THE DARWINIST TECHNIQUES OF CLAMOR AND DEMAGOGUERY

There is not one single piece of evidence for Darwinism. For that reason, for the last 150 years Darwinists have used a different technique to providing evidence; clamor and demagoguery.

• Darwinists resort to all possible means to cover up the fact that the theory of evolution is a deception. Academics and scientists questioning evolution and espousing anti-Darwinian views are hurriedly removed from their posts and silenced.

• They attempt to portray the fraud of Darwinism as a highly complex scientific reality. They try to deceive people with complicated formulae and unintelligible terminology. They take advantage of science and people’s respect for it, even though there is nothing scientific to the theory whatsoever.

• They engage in loud and long demagoguery and resort to charlatanry instead of giving scientific responses to people holding other views. Since they are unable to provide any real scientific evidence at all, they imagine that they can invalidate the definitive proofs of Creation by making so-called jokes and using a mocking, improper tone. They imagine they will thus be able to deceive people, even though the evidence is plain for everyone to see.

• They try to prevent people thinking and investigating the true facts. They imagine that only in this way can they prevent the fraudulent nature of Darwinism being exposed. They try to prevent people thinking by means of demagogic accounts and complicated, incomprehensible articles adorned with grotesque-looking formulae.

• Some foreign pro-Darwinist publications are the best example of this. None of these can ever say, “Yes, there are 100 million fossils that prove Creation, and we rebut these in any way.” They never mention the amber containing organisms exactly as they were millions of years ago. They never raise these issues because they know only too well that they all totally refute Darwinism. They merely resort to plenty of unintelligible demagoguery of no scientific value.

• They apply pressure to ensure that students holding anti-Darwinist views are expelled from their schools. For example, in a report on the subject in the British weekly The Observer, Darwinist scientists are reported to say that “if religion stops their students accepting evolution, there is no point in them staying at university.” This is a clear statement from the mouths of Darwinists regarding the Darwinist technique of menaces and intimidation.

• One of the demagogic techniques most frequently employed by Darwinists is the claim that the financing for Harun Yahya’s matchless works that have stunned the whole world comes from outside Turkey. A report that recently appeared in The Observer claimed that the activities in question were backed from Saudi Arabia. Yet it is quite evident that Saudi Arabia attaches no importance to the subject of evolution and that the state has no anti-evolutionary policy. If the Saudi Arabian administration really wanted to engage in anti-evolutionary activity there is no doubt that it would not do this in Turkey. That would be meaningless. The Saudi government has sufficient money and resources to carry out wide-ranging activities in its own country. The demagoguery that Darwinists engage in on this subject is highly illogical and utterly ludicrous.

• It was also suggested in the same paper that poor schools in Turkey were grateful for Harun Yahya’s books. This is another demagogic technique. Harun Yahya’s books are read right across the world because they are of scientific value and make the true facts crystal clear. It is wealthy European countries and America that read these books the most. People buy and like these books because they tell the truth. But Darwinists are unable to swallow this.

• Another aspect of the same demagoguery is the claim that Darwinist scientists are afraid to speak out. In fact these scientists have no fear at all of speaking to the proponents of Creation. Their fear lies in having no evidence in favor of Darwinism despite all the millions of proofs of Creation. There is no reason why they should not take part in debates of this kind if they did have any scientific evidence of their own. They are unable to respond to the 100 million fossils that prove the fact of Creation, and are unable to admit that proteins cannot form by chance. They know that they will be faced with clear and incontrovertible scientific facts during the course of any debate. And they have no answers to them.

• The Council of Europe’s attempt to have the teaching of the Atlas of Creation in schools banned, also described in The Observer, is one of Darwinists’ best-known so-called intimidatory techniques. They imagine than banning books will stop people accessing the scientific facts. The fact is, however, that permitting no alternative view to the one-sided teaching of Darwinism in schools is a disgrace to Darwinists themselves. Fascism is still taught as an opposing view in schools of philosophy that teach communism. Alternative theories to the Big Bang are still taught regarding the formation of the universe. The situation in this example is even more terrible, because Creation is a fact proved by scientific evidence, whereas Darwinism is just nonsense.

       If Darwinists had the evidence to prove their theory, and if they genuinely believed that their theory was true, then they would very definitely feel no need to resort to demagoguery, to try to hide the evidence for Creation, and to attempt to intimidate scientists and other proponents of Creation. The main reason for Darwinists’ banning books, mockery, long demagogic accounts and unwillingness to engage in debates is that Darwinism is terrible nonsense that has deceived the world for the last 150 years.
  

But all these measures, clamor and demagoguery have come to an end now that the existence of 100 million fossils supporting Creation has been made public. People have now seen the daylight. And there is no point in trying to tell them it is still dark outside. The scientific facts are in front of everyone’s eyes. The Darwinist lie has been unmasked. From now on, by the will of Allah (God), Darwinists will always be defeated no matter what demagoguery they resort to.

I wish these idiot journalists would stop calling intelligent design a “theory!”

Intelligent design incorrect? What a breakthrough.

Of course humans are imperfect—now. God did not create imperfect beings. We’ve only become imperfect after the fall of man.

“God did not create imperfect beings. We’ve only become imperfect after the fall of man.”

There’s absolutely zero evidence for this claim.

I thought we were created in God’s likeness. Who are we to say what’s perfect.

“I don’t buy into all of that evolving from monkeys business,” Hemes said.

Yet another person who is quick to criticize a theory they don’t understand. He merely argued that due to our similarities, we likely share a common ancestor. At least READ On the Origin of Species and KNOW what Charles Darwin actually said before you jump on the Biblical Short Bus.

Soner Ayan said: “THE DARWINIST TECHNIQUES OF CLAMOR AND DEMAGOGUERY There is not one single piece of evidence for Darwinism. For that reason, for the last 150 years Darwinists have used a different technique to providing evidence; clamor and demagoguery.”

Olorin says: “THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN TECHNIQUES OF CLAMOR AND DEMAGOGUERY. There is not one single piece of evidence for ID. For that reason, for the last 20 years IDists have used a different technique to providing evidence; clamor and demagoguery.”

“If we are going to teach creation science as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction.”

Anyone who thinks that living things are intelligently designed knows nothing about either intelligence or design.

“There’s absolutely zero evidence for this claim.” -You don’t need evidence, this is common sense. First, you must agree that there is a God. After that, it’s obvious- God would not create imperfect beings, yet we are imperfect now. Obviously this is because we have sinned- our DNA now contains malformations that it did not contain previously. But if you’re looking for evidence: No new DNA information is ever created, and there is evidence that all humans came from one woman.

This is directed at the long post from 3:56 AM.

You can’t be serious. Intelligent design and creationism are not taught alongside evolution and natural selection because they aren’t science. They cannot be proven experimentally and the hundred million fossils are stronger evidence against creation due to carbon dating than for it. Also, I do not see what amber has to do with anything in this argument, so perhaps you could explain that one to me. Scientists espousing creationism are likely removed from their posts because they aren’t scientists.

The thing I don’t understand is how people are uncomfortable with the idea of natural selection at least. It’s not really much of a stretch to think “well, the organisms not well suited to their environment die off, and the ones that are well adapted survive and reproduce.” I’ll grant that the rise of life from simple molecules and proteins arranging themselves randomly is a bit more of a stretch, but it’s not like there are no researchers studying that and performing experiments under hypothetical conditions for the early Earth.

As for not teaching alternative viewpoints in classrooms, when the subject is science, alternative viewpoints are not taught because there are no alternative viewpoints. Science is a self-correcting process, hypotheses that are wrong are proven so and discarded except for perhaps historical value (for example, mentioning the ether hypothesis to give context to special relativity.) No alternative to physics is taught in classrooms because there isn’t one, and I’ve yet to see people object to that.

If there’s so much proof for creationism, why have I only heard creationists trying to prove themselves right only by futilely attempting to say evolution is wrong?

I want to believe that was just a long post to bait people, in which case it worked on at least me, but then there is that creationism museum in Kentucky.

Isn’t it great how creationism explains absolutely everything? Science has to have all DIFFERENT “theories” but creationism explains EVERYTHING with just one simple FACT: GODIDIT!!

Dumb ol’ atheist secularist Darwinianist scienceists!

GalapagosPete

Seriously, Soner Ayan? Show me these 100 million fossils that prove creation! How can you say there is no evidence for evolution? And just because you have never taken an intro to biology course does not mean that everyone does not understand basic scientific terminology.

Greetings,

Intelligent design/creationism is not only cherry-picked science, it is faulty theology as well. Startling as it may seem, by continually protesting that “blind” chance could only lead to “accidental evolution”, all denialist forms of creationism contradict the Bible’s clear teachings that chance occurrence in the universe (randomness), is always under God’s direct control!…Oops! Try this:

http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=34289

It’s called: “Intelligent Design Rules Out God’s Sovereignty Over Chance”

How have you passed a single science course in this university? Actually how are these people even admitted, evolution is not a hoax it is not a fraud, there is no reason for scientists to support it if it is incorrect. There is nothing to gain. Creationism and intelligent design are fine for philosophy class but they have no room in scientific discussion, they aren’t scientific theories, they by definition dont have disprovable hypotheses

Two things in regard to the article:

1.) Professor Ayala’s examples in the article agree
with the creation account.

Part of the article says: ” Ayala said there couldn’t be an intelligent designer because he wouldn’t create an imperfect prototype. “The human jaw, the human birth canal and the forelimbs are not perfect. …The birth canal doesn’t fit the head of the baby,” Ayala said”

Professor Ayala is right, “an intelligent designer”, i.e. God: would NOT, … and did NOT “create an imperfect prototype”. The first man and woman were created “very good” See: Genesis 1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. … www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1;&version=31

Ayala tells us: “The birth canal doesn’t fit the head of the baby”

God tells us women would experience: “pains in childbearing” See: Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. … .” See: www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis3;&version=31

“The birth canal doesn’t fit the head of the baby” and “pains in childbearing” are in accord with the creation account.

2.) In regard to the articles mention of “natural selection…genetics and evolution”

“Cutting-Edge Science” tells us:

“The specific complexity of genetic information in the genome does not increase spontaneously. Therefore, there is no natural process whereby reptiles can turn into birds, land mammals into whales, or chimpanzees into human beings.” Quoted from: What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins? What Does Cutting-Edge Science Teach about Origins? http://www.kolbecenter.org/church_teaches.htm

“The creationist model of how life spread across the globe after the Flood of Genesis (see: Genesis 8-11 www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis8-11;&version=31 ) uses many of the same principles of natural selection and adaptive radiation that are used in the evolution model.

One of the main differences is that the biblical creation model recognizes that one kind cannot change into another and that the changes are a result of variation within the created kinds—not descent from a single common ancestor. As a result of the Curse, genetic mutations, representing a loss of information, have been accumulating, but these do not cause new kinds to emerge. … Biblical creationists agree with evolutionists on most of the ideas associated with natural selection, except the idea that natural selection leads to molecules-to-man evolution. Quoted from: Evolution Exposed: Chapter 3: Natural Selection vs. Evolution http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/natural-selection-vs-evolution

Observable science agrees with the creation account as stated in the Bible. For examples, see: Genesis 1-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1-11;&version=31

“Creationism and intelligent design are fine for philosophy class but they have no room in scientific discussion, they aren’t scientific theories, they by definition dont have disprovable hypotheses “

Philosophy is the basis for science.

Francisco Ayala said: It would have to be imperfect design or incompetent design or inept design, but not intelligent design

This is exactly what you would expect to find if there were some constant natural physical need for life, and even for “intelligent” life, like these scientists have posited here.

But unfortunately for science, few look into it from this perspective because both sides automatically see god in evidence that looks that much like god, so one side makes the unfounded leap of faith, while the other just pretends like evidence for stuff like this is meaningless.

Ideological predisposing makes a real picnic for the whole two or three of us that are actually interested in the truth.