Why is Darwinism-Evolutionism is stupid, nonsense and abomination?

You may not be aware, but there is an alternative to Darwinism: the theory of Intelligent Design, or Creationism. I won’t delve into these theories in this article, but will focus solely on critiquing evolutionism. In brief, Creationism addresses the origin of the universe and its contents within the context of God’s plan. If we were to compare Creationism in depth, this text would become excessively long, so I’ll leave it at that. I’m 99% sure that you’ve never encountered Creationism, as the propaganda of materialism in educational institutions is so pervasive and aggressive that it leaves little room for even the most minimal discussions in the educational process.

First, you need to understand one simple thing: at 22 years old, Darwin, in the 19th century, for the first time in his life, encountered the vast variety of nature — ecosystems, climates, animals, plants. He was also introduced to people from different races, cultures, and worldviews. Against this backdrop of emotional impressions and cultural shock, Darwin hypothesized the “origin of species,” believing that all this natural diversity was the result of gradual development, from the simplest organisms to the most complex. In essence, this hypothesis was not initially based on any scientific evidence; it was merely a suggestion, much like today’s theories about the Earth being flat, living in a Matrix, or the Moon being a hologram. In fact, the “flat Earth” theory has more “evidence” and pseudoscientific reasoning than Darwin’s original theory of evolution ever did.

Darwin was not a genius or an exceptionally prominent scientist, and he understood the speculative nature of his hypothesis. Unlike today’s staunch defenders of evolutionism, he did not aggressively promote it. He argued that, in the future, transitional species would need to be found to confirm his hypothesis. However, if they were not discovered, then the hypothesis of evolution would be proven false. Over 100 years have passed since then, with extensive searches conducted globally, yet no transitional species have been found. As for the fossils that Darwinists often present as evidence of transitional species, they are simply petrified remains of existing species. In nature, many anatomically similar animals exist, and although we may reconstruct their appearance, understanding their physiology based solely on their fossilized bones from millions of years ago is impossible.

The hypothesis of evolution does not address the fundamental mechanics of the universe, nor the essential questions about the origin of life and matter. To illustrate this, imagine a building with no foundation, walls, or floors, but only an air conditioner on the roof (which, in reality, is non-existent). This would be a representation of Darwinism — focusing on the details of the air conditioner, its structure, and how it functions, without addressing the essential question of how it came to be there in the first place.

If we begin with the fundamental principles from which any evidence, theorization, or scientific inquiry should arise, we will see that Darwinism cannot stand. It is simply incompatible with basic logic. Ancient wisdom tells us: ex nihilo nihil fit — nothing comes from nothing. Nothingness does not give birth to something, chaos does not produce order, and a shadow does not emit light. Thus, from the very outset, Darwinism — being a purely materialistic idea that operates “without God” — collapses under its own weight. It makes the illogical claim that nothingness gave birth to being. No, God is the cause of being. However, God has no “cause” and cannot be bound by any logical framework, He always exists. To grasp this, one must transcend the limits of time. Concepts like “it was” or “will be” are irrelevant. Questions like “Who created God?” are inappropriate, frivolous, and childish. If you accept the fact of the eternal existence of being, then you accept God; and if you accept God, then you accept the only true God, Jesus Christ.

The very fact of existence logically negates the possibility of nothingness. Likewise, order denies chaos. This is crucial to understand, because evolutionists rely on chaos — what they call Randomness — as the source from which galaxies and Earth miraculously emerged. It is through this chaos that they explain the origin of the universe, or even the multiverse, in which randomness governs and from which, at some point, we appeared. But here are two critical mistakes: a contradiction between incompatible elements — order and chaos. Chaos cannot produce order. The essence of chaos is disorder, a generator of random events; it is an abstraction, like RNG (random number generation) — chaos, like RNG, doesn’t actually exist in the way they claim.

Secondly, inanimate matter cannot generate living matter. A stone does not give birth to the moss that grows on it, frogs do not swarm out of mud, food scraps do not give rise to ants, wasps are not born from the corpses of donkeys, and a piece of meat does not produce maggots. Such superficial, primitive ideas about the origin of life are typical of ancient people who were unaware of the complexity and uniqueness of living matter — its fundamental incompatibility with non-living matter. There is nothing in stones that is needed for life to arise. Only God has the power to bring life from stones, as stated in Matthew 3:9. Inanimate matter can be compared to a building, and the inanimate universe is like a structure composed of living organisms. Can a house give birth to a man? There are many ghost cities in China — areas filled with empty apartments. According to evolutionism, after some time, people will spontaneously appear in these buildings… But tell any Darwinist that “it doesn’t work that way.” xD

There are many striking illustrations of the absurdity of chaotic Darwinism. Here are a couple of classic examples: imagine a pile of scrap metal with a meteorite falling onto it. The scrap is mixed in such a way that it forms a Boeing 747. Is that possible? No, no matter how many meteorites fall, they will only create more chaos, not something structured. Or imagine monkeys randomly typing on typewriter keys — could they accidentally produce Shakespeare’s Hamlet? No, they wouldn’t even understand the meaning of their actions. To create something like an aircraft or a work of art, a mind is needed — one that understands its own actions and possesses knowledge. The creation of such things is an orderly process, and it occurs within the realm of order. Belief in “creative chaos” is fantasy, abstract, and lacks a logical foundation — just as belief in God does not.

Why believe in God logically? In addition to the fundamental reasons mentioned above, there are practical consequences to consider. For example, if there is no God, neither the atheist nor the believer will face any consequences in the short term. However, if God does exist, the atheist will have problems, while the believer will not. Therefore, the believer is, in a sense, better off. This reasoning was first formulated by Pascal in his famous Wager.

Apparently, Darwinism has already lost — proven to be unfounded and incapable of standing its ground in real logical discourse. Yet, we shall proceed further, if only to highlight the absurdity of this hypothesis.

According to evolutionism, all life on Earth magically emerged from the so-called “primordial broth” in the oceans. Somehow, inanimate matter spontaneously gave birth to a living, unicellular bacterium. But being a mere single cell quickly became tiresome, so the bacterium decided to embark on self-improvement — it read books, watched memes, and eventually transformed into a more complex organism. This process, of course, never ceased, as primitive lifeforms were perpetually inspired and endlessly motivated for self-development. They kept evolving into something new and unexpected — until, one day, they found themselves as Tiktaalik.

At that point, Tiktaalik had an existential crisis. Gazing up at the vast sky, it yearned for something greater. It longed to escape the monotonous waters of its limited existence and set foot on new, uncharted territories — on land. And so, with the wisdom of a philosopher, it declared:
“I am not a fish. I am an amphibian. My fins are not my fins. My gills are not my gills. I must go ashore.”
By sheer willpower, Tiktaalik rewrote its own DNA, passed these ambitious aspirations to its offspring, and, through countless generations, finally grew legs and lungs. One glorious day, it crawled onto the shore, marking an epic moment in history — so momentous, in fact, that a time traveler must have witnessed it firsthand and kindly illustrated it for all modern biology textbooks.

What
happened next is difficult to describe — it was pure chaos. Fish everywhere began abandoning the water, while those that had already made it to land started mutating into birds and mammals (o_O). Some transformed into dinosaurs, while others — perhaps feeling less ambitious — settled for lives as worms, cockroaches, and fleas. The microscopic inhabitants of the “broth” evolved into bacteria, viruses, and — why not — prestin. This ancient evolutionary rave was sometimes hilarious, sometimes (after a meteorite impact) downright tragic.

But the most fascinating part was still ahead. The monkeys, no longer content with life in the treetops, found themselves in a dilemma — bananas were becoming scarce, and tigers were getting on their nerves. A great consultation was held: red-assed macaques, hamadryas baboons, and orangutans gathered to discuss their future. They came to a bold decision:

1. Increase brain size.
2. Straighten posture and walk on two legs.
3. Lose fur — but keep hair on the head, grow eyebrows, and give men beards for style.
4. Abandon the wilderness and start civilization — with vehicles, apartment buildings, and, most importantly, the internet.

And thus, modern humanity was born.

This is Darwinism in a nutshell: it claims that life on Earth developed according to this hypothesis, and that the same process should apply universally. However, despite the comedic nature of my description, it is pure madness! Consider the smallest bacterium — just one cell of a living organism. Modern technology allows us to examine this in detail, and what you’ll see is an entire world within that tiny cell. Inside it, there are many intricate mechanisms, all of which are ordered. Their processes are purposeful, balanced, and work together to maintain the cell’s integrity. Look at DNA: this molecule, a component of the cell, holds critical information for the cell’s existence within a larger system — a system the cell itself doesn’t even understand. But this complexity, this design, is just a grain of sand in the vast expanse of what we call the universe.

Everything obeys laws. The processes of the universe operate according to certain rules, and humanity uncovers these laws — not by inventing them, but by recognizing them through intelligence and careful observation. Here, it is crucial to acknowledge that humans can never fully grasp the essence of the universe or know it in its entirety. You cannot truly know the object you are part of. This is why critical thinking should always be your sword, protecting you from the arrogance of those who think they understand things far greater than themselves.
Someone might try to turn my argument against me: “Aren’t you being arrogant yourself by speaking about God — about something greater than you?” No, I am not being arrogant, because I don’t speak from my own authority. God wanted to reveal Himself to us, and He has done so — this is His will.

Ironically, while Darwinism speaks of chaos and random mutations — of pure chance in the development of life — DNA already exists at the very beginning. DNA, this set of rules, this database, this instruction manual, this blueprint of order, simply exists. Living organisms do not come into being by accident; they are formed according to the instructions encoded in DNA. Computer programs do not operate randomly; they carry out specific functions defined by their architects — the programmers. A car does not suddenly take flight unless this capability was built into its design from the start by engineers. In the same way, a man who loses a limb cannot regrow it, because that option is not present in human DNA, though it is present, for example, in the DNA of starfish or lizards.

As for animals, the idea of evolution makes no sense for them. It is not encoded in their DNA, nor is it part of their instincts. Animals are created perfect and complete. They are not prototypes or work-in-progress versions — they are finished products. If they were imperfect, they would be inferior, and if they were inferior, they wouldn’t survive. They would die prematurely for various reasons, and if they died too soon, they wouldn’t have time to reproduce, ultimately leading to their extinction. An imperfect organism cannot give rise to a perfect one. This brings us back to basic logic — chaos and order. Survival in the wild requires completeness, perfection! And the very fact that a species is complete proves its perfection, its creative nature, and in doing so, disproves Darwinism. Evolutionism does not operate with absolutes; it doesn’t refer to perfection. Instead, it speaks of endless variability.

Darwinists often point to mutations as a driving force behind change, as something normal. But mutations are, by definition, unpredictable changes in an established system, which is inherently abnormal. Such changes never bode well for the species. The smaller the mutation’s impact, the better the chance of survival. But to believe that a mutation can cause a species to transition into an entirely different one? That’s absurd. A good example of this is mutations in viruses, which I will explain later.

How do you picture evolution in general? Flying fish have been living on this planet for 200 (!) million years, yet they still haven’t turned into birds — should we expect that to happen soon? According to Darwinism, bears supposedly evolved into whales. So what about those whales that beach themselves and die — are they trying to turn back into bears?

“…swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, almost like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.”

— Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (London: John Murray, 1859), p. 184.

When dolphins wash ashore, is that evolution at work or not? And let’s not forget the Tyrannosaurus rex, which, according to evolutionists, one day transformed into… a chicken. Incredible, isn’t it?

If man originated from apes — specifically from orangutans — why do humans not resemble orangutans? Why is the human big toe straight, rather than opposable like that of orangutans? Why are the body proportions different? Why is the use of feet in man and hind paws in orangutans different? Humans walk on their feet, while orangutans grasp branches with their hind paws like an extra pair of hands? What happened to man’s tail?! Where did the negative Rh factor, absent in apes, come from? Why did man shed his fur? Hair and fur are not identical — why does hair on a man’s head grow indefinitely, while orangutans have no hair and their fur does not grow endlessly? Why would an orangutan stand on its feet and walk upright? This contradicts the theory of survival in the wild: a two-legged individual is vulnerable and conspicuous; without fur, it is equally vulnerable, and a tail could help maintain balance, yet it, to make matters worse, dropped off?! — what kind of evolution is this?! Where in nature have you seen similar examples of evolution? What other creature on the planet lost its fur, tail, and hind paws, straightened up, and began to walk upright? What other creature abandoned its advantages for the sake of eVoLuTiOn?! Show me an orangutan without a tail, or on straight legs, or hairless. Comparing the appearance of a man and an orangutan is banal trolling! Just look at any ape and a man: these are different designs, different creatures, completely unrelated. It is like whales and bears, like chickens and dinosaurs — it is total nonsense and a clown show. Orangutans remained orangutans just as they were, and the same applies to absolutely all creatures on Earth: not a single one has evolved, not a single one has transformed into another species.

Do you know which geometric shape is the most efficient for honeycomb construction? The hexagon. Scientists discovered this through computer simulations and calculations. But how did bees figure it out? Did they start with round or triangular honeycombs in ancient times? Unlikely — if they had, they wouldn’t have survived. And what about blood cells? Scientists found that their biconcave shape is the most effective for fluid transport, again through simulations and calculations.
But how… or rather, who made that decision? The cells themselves? Impossible. These designs existed from the very beginning — this is the work of a Creator. God designed it all.

Take a closer look at the wild. All these monkeys, crocodiles, fish, bears, and elephants — do you see even a single transitional species among them? Do you see monkeys evolving to walk on two legs (Bigfoot doesn’t count)? Fish crawling onto the shore? No! They simply don’t exist. But why? Evolution is supposed to be a continuous, ongoing process — one of its fundamental principles. Yet paradoxically, we see neither transitional species in the present nor even signs of “transition” happening.

I think the transitional species from monkey to man is Bigfoot!

Darwinists should include this unknown link in the evolutionary chain of homo sapiens, especially since there are several pictures of Bigfoot, which definitely and scientifically reliably confirms the existence of a transitional species from ape to man.Even more striking is the existence of so-called “living fossils” — creatures that have remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. Take the coelacanth, for example. It was thought to have gone extinct 400 (!) million years ago, but when it was rediscovered, it turned out to be exactly the same species. Darwinists once claimed it was a transitional form between fish and land animals because of its lobed fins, assuming they would eventually evolve into legs. But as it turns out, the coelacanth is a deep-sea fish — it never even comes near the surface!

This fish is walking on the bottom, do you think it is preparing to come to the surface, it is tired of walking on the bottom and is going to become a man?

Darwinists, descendants of Tiktaalik should interview it.And there are many more examples. Try searching for “ancient, primordial, prehistoric living creatures.” Look at fossil discoveries preserved in amber — such as the “amber gecko”, which hasn’t changed in millions of years. Certain butterflies and moths (Chetone histrio, Mechanitis messenoides) possess of a genome that has remained unchanged for 120 million years. Or consider giant isopods like Bathynomus vaderi, real-life fossils still crawling around today. You can go to a museum, look at dinosaur skeletons and the detachment of isopods or Limulus Polyphemus (445 million years old, blue blood) in the shimtok chalk, which hundreds of millions of years, then visit a nearby aquarium and see the same species of isopods or Limulus polyphemus (the horseshoe crab) alive, which has remained unchanged for 445 million years.
At this point, an evolutionist should be experiencing a cognitive dissonance meltdown — but they don’t. Why? Because they don’t rely on consistency and logic. Instead, they base their beliefs on fantasies and vague associations. If evolution truly worked, every fish, every monkey, and certainly every so-called “primitive” organism would have long since transformed into something else. But they haven’t. And that’s because they aren’t anime-style Transformers! xD

Alive isopod from aquarium

I once came across an aggressive Darwinist who called me a “moron” and pointed to the “literal presence” of the tailbone in human anatomy. This bone, the lowest in the spine, is called the coccyx, or “cuckoo” in English, because its shape resembles a bird’s beak. In the Darwinist narrative, this is used to imply that the coccyx is a rudimentary remnant of a tail — suggesting that humans evolved from creatures with tails. This is a classic example of manipulation through language, a tactic commonly used in neuro-linguistic programming (NLP). The term “tailbone” contains the word “tail”, which leads to the suggestion that humans once had tails, but this is impossible to prove. Homo sapiens appeared suddenly around 30,000 years ago, and at no point did we have tails.
Even if humans did have tails, that wouldn’t prove evolution. Rarely, some children are born with a so-called “pseudo-tail”, a growth of the coccyx that can be up to 13 cm long, and this abnormal of the spine Darwinists justify the name “coccyx” bone in English tradition by pointing to these anomalies, but that’s laughable! There are many congenital anomalies in humans: cases of sirenomelia, where a baby’s legs are fused together and resemble a mermaid’s fin; cyclopia, where the eyes form in a single eye socket; and cases where people are born with two heads or extra limbs. Evolutionists call these “rudiments”, evidence of evolution — but in reality, they are simply genetic anomalies.

Humans share many characteristics with animals, but that’s not surprising — everything is created within a certain paradigm. Mammals share one set of features, reptiles another, and so on. For instance, our hands are very similar to a dolphin’s flippers, but Darwinists ignore this fact. So, could dolphins be our true ancestors? Humans have two eyes, a nose, and two ears — so do most animals. Almost all mammals, not just monkeys, have tails, so why are cases of “pseudo-tails” in humans only linked to monkeys? With the same logic, we should associate sirenomelia with dolphins and extra limbs with octopuses. Interestingly, human DNA is about 50% similar to that of bananas — so does that mean a pseudo-tail is actually a banana?

Left: dolphin fin; Right: human hand

These are just a few examples of the absurdities that come from illogical associations. It’s foolish and laughable to rely on such comparisons. If someone thinks that humans are similar to monkeys, that’s a problem of perception, a form of pareidolia, or subjective interpretation. Humans are a unique creation, endowed with a unique design, just like all other living beings. However, what sets humans apart is our mind, self-awareness, soul, and language — qualities that distinguish us from the animal world. Darwinists, however, stubbornly try to push humans into the animal kingdom, trying to blur the lines between us and animals to support their theory.

In reality, modern humans appeared suddenly around 30,000 years ago, and evolutionists can’t explain such a sudden emergence. But it is simple to explain: the exile of Adam and Eve from Eden. It’s crucial to understand: no creature before Homo sapiens is truly human. Australopithecus, Homo erectus, Homo naledi, Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and others are all unique species in their own right — just as today we have different species of monkeys, cats, and dogs. What happened to these hominids? They went extinct, just like many other species. They didn’t evolve — they went extinct.

Furthermore, evolutionists are unable to explain self-awareness, imagination, or emotions. These qualities go beyond the material world, beyond what the atheist mind is capable of understanding. The brain isn’t the source of thought or memory — it’s more like a radio. To prove this, try creating an artificial brain and you’ll see that self-awareness will be absent, because self-awareness is a sign of the soul, not a mechanical process. This is why AI can never be truly like man.

Within the discussion of the mind and intelligence, Darwinists often point to the use of tools by animals as evidence of evolutionary trends. According to them, this behavior suggests that animals are evolving toward higher levels of intelligence. However, these behaviors are typical for many animals today: ravens, monkeys cracking hard food, Australian hawks dropping bones from heights to reach the marrow, raccoons washing their food, some
birds sewing leaves for their nests, ants building colonies, and bees creating hexagonal honeycombs. These animals have always exhibited such behaviors because, without them, they wouldn’t survive.

If evolution were truly at work, ants would have already built skyscrapers, and ravens, instead of using sticks to pull insects from cracks, would have domesticated woodpeckers to do the job. Animals lacking self-awareness have no intention to develop — they live and behave purely by instinct, staying in a fixed state. And what about humans? Even with self-awareness, some people still lack the drive for development. Look at certain tribes in South America, or isolated Polynesian communities that have lived for tens of thousands of years with little progress — they too lack the push for development. This behavior can be understood through the lens of the Bible: not all humans are direct descendants of Adam and Eve, as the Book of Genesis suggests. God created the first man and woman (likely organic beings), and later Adam. From him, God took a woman, who Adam named Eve.

One of the favorite concepts for Darwinists is “adaptation”, which they often present as evidence of evolution. However, this is a mistake. Adaptation is a real phenomenon — there are butterflies and birds that can change color, mollusks that alter the shape of their shells in response to environmental conditions, humans who tan under the sun, and pupils that constrict in bright light. These are simple defensive mechanisms, nothing more. These adaptations don’t transform one species into another; it is physically impossible for a mollusk to evolve into a completely different species or for a europeoid to become negroid. These changes are at the surface level, but not at the DNA level — just as you can’t turn a smartphone into a hammer by hitting nails with it.

A well-known example Darwinists love to cite is Kettlewell’s Experiment, where, in an environment with high pollution, the color of the Peppered Moth changed. Darwinists excitedly pointed to this as proof of evolution: “Look! The butterflies changed their color to blend in better with their environment!” But two crucial points are overlooked: first, the changes were caused by human-induced environmental factors, and second, the color change happened very quickly — indicating adaptation, not evolution. Adaptation is a quick response to new conditions within a species, while evolution, according to Darwinism, operates over millions of years. In this case, the Darwinists are manipulating terminology and replacing concepts.

Evolutionists claim that the cradle of humanity lies somewhere in Africa, where humans supposedly first settled on the planet, but this is pure nonsense! People from different races show significant differences, such as the shape of the skull, skin color, eye shape, and even certain muscle structures that, for example, make Negroids better runners. There is no method that could change the structure of a human’s skull. No matter how long a European lives in RSA, they will never become a Negroid, and no matter how long a Negroid lives in the United States, they will not become a European. It is physically impossible.

Some “scientists” who follow Darwinism argue that the mutation of viruses is a clear example of evolution, but this is also incorrect. A coronavirus can mutate countless times, but it will remain a coronavirus. It will not evolve into the plague; it stays within its kind. And note that mutations weaken the virus over time. Initially, the coronavirus was far stronger than it became after two years of mutations. The more it mutates, the weaker it becomes, until it eventually fades out. This is similar to repeatedly altering an image: with each change, data is lost, quality deteriorates, and eventually, the meaningful image disappears. The mutation improves the organism only in fantastic films such as X-Men, don’t mix fiction with reality.

Some ardent Darwinists use the example of breeding dogs and cats as proof of evolution. But first, there is no transition to a different species. A dog remains a dog, just as a cat remains a cat, no matter how peculiar their appearance may be. Secondly, these examples involve artificial processes — human interventions — where intelligence is at work. This, in fact, supports the idea of Intelligent Creation, as everything in nature, both living and non-living, is created by a creative act of God. One could say that just as humans create new breeds of cats and dogs, so God created the different races of humans.

To illustrate this point further, consider the following analogy: Would a person, who denies evolution, ever attempt to live underwater like the bear? In a country like North Korea, would someone one day attempt to evolve into an “aquaman” and start diving underwater every day, despite the puzzled stares of the fish, so when their lungs replacing with gills? Fish, according to evolutionists, supposedly needed 5 million years to undergo such a transformation. But, if we believe evolutionists, the fish had a “goal” in mind (and if they didn’t, what were they doing all that time? And why haven’t modern fish evolved the same way as primitive fish?). But to have a goal, one must be aware of its own actions, distinguishing between cause and consequence. Is the animal psyche developed enough for such reasoning? Aren’t animals driven purely by instinct?

Thus, in this analogy, we see two very different examples of “evolution”: a conscious human effort to become an “aquaman” and an unconscious, instinctive attempt by an animal to transform into something else. Since animals lack the instinct for evolution, evolution itself remains a figment of the Darwinists’ imagination. Some even resorted to outright deception to support their theory. In the early 20th century, when evolutionism was gaining traction, they fabricated the “Piltdown Man”, a so-called “transitional form” between monkeys and humans 🤡

This is not the only example of manipulation, where fiction is passed off as truth. At the end of the 19th century, there was a “scientist” named E. Haeckel, who introduced Darwin’s idea of “recapitulation”, with the main thesis being “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” In other words, he argued that the fetus, during its development, passes through stages resembling earlier forms of life. First, it looks like a fish, then an amphibian, then a lizard, and so on. However, as science advanced and it became possible to observe fetal development through imaging, it became clear that Haeckel’s theory was nothing more than fiction. The fetus does not assume any form other than that of a human. Nevertheless, Haeckel’s drawings of the fetus transforming from fish to human gained considerable popularity, and they deceived the minds of people in that era.

“1874 illustration from Anthropogenie showing “very early”, “somewhat later” and “still later” stages of embryos of fish (F), salamander (A), turtle (T), chick (H), pig (S), cow (R), rabbit (K), and human (M)”, Wikipedia

The inanimate world is equally fascinating. Look into the microcosm, into the atomic domain, and consider the size of elementary particles and the precision with which they interact with the macroworld. And even more impressive — the quantum dimension. Only an ignoramus would think that all of this was created “by chance: a few bangs, and voilà!”

In quantum mechanics, there is a well-known principle of uncertainty, or the state of superposition. This was famously illustrated by Schrödinger’s speculative experiment with a cat in a box, which many of you may be familiar with. However, quantum physics also asserts that the universe cannot exist in a state of uncertainty. It cannot exist without a Global Supervisor, and who could this “global observer” be? Of course, it is God! (“I know all the birds of the mountains, and the beasts of the field are before me” — Psalm 49:10–12). Just as in a video game, where characters or objects disappear when you are not looking, the world would vanish without the attention of a Global Supervisor. In this way, the cat in Schrödinger’s box is not in superposition; it is alive because of the Global Supervisor, God. Thus, quantum physics proves the existence of God.

There is no point in discussing cosmic evolution at all, as scientific paradigms shift almost yearly. Today, we believe in dark matter and dark energy; tomorrow, we may not. Today, the Big Bang Theory is considered the most comprehensive model, but tomorrow, the discovery of an anomalously formed distant galaxy could challenge
it. Today, our orbital instruments measure the universe’s expansion rate, and everything seems fine; tomorrow, with new and more precise instruments, we might find that the expansion is wildly uneven. Today, the theory of the “heat death of the universe” is taken seriously; tomorrow, it might be the subject of ridicule. Newtonian physics was dominant until Einstein’s relativity redefined our understanding; then quantum mechanics arrived with its paradoxes and strange phenomena. In the early 20th century, some scientists spoke of vegetation on Mars as an established fact and of vegetation on Venus as quite possible; they also seriously entertained the possibility of the existence of Martians. And after tomorrow, CERN may uncover a new fundamental particle, or a breakthrough in neutrino research may lead to yet another unexpected discovery that “does not fit into the standard model of the physical world.” Science is ever-changing, uncertain, and full of blind spots.

When Arthur C. Clarke wrote A Fall of Moondust (1961), scientists believed that, over billions of years, the Moon had accumulated so much dust that any spacecraft attempting to land would simply sink into it, like a person stepping into quicksand. Clarke even incorporated this idea into his novel. Yet today, we know this to be an outdated astronomical misconception — there is no such thick layer of dust on the Moon. This serves as yet another example of the uncertainty and variability of science and the flawed assumptions of Darwinism.

I am not against science as a tool of reason and critical thinking — I am against science being used as a propaganda tool for Darwinism and atheism. Unfortunately, modern science has been hijacked by Darwinists, an intolerant sect that suppresses dissent. Any scientist who dares to speak openly about God risks ostracism. Yet many great scientists throughout history have been believers: Newton, Pascal, Faraday, Maxwell, Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, de Broglie, Moscati, Lemaître (the originator of the Big Bang theory), Collins, and even Darwin himself was not an atheist — he did not deny the existence of God. Regarding modern times, statistical data show that in the early 20th century, 42% of scientists in the United States were believers. By the end of the century, 39% of scientists identified as believers, according to data published in “Nature” (vol. 386, p. 435, 1997).

Many scientists (M. Planck, I. Newton, W. T. Kelvin, L. Pasteur) emphasized that science serves as a signpost to God for an impartial seeker of truth. They also highlighted that a researcher reaches the Divine authorship of the material world at the depths of their studies, whereas only a superficial acquaintance with science has the audacity to claim the absence of an Author of the universe.

Darwinism is merely a hypothesis, a fantasy, which atheists try to impose onto biological reality. Darwinism is a superstition akin to numerology: there is mathematics, the science of numbers, and then there is numerology, a superstition that sees hidden meaning in numbers. Likewise, there is biology, a science, and then there is Darwinism, a superstition that sees a leftover tail in the coccyx, a man in a monkey, and a Tyrannosaurus rex in a chicken. But in reality:

• Real examples of adaptation do not prove evolution.
• Real examples of natural mutation do not prove evolution.
• Actual remains and animal bones do not prove evolution.
• Artificial change of species, hybridization, selective breeding do not prove evolution.
• Invented names of bones, such as “coccyx,” and imagined atavisms do not prove evolution.
• Real or imagined (pareidolia) similarities between species or DNA do not prove evolution.
• Real or imagined presence in one type of animal (e.g., fish) of parts typical of another type (e.g., birds) does not prove evolution.
• Imagined imperfection of living beings or organisms does not prove evolution. Sure, man could have been able to see through walls, fly, live for millions of years, and never get sick, but the design is what it is.

So there is nothing — absolutely nothing — that proves evolution.

Overall, Darwinism strikes me as a kind of modernized pagan religion, where the infamous “tree of evolution” resembles the genealogical tree of the ancient gods. Just like people of antiquity traced their lineage to deities — some claiming descent from Zeus, others from Hercules or Neptune — modern evolutionists now trace their ancestry to apes, some specific one or perhaps several, since people have long lived on all continents. So, logically, from an evolutionary perspective, shouldn’t each group or race have its own ancestral ape? After all, no sane person would claim that some australopithecines managed (for some reason) to cross the Atlantic, or the Pacific, or the Indian Ocean and settle in the Americas or Australia. 😁
Just as in ancient mythologies the first gods emerged from the primordial ocean (chaos), so too in Darwinism the first living organisms supposedly emerged from a “primordial soup” (ocean). And just as paganism never transcends the physical and material — its gods are always worldly emanations — the Darwinian, atheist worldview rejects metaphysics altogether.

Darwinists present man as just one of many animals

Darwinism is one of the main cartridges in the shotgun of atheistic propaganda. This cartridge, this bullet — evolutionism — kills the human within a human being. According to the hypothesis of evolution, humans are animals, descendants of red-assed macaques. This means a Darwinist is denied the right to be a man; he is an animal, a beast. Human rights do not apply to him; in English, the pronoun “it” should be used to address him, as one would an animal. Furthermore, Darwinists should be cared for by Greenpeace rather than state institutions. So why are Darwinists and atheists so inconsistent? Why do they cling to people and call themselves part of mankind if they are simply animals, monkeys?

This is a question for you, Darwinists: does such treatment not demean you? Being treated like animals? Atheists call you animals and supposedly prove this label with their science, and you believe them. You do not contradict them; therefore, you agree with them. Do you agree that you are not humans, but cattle? That you are one family with monkeys? That you are the same as pigs and rats, only with a larger brain?

Darwinists, make your choice: either you are with the atheists and you are animals, or you are with the Christians and you are humans.

All of this relates to the concept of the “shouting stones” mentioned in the Gospel:
“Jesus answered, ‘I tell you, if they keep silent, the stones will cry out!’” (Luke 19:37–40).
We live in a time when stones can indeed “cry out” — proclaiming the existence of their Creator. In the past, people could not “hear” the stones; they lacked the tools to understand them. But more importantly, they had no need to — because they already believed in God as the Creator of all things.

Article translated from Ukrainian by AI.