Evolution and the Stuff Happens Law

There are all sorts of "laws" floating around on the internet, and many of them are simply opinions or observations. One is "Poe's Law", where something in the extreme is difficult to distinguish from parody. Atheists frequently use this when attacking Christians and creationists as a form of an ad hominem. Who is Poe, anyway? Where are his or her papers, and were they peer reviewed? No, it's not a "law" or anything resembling science. Neither is "Murphy's Law". Just cultural things. There are also axioms in evolution that are considered laws or facts that have nothing to do with science.

When Darwinists evosplain how a critter or other organism came into being, they often use the principle of Making Things Up™. Essentially, they are using obfuscation, bad logic, and fancy terminology because their worldview drives their interpretations of data. Evolution cannot be legitimately validated, so board the train to the Imagination Station and present guesses as science.



Evolution is so malleable, it can be twisted to explain almost anything — which means that it explains nothing. Just plug in mutations and natural selection. Just say, "It evolved", praise Darwin, blessed be! People deserve better than that, and we get real science from the biblical creation approach.

The "Stuff Happens Law" can be compared with evolutionary explanations, and we can see how this parodic law is just as scientific as many evolutionary speculations.

The most vacuous scientific explanation of all meets the standard requirements of science.

We often describe Darwinian evolution as equivalent to the “Stuff Happens Law” (SHL). There is no such law, of course; in actuality, it is an anti-law “law.” The worst explanation scientists can give for a phenomenon is to just shrug, throw up their hands, and say, “stuff happens.” Scientists want reasons for phenomena. They want to identify causes for things. Stochastic variables can play a part in causation, such as in statistical thermodynamics, but the consilience of causes should amount to an explanation that provides  understanding of how things work. Saying “stuff happens” amounts to a capitulation, a lazy way of saying, “I have no idea.”

Now, what if a Darwinian tried the comeback argument that “stuff happens” is a scientific theory? In a humorous bit of playful sophistry, we can show that the Stuff Happens Law satisfies all of the requirements for scientific theories. Look:

This is getting good. To read the rest, click on "How the Stuff Happens Law Can Be Scientific". I also strongly recommend an article that supplements the previous one, "Darwin Given Credit for Non-Darwinian Observations".