“Magicdirtism” is a much superior and more descriptive term for what most people call “evolution.” It is the idea that dirt did magic all by itself and turned itself into people without the Creator God of the Bible. Evolutionists use the term “evolution” to confuse the issue of what they really think, and not allow people to comprehend how stupid the idea really appears, if you think about it critically.
“Magicdirtism” is a better term for the idea that dirt somehow did magic and turned itself into people without a magician to do the magic. This avoids the confusion that magicdirters create by using the term “evolution,” which can be only change in species, and does not include abiogenesis.
The funny thing is that there is no technical or popular term encompassing the entire process of life arising out of non-living matter and becoming human, so the term “magicdirtism” has no competitor.
I make creationists mad, because they don’t like the way I address magicdirtism. They think they can present a scholarly rebuttal of evolution, and treat the whole subject as a scholarly scientific debate. They even agee with the atheists and abandon the King James Bible, and fall back to using “Original Autographs Onlyism,” or the idea that only the original writings from the hands of the writers directly are without error and inspired. They even ridicule the King James, and treat those who believe it as ignorant. I see this as a great trick by the atheists.
The creationists restrict themselves to scholarly debate, afraid that they will offend the public. The magicdirters see no need for any such restriction, and use any tactic to get an advantage. The creationists just want to change the paradigm, and want to make scientists use creationism to interpret reality. I don’t think that will ever happen, and it assures their defeat. Too many people hate the God of the Bible.
Futher, the creationists are denying science just like the magicdirters do. Both want a dogma to be used to interpret reality; the creationists just want to change the dogma to creation by God instead of magic dirt.
Science simply does not give final answers about anything. The answers given by science must always be subject to revision by more data and better paradigms. The paradigms cannot be considered to be final, or they bring scientific discovery to a halt.
Even the flat earth paradigm is useful, because surveying instruments always see in straight lines. Assuming a flat earth works just fine over a few miles, until the curvature of the earth starts introducting errors. There is no need to make expensive and complex instruments that can see along the curvature of the earth, when we can use simple instuments and correct for the error.
The point is that science uses what works. It doesn’t have to be “true.” As a matter of fact, it CANNOT be “true.” There will always be more to discover. Only the King James Bible, which is the word of God, and has His testimony, can be logically assumed to be final truth.