Evolution kills God. That's it's intent.
I know, I know, how can true science have "intent"? But it does. Maybe intent isn't the right word. Perhaps "destiny" is better. Somewhere in the middle I think. When Edison invented the light bulb, it had wide-spread application to humanity and has revolutionized modern life, decoupling industry and even the private citizen from the timing of our solar orbit. When Lenoir built the first practical internal combustion engine, industrialists, inventors, and entrepreneurs laid up nights dreaming up the many applications to which it has today been employed. But since Darwin forwarded his theories on evolution, not one useful splinter of application to daily life has come of it. Has Darwinism had a lesser impact on modern life than the light bulb?
Perhaps, but not less important. While each invention has had it's wide-spread impact on civilization, they've all been useful. Darwinism's most profound impact has been to assault the relevance, or even existence of God! No medicines have been attributed to Darwinism. No machines, no conveniences, no advances in food production, no elongation of anyone's life expectancy can be attributed to Darwinism. Now this isn't true of Biology, Genetics, Chemistry, Geology, or any of the other "raw sciences". But Darwinism isn't among them. How could it be that so much effort, attribution, funding, and lip service be paid to a scientific fixture yet mankind receives nothing in return?
Answer? Because mankind wasn't meant to receive anything from Darwinism. Darwinism has no goals or aspirations except to preach the denunciation of God! Therefore, the more adamantly a particular scientist preaches the doctrines of Darwin, the more you can assert that he hates God.
But scientists don't say evolution is a fact anyway, right? They simply hold it up as a working model, a theory, until something better comes along. No. For something that can kill God in the minds of the masses, scientists are willing to give evolution a bye, an honorary doctorate. Something that can kill God shouldn't be required to pass muster. It should be given axiom-status, sovereign among the sciences. Darwinism isn't required to be observable. It isn't required to be reproducible. No, Darwinism became scientific fact the same way that the king with no clothes became gorgeously appareled: consensus.
Consider these quotes out of a recently published article on Yahoo! News:
"We have proved that one (species) is transforming into the other, so this evidence is important to show that there is human evolution... that human evolution is a fact and not a hypothesis," Asfaw said.
"It is the only place in the world where the three phases of evolution could be documented and proved," Asfaw said.
"All (three species) were able to be found in one place, proving that evolution is a fact," Asfaw said. "Successive records that we see here prove that the Afar region is the origin of human kind."
So simply lining up three pins in a row passes for proof of Darwinism according to this learned scientist. Darwinism is grandfathered into the larger family of scientific facts that hold exemption status: 1) Flat Earth; 2) 4 basic elements: earth, air, fire, water; and 3) life on mars.
As I've been sitting here writing this blog, I've noticed several similarities between my paper-clip dispenser and my stapler. Both use metal to fasten pieces of paper. Both are made of black plastic. Both were made in China and are patent-pending!! I think we're on to something!! If I could find a missing link, I might be able to establish the progeny of my less-primitive paper-clip dispenser with my more modern stapler. Hm. Searching... There!! My tape dispenser! I've found the missing link! The missing link was all that was necessary to establish progeny, right? And all located within inches of each other! I've shown proof. Three pegs is all it takes these days. Now to choose a name...Hodgenism? No...