Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Evolution is a One man's Idea

Evolution is a One man's Idea

Ratings: (0)|Views: 59|Likes:
Published by Ntege Eric
is evolution part of science? Ntege Eric this is not really apart of Science
is evolution part of science? Ntege Eric this is not really apart of Science

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Science
Published by: Ntege Eric on May 21, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





 What is evolution? Whose idea is it? What has it got to do with man? All these and many more questions have been asked with a few answers given to them, yet according to what I have read and heard from scientists am convinced that evolution is not part of science but other religion altogether. Before anyone can talk about Evolution, they should be ready to specify which part of evolution they are talking about;
Cosmic evolution
-The origin of time, space and matter, i.e. Big Bang.
Chemical evolution
-The origin of higher elements from Hydrogen if the Big Bangproduced Hydrogen and Helium how did the other elements (105) come about.
Stellar and Planetary evolution
-The origin of stars and planets.
Organic evolution
-The origin of Life from nonliving material.
-Change from one kind to another kind
-Variations with in a kindThe first five are all religious and it's only the last (6th) one which is Scientific so whichof these do the Scientists today uses to explain evolution? I bet they will all use the lastone because there are many examples on that yet today they talk about macroevolution,the Big Bang Theory and at the end of the day leave many Questions in peoples' mindsincluding those they cannot answer themselves. If Evolution is part of Science then I strongly can tell that it has failed to stand by whatScience is, this is how Scientists should do their work [the way science works]: Observe; write a Hypothesis; Give supporting Evidence. Once a scientist fails to give evidence forhis claims then he does not operate in the world of Science but under faith and hence areligion formed, no wonder many Science books have statements like
that the universe began with a ..." 
that some dinosaursevolved into birds ..." 
(thus Macroevolution)From the Science books I have read, I have found out that Charles Darwin talked aboutMicroevolution which refers to the variations with in Kind yet Scientists today haveattached these variations with in kind to Macroevolution which refers to changing fromone Kind to another Kind say from fish to amphibians, all this is to get people to believethat there is no God hence Scientists believing that man is god and answers to no one(Humanist world view) this is not true because Macroevolution is based on the claimsthat mutations can produce not only new Species but also entirely new Families of Plants and Animals that is not true because mutations change the Genetic Code thusproducing alternations in the descendants of Plants and Animals. Thus why Macroevolution is resting on three main assumptions:
Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create New Species.
Natural Selection leads to production of New Species.
The Fossil record documents Macro evolutionary changes in Plants and Animals. Why assumption and not facts? Scientists are truly working out of their boundaries(Observe; write a Hypothesis; Give supporting Evidence) as Charles Darwin
explains in his book 
{"The Origin of Species By Means Of Natural Selection" or "The Preservation Of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life"}
(1895) that it's the changesin Species (microevolution) that make them best suiting for their environment, the factthat a given Species can change to suit the environment in which it is, does not meanthat it has changed to another Species as Scientists today put it under Macroevolution of  which they cannot give evidence for, If Scientists
that man came from apes why do we have a clear cut difference but the two and nothing in between to prove that apesare changing to man. Which person who claims to be a Scientist today would tell the world that if a rat from Uganda managed to survive in the hottest desert or at the coldestplace on earth would change in to a new Kind unknown to man?The bottom line of Darwin’s Theory is survival for the fittest just like his title puts itfavored races in the struggle for life implying that he believed in every man (oreverything) on his (it's) own.Scientist today try to get everyone to believe that Darwin’s theory is aboutMacroevolution hence making him a Lair of what he put forward in his own theory how could Charles have talked about Macroevolution when some of his studies wereconducted from some of the British Farms. Folks Charles Darwin’s Theory is based onMicroevolution hence Scientists today have diverted from what Darwin put forward inhis Theory simply because they do not want to believe that there is a Creator(God) of allthat we see today in the world, not that Darwin believed in God anyway. Am not writing this to support or defend Darwin, because one thing I know he was aRacist who thought that Natives were just advanced animals on wonder he is the causeof all the commotion in the world today Like the U S President Theodore Roosevelt believed that the Indians were Inferior races, The Trail of Tears 1838(many tribes wereforced from their lands due to racism), all this was because of Darwin’s Theory. Darwinalso thought women were Inferior He said,” A married man is a poor slave worse than aNegro."(
The Autobiography of Charles Darwin p.234
) "...the average of mental powerin man must be above that of woman." (
 Descent of Man Charles Darwin p.586
),"biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."(
 Steven Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogony, p.127-128, 1977)
I believe that Darwin is no great Scientist, he believed in inbreeding (married hismaternal father's grand daughter who was also his mother's niece) to produce a"superior stock." They had ten children. Mary died shortly after birth. Anne died at theage of 10. Robert was born retarded and died at 19 months. Henrietta had a serious breakdown at age 15. 3 of his other sons were ill so often that Charles regarded them assemi-invalids. (
 In the Minds of Men. Ian Taylor p.127, available from CSE 
)Scientists are so confusing talking of the Big Bang how true is this, because from theFirst Law of Thermodynamics:”
Matter (and/or energy) cannot be created or destroyed" 
this leaves us with two choices:
Somebody made the world-In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth.(
The world made itself-Humanists regard the Universe as self existing and notcreated
(Humanist Manifesto 1, [1933] Tenent #1)

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->