agreed! No names, but smooth-talking Darwinians project as liberal sons of sweet reason. Alas, within biology, dissenters are axed with brutal intolerance by these monomaniacs. It’s the wide-eyed incomprehension of the fanatic. They explain that if it isn’t natural selection, it isn’t science, so cannot be tolerated. I honestly believe they honestly believe this.

I am reminded of the ‘Christians’ who murder abortion doctors, in the name of the sanctity of life. OGT

The problem with Darwinism is that it is based in an obsolete, nineteenth-century form of mechanistic materialism. That stage was passed in physics with quantum theory, almost a century back now.

Quantum physics et al do not prove creationism or religion, but they do utterly discount the idea that the universe & everything emerged from a chaotic agglomeration of particles of ‘stuff’, flying around & banging into one-another randomly. Braver & smarter biologists are no longer satisfied with the notion that life-forms are lumps of bio-machinery. Mainstream biologists cling to that anachronism, even as they dogmatically claim that dumb, inanimate matter has the near-magical power to create life & intelligence.

I hope Richard Dawkins enjoys his tea at New College, Oxford, as he has his cake & eats it. He is champion of a ‘science’ that celebrates self-contradiction. OGT

If you don’t “believe” in evolution, you’re simply not as knowledgeable as you’d like to believe.

Or a nut.

I agree with what you say, particularly about ‘dogma’. Many in the life-sciences like biology cling to quite fanatical beliefs about the nature of matter; not so much in physics. I’m agnostic, but I’m amused that some critics of intelligent design can accept that the universe exploded out from an infinitessimal point of nothingness! No problem, becoz the maths prove it, or rather the maths suggest it. But then, where do the maths come from, except the heads of mathematicians? OGT

The evolutionary theroy is based on the assumption that life was created from dead things. Therefore it follows that evolutionists to be true to their belief must beleive in Frankenstein by way of some random chance. It was random chance that created all the elements that give man medicine, technology and all modern comforts. All based on a books and theories that cannot be proven.

And they think christians are crazy?

I suspect my ancestors swung from their necks, not their tails!

As a student I have to assume that these principals of science are correct, that the things I read based on scientific data is actually correct. I cannot go through each equation and interview countless scientists to base my decisions on, just as one cannot travel to another dimension of reality to discover a spiritual force.

Therefore, I have to base my assumptions on data from various degrees of human thought and my own life experiences in order to draw my own conclusions. All of which operate on the principal of faith.

Documentaries are supposed to be educational, not indoctrinating.

Eg., Dawkins posed the ‘panspermia’ idea for the origins of life in the universe – bits of organic matter floating to earth from exploded/dead systems in space. Fair enuf, but any philosophy student might point out that this lands us with the problem of regression – where did the ancient organic dust from space come from? Just pushing the origin question back in time does not answer it.

Similarly, Darwinians seem unable to explain the yawning tautology at the heart of their beloved theory. Darwin set out to explain why so many different shapes & kinds of life-forms exist. He said they were adapted by natural selection to fit their environments. So, camels have humps to live in the desert, & fish have gills to live in water. But without these ‘adaptations, such creatures could not live, they would not be here at all.

In fact, Darwin’s theory does not explain variety, it tells us that a great variety of forms exist. But we knew that anyhow. The theory posits ‘natural selection, but does not prove this theory.

In fact, no amount of empirical data can disprove Darwin’s theory, since a tautology is cast-iron true, but empty – like one = one. Hence the Darwinian trumpeting of the universality of the theory. Even the Wikipedia article on this issue claims to dissolve the tautology, but in fact does not. OGT