Evolution Theory: FAIL

User Rating: 4 / 5

Star ActiveStar ActiveStar ActiveStar ActiveStar Inactive

'Evolution' Fails Test
Darwin's 'Theory' - Debunked


darwin failed1
Promoted Theory of Evolution. Amature naturalist, mistook development within species for 'evolution'.

Advocates of evolution still insist it is a science. But the fact is Darwin's 'Theory of Evolution' actually 'FAILS' nearly ever single test - those same advocates have set for scientific testing.

How could this be, in today's modern world? - How indeed?!

Tests of True Science

Any argument must stand or fall on its own terms. So when an evolutionist sets out tests for science, evolution must stand those tests—or fail as a science.

The science faculty at the University of California at Berkeley have such a statement on file. It is as good a statement as any of the tests that science must meet, to be worthy of the name. They are:

  1. The conclusions of science are reliable, but still tentative. No scientist ever proves anything. The best that any scientist can do is to try to explain what he sees.
  2. Scientists do not vote on their conclusions. When they do their jobs properly, they explain all that they see in the simplest way possible. “Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily,” said William of Ockham. And that does not depend on what anyone prefers.
  3. Scientists hold to no absolute “givens” or “directives.” The Berkeley professors say that “nothing in the scientific enterprise requires belief.” More accurately, nothing in the scientific enterprise requires obedience, except of the laws of logic, averages, etc.
  4. Scientists do not make moral or philosophical judgments in their work. A scientist, or an engineer, might decide that building a given device might be immoral. But to decide that a given conclusion would be immoral is not the job of a scientist.

BUT - The Latest Scientific Evidence Proves Evolution Theory Fails Miserably.

Tests Were 'Rigged' Say Experts.

Examples of numerous violations of at least three of the basic rules the Berkeley professors say science must follow. Please note the following for further reference.

  1. Evolution advocates refuse to admit their basic premise is tentative. Even a scientific law is tentative. But not to an evolutionist. To an evolutionist, nothing can have a cause beyond nature, and no intervention is possible in nature, apart from anything a man can do.
    Yet whenever any set of observations is so radically different from natural expectation that the probability of those observations is vanishingly small, they still refuse to accept intervention. The reason: to accept intervention, they must accept an Intervenor.
  2. Evolution itself is a dogma. This is almost the same as 1 above, and more. Evolutionists, to the extent that their political or other power allows, do not permit anyone to call himself a scientist who does not, liberally, believe in evolution. They say that their enterprise does not require belief. Yet they offer a premise that they have never been able to observe, or show, in action.
  3. Evolution advocates, and their allies in other disciplines, have made and continue to make philosophical judgments in their work. The prize example is Edwin Hubble (of telescope fame). He set forth what he called the Copernican Principle: that the universe has no center, and every vista in the universe would look the same to any observer, no matter what galaxy (or larger object) he was in. At first Hubble saw plainly that the galaxy in which we live is at the center of the universe. But then he made a philosophical judgment against that conclusion.

John Hartnett (Starlight, Time and the New Physics) quotes him thus:

Such a position would imply that we occupy a unique place in the universe…But the unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs…Such a favored position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity. [Emphasis added]

Unwelcome? Intolerable? A thing to avoid at all costs? Those are philosophical, even moral, judgments. What is morality, but a code of values that one accepts by choice? Obviously Edwin Hubble valued uniformity so highly that he flew in the face of the evidence. This also disproves, by counterexample, the Berkeley professors’ statement that scientists do not make moral judgments. Hubble made one, and his successors have copied that judgment without question.

whyThe only rule that evolution seems to follow is the rule that science is not democratic—that is, scientists as a body do not vote on their conclusions. True—but in a non-flattering way. What evolution advocates do is worse than call for a vote. They draw conclusions a priori, and either force their observations to conform to them—or else ignore them.

This is what the Yale University Student Handbook written in 1976, says about this type of behavior:

The practice known as dry-labbing, constructing observations out of one’s head,…is an offense of such gravity that it merits excommunication from the community of scientists.
At Yale the comparable sanction is expulsion [kicked out of the university]

But - obviously not for the evolutionists!?

Comments Are Welcomed
Talk About This
(comments below)


#7 Shahid 2015-02-06 14:04
Some simpliest ways to dismiss evolution
1) if we came from mr.ape n apes come from a list of its ancestors like cro magnon etc . why we dont have those species today . where did they go? hmmm maybe they are gone to mars planet for picnic.
they should have been here n there common as apes why we have not those species today? were they made to self destruct themselves?
we have fossils of dinosaurs these are so old . we have fossils of insects more than 200million years ago. so if we believe that once there was a species which was intermediate to us and all that specie died on 12oclock then why couldnt we found such just 1 fossil.
the latest news is we dont just have missing link of humans missing but same with all other animals .
what happened to these evolutionists they are blind following and are best example of educated illiterates.
#6 Yusuf Estes 2013-03-30 05:20
About time someone exposed this 'theory' for what it really was - and is - today.
This may have origins in pagan culture, and should not be taken serious.
Islam teaches us that God Almighty Allah - is the One and Only Creator and the Sustainer and the EVOLVER of whatever exists and changes within species.
But that does not mean He changes one species into another species.
Elephants don't come from cock roaches!
#5 Rick 2012-04-26 18:28
As-salamu'alayk om,__ The theory of evolution dates back to ancient beliefs of pagan cultures and is still with us today in the form of junk-science. Darwin had a racist agenda and the sudo scientists of today have an agenda as well. Let one of them print a paper critical of evolution and their funding dries up and scorn is heaped on them by the intellectual elite. Have a look at the results of such falsehood. The theory of evolution has given rise to social Darwinism, communism, racism, eugenics and a host of other evils. May Allah (swt) guide us all away from such falsehoods and toward the light of Islam.
#4 Nico 2012-01-10 21:23
To be an evolutionist requires a lot of things and certain views of the world. __1. You must believe you know everything.__2. If you cannot answer a question you must be able to mock something about the question so that you don't have to answer it.__3. All the scientists before you that did not believe in evolution, are not as smart and intelligent as you because you know better. __4. You have nothing to backup your claims, so you must try to ridicule the questioner or be able to change the way evolution works so that no matter what you are the only person that is right.____Those are only a few.__So if you want to be an evolutionist you must be the smartest, self believing, arrogant and closed minded person.
#3 Ahmad 2011-11-24 21:26
#2 Ahmad 2011-11-24 21:19
Mr. Adnan Oktar(Harun Yahya) and the friends in Turkey have done a great deal of excellent work on the this fable(Evolution ). I call it Evilotion though. Anyway for a treasure of study material and videos about the refutation of Evolution and Darwinism
#1 sarah 2011-11-21 05:31
Asalaam alaykum , an interesting article but with certain flaws i feel personally. Also a misleading title. Rather than proving evolution is not a science we should be proving why we as muslims dont believe in this, i tried to show this article to some one and it backfired badly.

Need permission to post comment