Glossary AB -- Genomics and Its Impact on Medicine and Society 2001 Primer -- The molecular clock -- Cell Signaling: The Inside Story on MAP Kinases -- Protein Synthesis -- Watching genes at work -- Cell snapshot spots cancer -- Development protein atracts and then repels muscle tissue -- Evolution of the Genomes of Mammals and Birds -- Gene Silencing - Study shows plants inherit traits from more than gene sequence alone -- Gene silencing - Environmental Stress reactions -- Bio-Tech Info - Gene Silencing Articles -- Advances In "Micro" RNA Exploring Process Of Life -- Monkeys and Men - gene expression -- Chimps, Humans and Retroviruses -- Gene activity in human brain sets us apart from chimps -- Pros and Cons of Inbreeding -- Inbreeding and desth of species -No Need to Isolate Genetics -- How Organisms Protect Themselves Against Transposons -- Uses of transposons -- Cell Suicide -- Protein Transforms Sedentary Muscles Into Exercised Muscles, Researchers Report -- Gene insertion in Transgenic Animals -- "50,000 Genes, and We Know Them All (Almost)"	While evolution continues to tell us that species transform themselves in a simple almost magical manner, modern biology shows this not to be the case. Organisms are so complex that for them to transform themselves into different ones would require a theory of COevolution. The random processes assumed by evolutionary theory deny such a possibility. Genes are just information encoded along a long string of the chemical DNA; they cannot do anything themselves. David Baltimore, Nobel Prize Winner

Mutations:
A Scientific Defense of a Creationist Position on Evolution -- Evolutionist View of Evolutionary Biology -- Creation, Selection, And Variation -- Population Genetics, Haldane's Dilemma and the Neutral Theory of Evolution -- Haldane Rebuttal -- Point_Mutations -- Inbreeding and Population Genetics -- Introduction to Evolutionary Biology -- Neutral Mutations -- Computational Geneticists Revisit A Mystery In Evolution -- Mutations - organisms fixes them itself -- Mutations	Funny thing about mutations, it is almost impossible for them to spread throughout a species. In addition, mutations which either transform a species into another or which add any kind of greater complexity have not been seen in spite of the daily experimentation going on in thousands of research labs daily.

Junk DNA:
The Human Genome Project -- Junk DNA in man and mouse -- Junk DNA - Over 95 percent of DNA has largely unknown function -- JUNK dna and transpositions -- Junk DNA Tips Off Tumor Comeback -- Transgenics, Junk DNA, Evolution and Risks: Reading Through Rows	Evolutionists are always making assumptions. They assumed that the tonsils and the appendix were remnants of previous species from which humans had evolved and were totally useless. They were wrong about that. When the human genome was sequenced and it was found that only 5% of it was used in genes they immediately assumed that the 95% not in genes was 'junk'. They were wrong again of course. The now called 'non-coding' DNA is the source of what makes humans tick and a marvel of creation in itself.

Abiogenesis:
RNA World: A Critique -- Evolution and the Origin of Life -- Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life - Part II -- The Mystery of Life's Origin -- Message Theory/Remine -- Bruce Lipton, Insight Into Cellular Consciousness	There is a tremendous amount of proof against abiogenesis. First of all is Pasteur's proof that life does not come from inert matter (and this was of course at one time the prediction of materialists). Then came the discovery of DNA and the chemical basis of organisms. This poses a totally insurmountable problem to abiogenesis. The smallest living cells has a DNA string of some one million base pairs long and some 600 genes, even cutting this number by a quarter as the smallest possible living cell would give us a string of some 250,000 base pairs of DNA. It is important to note here that DNA can be arranged in any of the four basic codes equally well, there is no chemical or other necessity to the sequence. The chances of such an arrangement arising are therefore 4^250,000. Now the number of atoms in the universe is said to be about 4^250. I would therefore call 4^250,000 an almost infinitely impossible chance (note that the supposition advanced that perhaps it was RNA that produced the first life has this same problem). The problem though is even worse than that. Not only do you need two (2) strings of DNA perfectly matched to have life, but you also need a cell so that the DNA code can get the material to sustain that life. It is therefore a chicken and egg problem, you cannot have life without DNA (or RNA if one wants to be generous) but one also has to have the cell itself to provide the nutrients for the sustenance of the first life. Add to this problem that for the first life to have been the progenitor of all life on earth, it necessarily needs to have been pretty much the same as all life now on earth is, otherwise it could not have been the source of the life we know. Given all these considerations, yes, abiogenesis is impossible.

Darwin and His Theory:
Charles Darwin - The Truth -- Darwin's Racism -- Darwi n's Family -- Malthus and evolutionists -- Darwin's Environment -- Darwin, Racism, Evil -- Ascent of Racism -- Talk.Origins and the Darwin/Hitler Test -- Darwin's finches Evolution in real time -- Effects of the 1998 El Niño on Darwins finches on Daphne -- Punctuated Equilibrium at Twenty -- Homology A Concept in Crisis. Origins & Design 182. Wells, Jonathan -- Darwin's Creation Myth -- David Berlinsky 'The Deniable Darwin	Evolutionists try to paint Darwin as a quiet scientist working hard on writing his theory. However, this is a totally false statement. Yes, he was a recluse. However, he was neither a scintist not a very nice person as the following quote shows: With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. From: Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man", Chapter V.

Evolutionist Censorship:
Scientists Censored for Publicly Exposing Flaws in Evolution - Suite101.com -- Science and Fairness -- Duane Gish Responds to Joyce Arthur's Critique -- Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? -- Censorship of Information on Origins -- Professor Rigid on Evolution (must "believe" to get med school rec)	Evolutionists almost since the start have tried to silence opponents. While they constantly claim to be scientists, it seems that instead of following the principles of science - questioning, discussion, and challenging of existing theories, they follow the principles of ideology - silencing and destroying opponents.

Species Disproving Evolution:

Morphology of the Archaea -- Humans Are Three Percent Puffer Fish -- JGI Fugu v2.0 Home -- Cyanobacteria not changed in 4 billion years -- Platypus -- Platypus Web Sites -- Eosimias ankle bone proves human descent! -- euglena -- Textbook Fraud: Hyracotherium dawn horse eohippus, mesohippus, meryhippus -- - On the Alleged Dinosaurian Ancestry of Birds - -- Fruit Flies Disprove Darwin -- Hymenopimecis Wasp: Parasite's web of death -- Haploid False Spider Mites -- Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang -- Cambrian Explosion: Origin of the Phyla -- Kangaroo and platypus not related

Top: Euglena, Hymenopimesis Wasp, Butterfly, Platypus Bottom: Bat, Fugu, Cambrian species

Various Topics:
A Critique of '29 Evidences for Macroevolution' -- Blind Atheist -- Freeper Views on Origins -- Freeper Views on Origins - Patriarchs -- Creation/Evolution Debate -- Homology -- 15 Answers to John Rennie and SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN's Nonsense (by Bert Thompson and Brad Harrub> -- Sir Karl Popper "Science as Falsification," 1963 -- Pope John Paul II: Truth Cannot Contradict Truth (Statement on Evolution - 1996) -- Evolution Shams -- A Critique of PBS's Evolution -- Evolution of a Creationist -- Evolution, Creation, and Thermodynamics -- God, Humanity and the Cosmos Book Section Evolutionary Biology and Theology -- The Revolution Against Evolution -- Sexual Reproduction A Continuing Mystery to Evolutionists -- Splifford FAQ (How talk.origins and sci.bio.evolution really work -- Mathematics vs Evolution -- Evolution vs Logic -- Natural Selection an Agency of Stasis, not Change -- Evolution as Anti-Science -- Critique of Gould -- Radiocarbon dating things which should not radiocarbon date... -- Evolution or Christianity -- Funding for Evolution -- Scientists find biological reality behind religious experience [Free Republic] -- Doctors increasingly find introducing prayer helps calm patients and speeds recovery -- The healing power of prayer. -- There is power in prayer [Free Republic] -- Micro vs Macroevolution -- Science Design Kit -- 50 Reasons to Leave Evolutionism -- The Evolution of Truth -- Fossils and dating -- - Talk.Origins: Deception by Omission -- Talk Origins - FAQ or Fiction? -- McCluskey, E. S. --- Which Vertebrates Make Vitamin C? -- Vitamin c Pseudogene -- Snapshots of God -- Critics of Evolution - Book Reviews	While evolution claims to explain the descent of one species from another, it has never been able to do so. The original explanation for how evolution transforms species, natural selection, has things backwards. Natural selection kills, it does not create anything. For evolution to be true it needed to propose a creative force which would have been able to add new traits, new functions to the simplest creatures and gradually transform them into more complex ones. The original proposal by Darwin, the melding of features from the parents, did not answer this problem, nor does the more modern version of the exchange of genetic information that occurs in procreation. Such methods do not add any information either, they just reshuffle the information which already exists in the species. Clearly this cannot be the source of increased complexity either. With the re-discovery of genetics in the 20th Century, the Darwinists finally accepted the incorrectness of the melding theory and proposed mutations as the agent of creation of new information. They ran into the problem that with individuals receiving half their genes from each parent and half the genes of each parent being passed on to the progeny, the chances of a new mutation, even one which might be favorable, had not only a very small chance of surviving more than a few generations, but also had an almost impossible chance of spreading throughout a species. They therefore proposed that most mutations were neutral ones and by gradual accumulation they would change the species. This explanation did not even solve the problem of how difficult it was for any mutation to survive, let alone spread throughout a species. The discovery of DNA made the above possibility, already quite unlikely and totally unproven, just about totally impossible. The high complexity of a gene and more importantly experiments showing that changing even one of the thousand DNA bases of a gene are likely to destroy functioning completely and are extremely unlikely to enhance it, presented another serious problem for evolution. This was 'solved' by proposing that gene duplication would create new functions without destroying necessary functioning. Of course, as before, this was only theory and no experimental proof of it was found to support it. The same problem of it being hard to change a gene favorably applied to such genes, the only explanatory gain was that incorrect mutations would not be deadly. Even then, this was insufficient explanation for the transformation of species. Similar genes, which are fairly common, only accomplish similar functions. The vast changes required for complete species transformation, are unexplainable without the creation of totally new genes. With the discovery that genes themselves are just factories and are controlled by other DNA in the organism, and that a single gene often produces many proteins, this explanation was rendered inadequate. Now a new function, which was already known to most likely require more than a single new gene, would require a whole complex of DNA outside the gene to make it work when and if needed. This makes the evolutionary explanation of random, non-directed species change totally untenable and indeed biologists are beginning to call the developmental process of an organism a program. Like all programs, those for life are not made at random.

[AndrewC]

But in an already existing line of self-replicating creatures (which would quickly dominate the Earth, there being no competition),

A completely false assumption.

[tutstar]

bump for creation and to read when I have more time and quiet...

[AntiGuv]

Since the coelocanth has come into discussion again, I thought I would note that there's no evidence that the coelocanths of today could reproduce with the coelocanth of 100 million years ago. The fact that you cannot distinguish these by their skeletal morphology does not establish procreative compatibility. There are numerous species today which would look indistinguishable for all practical purpose from some very closely related species were they both fossilized. In other words, the coelocanth may be an almost uniquely stable species or it may be a species undergoing minimal evolution of the sort that hasn't discernibly changed its morphology. Either (or both) of these statements would apply in that present population (they would not apply to the entire population of primordial coelocanths because the groups which did indeed evolve would no longer look bear any resemblance to a coelocanth).

[AndrewC]

Since the coelocanth has come into discussion again, I thought I would note that there's no evidence that the coelocanths of today could reproduce with the coelocanth of 100 million years ago.

What is your point? Is it that if two things can produce viable offspring they are the same species?

[gore3000]

However life got sparked - whether or not by divine intervention - evolution has evidently followed.

Evolution is a materialistic explanation of life. It supposes some very unlikely things to occur in order for it to have brought about the numerous transformations from bacteria to humans. If there is any sort of an intelligent designer that created life, the more reasonable explanation is that these transformations were achieved by the intelligent designer who created life.

In fact, the evolutionist explanations of how life transforms itself from one lower species to a higher one have been constantly disproven by science. Essentially evolution is always trying to 'catch up' with science in order to 'explain away' the objections presented by new scientific discoveries. It thus keeps constructing more and more unlikely explanations for how evolution could have occurred.

[Junior]

Arguments from astonishment and quotes taken out of context do not a disproof of evolution make. When you have something concrete Mr. Nobel has a prize for you.

[gore3000]

The image of man affects the nature of man...We become what we think of ourselves." -A.J. Heschel-

It is a very telling point and a very true one and it shows quite well the importance of this debate. If evolution is true, then life has no purpose. The lowest and basest instincts are therefore excusable. Eugenics, mercy killing and even abortion become legitimatized. Even mass murder as a form of 'helping' natural selection becomes viable.

One must doubt if any society can survive under such terms. One must doubt if any species can survive which acts in such a way. For the above is a prescription for destruction not for creation. What man needs is hope, not despair in order to better himself and evolution only provides despair.

[Agamemnon]

The problem with the "open" vs. "closed" system argument is that the "open" system of an essentially unlimited, suitable supply of energy (which you point to in hopes of getting past the relevant Thermodynamic issue) has likewise been available for the millions of years you believe you require to fuel random acts of progressive evolution on Earth without any loss in thermodynamic energy expenditure to the system.

While I can make the argument that the sun, earth, and the rest of the universe are themselves closed systems in that their supplies of energy are limited to the amount of fuel they have left to burn, did you ever ask youself the following question:

Given the rate of solar burn currently observed, how far back can one go in time before the amount of fuel that the sun has to consume makes the sun so large that the earth itself is uninhabitable by even the heartiest of spore forming creatures?

The most generous projections allow for no more than 100,000 years, and more likely 10,000 years.

Where the earth's magnetic moment decay is also a rate which can and has been determined, according to current rates of decay earth's uninhabitability falls on this side of 50,000 years.

Quite simply, if you haven't got the time, you haven't got a "theory."

As to your argument on chance assembly of simplest of life forms (which you do admit is unlikely) ask youself the probability that the essential oxygen transporting protein Cytochrome C (104 amino acid primary structure, never mind secondary) could spontaneously come into being. That figure is a chance of 1 in 20 to the 104th power. Now give it a reason to come into being in what evolutionists speculate earlier on was an anaerobic primordial soup.

[gore3000]

The key point here to keep in mind is the concept of genetic drift.

Actually no. Genetic drift is a false proposition. Neutral mutations do not spread. Reason is quite simple, in any population the genes of each individual will reproduce at the same rate as that of other individuals. Since the original mutation occurred in only a single individual a neutral mutation will only have the same number of descendants as those of any other individual in the population. What this means is that if there were 1000 individuals in the population, a neutral mutation will always be present in only 1/1000 of the population no matter how much the population increases and no matter how many generations one goes forward. Further, because a new mutation is only present in a single individual, the chances of its being lost by either random accident to the individual carrying it or by a short string of unfavorable odds (for example if one only has two quarters and consistently bets on heads coming up, chances are that after enough tries one will lose both quarters). So neutral mutations will not spread and most likely will dissappear from the population entirely.

[gore3000]

Whether or not Darwin's "social Darwinism" is amoral or evil or has merit has no effect on the historical truth or falsity of evolution.

No, no, no. It is not amoral, it is immoral. It is indeed evil as we have seen from the results of its adoption in the 20th century. By any moral standard it is evil. As to whether this immorality makes it untrue, kindly discuss the points I make in post#208 .

[balrog666]

Given the rate of solar burn currently observed, how far back can one go in time before the amount of fuel that the sun has to consume makes the sun so large that the earth itself is uninhabitable by even the heartiest of spore forming creatures? The most generous projections allow for no more than 100,000 years, and more likely 10,000 years.

BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! Creationist projections maybe - but then who cares about projections based on deliberate ignorance?

[Tribune7]

Thanks

[balrog666]

Where the earth's magnetic moment decay is also a rate which can and has been determined, according to current rates of decay earth's uninhabitability falls on this side of 50,000 years.

BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA! You really are funny.

1. The "habitability' of the Earth is entirely unrelated to direction or strength of it's magnetic field.
2. The Earth's magnetic field has reversed itself many times in the past. It is always waxing or waning in one direction or the other.

BWAAAAAAAHAHAHA! I can't wait for your next "scientific" announcement of doom.

[philman_36]

To me it's also a devaluation of life. As the value of a life is lessened so is the inherent value in the living of that life.
As an aside...
Q1: If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis; would you recommend that she have an abortion?
Answer to the abortion question - if you said yes, you just killed Beethoven.

[betty boop]

Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

Darwin: brilliant scientist or crass eugenicist? One supposes his theory supports the notion of creating a master race. I gather Hitler thought so anyway.

Thank you so much, gore3000, for pulling together all these links. It must have cost you much time and effort, and I'm grateful for this resource.

[elbucko]

"No, no, no. It is not amoral, it is immoral. It is indeed evil as we have seen from the results of its adoption in the 20th century." (Evolution)

The horrors of the 20th. Century have not been from evolution or religion. The horror was brought on by the morphing of a bogus system of economics, socialism into the state religions of Nazism and Communism. Last night, during this Creation vs Evolution thread, I felt I was observing the morphing of religion into science and this science into the demand of a state religion ..

I now understand the fear the Left has of conservatives. I felt a cold fear this AM as I contemplated the inquisitional zeal at which the Creationist pursued their ideology. I have no issue with "what" they believe, but I distinctly got the impression that they would be more than willing to make me believe it at the point of a gun. Should I not convert, it would be a "Holy Murder" to kill the "Infidel".

I fear you Creationists are cut from the same cloth as those that rammed the Twin Trade Towers on 9/11. I think your extremism is the main reason this country is drifting to the left, away from fundamentalism and not, paradoxically toward socialism.

"I fear for my country when I contemplate a just God". Jefferson.

[AntiGuv]

No. There are those aberrations (i.e. horse & donkey) where different species can produce viable offspring. My point, however, is that when two populations can never produce viable offspring via natural means, then they are invariably of different species. This means that if a coelocanth of today has drifted far enough away from a coelocanth of 100 million years ago that they would be unable to mate, then the two are genotyped as different species even if their phenotypes are virtually identical.

[AntiGuv]

Heliocentric cosmology is a materialistic explanation of the universe. It supposes some very unlikely things to occur in order for it to havebrought about the numerous transformations from interstellar dust to planetary ecology. If there is any sort of an intelligent designer that created the universe, the more reasonable explanation is that these transformations were achieved by the intelligent designer who created the universe.

(The next sentence is meaningless because had any such thing been disproven then the evolutionary model would've been discarded already.) Regardless, astronomy is similarly always trying to 'catch up' with science in order to 'explain away' the objections presented by new scientific discoveries. That happens to be the sort of thing which scientists do regardless of whatever the Flat Earth society wishes to believe.

[DWPittelli]

[Darwinism] is indeed evil as we have seen from the results of its adoption in the 20th century. By any moral standard it is evil. As to whether this immorality makes it untrue, kindly discuss the points I make in post#208.

The horrors of the 20th Century (Communism, Nazism) can reasonably be laid at the door of atheism and/or man's inherent sinfulness, but not Darwinism.

One of the insanities of Stalin's Russia was actually the repudiation of Darwinism. Commies believed in Lamarckian evolution, by which an animal's "struggles" would alter its offspring.

As far as equating Nazism's search for lebensraum at the door of Social Darwinism, to the extent there is a connection it is the other way around. Such genocidal struggles for territory and resources long predate history, let alone Darwin.

Finally, your post #208 makes a reasonably strong point that we shouldn't want Darwinism to be true. It says nothing at all about whether it is in fact so.