The Secular Atheist Establishment VS. Scientific Methology

Once again I am going to address evolution which I find oppressive as it is the atheistic theory of creation and not the scientific theory it proposes to be. The reason I am doing so is that according to First Amendment to the Constitution of the United state my tax money or work is not to go to an established religion such as Secular Atheism and an Reuters article by Carey Gillam about “scientist” fighting back against intelligent design. First I wish to make clear that my hypothesis about Judeo-Christian and Moslem creation is that the account of creation in the bible was given by God and his references are not ours so a day could be a thousand years and a thousand years could be a day. I wanted to make it clear that I am not necessary opposed to the theory of evolution itself but will not go into my beliefs any further since this is not a theological blog.

Now I am going to criticize these so called Scientist for behaving is a unscientific method. Science is the search for knowledge with an open mind to all possibilities using a methodic and logical model. This model of scientific methodology requires that you form a hypothesis and then test that hypothesis if possible. You then refine your hypothesis until hopefully a factual account of what exist in nature emerges. Several flaws exist that make the changing of one species to another unlikely though not impossible. One of the larges flaws is that in a two sex species the same event that transformed one individual to a separate species that is unable to breed with its parent species also has to happen in an individual of the opposite sex within the same brief period of time and the same limited area or the new species will die out. The chance of such dual equivalent random events happening at the same time is statistically impossible. Intelligent design is therefore a much more reasonable explanation. On the other hand I am unable to prove that either Intelligent design or chance was responsible for the change. In fact I know of no evidence that such a hypothetical change as I proposed above has even been proved to occur in nature.

Now these so called scientist who are really liberal elites or their allies are preaching evolution as science are misstating the situation at best. Evolution is a possible explanation that is backed up by the similarities between modern and extinct features and the dating methods we use. If given enough time I am sure I can come up with several congruent theories that would fit the same evidence. The truth is to embrace the theory of evolution via chance you have to embrace atheism or a theism which set things rolling without maintaining control of chance. In either case you have government establishment of religion which violates the non-establishment clause of the Constitution.