英語フォーラム

http://www.askdarwinists.com/

http://www.darwinism-watch.com/

http://www.famousdarwinistdeceptions.com/

The Common Denominator Of Fascist, Racist, Communist And All Other Ideologies Based On Conflict Is Darwin’s Theory Of Evolution, Which Describes Human Beings As “Struggling Animals.”

In The Last Century Fascism And Communism Brought With Them Nothing But War, Conflict, Slaughter And Oppression.

Did You Know This Dark History Of Irreligion?

In The Last Century Fascism And Communism Brought With Them Nothing But War, Conflict, Slaughter And Oppression.

Did You Know This Dark History Of Irreligion?

In The Last Century Fascism And Communism Brought With Them Nothing But War, Conflict, Slaughter And Oppression.

Did You Know This Dark History Of Irreligion?

http://www.nightmareofdisbelief.com/ 

Maybe you're talking about what is called "social darwinism", ideas what were not promoted precisely by Darwin but just by those who wanted to justify the opression of some societies or people over others by taking advantage of the theory of him and use it at their convenience 

Evolution has nothing to deal with teleologic ideologies like facism or nazism, because the first talks about just changes, not necessarily changes to be better: Series of changes could lead a specie wether survival or extinction

I don't think it's neccesary to make fight religion against science, both provide us different sources of knowledge, no one of us has the total thruth

THE GREATEST DISASTER OF THE HISTORY OF MANKIND

The Second World War, which fascism was responsible for, was the worst tragedy in the history of mankind, leaving 55 million dead in its wake.

Until the 20th century, wars were always fought on a particular front, and between armies on those fronts. However, in the 20th century, the Nazis deliberately bombed civilian populations, as well as systematically murdering them in concentration camps. These terrible scenes of Jews and other innocent inmates in Nazi concentration camps and ghettos are but a few examples of Nazi brutality against civilian populations.

This barbarity was based more in support of an ideology than as part of a military strategy. This ideology was a barbaric one, which claimed that there was a "struggle for survival" among the races, and that this was a "law of nature." Its origin is found in the paganism of ancient times and in the so-called Darwinist "science."

TO BE FREED FROM PREJUDICE

Most people accept everything they hear from scientists as strictly true. It does not even occur to them that scientists may also have various philosophical or ideological prejudices. The fact of the matter is that evolutionist scientists impose their own prejudices and philosophical views on the public under the guise of science. For instance, although they are aware that random events do not cause anything other than irregularity and confusion, they still claim that the marvellous order, plan, and design seen both in the universe and in living organisms arose by chance.

For instance, such a biologist easily grasps that there is an awe-inspiring harmony in a protein molecule, the building block of life, and that there is no probability that this might have come about by chance. Nevertheless, he alleges that this protein came into existence under primitive earth conditions by chance billions of years ago. He does not stop there; he also claims, without hesitation, that not only one, but millions of proteins formed by chance and then amazingly came together to create the first living cell. Moreover, he defends his view with a blind stubbornness. This person is an "evolutionist" scientist.

If the same scientist were to find three bricks resting on top of one another while walking along a flat road, he would never suppose that these bricks had come together by chance and then climbed up on top of each other, again by chance. Indeed, anyone who did make such an assertion would be considered insane.

Michael Behe: "An embarrased silence surrounds the stark complexity of the cell"

How then can it be possible that people who are able to assess ordinary events rationally can adopt such an irrational attitude when it comes to thinking about their own existence?

A few lines written by one of the prominent evolutionist biologists of Turkey is a good example that enables us to see the disordered judgement and discretion that this blind devotion leads to. This scientist discusses the probability of the coincidental formation of Cytochrome-C, which is one of the most essential enzymes for life, as follows:

The probability of the formation of a Cytochrome-C sequence is as likely as zero. That is, if life requires a certain sequence, it can be said that this has a probability likely to be realised once in the whole universe. Otherwise, some metaphysical powers beyond our definition should have acted in its formation. To accept the latter is not appropriate to the goals of science. We therefore have to look into the first hypothesis.2

This scientist finds it "more scientific" to accept a possibility "as likely as zero" rather than creation. However according to the rules of science, if there are two alternative explanations concerning an event and if one of them has "as likely as zero" a possibility of realisation, then the other one is the correct alternative. However the dogmatic materialistic approach forbids the admittance of a superior Creator. This prohibition drives this scientist-and many others who believe in the same materialist dogma-to accept claims that are completely contrary to reason.

In Western countries, a scientist has to observe some standards in order to be promoted, to receive academic recognition, or to have his articles published in scientific journals. A straightforward acceptance of evolution is the number-one criterion. This system drives these scientists so far as to spend their whole lives and scientific careers for the sake of a dogmatic belief. American molecular biologist Jonathan Wells refers to these pressure mechanisms in his book Icons of Evolution published in 2000:

... Dogmatic Darwinists begin by imposing a narrow interpretation on the evidence and declaring it the only way to do science. Critics are then labeled unscientific; their articles are rejected by mainstream journals, whose editorial boards are dominated by the dogmatists; the critics are denied funding by government agencies, who send grant proposals to the dogmatists for "peer" review; and eventually the critics are hounded out of scientific community altogether. In the process, evidence against the Darwinian view simply disappears, like witnesses against the Mob. Or the evidence is buried in specialized publications, where only a dedicated researcher can find. Once critics have been silenced and counter-evidence has been buried, the dogmatists announce that there is scientific debate about their theory, and no evidence against it. 5

To summarize, there are three main reasons why mutations cannot make evolution possible:

l- The direct effect of mutations is harmful: Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the living organism that undergoes them. Reason tells us that unconscious intervention in a perfect and complex structure will not improve that structure, but will rather impair it. Indeed, no "useful mutation" has ever been observed.

2- Mutations add no new information to an organism's DNA: The particles making up the genetic information are either torn from their places, destroyed, or carried off to different places. Mutations cannot make a living thing acquire a new organ or a new trait. They only cause abnormalities like a leg sticking out of the back, or an ear from the abdomen.

3- In order for a mutation to be transferred to the subsequent generation, it has to have taken place in the reproductive cells of the organism: A random change that occurs in a cell or organ of the body cannot be transferred to the next generation. For example, a human eye altered by the effects of radiation, or by other causes, will not be passed on to subsequent generations.

The Escherichia coli bacterium is no different from specimens a billion years old. Countless mutations over this long period have not led to any structural changes.

All the explanations provided above indicate that natural selection and mutation have no evolutionary effect at all. So far, no observable example of "evolution" has been obtained by this method. Sometimes, evolutionary biologists claim that "they cannot observe the evolutionary effect of natural selection and mutation mechanisms since these mechanisms take place only over an extended period of time." However, this argument, which is just a way of making themselves feel better, is baseless, in the sense that it lacks any scientific foundation. During his lifetime, a scientist can observe thousands of generations of living things with short life spans such as fruit flies or bacteria, and still observe no "evolution." Pierre-Paul Grassé states the following about the unchanging nature of bacteria, a fact which invalidates evolution: