Difference between revisions of "Evolution and science"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(content)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
'''Evolution and science''' have some things in common, but otherwise are in conflict on several points. Darwinists say that the [[theory of evolution]] is scientific and that no other theory is worthy of consideration [[evolution|despite its lack of evidence and the abundant evidence showing it to be false.]] This is anti-scientific, because science has always progressed by exposing every existing theory to criticism and testing and welcoming any new theory which can explain known phenomena.
+
'''Evolution and science''' conflict with each other. [[Evolution]] is clearly [[atheism|atheistic]],<ref>http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm</ref> [[liberal]] pseudo or [[junk science]] which is easily disproven by the numerous [[Counterexamples to Evolution|counterexamples to evolution]] that exist. Evolution is also unscientific because it is based on a [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth|time frame]] which predates [[creation]].  
  
 +
Intelligent people who can distinguish real [[science]] from atheistic secular junk science are incresingly embracing the rigid [[logic]] of [[creation science]].
  
 +
==References==
  
 +
<references/>
  
 
[[Category:Science]]
 
[[Category:Science]]
 
[[Category: Evolution]]
 
[[Category: Evolution]]

Revision as of 23:51, January 6, 2011

Evolution and science conflict with each other. Evolution is clearly atheistic,[1] liberal pseudo or junk science which is easily disproven by the numerous counterexamples to evolution that exist. Evolution is also unscientific because it is based on a time frame which predates creation.

Intelligent people who can distinguish real science from atheistic secular junk science are incresingly embracing the rigid logic of creation science.

References