Home » Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Popular culture » New blog: Darwinism is dead but won’t lie down

New blog: Darwinism is dead but won’t lie down

Here’s a new, UK-based blog, The Darwin Deception,

Darwinism as an explanation for life is dead. The final death blow was administered by discoveries about intracellular nanomachinery, which amply satisfy Darwin’s own test of falsification. Dead, but it won’t lie down. …

Dude: Darwinism and a multitude of other dead ideas and popular delusions are crowded so thick, they can’t fall down when they die. Interesting post on John Sanford and genetic entropy:

Genetic entropy is the most catastrophic thing possible for Darwinians, robbing them as it does of their only mechanism, confirming that the idea of new meaningful genetic information arising from random mutations leading to new features and new creatures is a fanciful lie which runs directly counter to the empirical evidence.

We all know that most if not all mutations big enough to make a noticeable difference are harmful, the list is VERY long. Occasional ‘blunted or broken genes’ to use Mike Behe’s phrase confer limited situational benefit at a high cost (as with sickle cell haemoglobin), but what of the effect of ‘neutral’ mutations? The materialist’s hope is based on the idea that (no other designer-free scenario being even imaginable) these small ‘lucky’ mutations somehow accumulated over time to build new meaningful genetic information that could, for example, turn a fish into a land animal. Of course, this has never been observed. It is an article of the evolutionists’ faith.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

One Response to New blog: Darwinism is dead but won’t lie down

  1. as to: ‘The final death blow was administered by discoveries about intracellular nanomachinery, which amply satisfy Darwin’s own test of falsification.’


    Astonishingly, actual motors, which far surpass man-made motors in ‘engineering parameters’, are now being found inside ‘simple cells’.

    Bacterial Flagellum – A Sheer Wonder Of Intelligent Design – video

    Molecular Biology Animations – Demo Reel

    Evolution vs ATP Synthase – Molecular Machine – video

    Powering the Cell: Mitochondria – video

    Molecular Machine – Nuclear Pore Complex – Stephen C. Meyer – video

    The Virus – Assembly Of A Molecular “Lunar Landing” Machine – video

    Articles and Videos on Molecular Motors

    Michael Behe – Life Reeks Of Design – 2010 – video

    And in spite of the fact of finding molecular motors permeating the simplest of bacterial life, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of even one such motor or system.

    “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject.”
    James Shapiro – Molecular Biologist

    The following expert doesn’t even hide his very unscientific preconceived philosophical bias against intelligent design,,,

    ‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity,,,

    Yet at the same time the same expert readily admits that neo-Darwinism has ZERO evidence for the chance and necessity of material processes producing any cellular system whatsoever,,,

    ,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’
    Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205.
    *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA

    Michael Behe – No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines

    “The response I have received from repeating Behe’s claim about the evolutionary literature, which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Chris Dutton and so on, is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am sure, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred.” And he continues, “When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not, in fact, contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist.”
    David Ray Griffin – retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology

Leave a Reply