Can Science Discover Truth

In the last article, we have refuted about the claims about the indisputability of evolution. We also questioned the infallibility of science in last article. In this article, we will see more on what science is and its limitations.

What is science?

A.J. Carlson is a distinguished scientist, as is attested by his writings and by his presidency over the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Religious ideas and their relation to science have attracted his attention, and his conclusions are found in the twice-published article, “Science and the Supernatural." One must note what he says on the nature of science as well as what he says on its relation to religion. He writes, "Probably the most common meaning of science is a body of established, verifiable, and organized data secured by controlled observation, experience, or experiment….”

And he defines the method by which science gains knowledge when he says,” What is the method of science? In essence it is this—the rejection in toto of all non-observational and non-experimental authority in the field of experience….When no evidence is produced [in favor of a pronouncement] other than personal dicta, past or present ‘revelations’ in dreams, or the ‘voice of God’, the scientist can pay no attention whatsoever, except to ask: How do they get that way?"

So a summary of the above definitions would be that science gains knowledge by ‘controlled observation, experience or experiment’ with rejection of all ‘non-observational and non- experimental authority’.

John Robbins made some interesting observations about why science can never discover truth. He mentions 5 fallacies that science commits^[1]:

1) Observation is unreliable

One line that one most commonly encounters when reading a textbook on any scientific subject goes something like this, “Repeated experiments have shown that… “. The above statement is used to convince the reader that the results of the experiments are reliable and should be accepted as fact. But why should an experiment is repeated if it is indeed true? Why not just do it once? This is to guard against inaccurate observations. And the results of the experiment most often do vary each time it is repeated. This is because of the number of errors that can influence the outcome. Hence numerous readings are required. This is so much a part of the scientific method that experiments with unrepeatable results are never taken seriously. All that this proves is that our senses are unreliable as indicators for the truth. They are very prone to error. And what about the instruments that we use to make the measurements we are making? They are prone to even more error. Then on what basis do we claim that the result of the repeated experiment is ‘fact’?

At this point I would also like to remind the readers that no one has yet ‘observed’ evolution. So they don’t have claim to this argument of science.

2) All scientific experiments commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent

In syllogistic format it can be worded like this, ‘If p, then q. q; therefore p’. This argument is fallacious because a number of different factors may lead to q and hence p can be replaced by a,b,c x or y. Hence the statement can no longer be asserted as the truth because it is not logically deducible.

Bertrand Russell stated It this way,” All inductive arguments in the last resort to the following form: "If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true." This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing." If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.”

Gordon Clark explains, “If a student doggedly works through Plato’s Republic in Greek, he will know the Greek language; this student knows Greek; therefore he has read Plato’s Republic. This is the fallacy of asserting the consequent, and it is invalid whenever used. But it is precisely this fallacy that is used in every case of scientific verification. If the law of gravitation is true, a freely falling body will have a constant acceleration, and the eclipse will begin at 2:58:03p.m.; but freely falling bodies do have a constant acceleration and the eclipse did begin at 2:58:03 p.m.; therefore the law of gravitation is true. Or, if the periodic table of atomic weights is true, a new element of such and such a weight must exist; this new element has now been discovered; therefore the period table is verified. And, if I eat roast turkey and plum pudding, I lose my appetite; I have lost my appetite; therefore, we had roast turkey for dinner.”^[2]

In the context of evolution the argument similarly asserts the consequent when it says,” If evolution is true then there will be similarities between the embryonic forms of lower forms like fishes and higher forms like humans. There are indeed similarities between the embryonic forms of fishes and humans… therefore the theory of evolution is true”. Similar arguments are used to advocate for evolution in the fields of comparative anatomy, molecular biology, behavioral psychology and numerous other fields.

I could rephrase the above statement to the following, “If an intelligent creator created all life forms then there will be similarities between the embryos of different life forms. There are indeed similarities between the embryos of different life forms; therefore an intelligent creator created all things.” This statement would also appear logical, but is as equally fallacious as the previous one.

Unfortunately many of the books and articles that are written against evolution use the above argument to propound the theory of intelligent design. For example one recent article that I read had the following statement,” negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation”^[3].

This is why creation by an intelligent design can never be ‘proved’ scientifically any more than evolution can. One has to assume the same fallacious arguments and methods as science. But it can be used as a good ‘ad homenieum’ argument. In other words people have shown that creation is a better ‘scientific’ explanation than evolution is. We will look into this later on.

3) Science commits the fallacy of induction

Induction attempts of make a general statement or law based on observations of specifics. For example a man doing an experiment to determine the colour of crows would observe 999 crows which are black and state, based on his observations that all crows are black. But this statement is untrue. How can he claim that all crows are black when he has not seen all crows. What about crows that are albino? How can he assert about ‘ all crows’ when he does not know the colour of all the crows that have existed so far, or the ones that are about to be born. The best that he can do is to state, ‘all the crows that I have seen so far are black’. But to make a general rule or law based on this observation is fallacious. Remember we are talking about science discovering a true ‘law’ of nature which should be universally applicable and not just a reflection of majorities. This is not possible with inductive reasoning.

4) Equations are always selected, they are never discovered

Let us consider for a moment a scientist doing an experiment to determine say the boiling point of water.

Since water hardly boils at the same temperature, the scientist conducts a number of tests and the slightly differing results are noted. He then must average them. But what kind of average does he use: mean, mode, or median? He must choose; and whatever kind of average he selects, it is his own choice; it is not dictated by the data. Then too, the average he chooses is just that, that is, it is an 

average, not the actual datum yielded by the experiment. ^[4]

By what experimental procedure does one determine that the average is the sought-for fact and that none of the observed readings is? Or, further, would it not be justifiable for the scientist to choose the mode, or the median, instead of the arithmetic mean? Is it not a fact that the mode is… —as much a fact at least as that the average is? Really, is it not more the fact, because the mode occurred several times in the list, while the mean has not occurred at all? Or, should we say that in this essential item of scientific procedure, science throws all the facts (observations) out the window and sticks to what is not a fact (the unobserved average)! Perhaps there is an aesthetic delight in averages that is not found in modes.^[5]

But of course the problems don’t just end there. All scientific experiments have a degree of variable error. So the scientist has to subtract each of the observed values from the average and then find the average of these differences to calculate the variable error. Now he is left with the boiling point of water according to his experiment and assumptions, which looks something like 100.124 +/- 0.1. So it is like saying that the boling point is more or less this value.

Now what if the scientist is trying to determine a law of nature in which an experiment like the one done above is just a small part of a larger process. Then the problems become compounded even further. In order to derive an equation that defines the law of nature in question, the scientist is going to have to plot his readings from the experiment on a graph and from the curve that is obtained, derive his equation. But how does he plot points on a graph when each of his values have a variable error? So a value, say 100.124 is actually not 100.124, it is 100.124+/- 0.1. This of course can only be expressed as an area on a graph, and never as a single point. So now the graph shows a series of areas. But even a school kid will tell you that an infinite number of curves can be passed through a series of areas. But the scientist chooses to draw only one.

Once he has drawn his curve the scientist gets the equation that defines the curve, and voila! He has ‘demonstrated’ his law. Thus we see that, ”The particular law that the scientist announces to the world is not a discovery forced on him by so-called facts; it is rather a choice from among an infinity of laws all of which enjoy the same experimental basis”^[6].

“It may be a fact that gold is heavier than water, but it is not a scientific fact; it may be a fact that the longer and the farther a body falls, the faster it goes, but Galileo was not interested in this type of fact. The scientist wants mathematical accuracy; and when he cannot discover it, he makes it. Since he chooses his law from among an infinite number of equally possible laws, the probability that he has chosen the "true" law is one over infinity, i.e. zero; or, in plain English, the scientist has no chance of hitting upon the "real" laws of nature”.^[7]

5) All scientific laws describe ideal situations

Gordon Clark explains this perfectly by using the example of the law of the pendulum.

‘Take for example the law of the pendulum .It states that the period of the swing is proportional to the square root of the pendulum’s length. But when the scientific presuppositions of this law are examined, it will be found that the pendulum so described must have its weight concentrated at a point, its string must be tensionless, and there must be no friction on its axis. Since obviously no such physical pendulum ever existed, it follows that the law of the pendulum describes imaginary pendulums, and that physical pendulums do not obey the laws of physics. Note especially that the analysis does not separate pendulums under laboratory conditions from pendulums in living-room clocks, and does not conclude that in the laboratory, but not in the living room, the laws of physics hold. The analysis shows that no physical pendulum, no matter how excellent the laboratory, satisfies the scientist’s requirements. The scientist’s world is (on pre-Heisenberg theory) perfectly mathematical, but the sense world is not.’^[8]

Now that we have been shown that science and its methods are flawed and always come to false or unjustifiable results. The scientific method of gaining knowledge by ‘controlled observation, experience or experiment’ with rejection of all ‘non-observational and non- experimental authority’, is in fact completely inaccurate. It can never hold claim to the ‘truth’ because by its methods, it can never know the true nature of anything. Contemplation of this truth led Albert Einstein to say, "We know nothing about it (the universe) at all… The real nature of things, that we shall never know, never."^[9]

British Philosopher Karl Popper said, "We know that our scientific theories always remain hypotheses… In science there is no knowledge, in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth.’^[10]

"On closer analysis we even find that science knows no ‘bare facts’ at all but that the ‘facts’ that enter our knowledge are already viewed in a certain way and are, therefore, essentially ideational.’^[11]

Can we make scientific observation?

First, I will define what is meant by Scientific Observation. Observation is either an activity of a living being (such as a human), consisting of receiving knowledge of the outside world through the senses, or the recording of data using scientific instruments.[12] The word sense is defined as ‘a faculty by which outside stimuli are perceived’.[13] The five traditional senses are sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste according to Aristotle. In addition to these, there are five other type of senses, namely nociception (pain), equilibrioception (balance), proprioception and kinaesthesia (joint motion and acceleration), sense of time, thermoception (temperature differences).[14] If I am observing the color of a bird say, crow, and I have come to the conclusion that the color of the crow is black. The empiricist will claim to say that we acquired this knowledge of color through the sensory root of vision. Now the issue which we are going to look at is whether we can acquire knowledge through senses or not. Suppose you are standing on the road. At a distance, you are seeing something like a post box on the road. But as the time passes by, the size of the box like object increases and finally you are realizing that it is a truck. Let us go to other situation. Suppose your friend using a motor is rotating a metal disc at 5000rpm. Now the color of the disc is white. How do you know that it is white disc or disc with seven colors painted in it? With your sense observation, how can you get answers in case of the above two examples?

Empiricists believe that human mind is empty when a person is born. Aristotle said human mind is ‘tabula rasa’ i.e. blank mind at birth. Slowly as the person observes the surroundings through his senses, he gets to know about the universe. Imagine that a father is showing his child who has not seen a car in his life. Suppose if he is pointing to a green car standing near a building and says that that is a car, what do you think that boy should record in his mind according to this ‘blank mind’ theory? He should remember the following possibilities as car if the person is having ‘blank mind’:

1) Anything dad is pointing.

2) Anything which has green color

3) Anything which has building as background

4) Anything which has the similar shape of that car which his dad pointed out

Now all these are the possibilities which the child should think and all these should come to the mind of the child when he thinks of car another time. But does that happen? How he is able to know what car is without any confusion? Another thing which I want to ask those who believe that ‘knowledge comes through sense observation’ that how do you develop abstract ideas? Without observing through your senses, what it is, how do you get those in your minds? Also how do you by your ‘sense observation’, solve analytical and mathematical equation? And most importantly, by what ‘sense experience’ do you say that ‘Telling lie is wrong’? An empiricist who is honest will agree with these difficulties and accept the limitation of scientific methods.

All these are the limitations of science. Science is not true. All scientific laws are false. You might be shocked on hearing this. You can ask, then how is all the technological advancement like computers, vaccines, satellites, which are successful in this earth? All of these are based on science? If science is false, then how can these things work? These are the questions which might arise in your minds. I’ll give you one syllogism.

1) All Washington people are vegetarians

2) All vegetarians are Americans

3) Therefore all Washington people are Americans

In this above instance, the first and the second premises are false. But the conclusion from this is true. Definitely not all Washington people are vegetarians. Vegetarians are there even outside America. But the conclusion obtained from these two false premises is true. In the same way, just because science can do things and solve our problems with technology, it does not mean that it is true. So we should not think that science is infallible and we can find truth through science, rather it is a useful tool, which can be used either for creative or destructive purpose of human life. So with science, we cannot discover the truths about the real nature of universe (metaphysics). Science cannot be the source of knowledge for discovering the truth about nature (epistemology).

---

[1] John W. Robbins, Logic Seminar, Westminster Institute, July 1995, as quoted by W. Gary Crampton, The Biblical View of Science, The Trinity review, January 1997

[2] Gordon. H. Clarke, Science and Truth, The Trinity Review; May, June 1981

[3] The Scientific Case against Evolution,

[4] W. Gary Crampton, The Biblical View of Science, The Trinity review, January 1997

[5] Gordon. H. Clarke, Science and Truth, The Trinity Review; May, June 1981

[6] ibid

[7] ibid

[8] ibid

[9] Cited in the foreword of Gordon. H. Clark, The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God ,The Trinity Foundation 1987

[10] ibid

[11] Paul Feyerabend, Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge, as quoted by W. Gary Crampton, The Biblical View of Science, The Trinity review, January 1997

[12] Wikipedia June 2010 under topic ‘observation’

[13] www.eioba.com/a7019

[14] JewishEncyclopedia.com-Senses, the five

If you have liked this, you can also read Evolution- Masterpiece or Myth

Evolution - 'Masterpiece' or 'Myth'

Most of us would have seen the movie '3 Idiots'. In a certain scene in that movie, the professor proudly explains how the 'astronaut pen' was invented by spending millions of dollars for writing in space. Everybody listening him is fascinated by that story. But the hero sincerely asks a so called ‘dumb’ question, "Why do we need a ball point pen to write in space? Why not use pencils?' This question may appear simple, but even that professor was not able to answer him that time.

Many of us are like that professor. We believe many things in life without even knowing why we believe it. But unless someone asks these ‘dumb’ questions and challenges the basic assumptions behind some of our most dearly cherished thoughts then they will never be examined in detail. And unless we take the time to examine these beliefs in detail we will never know if they are facts or just fanciful ideas. This brief article attempts to question the thoughts and assumptions between one such common belief that has, for many people, become a fundamental assumption.

We all are familiar with Darwin’s theory of evolution of species. Most of the atheists (people who say that there is no God) believe in evolution. But almost majority of people are in a dilemma whether evolution is true or false. Some or to be more frank, most of them are in a state of agnostic nature i.e. evolution may be true or false, we don't know. Truth is subjective. Evolution can be true or false. We cannot know what truth is. To these agnostic people, we ask a question. How did you come to the conclusion 'we can’t find truth about evolution' in first place? If you think that truth (about evolution or anything else) is subjective and it cannot be known, then how did you conclude that ‘we cannot find truth’ with full confidence? How can these words ‘we cannot find truth’ be true to those whom you are preaching and not for your belief on evolution? You are not practicing what you are preaching. This is contradiction. We all know that contradiction means asserting a proposition to be true and false at the same time. Now this is what you are doing. If you strictly practice what you are preaching, first of all you shouldn’t have believed in agnosticism. So agnosticism is false. Agnostic belief is just a superstition created by you for your own whims and pleasures.

So either a person has to believe evolution is true or evolution is false. There is no position between the two.

Most of the time, evolutionists will demand proofs for the existence of God. They think they have enough evidence to refute the existence of God. They know only to ask questions to people who believe in God. So for a change, we are asking a simple question to these ones who believe in evolution. How did you know that evolution is true?????????? To answer this question, many who support evolution will empathetically answer, "Evolution is scientifically proven". Then we will ask another question. Do you think science will prove anything? Can science say whether evolution is true or false???????? You might be thinking, why these guys are asking such an idiotic question. Everyone knows the advancement of science. Because of science we are doing stem cell transplant to space travel. We are living in the age of triumph of science. How can people living in this era ask such a stupid question?

Can science prove evolution? First of all let's see whether science can really prove anything. Then we'll see whether evolution can be proved or not….

Evolution – A myth by ‘clever’ scientists:

Before we move any further we have to define what exactly we are writing about.
The word evolution can be used in different ways. Sometimes it is used to refer to ‘micro-evolution’-small developments within one species, so that we see flies or mosquitoes becoming immune to insecticides, or humans growing taller, or different colors and varieties of roses being developed. Innumerable examples of such ‘micro evolution’ are evident today, and no one denies that they exist^[1]
But this is not the sense in which we are using the word. We are using the word evolution to refer to macro-evolution or ‘general evolution’ or the view that ‘non living substance gave rise to the first living material, which subsequently reproduced and diversified to produce all the extinct and extant organisms’^[2]

I think all the readers are familiar with the theory of evolution which was developed in 19^th Century during Enlightment era, most importantly by Charles Darwin in his book ‘Origin of Species’. Evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations. The entire evolutionary theory is based on scientific observation. These observation include fossil records, comparative anatomy and in the field of molecular biology.

For example, many evolutionists will say that the embryo of man is similar to embryo of fish in the early stages. So they have come to conclusion that humans evolved from fish. Now let us check whether the above 'fact' is a 'proof' for evolution. Let us see how an evolutionist supports his theory. First, these people make an observation that embryo of, both fish and man, look similar. With that observation, he makes a hypothesis that humans evolved from fish. But it is to be remembered that it is possible to make infinite hypotheses from the above 'observation'. For example, in this above observation, we can also postulate a hypothesis that fishes and man are created by God with a similar morphological feature during embryonic time. This is also logically consistent with the above observation. Likewise we can make infinite hypotheses. But only one hypothesis among the infinite hypotheses framed can be true for any observation to be logically consistent. More than one true hypothesis cannot exist. To help you understand better, we will give you another example. We are making an observation that aeroplanes and bullock carts are having wheels as a common feature. So we can conclude that ‘Aeroplanes evolved from bullock cart through a long process of natural changes and chaos which took place some millions of years in this earth'. This hypothesis is logically valid. But is that true? But naturalists also argue in the same way to support their theory. How can they be sure that their argument is true?

You may point the fossils of intermediate forms of human beings that are discovered same as how the fossil of the extinct bird, Archaeopteryx (which naturalist claim to be an intermediate form between reptiles and birds). But how do you know that those fossils represent the 'intermediate form'? You may be saying that if I am having more number of evidence, I can be more confident of my conclusion. But how many similar kind of fossils you have discovered? 10 or 100. Even if you have discovered 100000 or more of similar fossils, how do you conclude that all those fossils are an exact replica of the one first discovered? If there are variations between the fossils which have been discovered later, how can you be so sure that they all represent the same ‘intermediate form'. They can be different right? Some more questions. How can you be so sure that they all came from evolution? Why can’t they be different species of some animals, which could have been created by God? Or they can even be the skeleton of normal human beings which have been destroyed by the forces of nature? How do you answer the above questions with your observation of 'fossils'? They can also be true. How are you accepting only one hypothesis which supports evolution and reject the other hypotheses which can also be true? Your method of conclusion is totally biased.

As we have said in the beginning, we can derive infinite number of hypotheses for a particular 'scientific observation'. Among the infinite observation, there should be only one hypothesis which will be true. Other hypotheses should be false, since there cannot be more than one true hypothesis for a same 'scientific observation'. For example, in the above instance of bullock cart and aeroplane, there is only one true hypothesis that they both are made by human with a similar part between the two, the wheel. If this is the only true hypothesis for the 'scientific observation' of wheels, the other hypotheses should be false.

Now you can ask another question? There can be a probability of getting a true hypothesis out of other hypotheses from a 'scientific observation'. But remember probability is defined as 'ratio of favourable events to total no of events'. In this case, the no of favourable event is one i.e. the true conclusion of the 'scientific observation' and the total no event is infinity i.e. total no of hypotheses which are possible for the same 'scientific observation'. So by high school mathematics, one divided by infinity is zero. So the probability of getting true conclusion from any 'scientific observation' is zero. There is no way of knowing the truth by scientific observation. Knowledge of truth is not possible by science.

How does a person really know about something or make a 'scientific observation'? All naturalists will say, through sensory root of vision, touch, smell, taste etc. We'll show you one instance. Suppose that you are travelling in a bus, on a hot day afternoon. Suddenly you are seeing some water lying on the road from the distance. You think that some water tank has leaked on the road. But only on reaching that spot you are finding that it is just a mirage. This is how you make all the observations in any field of science. At a distance, you cannot conclude whether it is water or a mirage. By your sense observation through visual pathway, you should have also considered the first option to be true. This is how all scientific observations are. So you cannot be sure of scientific observation at all in the first place. If you are not sure of scientific observation, then how can you derive conclusions for your hypothesis?

This shows the limitation of science. Science cannot discover any cause in this universe. Sir Isaac Newton realized this and said, "I have not been able to discover the causes of properties of gravity from phenomenon. I make no hypothesis". Albert Einstein once said about the futility of science, “We know nothing about it (the universe) at all… The real nature of things, that we shall never know, never."
Now you might come to argue with us saying, what about atom bombs, computers, and space-crafts? They are all based on science. How will you explain that? Well, first we should differentiate on what science can discover and what science can do. Science can help us in doing things. But truth cannot be discovered by science. Since, evolution rests completely on infallibility of science and we have established that science cannot discover truth, evolution is not true. It is a myth.

Does my belief in evolution matter?

We all know what the word ‘belief means. The Oxford dictionary defines it as, ‘a feeling that something exists or is true’. One can have an irrational belief or a rational belief. The rationality or irrationality of one’s belief depends on the object of the belief. If the system or object that we believe in is rational and can indeed stand up to scrutiny then our belief becomes rational. Since we have proved that there is no rational support for evolution to be true, we are forced to conclude that evolution is irrational. It is a myth on equal footing with stories about unicorns and elves. Both those who propagate evolution and those who believe and support it are superstitious because they believe evolution is true without any rational basis. If you were one of them till now we hope this article has been eye opening and we sincerely hope you will take a second look at this superstition that you have so far assumed as fact.

Why bother about a stupid superstition? There are so many thousands of them in this world, so why bother trying to write an article about a superstition? Why intervene in other people’s personal ideas? These may be the questions which can arise in your minds.

The theory of evolution has even generated a system of ethics. A person can steal, murder and abuse others since those victims are 'not fit' to survive on this earth. All that is important is 'survival of the fittest' even if you have to steal or murder others to do so. Obviously those people will be more selfish not willing to help those who are in need, and they have the perfect justification for it. They want to become richer and more powerful so that they will be the 'fittest' and carry on this ‘evolutionary advantage’ to their children. Since there is no God, there is no need to give account of our actions to anyone. The epicurean saying 'eat, drink and be happy' would be most applicable. Enjoy your life, and do whatever it takes to survive and win, no matter what the cost. That's the ultimate end of a human being no matter how it comes.

Do you know why abortion is becoming more and more common? It is due to undue reliance of science by most of the people. They consider that zygote as 'just a cell'. They consider zygote as an 'it' not a 'him/her' since science considers zygote as 'a diploid cell formed by the fusion of sperm and ovum' not as a 'human being'. This is a 'licensed murder of human beings' in the name of advocating 'safer contraception methods' like 'Copper T', 'Combined pills'. How does one life matter in the long run? The survival of my species is most important anyway. All this is because of the ideology that science can answer all the questions of human life. But it cannot and will not do so. Do you know how many people perished in this century because of these 'legalized murders' by doctors in the name of ‘ethical medical practice’? Around 200 to 300 million. That is one-third of India’s whole population.

Let us have a look at history. We were advocating, conducting rallies, propagating peace between nations throughout last century. But do you think our last century peaceful? We don't think so. It faced two bloody world wars, numerous other wars between nations, many terrorist attacks and as a result of which another millions of lives lost. Why do you think this happened? Why peace became just a matter of talk and not found in practice? This is also due to underlying ideology of people. Most of them believe in evolution. One of the most publicized mass murders of the last century was the holocaust during the regime of Hitler. But he was just being truthful to the implications of his belief in evolution. He was preserving the purity of the ‘fitter’ Aryan race against the Jews. If we assume the ideology of ‘the survival of the fittest’ to be true then there is absolutely nothing wrong with what Hitler and the Nazi’s did. Can an evolutionist point fingers at Hitler and say he is wrong? On what basis can they prove that he was wrong? Some races think that they are superior because of their own superstition that their race has ‘evolved’ more than others. We don't have to say much about communist countries where they persecuted anyone who did not co-operate anyone who did not agree with the government, since many will know about it (About 18 million people were murdered in communist countries in last century). These communist people are those who say "Don't love God, love people". These statistics show their 'love' for people's blood. They all follow the ideology of evolution which says, "Evolution is more death than survival”.

This shows the importance of ideology. You readers might have thought why we are wasting our time refuting evolution and atheism. We are showing that evolution is a superstitious belief which was framed by some so called scientists who were (and are) not thinking rationally. The above said things, which have happened (some of which are still happening), is due to the underlying ideology of the people, evolution. This has governed the history and civilization. The idea of evolution by Charles Darwin and Atheism by Karl Marx, Leo Tolstoy became very famous in 19th century. The next century faced the consequence of these stupid ideas. IDEAS MOVED ARMIES. So do you still want to believe in the myth called evolution?

---

[1] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology ( OM Books, Secunderabad, India) pg279

[2] Wayne Frair and Percival Davis, A Case for Creation ( Norcross, Ga: CRS Books, 1983) pg 25

If you have liked this article, you can also read Can Science discover Truth?