Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Atheism and deception

2015-08-31T03:00:36Z

Matt Fitzpatrick: repairing dead links to refs on creationism.org and diplomatie.gouv.fr

[[File:Evolution.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[Charles Darwin]]]]
In the [[Western World]], a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs [[methodological naturalism]] since [[World War II]] have had the worldview of [[atheism]].<ref>Dr. Don Batten, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32
December 1997.</ref><ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]</ref>
Concerning '''atheism and deception''', prior to [[Charles Darwin]] publishing his [[evolution|evolutionist]] work ''On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life'', Darwin wrote in his private notebooks that he was a [[materialism|materialist]], which is a type of [[atheism|atheist]].<ref>
* http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877
* Barrett, Paul H. ''Darwin on Man'' 1974:276
* ''American Scientist'' May 1977:323
</ref> Charles Darwin’s casual mentioning of a ‘creator’ in earlier editions of The Origin of Species appears to have been a merely a [[deceit|deceitful]] ploy to downplay the implications of his [[materialism|materialistic]] theory. <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877</ref>

German scientist [[Ernst Haeckel]] was a very influential proponent of the evolutionary position and Haeckel was an advocate of atheism.<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C03EFDD123EE033A2575AC0A9659C946697D6CF</ref> Ernst Haeckel attempted to portray himself as an ethical proponent of atheism, however, history shows he was a deceitful individual who committed a serious act of deception.<ref name="haeckel">{{cite web |url=http://creationism.org/wakefield/haeckel.htm |title=Another Evolution Fraud Exposed |accessdate=2015-08-31 |last=Wakefield |first=Gerard |year=2002 |work=Investigating Genesis }}</ref><ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C03EFDD123EE033A2575AC0A9659C946697D6CF</ref><ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1180</ref>
<ref>http://www.iconsofevolution.com/Icons of Evolution</ref><ref>http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf</ref>
The March 9, 1907 edition of the [[NY Times]] refers to Ernst Haeckel as the "celebrated Darwinian and founder of the Association for the Propagation of Ethical Atheism."<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C03EFDD123EE033A2575AC0A9659C946697D6CF</ref>

Noted evolutionist [[Stephen Gould]] wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of ''Natural History'':
{{cquote|"Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts.... [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!"<ref name="haeckel" />}}
[[Image:Haeckel.jpg|right|150px|thumbnail|[[Ernst Haeckel]]]]
Stephen Gould continues by quoting Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated: "I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically".<ref name="haeckel" />

[[Intelligent design]] theorist [[Michael Behe]] exposed the fraudulent nature of Haeckel's embryos in a [[NY Times]] article.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf</ref> It appears as if Stephen Gould was irritated that the fraud was exposed in manner that publicly embarrassed the evolutionary community - namely though a high profile NY Times article.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf</ref> See also: [[Evolutionary indoctrination]]

In addition, many of [[Social effects of the theory of evolution|the ideas that Haeckel supported had a number of negative social effects]].

== Atheistic indoctrination and education ==

''See also:'' [[Atheist indoctrination|Atheistic indoctrination and education]] and [[Rebuttals to atheist arguments]]

[[File:Dennis Prager.jpg|right|thumbnail|250px|[[Dennis Prager]] ]]
[[Judaism|Jewish]] columnist [[Dennis Prager]] has stated that a causal factor of atheism is the "secular indoctrination of a generation."<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=43734 How atheism is being sold in America]</ref> Prager stated that "From elementary school through graduate school, only one way of looking at the world – the secular – is presented. The typical individual in the [[Western World|Western world]] receives as secular an indoctrination as the typical European received a religious one in the [[Middle Ages]]."<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=43734 How atheism is being sold in America]</ref> In 2013, an study found that academia was less likely to hire evangelical Christians due to discriminatory attitudes.<ref>[http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2013/06/10/suspicions-confirmed-academia-shutting-out-conservative-professors-n1616406/page/full Suspicions Confirmed: Academia Shutting Out Conservative Professors]</ref>

[[Dinesh D'Souza]] has pointed out that atheists have focused considerable efforts on the public schools in order to indoctrinate young people into atheistic beliefs.<ref>[http://townhall.com/columnists/dineshdsouza/2007/10/22/the_atheist_indoctrination_project/page/full The atheist indoctrination project]</ref>

Historically, as far as public education and other measures, although government sponsored atheistic indoctrination can have an effect on society, government attempts at atheistic indoctrination has not shown itself to be effective in eliminating theism in religious societies. For example, in [[Soviet Union|Soviet Russia]], despite great efforts as far as atheistic indoctrination by the Soviet government, the indoctrination efforts failed to eliminate religious belief in [[Russia]] (See also: [[Soviet atheism]]).<ref>[http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z3211C.pdf Forced Secularization in Soviet Russia: Why an Atheistic Monopoly Failed]</ref><ref>[http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765599128/Anti-theists-cant-erase-Christianity.html?pg=all Hamblin & Peterson: Hamblin and Peterson: Anti-theists can't erase Christianity], By William Hamblin and Daniel Peterson, For the Deseret News
Published: Sunday, Aug. 26 2012</ref>

After the [[French Revolution]], [[France]] has predominantly been a secular nation with a very secular educational system.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3325285.stm The deep roots of French secularism], BBC News online by Henri Astier. September 1, 2004</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/coming-to-france/studying-in-france/presentation-1988/articles-from-actualites-en-france/article/the-values-of-the-french-school |title=The values of the French school system |accessdate=2015-08-31 |last=Mélina |first=Gazsi |work=France-Diplomatie }}</ref> Yet, in April of 2010, the British academic and [[agnosticism|agnostic]] Eric Kauffmann declared that "the rate of [[Secularization|secularisation]] has flattened to zero in most of Protestant [[Europe]] and France."<ref>[http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/shall_the_religious_inherit_the_earth/ Shall the religious inherit the earth?], by Eric P Kaufmann, April 6, 2010</ref> In 2012, French scholars indicated that [[Evangelicalism|evangelical Christianity]] was the fastest growing religion in France.<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2012/0712/In-a-France-suspicious-of-religion-evangelicalism-s-message-strikes-a-chord In a France suspicious of religion, evangelicalism's message strikes a chord], ''Christian Science Monitor'', By Robert Marquand, Staff writer July 12, 2012</ref> Much of France's growth of evangelical Christianity has been due to religious immigrants. In 2011, a paper was published entitled ''The End of Secularization in Europe?: A Socio-Demographic Perspective'' which indicated that immigrant populations tend to retain their religiosity.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/immigrants-become-more-religious-longer.html Religious immigrants will alter the religious landscape of Europe]</ref>

For more information please see: [[Atheist indoctrination|Atheistic indoctrination and education]]

== Modern Proponents of Atheism: Use of Deception and Violence ==

Historically, there certainly has been cases where the evolutionary community [[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation|was found to have engaged in fraud, been duped by hoaxes, and engaged in rampant speculation.]] In addition, the continued use of deceitfulness has continued by modern evolutionists.
In recent times, evolutionists have tried to convince the public of the supposed validity of the evolutionary position by frequently using the term "overwhelming evidence" or similar terms in relation to the alleged existence of evidence that supports their position.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0612school-year.asp</ref>
For example, prominent atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins claimed in an interview with journalist Bill Moyers that there is "massive evidence" for the theory of evolution.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html</ref>
However, the [[evolution|scientific literature certainly contains material which illustrates the deceitfulness of stating there is "overwhelming evidence" to support the evolutionary position]]. For example, in January 2000 scientist Simon Conway Morris declared:
{{cquote|When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd. -(Simon Conway Morris, [palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK], "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11)<ref>
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/mechns01.html Stephen E. Jones, Creation/Evolution Quotes: Mechanisms #1]
* [[Simon Conway Morris]], [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WSN-4195FC1-1&_user=681891&_coverDate=01%2F07%2F2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000037419&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=681891&md5=1806889a6d57f9282db2e4c04d32e8f7 Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11]</ref>}}
[[Image:Jonathansafarti.jpg|thumbnail|right|150px|Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] ]]
Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] states the following in relation to the diluted definition of the word "[[evolution]]":
{{cquote|...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and [[creation]] disproved. The [[Public Broadcasting Service|PBS]] ''Evolution'' series and the ''[[Scientific American]]'' article are full of examples of this fallacy.<ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]</ref>}}

For more information please see: [[Inflated claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity]].

=== Various ruses of Richard Dawkins concerning his alleged refusal to debate creationists ===

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists]] and [[Richard Dawkins' ruses for refusing to debate creation scientists]]

[[Richard Dawkins]] publicly flip-flops as far as labeling himself an atheist or an agnostic (see: [[Richard Dawkins and agnosticism]]). Dawkins has a [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists|number of ruses concerning his alleged refusal to debate creationists]]. Evolutionists and atheists inconsistency concerning debating creationists was commented on by the [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetic]] website [[True Free Thinker]] which declared: "Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties..."<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/speaking-assiduous-absconders%E2%80%A6yet-again-vox-day-challenges-pz-myers-debate</ref> Generally speaking, [[Atheism and Debate|leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists]] because [[creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/811/</ref>

=== Atheistic Communism and violence ===

In addition, atheistic [[communism|communist]] countries [http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism#Atheism_and_Communism have used violent means to suppress theism].

==Evolutionary Position Gradually Losing Public Support==
There is [http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism#Deceit_of_Evolutionists_and_the_Public evidence to suggest that the evolutionary position is gradually losing public support.]
==Folly and fruit of atheistic evolutionary deception==
Currently, the are a [[theories of evolution|number of untenable "theories" of evolution]] and the evolutionary community currently [[theory of evolution and little consensus|is in disarray and lacking any real consensus on how evolution allegedly occurred]].
== Vox Day on evangelical atheists and deception ==

In 2011, [[Vox Day]] wrote concerning evangelical atheists:
{{cquote|It is easy to see the deceit that is so habitual for many evangelical atheists, which ironically enough, is the very weakness that makes them so easy for the informed theist to defeat them in debate. This is precisely why I have repeatedly pointed out that one MUST assume they are lying snakes until it is demonstrated otherwise..."<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/12/mailvox-undermining-atheism.html Mailvox: undermining atheism]</ref>}}

== Atheism and satanic deception ==
[[Image:GustaveDoreParadiseLostSatanProfile.jpg|right|thumbnail|200px|Gustave Doré's depiction of [[Satan]] from [[John Milton]]'s Paradise Lost.]]
''For more information please see:'' [[Atheism and satanic deception]]

[[Creation Ministries International]] in their article on atheism declares:
{{cquote|Another reason for rejecting [[God]] (choosing atheism), is a willing acceptance of [[satan|satanic]] deception.

The angel Lucifer (“luminous one”) fell and became [[Satan]] (“adversary”) due to his desire to supplant God. This was Lucifer’s single-minded obsession.

He not only rejected God by attempting to supplant Him, but he urged humans to do likewise. Satan urged Eve to choose against God for her own self-fulfilment:

He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:1-5 ESV).

The tactic is clear: firstly, question God’s statements, then, contradict God’s statements and, finally, urge rebellion in seeking equality with God.

This manifests in atheists as

1. Questioning whether there is a God to make statements in the first place, so God did not say anything.

2. Contradicting the statements said to have been spoken by God.

3. Seeking equality with God by replacing God with the self.

This satanic deception appeals strongly to atheists as it bolsters two of their desired delusions: 1) absolute autonomy—being free to do as they please, and 2) the lack of ultimate accountability—there are no eternal consequences for doing as they please.<ref>http://creation.com/atheism</ref>}}
In a 2008 interview, [[Dinesh D'Souza]] declared:
{{cquote|Look at Satan's reason for rebelling against God. It's not that he doesn't recognize that God is greater than he is. He does. It's just that he doesn't want to play by anybody else's rules. This idea that it is better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven is Satan's motto, and it turns out that this is also the motto of contemporary atheists such as [[Christopher Hitchens]].<ref>[http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo7/7segelstein.php Salvomag.com The Apologist, An Interview with Dinesh D'Souza, Author of What's So Great About Christianity by Marcia Segelstein]</ref>}}
=== Promulgation of Atheism and Some Historical Consequences of Atheism ===
The [[John the Apostle|Apostle John]] records [[Jesus]] making an allusion to the devil and declaring that he is a thief that comes to rob, kill, and destroy.<ref>John 10:10</ref> Jesus also declares the children of the devil want to carry out their father's wishes and that the devil was a liar and a murderer.<ref>John 8:44</ref> As far as the methods used to promulgate atheism, as noted earlier, there is a history of using deception. In addition, atheistic [[communism|communist]] countries [http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism#Atheism_and_Communism have used violent means to suppress theism] (see: [[Atheism and Mass Murder]]).

=== Charles Baudelaire - atheism and satanic deception ===
[[File:Charles Baudelaire3.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[Charles Baudelaire]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Atheism Quotes]]

[[Charles Baudelaire]] expressed a common belief concerning atheism and satanic deception in his short story ''The Generous Gambler'' written in 1864:
{{cquote|He complained in no way of the evil reputation under which he lived, indeed, all over the world, and he assured me that he himself was of all living beings the most interested in the destruction of [[Superstition]], and he avowed to me that he had been afraid, relatively as to his proper power, once only, and that was on the day when he had heard a preacher, more subtle than the rest of the human herd, cry in his pulpit: "My dear brethren, do not ever forget, when you hear the progress of lights praised, that the loveliest trick of the Devil is to persuade you that he does not exist!}}

== Atheists attempting to falsely inflate their numbers via the nones ==
[[File:67275975 vVzy1OLk PICT0158.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|The atheist Georgetown University professor Jacques Berlinerblau likens the strength of the [[American atheism|American atheist]] movement to a "gimpy little zebra".<ref>[http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2012-09/professor-jacques-berlinerblau-tells-atheists-stop-whining Professor Jacques Berlinerblau tells atheists: Stop whining!], Christian Century, Sep 14, 2012 by Kimberly Winston</ref>]]

''See also:'' [[Nones]]

Although some American [[atheists|atheist]]s like to claim the "[[nones]]" or "no religion" on religious surveys as one of their own, fewer than 15% of the "nones" consider themselves atheists.<ref>[http://www.pressdemocrat.com/csp/mediapool/sites/PressDemocrat/News/story.csp?cid=2501462&sid=555&fid=181 Meet the 'Nones:' Spiritual but not religious]</ref>

The atheist [[Georgetown University]] professor Jacques Berlinerblau declared concerning [[American atheism|American atheists]] attempting to falsely inflate their numbers:
{{cquote|American atheist movements, though fancying themselves a lion, are more like the gimpy little [[zebra]] crossing the river full of crocs. In terms of both political gains and popular appeal, nonbelievers in the United States have little to show. They are encircled by cunning, swarming [religious] Revivalist adversaries who know how to play the atheist card. The gimpy zebra remark was a little goofing on this over-the-top chest-thumping that emerges from Movement Atheists. They wildly overestimate their numbers. They tend to overestimate the efficacy of their activism. They underestimate how disciplined and organized their adversaries in the religious right are, too. They fail to recognize that mocking religious people in public is entirely inimical to the goals they wish to achieve."<ref>[http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2012-09/professor-jacques-berlinerblau-tells-atheists-stop-whining Professor Jacques Berlinerblau tells atheists: Stop whining!], Christian Century, Sep 14, 2012 by Kimberly Winston</ref>}}

See also: [[Views on atheists|Americans have a low opinion of atheists]]

==See Also==

*[[Atheism and morality]]
*[[Atheism and truth]]
*[[List of atheist and agnostic pseudosciences]]
*[[Evolution as a secular origins myth]]
*[[Evolution and just so stories]]
*[[Atheist hypocrisy]]
*[[Causes of atheism]]
*[[Atheism and cowardice]]
*[[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach|Richard Dawkins and the Rabbi Shmuley Boteach debate]]
*[[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]

{{Nb_Atheism}}

== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Atheism]]
[[Category:Deceit]]

Theories of evolution

2015-08-31T01:44:14Z

Matt Fitzpatrick: intro: repairing dead link to ref on sciencedirect.com

There are a number of '''theories of evolution'''. In 2000, scientist Simon Conway Morris wrote in the peer reviewed [[science]] journal ''Cell'': "When discussing organic [[evolution]] the only point of agreement seems to be: 'It happened.' Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867400816797 |title=Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold |accessdate=2015-08-31 |last=Morris |first=Simon Conway |date=2000-01-07 |work=Cell |publisher=Elsevier |doi=10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81679-7 }}</ref>

==Recent clamour to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis==

''See also:'' [[Recent clamor to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis]] and [[Theory of evolution and little consensus]]

One of the more popular evolutionary paradigms among evolutionary scientists is the [[modern evolutionary synthesis]]. The '''[[modern evolutionary synthesis]]''' is a school of evolutionary thought which incorporates the concepts of natural selection, mutations, and studies in population genetics.<ref>http://creation.com/ariel-a-roth-biology-in-six-days</ref>

In 2005, Massimo Pigliucci, in a book review for the prestigious science journal ''Nature'', wrote: "The clamour to revise [[Neo-Darwinism|neo-darwinism]] is becoming so loud that hopefully most practising evolutionary biologists will begin to pay attention. It has been said that science often makes progress not because people change their minds, but because the old ones die off and the new generation is more open to novel ideas."<ref>http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2008/07/25/how_much_of_evolutionary_theory_needs_fi</ref> In July of 2008, Elizabeth Pennisi
wrote in the prestigous science journal ''Science'': "Seventy years ago, evolutionary biologists hammered out the modern synthesis to bring Darwin's ideas in line with current insights into how organisms change through time. Some say it's time for Modern Synthesis 2.0."<ref>http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2008/07/25/how_much_of_evolutionary_theory_needs_fi</ref>

==Theories of evolution employing methodological naturalism ==
Some of the more notable [[naturalism|naturalistic]] theories of the evolution which employ or have employed the concept of [[methodological naturalism]] are the following:

===Current naturalistic theories of evolution===

*[[Modern evolutionary synthesis]] which incorporates the concept of [[phyletic gradualism]]

*[[Punctuated equilibrium]] (Originally incorporated [[saltationism]] but later was declared merely complementary to [[phyletic gradualism]])<ref>Ernst Mayr, 1982a. Speciation and macroevolution. Evolution 36, page 1128</ref><ref>http://creation.com/punctuated-equilibrium-come-of-age</ref>

*[[Third way of evolution]]

*[[Lamarckian theory of evolution|Lamarckianism]]<ref>
*[http://creation.com/epigenetics-and-darwin Darwin’s Lamarckism vindicated?] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/mutations-epigenetics-information Mutations, epigenetics and the question of information] by Creation Ministries International
</ref>

*[[Symbiogenesis]]<ref>http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf</ref>

*Neutral theory of molecular evolution

*Nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution
[[File:goldschmidt.jpg|right|thumb|170px|[[Richard Goldschmidt]]]]

=== Past naturalistic theories of evolution ===

*[[Quantum evolution]]<ref>http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf</ref>

*[[Goldschmidt's hopeful monster theory]]

*[[Zoogenesis]]

*[[Emication]]

*[[Orthogenesis]]<ref>http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf</ref>

*[[Pangenesis]]<ref>http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf</ref>

*[[Charles Darwin]]'s theory of evolution (The amount of credit Darwin actually deserves for the theory is disputed). <ref>Russell Grigg, [http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again!]</ref><ref>http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_3/j16_3_58-63.pdf</ref>

==Non-naturalistic theories of evolution==
Below are some non-[[naturalism|naturalistic]] theories of evolution which do not strictly apply the ideology of [[methodological naturalism]]:

*[[Theistic evolution]]

*Creative evolution<ref>http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf</ref>

==Creation science commentary on the various naturalistic theories of evolution==
The prominent [[creation science|creation scientist]] Creation scientist Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote concerning the various theories of evolution:
{{cquote|...supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution [[saltationism]] and its relative, [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuated equilibria]]) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of [[phyletic gradualism|gradual evolution]] point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with ''both'': punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp</ref>}}

[[Image:Image014.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Karl Popper]]]]

==Evolutionary Paradigm - Karl Popper Commentary ==

''For more information please see:'' [[Falsifiability of evolution]]

[[Karl Popper]], a leading philosopher of science and originator of the falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,<ref>
* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
* http://www.discovery.org/a/3524</ref> stated that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] research programme."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref> Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse stated the following regarding Popper's statement and [[Falsifiability of evolution|the actions he took after making that statement]]: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>

The [[Sweden|Swedish]] cytogeneticist, Antonio Lima-De-Faria, who has been knighted
by the king of Sweden for his scientific achievements, noted that "there has never been a theory of evolution".<ref>[http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00053.htm Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry, July 6, 2008, by Suzan Mazur]</ref><ref>http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-tales-from-altenberg-suzan-mazurs.html</ref>

==Inflated claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity ==
In recent times, evolutionists have tried to convince the public of the supposed validity of the evolutionary position by increasingly and frequently using the term "overwhelming evidence" or similar terms in relation to the alleged existence of evidence that supports their position.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0612school-year.asp</ref>
For example, prominent [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed in an interview with journalist [[Bill Moyers]] that there is "massive evidence" for the theory of evolution.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html</ref> Yet, there is [[evolution|not any real evidence for the evolutionary paradigm]].
Many atheists quote the "evidence" of fossils to back up their beliefs - but their argument falls down at the obvious flaw that a bunch of rocks and stones cannot provide strong proof for anything.

==See also==

*[[Evolution as a secular origins myth]]
*[[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎]]
*[[Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]]
*[[Atheism and deception]]

==External Links==
*[http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf The Century-and-a-half failure in the quest of new genetic information] by [[Jerry Bergman]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Evolution]]