The Relgion of the New World Order : Darwinism

As I demonstrated in the last video Evolution is generally defined as a scientific theory for how living things change over time. I do acknowledge that there is indeed validity to it - in what has been observed; hence I think it is important to draw a distinction between evolution and Darwinism. Darwinism is a metaphysical stance and an ideology. It is assumed as an article of faith that unguided natural processes are sufficient to explain all living things – so that all appearances of design are just an illusion. In fact, Darwinism is the atheist spin imposed on the theory of evolution.

Science is usually defined by a process called the scientific method. Typically, this includes an observation about a natural phenomenon, a hypothesis formulated to explain it, and a test performed via a controlled experiment. The key to the testing process is falsifiability. A positive test result means a hypothesis is plausible not proven, but a negative test result proves it false. Hence, the proper test of a hypothesis is to make a prediction and devise a test such that at least one outcome proves the theory false.

Karl Popper is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century. He is famous for establishing the criteria for modern scientific inquiry, “Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it… . It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory—if we look for confirmations. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions… . The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.”

To put it simply a theory should be considered scientific if and only if it is falsifiable.

The hypothesis that all life on earth evolved from primordial microbes is based on philosophical suppositions about the nature of nature, on models, on dubious extrapolations, and on guesswork – because it deals with ideas about things that cannot be directly observed or reproduced. The best scientists can do is create models and work to fit the observable evidence to their models.

With “historical science,” like the evolution or cosmology, it is not always possible to recreate conditions in the “beginning” and perform a controlled experiments. Still a falsifiable test is possible. For example, the “big bang” hypothesis of cosmology made the risky prediction of cosmic microwave background radiation. This prediction was found to be true in 1965, the big bang was accepted as plausible, and the then-prevailing theory that the universe was eternal was falsified. If microwave radiation did not exist, the big bang theory would have been falsified. Thus we now the Biblical creation event written over 3000 years ago by ancient Hebrews is scientifically accurate, "In the begining God created the universe from nothing".

The neo-Darwinian paradigm is a synthesis of two overarching hypotheses: the hypothesis of Common Ancestry and the hypothesis of Random Mutation and Natural Selection as the means of evolutionary development. The evidence for these two is anything but compelling; they involve an enormous extrapolation from evidence of very limited ranges to conclusions far beyond the evidence. The fundamental problem with evolution as a scientific theory is that it unfalsifiable because it relies on random, unpredictable mutations. Darwinism is insufficiently precise to have negative implications, and so is immunized from experiential falsification. In this since it is no different that the Gods of the gaps argument. Karl Popper stated that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme."

Embryologist and geneticist C. H. Waddington says, “The theory of evolution is unfalsifiable… If an animal evolves one way, biologists have a perfectly good explanation; but if it evolves some other way, they have an equally good explanation… . The theory is not … a predictive theory as to what must happen.”

Darwinism is indeed a faith based initiative.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary:
Mythology (n): “A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes.”
Myth (n): “A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society.”

Darwinism definitely addresses origins so it qualifies on that point. Evolution explains origins to a culture that either rejects a supernatural God or believes God is uninvolved in at least some aspects of creation. Evolution serves the sociological purpose of validating the thinking and practices of an atheistic culture that puts its faith in undirected natural processes.

A myth can be based on truth or fiction—or it may contain an element of truth within a fantastical story. But a defining characteristic of a myth is that it is hard to prove with the technology of the culture; a myth requires faith. The significance of a myth, therefore, is not so much whether it is true or false, but that it defines the worldview and forms part of the foundation of a culture.

Modern evolutionary theory definitely meets this important characteristic of a myth as well: according to Ernst Mayr, affectionately referred to as the “Darwin of the 20th Century,” evolution is “man’s worldview today.”

Because Darwinism fails to qualify as science yet meets the qualifications of mythology - the proper term for evolution as it is believed by naturalists is - A Creation Myth.

Creation myths from nearly all ancient cultures involve a powerful, supernatural “god” who creates the world and all of nature. The distinction of Darwinism that inspires the devotion of atheists is that everything is based on a random natural process called natural selection. Yet as one reads the literature, whenever a miracle is needed, natural selection is invoked with a reverence that Christians reserve for God. For instance, one of the main architects of the new evolutionary synthesis, Sir Julian Huxley describes evolution as “a universal and all-pervading process” that is “the whole of reality.”

In his book The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins is famous for asserting that Natural selection is responsible for the existence of life.

Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life has no purpose in mind.

(Dawkins, Blind Watchmaker)

Obviously this is not a scientific statement - by definition natural selection requires existing reproducing life – this is a metaphysical claim that elevates natural selection to the status of a self existent causal agent. It is this sort of fantastical proclamation that exposes Darwinism as a quasi religious faith for atheists. Darwin's ideas are being ideologically manipulated, just as they were a few decades ago in Nazi Germany.

Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson, a devoted Darwinist, wrote in his book On Human Nature, ‘The evolutionary epic is probably the best myth we will ever have.’ The worth of the Epic he explained as -“The true evolutionary epic retold as poetry, is as intrinsically ennobling as any religious epic” (Wilson Consilience 1998)

He makes a good point because in the final analysis Darwinism really is a religious epic.


Darwin’s mythology was not composed while observing wild life in the Galapagos Island as revisionist history likes to assert. Darwinism truly began as a creation myth as evidenced by this poem from his grandfather Erasmus Darwin which was published nearly 60 years prior to On the Origin of Species.

The Temple of Nature

Organic life beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in ocean's pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom,
New powers acquire and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin and feet and wing.

www.english.upenn.edu...

This provides clear evidence that Darwin's metaphysical pseudoscience like the tree of life, was based on presuppositions gleaned form his grandfather's bedtime stories rather than true observational science.

Ernst von Haeckel was the chief apostle of Darwinism in Germany – he not only viewed Darwinism as a religion he had visions taking over the Christian churches and converting them to churches of Darwinism. Are Haeckels visions of commandeering church facilities and filing them with symbols of science so far fetched? Atheist Joseph Stalin certainly put this into practice by demolishing Churches, torturing Christians and indoctrinating atheism. Are not today’s atheists taking an aggressive posture that science has supplanted God? Christians are being characterized as delusional and holding back the progress of humanity. The high priest of Darwinism Richard Dawkins has put out the word to the atheist community that it is time to stop being respectful of other’s beliefs. As the world nears the institution of world government, Dawkins and crew are poised to fulfill Haeckel's dark Orwellian nightmare and impose the New World Order religion of Darwinsim.



[edit on 5/14/2009 by Bigwhammy]

[edit on 5/14/2009 by Bigwhammy]

So basically your point was that theory of evolution is unfalsifiable and doesn't make predictions. This is bull#. If you show us a 500 million year old fossilized Koala you falsify the theory. When scientists learned that chimps and humans had a different chromosome count a fusion event was predicted. Years later it was discovered. Human chromosome 2. You failed. I really do not understand how (perhaps otherwise) rational human beings fail to understand evolution. I mean sure you've been indoctrinated since as far back as you can remember, but still the evidence is so overwhelming. You can't deny it. Some crazy stuff must be going on in your head

p.s. Christianity would for sure be the choice of religion for the NWO as it functions really well as a crowd controller (you be good and do as we say or you go to hell). Evolution on the other hand, how could they use it? There's no built in scare button and thus it's useless for the NWO.

p.p.s You fundies never learn. evolution != abiogenesis

[edit on 14-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

reply to post by rhinoceros

When scientists learned that chimps and humans had a different chromosome count a fusion event was predicted. Years later it was discovered. Human chromosome 2.

This really can't be established as having anything to do with random mutation of DNA and natural selection. It could just as easily be evidence of a common design by a supernatural designer. So no Darwinism is not science its a metaphysical research program like Karl Popper said.

Christianity would for sure be the choice of religion for the NWO

Airbrushing history? One look at atheist nations like China North Korea and the USSR compared to the USA makes this canard laughably naive. The free world was founded on Christianities values.

You fundies never learn. evolution != abiogenesis

Perhaps someone should tell Richard Dawkins. He's the one who wrote that Natural selection is responsible for all life.

And when will you atheists ever learn? Everybody believes things change over time. Evolution != Darwinsm!

You are correct. We believe that the strong shall conquer and the weak shall wither and fade away into the dark oblivion.

It's funny how people are so addiment in proving evolution wrong, either to make their own religion look right, or not be insulted that there hundred of thousand year old ancestors were monkeys, I mean look we look nothing like a monkey!

So if evolution isn't true, God must exist, and thats final, because a book says its final, the book also says its true, and the book says everyone else is lying.

Ok, good arguement then.

reply to post by Republican08


If you're afraid of imaginary beings it stands to reason that the real world would scare the bejesus out of you. That's why they're afraid of evolution, that and it hurts to think about such difficult concepts.

"Now the genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn't sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; there is no possibility of change."

Human Genome Project, Quantitative A Disproof of Evolution, CEM facts sheet. Cited in Doubts about Evolution?
_________________________________________________________

"just a few percentage points can translate into vast, unbridgeable gaps between species."

Conniff, R., Monkey wrench, Smithsonian, pp. 102-104, October 2001.
__________________________________________________________

Charles Darwin himself when he said, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
__________________________________________________________

"Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked, tool-making, big-brained beings - is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."

Dr. Lyall Watson, Anthropologist
'The water people'. Science Digest, vol. 90, May 1982, p. 44.
___________________________________________________________

People if evolution is true then we share a common heritage with earth worms, banana's, toads, flies, etc. Evolution only promotes death, its a religion of death, if you will. How? Because the strongest survive and the weak die.

__________________________________________________________

Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, states in combined research that "Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form."

__________________________________________________________

Michael Denton in his book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" wrote "A living cell is so incredibly complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A single cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations." Joseph Mastropaolo in his work "Evolution Is Biologically Impossible" stated that "The chance of this assemblage occurring by mere chance is 1 in 104,478,296."

I'm Atheist.
I do not believe in evolution as currently taught.
I do not believe that any species ever turned into another.
I do not believe that humans in their present form evolved from one of the more rubust, and environmentally adapted species.

Change taking place in any species happens for purposes of survival.
Man in his current form and without the aid of his tools could not survive on this planet.
You have to admit that being hairless, thin skinned and tender footed is not advantageous, don't you?

Round and round we go! The carousel of creationist "crud". Throw a fresh coat of paint on the same old tired misconceptions and it's almost like a whole new ride!

No.

Alex Jones is a fear mongering shill.

VenomFangX is a money-grubbing ignoramus.

Ladies and gentlemen, I think we know what you have when you cross these two strange breeds. So who's path are you going to follow first BiggieW. You gonna get suspended from YouTube for Fair Use Violation then cry how the NWO is censoring you, or will you steal donation money then run away claiming death threats from muslim turrests - hur hur hur. Maybe a bit of both... you know.. spice things up. We all know creationists have no bounds to how far they will stretch the truths. How about radical NWO muslims stealing your donation money and threatening to kill YouTube?

A basic introductory video regarding cladistic phylogenetics.


Why "Same Genes, Same Designer" is bunk.


Name one way... ONE manner... in which creationism better explains the evidence for the diversity of life on Earth.

And spare me the tired confusion of terms between Abiogenesis and Evolution.

But I will give creationists credit. They did get something right. We are monkeys. Always have been, always will be. Of course, their misconception is still utterly WRONG - but hey, as the saying goes, even a broken clock is right at least twice a day.

Evolution is a fact. How it works is a still a theory in the process of study and refinement. Darwin's theories gelled much earlier thought and gave it focus. If it had remained unchanged from the day he published it science would have failed to support the theories.

Instead, we have taken Darwin's thought and expanded on them, and built a workable and viable theory of evolution's workings from them. But the current theories of evolution can only be "Darwinism" if you don't know much about the field.

reply to post by Lasheic

Name one way... ONE manner... in which creationism better explains the evidence for the diversity of life on Earth.

No one disputes that things change over time. Even literal 6 day young earth creationists believe that micro evolution is responsible for the diversity of life. But that has little to do with the far reaching claims of Darwinism like common ancestry and unguided natural processes being the exclusive mechanism for it.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Evolution is a fact.

So? Darwinism is not. That's the point.

Originally posted by BigwhammyNo one disputes that things change over time. Even literal 6 day young earth creationists believe that micro evolution is responsible for the diversity of life. But that has little to do with the far reaching claims of Darwinism like common ancestry and unguided natural processes being the exclusive mechanism for it.

I notice you didn't answer the question. So, then, there is some supernatural being that is required for life to begin? Do you also believe the Earth is flat and the stars rotate above us on crystal spheres? Just trying to find out what century your mindset is located in, if you don't mind.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Evolution is a fact.

So? Darwinism is not. That's the point.

Darwinism explains evolution better than a talking snake, if that's your intent with the quote mining.

reply to post by AshleyD


Thanks Ashley. But I think it is the religion of the NWO. Because if they can get people to accept that they just animals then there are no more human rights and human life has no sanctity. The NWO wants to control the population growth - or reduce it - that's an acceptable plan in a neo Darwinian paradigm. Eugenics - why not if all we are is just a product of physics and chemistry.

Human rights in the United States worked for so long because they are based the fact that they were God ordained as the Declaration of Independence states.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Eliminate the Creator - eliminate the rights. Darwinism is the best choice for a world view to rationalize totalitarianism.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
I notice you didn't answer the question.

Actually I did and the evidence supports my view. Micro evolution.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
So, then, there is some supernatural being that is required for life to begin?

Absolutely.

Do you also believe the Earth is flat and the stars rotate above us on crystal spheres? Just trying to find out what century your mindset is located in, if you don't mind.

Of course not that would almost be as absurd as believing life came form non life by some random cosmic accident.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


So, you don't think micro evolution has any relationship to Darwin's theories? I smell ICR in here.

"Of course not that would almost be as absurd as believing life came form non life by some random cosmic accident. "

So you are selective about your fairy tales? Good for you. Now outgrow the rest of them and you'll find reality waiting for you to catch up.

reply to post by Gawdzilla

So, you don't think micro evolution has any relationship to Darwin's theories?

Oh certainly! The evidence is very clear that there is relationship. Darwin simply observed micro evolution recalled his grandfathers poetry and constructed a metaphysical fantasy based on it.