Is Evolution Speculation?

I keep trying to find a solution to this situation, but sometimes there just isn’t one. At some point you just have to respectfully agree to disagree. In these types of topics people have to be willing to wade into rather deep scientific waters, and that willingness isn’t always there.

I like to tell myself that it may make an impression on others who read the material. I don’t know how true it is, but it helps to cut down on the frustration.


I have encountered people who admit to being influenced that way, but not a lot of them. I suspect there are more, but they are not so strongly influence that they ever talk about it.

1 Like
  1. Because they have been brainwashed
  2. Because opposite views are systematically censored
  3. Why would biologists matter more than others? Do they know something about “evolution” we were not told? If so why don’t they share? If not, who cares about them?
  4. Because you simply cannot get a biology degree without proving your allegiance to Darwin

Darwinism has never been the dominant view until recently and, mark my words, it will be acknowledged as fraud and gone within the next 100 years.

I just want to add that creationists includes all forms namely YEC, ID, OEC, and TE/EC. Some may look less egregious than others but they are all the same in that they all say that evolutionary science doesn’t work without some sort of creator, interloper or manager . YEC, OEC, ID and TE/EC are not evolutionary science and should be treated as religion and not science in discussions.

…and hopefully a lot sooner.
I’m cheerfully doing my part to expose the Darwin fraud. :grinning:

Hear that guys? We have been brainwashed. We didn’t come to conclusions we did because of evidence and our honest investigation of it. We were just brainwashed. But not He came to all his beliefs rationally. He wasn’t brainwashed.


Funny how “Darwinism”, a view rejected by pretty much every biologist in the 60’s, just now became the dominant paradigm in biology…

1 Like

What does this mean for neutral theory?

1 Like

Neutral theory is what made Darwinism fall out of favor


What has brought it to become the dominant paradigm in biology?

1 Like I’m very sad for you. Darwinian evolution was falsified in the 1960s by Haldane and Kimura. That is not current evolutionary science. You might need to find something else to expose.

I got a biology degree before I realized ID arguments were false. No one asks in science what you believe in your heart. There are no allegiance tests in science. I know many scientists that are even YECs and accepted by their colleagues as legitimate scientists.

A rock solid mathematical theory, validated by experiments, simulations, and more. There are just 1000s of papers on it now.


See: The Neutral Theory of Evolution.

1 Like

This was Ann Gaugers claim which went unchallenged. Looks like a weak argument unless the mutations are indeed guided.


Look, maybe evolution was guided by God. We certainly have not ruled that out. However, the question at hand is something different. Can we demonstrate that he guided it? That is a much higher bar. I have not yet seen an ID argument clear that bar.

1 Like

To much credibility is being given to DI and ID that they are doing any science at all. They are not. They are just critiquing the latest scientific results. There is a big difference between doing science and just sitting on the sidelines critiquing it. DI and ID (and TE) are not part of the consensus building that science uses to take in new results and merge them into what is accepted as provisional true. The only reason DI and ID (and TE) are even considered is that there is a theological effort to insert a disguised theology into evolutionary science.

That is largely accurate, but I still want to affirm when they make positive steps in the right direction.

They don’t, and never had and never will.

I felt like Ewert’s recent work was a good step. It’s hard to get excited about an idea if no models or frameworks are being developed. ID hasnt done that. So the fact that Winston did was a positive step

1 Like

I really want to see ID models for universal common ancestry. How does it fit in, etc. but every time I’ve reached out to an ID proponent (including prominent ones) about it they just push me away or start to argue against UCA. That disappoints me. I mean here is an evolutionist wanting to hear your thoughts and get your ideas and you arent willing. I thought that’s what they want?

Because it is not science, it is theology disguised as science. They don’t have labs, nor are a university. They call themselves a think tank. But think tanks rely on funding to survive. And the think tanks positions must align with their funders or they do not survive. Let’s not lose site of the fact that DI is primarily funded by those who have strong ties to the Evangelical Christian Right.