Mutations in the genome--exciting? Only in Theory.

The White Man studies Evolution a lot. And I'm referring not to the Law of Evolution (all matter changes over time) which is so axiomatic that there's not much point in studying it. I refer to the Theory of Evolution--specifically, the official dogma of Naturalistic Materialism. This isn't hard, since it's the approved dogma of science textbooks, reference works, and most media outlets. In fact, it's virtually impossible not to be familiar with The Theory.

I like to watch Evolutionists debate Creationists. One thing I've noticed is that Evolutionists can't discuss their Theory without using the words create, created, or made/designed for. They just can't; I've never seen it happen. They often use them more than their opponent, and not to present his point of view, but their own.

In contrast to this, science articles of a technical nature almost never use these words. Even articles to a lay audience can get by quite well without them. This one, for instance.

When researchers are in the midst of a $50,000 project to examine mutations in the human genome--the very topic in which Darwin, or his Theory, is most often invoked--there's also not a single mention of his name or his Theory. Darwin's Theory, it turns out, is of no practical use whatsoever in predicting how genes will mutate and what changes in the phenotype will result from it. In fact, if you read between the lines, you'll find the Darwinian researchers surprised by their results--results that they now have to evaluate, not in light of Darwin's Theory, but of Mendel's Law.

That's right. Test results that don't conform to Medel's Law of Inheritance are tossed out as extraneous--regardless of how nice they may look for Darwin's Theory. When human lives are at stake, Science can't afford to follow an untestable Theory over a proven Law.