Darwinism: The Worst So-Called Scientific Deception-1

Preaching religion in the science section again?

If Darwinism can be preached in the science section, why can't other religious theories also be discussed?:p

If Darwinism can be preached in the science section, why can't other religious theories also be discussed?:p

(1) Show me exactly how evolutionary biology is a religion.

(2) And if it really is a religion, then I guess you don't want to follow that yearly ritual people call a "flu shot".

(3) Ever wonder why you get one every year?

Religion deals with the supernatural

science deals with the natural

Religion deals with both.

True science, in my opinion deals with both.

science as seen by our secular culture only deals with that portion of the natural that we have arbitrarily determined as natural.

"For many the term science refers to the organized body of knowledge concerning the physical world, both animate and inanimate, but a proper definition would also have to include the attitudes and methods through which this body of knowledge is formed; thus, a science is both a particular kind of activity and also the results of that activity."


Science cannot deal with the supernatural because the supernatural is untestable.

What is untestable today is not necessarily untestable tomorrow and what we see as supernatural today may very well be natural tomorrow, as well.

1) Evolutionary biology requires a faithwalk just like every other religion

2) All religions have good points and bad points. I am not exactly sure how you claim that evolutionary biology can take entire ownership of the development of flu shots but if it can then that is certainly a good result that has come from the faithwalk that evolutionists have traveled.

3) no. I usually wonder why I don't get it every year when I should.

What is untestable today is not necessarily untestable tomorrow and what we see as supernatural today may very well be natural tomorrow, as well.

Supernatural... literally means above or beyond nature. The field which studies nature cannot show any evidence for the supernatural because of the very nature of the supernatural. It is outside of the field.

Remember one thing: all tests in science require a control. How do you control a deity?

Where is the control group in theorizing the evolution of mankind?

"In scientific experiments, there are experimental and control groups. In the control group all variables are held constant. The control group is subjected to the same actions or procedures as the experimental group except that the independent variable being tested is omitted. ..."

define:CONTROL GROUP - Google Search

Where is the human control group? Where is the repeatable and testable experiment regarding the evolution of humans. Where are the humans that did, are, and continue to evolve vs. the control group of humans that are not?

The exact same thing that is the control for the evolution of [SIZE="6"]every living thing[/SIZE]: the environment. A group of organisms living in the same geographical location are all subject to the same environmental pressure. That's the non-random part of natural selection. Genetic mutation is the variable... the part that is different from organism to organism.

"In scientific experiments, there are experimental and control groups. In the control group all variables are held constant. The control group is subjected to the same actions or procedures as the experimental group except that the independent variable being tested is omitted. ..."

define:CONTROL GROUP - Google Search

Where is the human control group? Where is the repeatable and testable experiment regarding the evolution of humans. Where are the humans that did, are, and continue to evolve vs. the control group of humans that are not?

That is a "control group" used for experimentation. I should have used the proper term which is "constant". My mistake. However it still stands that for testing for a deity, this piece does not exist.



Chromosome 2 is a very valid and testable (not to mention admissible in a court of law) experiment and prediction showing the evolution of humans. In fact, this was a bit of a stumbling block in showing common descent of humans and modern great apes. Evolutionary biology made a prediction, this prediction was verified.

Humans continue to evolve and always will. There are always random mutations present for the variable and the environment is your constant.

Here's a good example:

Take the mutation known as CCR5delta32. This is a mutation regarding T-cells and some of their receptors being deactivated (delta refers to a deletion of genetic code, in this case the code that handles these receptors). What does this mutation do? It provides a natural immunity to AIDS... the virus cannot attack the T-cells because its normal avenue, being the aforementioned receptors, is now blocked. Now, what do you suppose will happen to humans bearing this mutation in an environment where the AIDS virus is rampant? You guessed it! They survive and pass on that mutation. Those that do not possess this mutation are more likely to die... their genetic line stops.

An excellent example of environmental pressure selecting a random mutation.

But let's play the game differently... let's change our constant...

Instead of AIDS being prominent in our test environment, let's make West Nile the environmental constant. CCR5delta32 makes its bearer more susceptible to WNV. Environmental pressure then selects against this mutation. Those that have it are at a higher risk of death, thereby not passing on the mutation... their lines end.

Final question, class. What will happen to a group where neither of these environmental pressures are present? That's rather easy... natural selection will not play upon this mutation, and it will be distributed randomly through the populace, its presence is not positive or negative.

In an experiment to predict this facet of evolutionary biology, what would our third group of humans be called? That's right... a control group.

Class dismissed