(Source: FreeConservatives)

Your "science" requires blind, credulous, undiscerning, unthinking faith that this and that happened in the past with precisely zero evidence to support them. Your "science" demands absolute exclusivity in the classrooms. Your "science" enforces its exclusivity through legislatures and courtrooms. Your "science" cites consensus as evidence of its validity. Your "science" destroys the career and reputation of any scientist who dares to challenge it.

Do you know why your "science" censors and suppresses opposing opinions? Let me tell you, child: it is because if you actually had to defend your pseudoscientific religion against a competent creationist, you would lose the debate. This has been the case every time such a debate has taken place in a neutral venue.

Avoid debates. If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to 'defend evolution,' please decline…you probably will get beaten.

-- Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, Berkeley, California

Your "science" cannot survive against cold, hard logic and reason. It mandates a captive audience in the classrooms because it cannot compete in a free environment…

If you are so absolutely certain that your "science" is unarguable, why do you refuse to allow it to confront creationism in an academic setting so that creationism can be destroyed once and for all? Why are you so resolutely opposed to facing off against creationism when you are so convinced that you are right and we are wrong? One would think that you would welcome the opportunity to crush us forever.

[for the claim that evo is not a religion:] It has a god: omnipotent chance. It has a messiah: Darwin. It has prophets: Dawkins, et al. It has scripture: "Origin of Species". It has clergy: teachers and professors steeped in its doctrines. It has dogmata: all life on Earth resulted from genetic mutation and natural selection. It has a mantra: "Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time." It has churches: schools and colleges. It requires belief in its tenets. It denies all other viewpoints on the subject. It wages an inquisition against its opponents and seeks to destroy heretics who deny it.

• The overwhelming majority of mutations are either neutral or destructive. Precious few of them are beneficial.
• In sexual reproduction, only the gametes can carry a mutation. A person's leg can mutate into Patrick Duffy, but unless the mutation affects the gamete, it is not transmitted.
• If the gamete itself experiences the mutation, then it alone carries the mutation. Calculate the odds of one mutated sperm cell out of millions winning the race to the ovum.
• If the mutation is indeed confined to one gamete, and it does not reproduce, the mutation is lost.
• Only if the organ that manufactures the gametes experiences the mutation, and only if the mutation is then imposed on the gametes, is there an opportunity for more than a one-shot deal.
• It is extremely unlikely that one mutation results in a significant benefit. Only combined, coordinated mutations achieve that effect.
• The assumption is made that the organism or critter that experienced the mutation always reproduced.
• No matter how many offspring might carry Mutation A, only one of them can add Mutation B, and of them only one can pass on mutation C, etcetera etcetera.
• At each step in that process, the assumption is made that the organism that experienced the mutation, and the offspring that carried on the mutation, all survived.
• At each step in that process, the assumption is made that further mutations do not destroy the advantage gained by the previous ones, e.g., by rendering the gamete incapable of reproduction, or killing it.
• As the size and complexity of organisms increase, the number of offspring decreases. Bacteria reproduce by the quadrillions, bugs by the trillions, mice by the billions, dogs by the millions, tigers by the thousands, elephants by the hundreds, and so on. Ergo as the size and complexity of the creatures grow, and the number of offspring of a given creature decreases, the number of possibilities for transmitting further mutations shrinks. Obviously, then, evolution in higher lifeforms would become less and less prolific, since each mutation occurs in only one individual, and the offspring of that individual could well be the only one that the creature will have. This requires an unbroken line once the mutation occurs, and the line must continue as each new mutation is added. Unfortunately, nature is not impressed, and death is a part of it. The likelihood of the unbroken line is very slim.
• Evolution mandates vast numbers of intermediate stages between creature A and creature B. If we consider the egregious fantasy of lizards becoming birds through evolution, then we have millions of tweeners that are neither lizards nor birds, and we also have the absurdity that each of them was somehow more "fit" than what went before. The differences between lizards and birds are so fundamental and irreconcilable that there is no credible sequence of "fit" mutations that could fill the gap between them.
• Mutations that cause changes even to the level of species (assuming a very loose definition of species) are observed in nature. No honest creationist denies that. However, there is exactly zero evidence that mutations can accumulate to make changes at the level of genera, families, orders, classes, phyla, kingdoms, and domains. And it is impossible to conduct an experiment that could either demonstrate it or falsify it. Yet that is what evolutionism teaches as doctrine, since it started with one primitive organism a few billion years ago, and through random genetic mutations, produced every lifeform on Earth, past and present. That's arrant nonsense.
• Natural selection is waved like a magic wand that overrules natural laws, probabilities, etc., but it explains nothing. At best it is an effect. It isn't a cause. There is no argument that NS does preserve whatever creatures are the most fit, but then we run into the circular logic that NS results in the survival of the fittest because the fittest are the most likely to survive. NS can explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest. E.g., it might apply to how a particular species of species of cat is more suitable for survival in a given environment, but it cannot possibly explain the origin of cats.

And now, a fairy tale for today, from the fantastic "science" of classic Darwinism:

Once upon a time, in an accidentally perfect combination of accidentally created organic chemicals in a primordial soup, through an accidental application of an accidentally precise amount of electrical current from an accidentally fortuitous bolt of lightning, an accidentally perfect sequence of DNA appeared (an imperfect one would be useless). This accident, defying odds calculated by Frank Salisbury, an evolutionary biologist, at one in 10 to the 600th power, was accompanied by the accidental creation of the necessary proteins for it to reproduce, and the accidental creation of all the other parts of the first cell (since cells don't reproduce except by mitosis - division by fission - a complete, viable cell was necessary from Life Event One).

This cell, which accidentally developed a complete system of nutrient ingestion and waste disposal, chomped away on the primordial soup that was accidentally nutritious for it, and eventually split into two cells (its DNA being accidentally programmed for reproduction), then four, then eight and so on. Accidentally spared being fried by other lightning bolts and accidentally protected from the still-lethal atmosphere and the deadly rays of the young sun, our little cell colony expanded, blissfully mitosing all over the place.

Still, all we had were many single cells with no propensity for being anything else. One day, an accidental mutation in the DNA coding formed the first multicellular critter, this accidental mutation accidentally providing all the genetic instructions needed for cell specialization.

Accompanying this was another accidental phenomenon - babies. These babies were of course accidentally able to eat and grow to adulthood (and avoid being eaten by something else with no appreciation of the wonder of this accident).

Over millions of years, all of these accidental changes (the odds against which collectively are mathematically ridiculous to contemplate) resulted in a variety of complex aquatic life forms, all of which reproduced asexually, by accidentally perfect mechanisms, naturally.

One day, an accidental DNA mutation resulted in something amazing. Instead of two asexual critters, we had one male and one female (or maybe a male from one division and a female from another - the likelihood of either is essentially zero). These accidentally created genders found it necessary to mate to reproduce, but of course, purely by accident, they were equipped with perfectly developed (anything less is useless) complementary reproductive systems and they accidentally received instinctive understanding of mating procedures.

And so on and so on ad absurdum. The point: evolution is the result of innumerable fortuitous accidents, each of which defies astronomical odds. The combined odds against the first cell leading to a human being are so inconceivably huge that there's no way to relate to them other than with the phrase "infinitely improbable", which is to say, impossible.

Want to see blind, credulous, undiscerning faith? Look no further than the disciples of Darwin.

Speaking of that clueless heathen, Tricky Dicky Dawkins… Some time ago, that guiding dark of evolutionism wrote a computer program called "Weasel", named for this line from Shakespeare's Hamlet:

"METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" (Hamlet. Act iii. Scene 2)

What the program did was randomly generate a sequence of 28 letters and spaces to compare to the above line. We'll now quote Dawkins from The Blind Watchmaker:

(The initial result was) "WDLMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P

It now 'breeds from' this random phrase. It duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error--'mutation'--in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL. In this instance the winning phrase of the next 'generation' happened to be:

WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P

"Not an obvious improvement! But the procedure is repeated, again mutant 'progeny' are 'bred from' the phrase, and a new 'winner' is chosen. This goes on, generation after generation. After 10 generations, the phrase chosen for 'breeding' was:

MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P

After 20 generations it was

MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL

Generation 40 takes us to within one letter of the target:

METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL

And the target was finally reached in generation 43.

Dawkins interprets the result thusly:

There is a big difference, then, between cumulative selection (in which each improvement, however slight, is used as a basis for future building), and single-step selection (in which each new 'try' is a fresh one.)

If evolutionary progress had had to rely on single-step selection, it would never have gotten anywhere. If, however, there was any way in which the necessary conditions for cumulative selection could have been set up by the blind forces of nature, strange and wonderful might have been the consequences.

As a matter of fact that is exactly what happened on this planet, and we ourselves are among the most recent, if not the strangest and most wonderful, of those consequences.

All his fawning disciples drooled on themselves salivating over this indisputable proof of the mechanism of progressive evolution. "Take THAT, you blankety-drat Creationists!"

Far from being proof of anything, it's just more typical evolutionist nonsense. What is the fatal flaw in this silly experiment? I won't keep you guessing:

The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL."

Just WHERE does this pseudoscientific idiot and his even more stupid true believers think that nature got the final result with which to compare all the mutations and select the one closest to the desired result? And, WHAT naturalistic process selected the one closest to the end-product and preserved it?

Dawkins programmed a computer to perform a carefully-laid-out sequence of steps to achieve the desired result. The program was (allegedly) the product of intelligence, manipulating results and forcing the process to a predetermined conclusion. Nature has no computers, no programs, no process to delineate and preserve cumulative change.

And, lest anyone be suckered in by the ludicrous myth that time is a magic wand that supercedes logic and the immutable laws of the universe, any scientist without an ideological axe to grind will state that there is no cumulative effect in random processes.

You can set off a dectillion explosions in a quarry and be not one iota closer to having the shower of flying rock fragments assemble a castle upon landing.