Were humans created, or did they evolve? This debate continues to rage between science and religion. In Creation or Evolution?, author Michael Ebifegah examines these two worldviews within the framework of science..

He examines the constraints of science as an explanatory framework for the origin of species and compares the contemporary world to a hypothetical world under the influence of evolutionary processes and agency. Additionally, he considers the irrelevance of the earth's age to the creationist/evolutionist controversy. He stresses that knowledge of the intersection between the origin of life and the origin of species is required to establish the latter..

Ebifegah augments the natural selection discussion in light of Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini's work and addresses science's limitations in deploying similarity/dissimilarity arguments in the debate about creationism versus evolutionism. Finally, he focuses on the lack of historical evidence to justify an evolutionary worldview.

Creation or Evolution? discusses how the M-theory and Charles Darwin's paradigm of evolution by natural selection are outside the limits of science. Ebifegah shows that we must look beyond the inadequacy of such theories and address the validity of science as the sole avenue of inquiry.

Were humans created, or did they evolve? This debate continues to rage between science and religion. In Creation or Evolution? author Michael Ebifegha examines these two worldviews within the framework of science.

He examines the constraints of science as an explanatory framework for the origin of species and compares the contemporary world to a hypothetical world under the influence of evolutionary processes and agency. Additionally, he considers the irrelevance of the earth's age to the creationist/evolutionist controversy. He stresses that knowledge of the

intersection between the origin of life and the origin of species is required to establish the latter.

Ebifegha augments the natural selection discussion in light of Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini's work and addresses science's limitations in deploying similarity/dissimilarity arguments in the debate about creationism versus evolutionism. Finally, he focuses on the lack of historical evidence to justify an evolutionary worldview.

Creation or Evolution? discusses how the M-theory and Charles Darwin's paradigm of evolution by natural selection are outside the limits of science. Ebifegha contends that we must look beyond the inadequacy of such theories and address the validity of science as the sole avenue of inquiry.

Pseudoscience Advocates Darwinism

Whereas

Science Endorses Anti-Darwinism

Darwin's theory of evolution, which asserts that new species are formed gradually through competition, is being challenged as empirical studies show that new species are, instead, produced rapidly through cooperation. In other words, the mechanism set forth in Darwin's theory are not the ones that result in the development of new species. The empirical evidence against Darwinism is laid out in multiple scientific books such as What Darwin Got Wrong (2010) by the atheists Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli Palmarini, and Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis (2016) by the agnostic Michael Denton. New Scientist magazine's headline Darwin Was Wrong: Cutting Down the Tree of Life. in its January 24-30, 2009 issue, (marking the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth) represents the overwhelming scientific truth.

Darwin's theory is based on observations instead of scientific experiments. For this reason, the problem lies in the interpretations of his observations, which, historically, has been is controlled by authorities with predetermined philosophical preferences. Evidently, completely neutral empirical evidence, contradicts current evolutionary views.

Thus, whereas Darwinism requires missing links that have never been found, the empirical evidence invalidates the need for missing links. Darwinism predicts numerous intermediate varieties, and its adherents blame the imperfection of the geological record for our inability to find them. Anti-Darwinism, on the contrary, predicts the absence of intermediate types, which is consistent with observations today. Darwinists posit that most of our DNA is inconsequential or junk, but anti-Darwinists assert that there is no junk DNA, a claim that aligns with empirical scientific data.

Considering the aforementioned, Michael Ebifegha contends that Darwinism is broken beyond repair, but it has not been as readily or easily abandoned like other disproven scientific theories because it is a delusion.

Farewell to Darwinian Evolution affirms the views of honest scientists and philosophers, such as atheists Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, who in their book, What Darwin Got Wrong (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2010), insist on something is critically wrong with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Farewell to Darwinian Evolution lends support to members of credible scientific organizations and magazines, such as the New Scientists, who chose integrity over conformity and declared on the front page of its 24-30 January 2009 issue that Darwin Was Wrong [: ] Cutting Down the Tree of Life. Leading evolutionists have consistently dismissed any opposition to Darwinian evolution, which was built on analogy rather than experiments.

The Darwinian theory of evolution contends that new species are formed gradually by random variation and through competition. Empirical evidence shows the opposite; that is, new species are formed rapidly with intent and through cooperation. Darwinism and anti-Darwinism cannot be both rights. Because empirical science is neutral, the only correct resolution is to bid farewell to Darwinism. There was no common ancestor, and there are no missing links. Honest scientists will also professionally and comfortably bid farewell to natural selection as a designing agency. Thus, the truth about humanity's origin cannot be obtained through theoretical studies of our surroundings. If nature, which obeys laws, is not the creator, who is?

The appropriate question is, are we here by chance, or do we belong to an agent who is supposed to inform us about our origin and purpose in life?

In light of this question, John Rennie, chief editor of Scientific American, in his July 2002 article, wrote: If super-intelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

Rennie was right in his request for a claimant, but he was wrong in his conclusion that no one has come forward to claim ownership. Farewell to Darwinian Evolution provides details of God's patent and seal of ownership of the world.

Pseudoscience Advocates Darwinism

Whereas

Science Endorses Anti-Darwinism

Darwin's theory of evolution, which asserts that new species are formed gradually through competition, is being challenged as empirical studies show that new species are, instead, produced rapidly through cooperation. In other words, the mechanism set forth in Darwin's theory are not the ones that result in the development of new species. The damning evidence against Darwinism is laid out in multiple scientific books such as What Darwin Got Wrong (2010) by the atheists Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, and Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis (2016) by the agnostic Michael Denton. New Scientist magazine's headline Darwin Was Wrong: Cutting Down the Tree of Life. in its January 24-30, 2009 issue, (marking the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth) represents the overwhelming scientific truth.

Thus, whereas Darwinism requires missing links that have never been found, the empirical evidence invalidates the need for missing links. Darwinism predicts numerous intermediate varieties, and its adherents blame the imperfection of the geological record for our inability to find them. Anti-Darwinism, on the contrary, predicts the absence of intermediate types, which is consistent with observations today. Darwinists posit that most of our DNA is inconsequential or junk, but anti-Darwinists assert that there is no junk DNA, a claim that aligns with damning scientific data.

Considering the aforementioned, Michael Ebifegha contends that Darwinism is broken beyond repair, but it has not been as readily or easily abandoned like other disproven scientific theories because it is a delusion.

The Darwinian theory of evolution begins with facts (science of microevolution) and ends with fiction (myths of macroevolution). The myths are part of our experience-there are no transitional organisms in the living world, and part of our discoveries, no transitional fossils in such deposits at the Burgess Shale and Chengjiang sites, where various kinds of organisms appear together in large collection.In his fourth book, Origin: Refuting the Myth of Evolutionism and Exposing the Folly of Clergy Letters, author Michael Ebifegha stresses that real science is timeless and, as a prerequisite, based on events that are directly or indirectly observable, testable, and repeatable. Challenging evolutionists and their clerical allies who are banning the teaching of creationism in public schools, Ebifegha insists that evolutionism is also outside science's purview and, therefore, should be banned as well. He reprimands clerics for capitalizing on human knowledge but failing to recognize the validity of God's formal claim in speech before an assembly of Israelites and in print on stone tablets for having created the world. These interventions, he asserts, fulfills the world's standard legal requirement for inventors and justify why many nations esteem God in their national anthems.Ebifegha argues that the inconsistency of imposing evolutionism as scientific truth on the public and banning creationism disregards (1) the academic rights of accomplished scientists who disagree with evolutionism on scientific grounds; (2) the US Supreme Court's 1992 declaration, At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life; (3) God's historical claim to ownership of the universe; and (4) the loyalty and integrity of people and nations who revere God in their national anthems. Instead of separation of church and state, Ebifegha recommends separation of worldviews and state policies.

Pseudoscience Advocates Darwinism

Whereas

Science Endorses Anti-Darwinism

Darwin's theory of evolution, which asserts that new species are formed gradually through competition, is being challenged as empirical studies show that new species are, instead, produced rapidly through cooperation. In other words, the mechanism set forth in Darwin's theory are not the ones that result in the development of new species. The damning evidence against Darwinism is laid out in multiple scientific books such as What Darwin Got Wrong (2010) by the atheists Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, and Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis (2016) by the agnostic Michael Denton. New Scientist magazine's headline Darwin Was Wrong: Cutting Down the Tree of Life. in its January 24-30, 2009 issue, (marking the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth) represents the overwhelming scientific truth.

Thus, whereas Darwinism requires missing links that have never been found, the empirical evidence invalidates the need for missing links. Darwinism predicts numerous intermediate varieties, and its adherents blame the imperfection of the geological record for our inability to find them. Anti-Darwinism, on the contrary, predicts the absence of intermediate types, which is consistent with observations today. Darwinists posit that most of our DNA is inconsequential or junk, but anti-Darwinists assert that there is no junk DNA, a claim that aligns with damning scientific data.

Considering the aforementioned, Michael Ebifegha contends that Darwinism is broken beyond repair, but it has not been as readily or easily abandoned like other disproven scientific theories because it is a delusion.

The Darwinian theory of evolution begins with facts (science of microevolution) and ends with fiction (myths of macroevolution). The myths are part of our experience-there are no transitional organisms in the living world, and part of our discoveries, no transitional fossils in such deposits at the Burgess Shale and Chengjiang sites, where various kinds of organisms appear together in large collection.In his fourth book, Origin: Refuting the Myth of Evolutionism and Exposing the Folly of Clergy Letters, author Michael Ebifegha stresses that real science is timeless and, as a prerequisite, based on events that are directly or indirectly observable, testable, and repeatable. Challenging evolutionists and their clerical allies who are banning the teaching of creationism in public schools, Ebifegha insists that evolutionism is also outside science's purview and, therefore, should be banned as well. He reprimands clerics for capitalizing on human knowledge but failing to recognize the validity of God's formal claim in speech before an assembly of Israelites and in print on stone tablets for having created the world. These interventions, he asserts, fulfills the world's standard legal requirement for inventors and justify why many nations esteem God in their national anthems.Ebifegha argues that the inconsistency of imposing evolutionism as scientific truth on the public and banning creationism disregards (1) the academic rights of accomplished scientists who disagree with evolutionism on scientific grounds; (2) the US Supreme Court's 1992 declaration, At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life; (3) God's historical claim to ownership of the universe; and (4) the loyalty and integrity of people and nations who revere God in their national anthems. Instead of separation of church and state, Ebifegha recommends separation of worldviews and state policies.

Were humans created, or did they evolve? This debate continues to rage between science and religion. In Creation or Evolution? author Michael Ebifegha examines these two worldviews within the framework of science.

He examines the constraints of science as an explanatory framework for the origin of species and compares the contemporary world to a hypothetical world under the influence of evolutionary processes and agency. Additionally, he considers the irrelevance of the earth's age to the creationist/evolutionist controversy. He stresses that knowledge of the intersection between the origin of life and the origin of species is required to establish the latter.

Ebifegha augments the natural selection discussion in light of Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini's work and addresses science's limitations in deploying similarity/dissimilarity arguments in the debate about creationism versus evolutionism. Finally, he focuses on the lack of historical evidence to justify an evolutionary worldview.

Creation or Evolution? discusses how the M-theory and Charles Darwin's paradigm of evolution by natural selection are outside the limits of science. Ebifegha contends that we must look beyond the inadequacy of such theories and address the validity of science as the sole avenue of inquiry.

Farewell to Darwinian Evolution affirms the views of honest scientists and philosophers, such as atheists Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, who in their book, What Darwin Got Wrong (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2010), insist something is critically wrong with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Farewell to Darwinian Evolution lends support to members of credible scientific organizations and magazines, such as the New Scientists, who chose integrity over conformity and declared on the front page of its 24-30 January 2009 issue that Darwin Was Wrong [: ] Cutting Down the Tree of Life. Leading evolutionists have consistently dismissed any opposition to Darwinian evolution, which was built on analogy rather than experiments.

The Darwinian theory of evolution contends that new species are formed gradually by random variation and through competition. Empirical evidence shows the opposite; that is, new species are formed rapidly with intent and through cooperation. Darwinism and anti-Darwinism cannot be both right. Because empirical science is neutral, the only correct resolution is to bid farewell to Darwinism. There was no common ancestor, and there are no missing links. Honest scientists will also professionally and comfortably bid farewell to natural selection as a designing agency. Thus, the truth about humanity's origin cannot be obtained through theoretical studies of our surroundings. If nature, which obeys laws, is not the creator, who is?

The appropriate question is, are we here by chance, or do we belong to an agent who is supposed to inform us about our origin and purpose of life?

In light of this question, John Rennie, chief editor of Scientific American, in his July 2002 article, wrote: If super intelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

Rennie was right in his request for a claimant, but he was wrong in his conclusion that no one has come forward to claim ownership. Farewell to Darwinian Evolution provides details of God's patent and seal of ownership of the world.

For over a century, evolutionists have been deliberately interpreting all scientific data on origins to fit Darwin's theory of evolution. For instance, although the evidence in the living world and in all reliable fossil deposits shows abrupt gaps, evolutionists interpret these gaps as missing links to justify the numerous transformations that the theory predicts. The evolutionist paradigm recently suffered a fatal blow when empirical science ripped off its chapter on junk DNA, which Darwinists have idolized as the evolutionary key in unfolding ancestral history and thus the unique testimony against a purely creationist worldview. All along, 'just-so' explanations have persistently been tendered to camouflage the discrepancies. In Farewell to Darwinian Evolution, Michael Ebifegha presents a historical account of God's creation patent and seal and shows that they corroborate the scientific evidence. Arguing that a report claiming both invention and ownership of the cosmos must override any theory relating to events in the cosmos that were never witnessed, Ebifegha insists it is time to bid farewell to Darwinian transformational evolution (macroevolution). The focus in science, he stresses, must be limited to microevolution-the aspect that underpins modern advances in medicine, agriculture, and selective breeding. Dr. Michael Ebifegha is a scholar with international experience. He is a graduate of Ahmadu Bello University, Nigeria (M.Sc. Applied Geophysics); Carleton University, Canada (M.Sc. Physics); and the University of Toronto (B.Ed., Ph.D. Physics). He is currently a full-time science and mathematics instructor at the Toronto District School Board. Ebifegha is the author of The Darwinian Delusion Creation or Evolution? and most recently 4th: Refuting the Myth of Evolutionism and Exposing the Folly of the Clergy Letters.

For over a century, evolutionists have been deliberately interpreting all scientific data on origins to fit Darwin's theory of evolution. For instance, although the evidence in the living world and in all reliable fossil deposits shows abrupt gaps, evolutionists interpret these gaps as missing links to justify the numerous transformations that the theory predicts. The evolutionist paradigm recently suffered a fatal blow when empirical science ripped off its chapter on junk DNA, which Darwinists have idolized as the evolutionary key in unfolding ancestral history and thus the unique testimony against a purely creationist worldview. All along, 'just-so' explanations have persistently been tendered to camouflage the discrepancies. In Farewell to Darwinian Evolution, Michael Ebifegha presents a historical account of God's creation patent and seal and shows that they corroborate the scientific evidence. Arguing that a report claiming both invention and ownership of the cosmos must override any theory relating to events in the cosmos that were never witnessed, Ebifegha insists it is time to bid farewell to Darwinian transformational evolution (macroevolution). The focus in science, he stresses, must be limited to microevolution-the aspect that underpins modern advances in medicine, agriculture, and selective breeding. Dr. Michael Ebifegha is a scholar with international experience. He is a graduate of Ahmadu Bello University, Nigeria (M.Sc. Applied Geophysics); Carleton University, Canada (M.Sc. Physics); and the University of Toronto (B.Ed., Ph.D. Physics). He is currently a full-time science and mathematics instructor at the Toronto District School Board. Ebifegha is the author of The Darwinian Delusion Creation or Evolution? and most recently 4th: Refuting the Myth of Evolutionism and Exposing the Folly of the Clergy Letters.

Were humans created, or did they evolve? This debate continues to rage between science and religion. In Creation or Evolution?, author Michael Ebifegah examines these two worldviews within the framework of science..

He examines the constraints of science as an explanatory framework for the origin of species and compares the contemporary world to a hypothetical world under the influence of evolutionary processes and agency. Additionally, he considers the irrelevance of the earth's age to the creationist/evolutionist controversy. He stresses that knowledge of the intersection between the origin of life and the origin of species is required to establish the latter..

Ebifegah augments the natural selection discussion in light of Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini's work and addresses science's limitations in deploying similarity/dissimilarity arguments in the debate about creationism versus evolutionism. Finally, he focuses on the lack of historical evidence to justify an evolutionary worldview.

Creation or Evolution? discusses how the M-theory and Charles Darwin's paradigm of evolution by natural selection are outside the limits of science. Ebifegah shows that we must look beyond the inadequacy of such theories and address the validity of science as the sole avenue of inquiry.

The Darwinian theory of evolution begins with facts (science of microevolution) and ends with fiction (myths of macroevolution). The myths are part of our experience--there are no transitional organisms in the living world, and part of our discoveries, no transitional fossils in such deposits at the Burgess Shale and Chengjiang sites, where various kinds of organisms appear together in large collection.

In his fourth book, Origin: Refuting the Myth of Evolutionism and Exposing the Folly of Clergy Letters, author, author Michael Ebifegha, stresses that real science is timeless and, as a prerequisite, based on events that are directly or indirectly observable, testable, and repeatable. Challenging evolutionists and their clerical allies who are banning the teaching of creationism in public schools, Ebifegha insists that evolutionism is also outside science's purview and, therefore, should be banned as well. He reprimands clerics for capitalizing on human knowledge but failing to recognize the validity of God's formal claim in speech before an assembly of Israelites and in print on stone tablets for having created the world. These interventions, he asserts, fulfills the world's standard legal requirement for inventors and justify why many nations esteem God in their national anthems.

Ebifegha argues that the inconsistency of imposing evolutionism as scientific truth on the public and banning creationism disregards (1) the academic rights of accomplished scientists who disagree with evolutionism on scientific grounds; (2) the US Supreme Court's 1992 declaration, At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life; and (3) God's historical claim to ownership of the universe; and (4) the loyalty and integrity of people and nations who revere God in their national anthems. Instead of separation of church and state, Ebifegha recommends separation of worldviews and state.