critiquing darwinism

Four main considerations spring to mind in any attempt to refute atheistic Darwinism as an explanation for the nature of reality.

1. Irreducible Complexity. Some scientists assert that Darwinian evolution cannot explain various features of various life forms since any earlier phase of development would render the features in question inoperable. The usual example given is the human eye. Those who say Irreducible Complexity refutes Darwinism, cite the eye as an example of a feature which cannot have evolved since any simplification of its complexity in a Darwinianly postulated earlier form would have rendered the feature entirely useless through the supposed millions of years of postulated Darwinian evolution.

2. No credible or replicable theory for the commencement of life. Darwinism has none nor is it likely.

3. The time frame of the universe. Physical science is providing evidence against Darwinism by claiming that the universe is not old enough for life to have reached what it is now from where Darwinians say it began. Some Darwinians answer this by suggesting that limitless numbers of unobservable universes exist and everything that can happen eventually does happen with a limitless number of evolutionary life trials taking place in these limitless alternative realities. The alternative realities scenario or the multiverse as Darwinists sometimes call it, is the flying spaghetti monster of Darwinian science.

4. Darwinians insist on the random nature of reality. Yet everywhere we see purpose. I propose that if there is any purpose in the universe, Darwinism is refuted.