Saturday, April 05, 2014

The Religion of Atheism

How many times per day do atheists, worldwide, deny that atheism is a religion?  My guess is millions. Why? Because wherever there is debate on the existence of God vs atheism, you are absolutely guaranteed that sooner or later in the discussion, the word religion will be brought in and the atheists present will be eschewing all religion.  But then some deist or theist will tell them that atheism itself is a religion, having all the telltale signs.  At that point the atheists will get angry, act insulted, and arrogantly state that atheism isn’t a religion and that if atheism is a religion, then not playing tennis is a sport – or some such similar analogy (which they copy/paste parrot from their masters, the high priests of atheism). They radically deny that atheism is a religion because they despise religion per se and cannot endure to have their own beliefs called religion.

Friday, February 21, 2014

Neo Darwinism is “GONE”

Neo Darwinism is “GONE”

How many times have you heard that,
         “Evolution has been proven as much as gravity
Whenever you hear that, the first step is to ask the Darwinists: “What definition of ‘evolution’ are you referring to? Micro or Macro?”

In 99.9% of cases, they will answer something like this, “Macro evolution is merely and extension of micro evolution.”   Darwinists erroneously believe that one can gratuitously extrapolate micro evolution, which is small changes like say, variation of size of color etc. in some given species, into macro evolution which is major change that crosses taxonomic Family boundaries upward.

In case you’re not familiar with taxonomic classification it goes basically like the following diagram:



We know that some evolution takes place with the Family and  below.  But there is not a grain of evidence that it ever takes place above the Family level. Though, there may be some overlap into the Order level. Nothing above this has ever been observed and there is no evidence that either occurs and much evidence that not only does it not occur but that it cannot occur at all!  Some might say, “The fossil record!”.
The fossil record itself refutes gradualist Darwinian style evolution. See Stephen Meyer’s, “Darwin’s Doubt”.
Humans have been breeding animals etc for millennia, trying to artificially select for this or that trait in some Family like dogs or cats, horses, roses etc.  In spite of many efforts to interbreed species from different taxonomic Families, none have ever succeeded except to bring about creatures that cannot reproduce or are severely handicapped.

The point is that you cannot extrapolate micro evolution into macro evolution.  Not without proof that the extrapolation is valid. Is it? No. The basic reason is that the genome contains safety mechanisms, error detection and correction mechanisms that impede such “extravagances” if you will.

Now, every staunch creationist knows that evolution occurs within and below the Taxonomic Family level. No problem. Variation and adaptation occur all the time, and are indeed observable.

But there is not a single grain of evidence – let alone proof – that it occurs above that level; and vast evidence that it does not and cannot!

Here I will quote once of atheist Darwinists major players. Or ex-Darwinist I suppose he should be called now.

In 2008, William B. Provine, Cornell University historian of science and professor of evolutionary biology, stated that “every assertion of the evolutionary synthesis below is false“:
1. Natural selection was the primary mechanism at every level of the evolutionary process. Natural selection caused genetic adaptation . . . .
4. Evolution of phenotypic characters such as eyes and ears, etc, was a good guide to protein evolution: or, protein evolution was expected to mimic phenotypic evolution.
5. Protein evolution was a good guide to DNA sequence evolution. Even Lewontin and Hubby thought, at first, that understanding protein evolution was the key to understanding DNA evolution.
6. Recombination was far more important than mutation in evolution.
7. Macroevolution was a simple extension of microevolution.
8. Definition of “species” was clear[--]the biological species concept of Dobzhansky and Mayr.
9. Speciation was understood in principle.
10. Evolution is a process of sharing common ancestors back to the origin of life, or in other words, evolution produces a tree of life.
11. Inheritance of acquired characters was impossible in biological organisms.
12. Random genetic drift was a clear concept and invoked constantly whenever population sizes were small, including fossil organisms.
13. The evolutionary synthesis was actually a synthesis.
14. Molecular biology has stolen from paleontology all ability to construct phylogenies. –   William Provine, Random Drift and the Evolutionary Synthesis, History of Science Society HSS Abstracts.
In that single paragraph, Provine destroyed almost the whole neo Darwinian theory.  And he is an adamant atheist!
It gets better, or worse if you’re a Darwinist:
A  paper in the journal Biological Theory in 2011 stated,
“Darwinism in its current scientific incarnation has pretty much reached the end of its rope.”  — David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber, “The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis,” Biological Theory, Vol. 6: 89-102 (December, 2011).
And even better still:
In 2009, Computational Biologist Eugene Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information stated in “Trends in Genetics” that there are major problems in core neo-Darwinian tenets, such as the “traditional concept of the tree of life” and the view that “natural selection is the main driving force of evolution.”
Koonin stated,
the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair” and “all major tenets of the modern synthesis have been, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution.” Koonin concludes, “not to mince words, the modern synthesis is gone.”  — Eugene V. Koonin, “The Origin at 150: Is a New Evolutionary Synthesis in Sight?,” Trends in Genetics, Vol. 25: 473 (2009) (internal citations omitted).
Koonin is,  Senior Investigator National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH)

The so-called Altenberg 16 said pretty much the same things.   The famous meeting at Konrad Lorenz Institute in Altenberg, Austria in July 2008, where 16 scientists discussed expanding evolutionary thinking beyond outdated hypotheses.

If all these people say neo Darwinism (the modern synthesis)  has failed, why is that people like Dawkins, Coyne, et al. are still loudly proclaiming that it is “proved as gravity” when nothing could be further from the truth?

Either some are being deviously dishonest or they are self-deceived. I’ll opt for deviously dishonest since Dawkins’ hypocrisy is easy enough to see everywhere he goes and opens his mouth. I’m not going to give you proof of his hypocrisy here, but the facts speak for themselves concerning his record of telling the truth!

Some may wish to make reference to the old and useless, “scientific consensus” argument.
No thank you.  Science has nothing to do with consensus. If its consensus it isn’t science and if science then consensus has NOTHING to do with it.

The evidence against neo Darwinian evolution has literally gone through the roof in the past decade alone, with the advent genome sequencing through high tech advancements.

Indeed, we now have incontrovertible PROOF of intelligent design in DNA. Recently discovered in DNA is that ZERO and the DECIMAL place are encoded in it and used computationally in the genome.
Under neo Darwinian terms, you don’t.  You must explain it away; something Darwinists have always been professionals at.

To reiterate some of that previous article:  There is only one single possible source for such mathematical units represented in DNA and that is necessarily intelligence – or “artificiality” as the discoverer called it stating moreover that,
“Chemical evolution, no matter how long it took, could not possibly have stumbled on the arithmetical language and initialized the decimalization of the genetic code. Physics and chemistry can neither make such abstractions nor fit the genetic code out with them. “

Being non-material abstractions, all the zero, decimal syntax and unique summations can display an artificial nature of the genetic code. They refute traditional ideas about the stochastic origin of the genetic code.
… There is no plausible chemical logic to couple directly the triplets and the amino acids. In other words, the principles of chemistry where not the sought essence of the genetic code
…The zero is the supreme abstraction of arithmetic. Its use by any alphabet, including the genetic code, can be an indicator of artificiality.
All that means that neo Darwinism is utterly wrong. Nature knows nothing of ZEROs or Decimal places – they do not exist in nature!

There goes the ballgame for Darwinian evolution. Curiously, what shCherbak discovered is exactly what both IDists and creationists have been saying all along!

Intelligence underlies and permeates the whole genome and genetic code. 

Symbolic codes, no matter the physical medium by which they are stored to represent information, require intelligent origin.  That’s what Code is, an intelligently organized and defined suite of symbols used to represent something other than themselves, to represent information.  The information in DNA is also algorithmic – ie prescriptive, instructions.  This CANNOT arise by any mindless process.

Atheists and Darwinists have been denying (there it is again denial) this fact of life for decades.  Yet now they are backed into a fatal corner and the whole foolish fairy tale of neo Darwinian evolution is finished, or “gone” as Koonin aptly put it..

It will take many years to undo both its deeply ensconced & religiously held and legally protected “authority” and popularity and the damage it has done to science by retarding its advance.
More recently a second genetic code has been discovered imbedded in the first. Do you have any idea what that implies?

Imagine writing computer code in the C++ programming language, and knowing that it can be compiled using two different language compilers, producing two completely different programs.

Imagine speaking in English and everything you say is also perfectly legit grammar of a completely different language all at once!   That’s pretty close to what this discovery means.  Think of the difficulty involved in creating a coded information  system that is in fact two coded information systems in one.  Try, for example, creating a language wherein saying, “Hello how are you?” in one means, “Darwinism sucks big eggs” in the other.   Go ahead, think and try it;  its humanly possible but only with great intellectual effort.  Such things do not and cannot just “evolve”.

Neo Darwinism is “gone”. How long will it take before the religious establishment of secular humanism, that controls the whole public education system and most of the government and so much more in the West and in Europe, crumbles with it?

My guess is many years; painful, conflicted and possible even violent years as the Darwinian propaganda and brainwashing juggernaut slowly grinds to a rebellious halt and dies.
weekend-at-darwins

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

A Little Bit of Truthful Humor

Anyone reading this blog knows that I really hate atheism.
I tend to be very direct and critical in my rebuke of atheist stupidities.
Atheists are always very generous in providing endless examples of such stupidity, usually disguised as science or reason.  Of course the other ± 6 billion people on earth know this well.

But anyway, how about a little humor at the expense of our atheist friends?
This page will be updated from time to time as new jokes arrive.

Friday, November 22, 2013

What is Natural Selection Really?

Natural selection is the Darwinists main magic wand for the passing of life from some purely hypothetical first common ancestor, to man. By this "mechanism", the Darwinist elite claim that all life on earth has come to be. Survival of the fittest, they used to call this.  They have attributed to natural selection all the power of a deity.

Natural selection is seen as a cornerstone piece within the whole "modern synthesis" framework.

Simply put, Natural selection is the process by which biological organisms with favorable traits survive and reproduce more successfully than organisms that do not possess such traits. Conversely, organisms with deleterious traits survive and reproduce less successfully than organisms lacking any weakening traits.

Evolutionist Ernst Mayr defined natural selection as "the process by which in every generation individuals of lower fitness are removed from the population."

It is well known that natural selection, in the Darwinian sense, constitutes a tautology. It survives therefore it is fit. It is fit therefore it survives.
This is still controversial and often debated simply because the modern Darwinist does not like being told his major foundation stone for the whole of Darwinian theory is circular reasoning.  Darwinism is in fact based on several logical fallacies like this.  Another common Darwinian fallacy goes like this:

Species A is morphologically very similar to species B, therefore they are biologically related or have some evolutionary common ancestor.  Modern molecular biology and genetics has proved this wrong (like so many other standard Darwinian claims). That specific error is almost a definition of the logical fallacy called "undistributed middle".

So they, as usual, merely deny the reality of it  and go on arguing over as if debating it using this or that sophism changes anything of the truth of it.

Without going into the origin of this now ubiquitous term, I'll simply say that it was an idea spawned and developed by creationists, not atheists. Darwin took the term mostly from Edward Blyth a British zoologist who had written on the subject long before his "Origin", as had others. Indeed, according to anthropologist Loren Eiseley, Darwin appropriated the work of Edward Blyth, who wrote on natural selection and evolution in two papers published in 1835 and 1837.  From a creationist viewpoint. (Eiseley L.C., "Charles Darwin, Edward Blyth, and the Theory of Natural Selection," in "Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X," E.P. Dutton: New York, 1979, p.50)

Darwin basically took the idea changed it to his own view and "ran with with", bringing it to the very pinnacle of his theory of evolution.

It is viewed, in Darwinism, that mutations, by creating genetic diversity, supply the raw material for natural selection to work on. 

Well, let's get to the reality of what Natural selection really is.

In one single word, natural selection is  "death"!


This should be extremely obvious, but for the Darwinian mindset, most of the time, nothing logical is obvious.  Real selection is not anything being selected at all, its all about things being filtered out of the environment by death and that's all.  Death rids the "unfit" species from the world.
Selection is thus just a very banal involuntary filter.

This is easily seen by the fact that if one removes death, there would be no such thing as natural selection at all. Not in any Darwinian sense, thats for sure.

"Selection" is thus a very poor choice of words for death. Don't you think? It's almost the equivalent of the Grim Reaper.  The selection is implies choice, but nature has no mind to enable it to choose anything at all.  Some things die, that's it. And it often has nothing to do with fitness.

Again, this is not hard.

So the fact that Darwinian fundamentalists treat natural selection like some sort of wizard able to leap tall buildings with a single bound, creating all the estimated 13 million living species on earth, is rather amazing.  You may even find it amusing, and indeed it would be if not so serious and error.

By realizing the real nature of natural selection, its fairly straight forward to see why it isn't all its cracked up to be.

Here's the ultimate question: How can mutations + death be the mechanism, that creates all life on earth?





Thursday, November 21, 2013

David Hume and Intelligent Design

David Hume, the famous Scottish philosopher and author that is often quoted in debates on whether or not miracles exist, atheism vs theism etc. had much to say on the issue of whether there was evidence of an Intelligent Designer behind the existence of the universe.

Hume stated, 
"Wherever I see Order, I infer from Experience that there, there hath been Design and Contrivance. And the same Principle which leads me into this Inference, when I contemplate a Building, regular and beautiful in its whole Frame and Structure; the same Principle obliges me to infer an infinitely perfect Architect, from the infinite Art and Contrivance which is display'd in the whole Fabrick of the Universe." (David Hume 1977, 120; A Letter From a Gentleman to His Friend in Edinburgh).
In the Introduction to his book The Natural History of Religion (1757), Hume stated:

"The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent Author; and no rational enquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion."(Hume1956, 21).
In The Natural History of Religion (1757), Hume wrote:
"Were men led into the apprehension of invisible, intelligent Power by a contemplation of the works of nature, they could never possibly entertain any conception but of one single Being, who bestowed existence and order on this vast machine, and adjusted all its parts, according to one regular plan or connected system. …All things in the universe are evidently of a piece. Every thing is adjusted to everything. One design prevails throughout the whole. And this uniformity leads the mind to acknowledge one Author." (Hume 1956, 26).
"The order of the universe proves an omnipotent Mind." (Hume 1978; Treatise, 633n).
"Is there a system, an order, an economy of things, by which matter can preserve that perpetual agitation which seems essential to it, and yet maintain a constancy in the forms which it produces? There certainly is such an economy; for this is actually the case with the present world. The continual motion of matter, therefore, in less than infinite transpositions, must produce this economy or order; and by its very nature, that order, when once established, supports itself, for many ages, if not to eternity. But wherever matter is so poised, arranged, and adjusted, as to continue in perpetual motion, and yet preserve a constancy in the forms, its situation must, of necessity, have all the same appearance of art and contrivance which we observe at present."
Clearly Hume was a "designist".
He was definitely not an atheist by any means.

Thus, David Hume often cited by atheists and skeptics to prove that miracles do not exist, was not an atheist but an Intelligent Design promoter.  Today, he would be maligned, black-balled, ignored, mocked and dismissed outright by the whole atheist crowd.


Once again, this reveals how incompetent and foolish the so-called "New Atheists" really are.
__________________

Hume, David.  The Natural History of Religion. Ed. H. E. Root. London: A. & C. Black, 1956.

Hume, David.  "A Letter From a Gentleman to His Friend in Edinburgh," in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.(1st ed. - London, 1748), 1977.

Hume, David.  A Treatise of Human Nature. Ed. L. A. Selby-Bigge; rev. edn. P. H. Nidditch. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978.

Saturday, October 19, 2013

A Stable Universe - In Atheism or Theism?

In my last article I discussed the "God of the gaps" accusation levied against creationists and IDists.  A "refutation" that is common all across the scope of Darwinian influenced minds.

I showed that, in fact, it is the Darwinists that use "gap" arguments, or arguments from ignorance and not the designists at all.

Now at the end of that article I quoted professor Richard Lewontin on his absolute adherence to materialism in all things "scientific".

Here is the quote again, followed by my comments on the last sentence of it:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”  Richard Lewontin, 1997. Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997 (review of Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark).- Dr. Richard Lewontin, Geneticist, Harvard University
Lewotin makes a perfectly foolish unthinking statement at the end when he says that appealing to an omnipotent deity allows that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured.  Really?

Lewontin fails to see that this is perfectly true for atheism, not theism!

Under atheism there are no absolutes, there is no absolute truth, so no one cannot even know anything for sure -including no scientists, such as Lewontin. Now if there are no absolutes THEN it would be true that we allow that the regularities of nature may change any & every moment. The laws may dissolve, mathematics is no longer certain, nothing remains! Nothing is certain under atheism's obligatory relativism. Nothing can be known as objectively true in atheism, including atheism itself! This is standard atheist dogma and if atheism were true, then they would be right in claiming this.

However, under theism, what is the reason that the regularities may be ruptured? The only possible reason would be the will of the deity.  But then why would an intelligent creator simply screw everything he made from one day to the next?  What reason would he have?

Moreover, even if he did, would mankind ever know it? Highly unlikely, well at least not for more than a few seconds. We would almost certainly disappear in some sort of total cosmic implosion if only 1 of the "fine tuning" constants were to be radically altered by the deity. And who would be left to give a damn for humanity?


In theism, we infer through multitudes of inferences and the very state of the cosmos,  that the intelligence of the creator is infinite (just look at what he made) and that his moral nature is the very foundation of all morality.

Worse, Lewontin's statement is in fact ludicrous, since we already have ample testimony that in fact the laws of the nature are universal, stable and constant since the beginning of all human history. Simply because we have something we call "science" and it works!

Now to prove how utterly asinine atheists can get on this specific point, lets read the "expert" atheist version; one that, if true, literally turns Lewontin's inane statement upside down:
"There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago." — Bertrand Russell, The Analysis of Mind,1921, pp. 159- 60
Can you see that the truly unstable, unreliable, utterly mutable universe Lewontin imagines under a deity, is actually the highly probable state of nature if atheism were true and not at all if theism is true!?
Thank God it isn't!

Why else would Einstein consider that one of the most surprising attributes of nature to be that it is understandable?
"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility ... The fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle"
-Einstein: His Life and Universe by Walter Isaacson, p. 462
Einstein was not an atheist by any means.
Thank God for that too.


God of the Gaps?

Well here we go ladies and gents.  Yet another piece of Darwinian/atheist imbecility must be exposed for what it really is.

Will this kind of thing ever end? Not until atheists finally admit that their position -its not merely a “lack” as they foolishly pretend to themselves- is void of intelligence and in fact annihilates  intelligence itself since atheism cannot have true rationality.

In atheism all rationality is the end product of completely non rational processes and of course is an “accident”.  Under atheist stupidity, rationality is just electrochemical movement in meat.  As Francis Crick himself said,
The Astonishing Hypothesis is that “You,” your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.”  -(p. 3) -Francis Crick (1994) The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons
Atheism says that your so-called rationality, your logic, your reasoning faculties; all together is “nothing but a pack of neurons.  Well, Sir Crick has passed on to the other realm that is much more solid than this one and has been obliged to answer for his crimes against the Deity, so we can’t ask him the obvious question, “Why should we listen to what a pack of neurons is saying?”, or “How can a pack of neurons be true or false?”.
Other interesting questions like this could and should be posed to atheists as often as it takes to get the message, the logical conclusions and implications of their inane position, into their incredibly stubborn heads.
In any case, we must take a quick and dirty look at one Darwinism’s chief complaints against both creationism and Intelligent Design (these are not the same).

Often when theists or even deists point out to Darwinists that their theory cannot account for the intricacies and functional complexities found in every living thing, they will tell you that you’re committing a logical fallacy.  Specifically they claim this type of statement is a “God of the gaps argument”.  This simply means that, because you can’t explain how something occurred, you simply invoke God as the answer.  God fills in the gap where knowledge of how is.

God is used to explain what evolutionism can’t explain.  This is of course a form of “argument from ignorance”.  And believe me, Darwinians everywhere are quick to parrot their fave priests that have told them this, over and over and over.  Here I would love to start a nice discussion of how virtually every amateur and professional Darwinist in the world is little more than a parrot. They are always parroting what they were told in school, in their temples (universities), on their fave web sites, in books etc etc.

They do not tend to think well at all for themselves, so, having been forced into the standard Darwinian mantra, they simply parrot what they were told by their priests and pastors.  This is because they either cannot or will not think such things through for themselves. So, they need indoctrination and counselling from their priests to know what to believe.

Well, I would love to really get into that little delicacy, just for fun, but I don’t feel like it. ;-)
So, on to the infamous parroted “God if the gaps” accusations.

First of all, arguments of the pattern:
“Evolution cannot explain this therefore God did it” arguments, are almost never used by any informed theist and never by any of the major Intelligent Design or creationist debaters, scientists etc on this.
People like Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, Douglas Marks, Jay Richards etc, do not use “gap” arguments at all.  What they really do is argue from a simplified form of “statistical mechanics” (for lack of a better term). This means that when an IDist says anything like, “no evolutionary evidence exist for this, no known evolutionary pathway exists to explain this, no known mechanism exists that can accomplish this”,  They are not saying “you can’t explain it, therefore God must have done it”.

That is simply and categorically false.

They are saying that 1) there is no evidence at all that evolution did this, but 2) there is enormous evidence that Darwinian evolution cannot do this, and there is enormous evidence that only intelligent agents can produce algorithmic, prescriptive information that is found everywhere in biological systems.  Therefore, the best explanation is not evoltuon but intelligent origin.

Very, very few creationists or IDists will simply say,  “God did it and that’s it that’s all, no need for further research”.  In recent years, I’ve never heard any of them say anything even remotely like that!  So, when highly misinformed and disingenuous Darwinian fanatics claim that this is what they’re saying, they are lying, incapable of thinking straight, seriously not listening or all of the above.

In my personal experience it is ALWAYS the last 2 options. and sometimes the first as well.
Again, what are IDists saying? Based on the principles of statistical mechanics, they’re saying that we already know that such mechanical sophistication and algorithmic information cannot arise by chance no matter how much time is allotted.  The probability of such machinery and circuitry being constructed, with the plans for making the parts and the assembly instructions for putting them together with all this being algorithmically encoded in DNA, is so astronomically small that it may as well be considered impossible.  It is in fact, statistically impossible by ANY known random or stochastic process including mutations plus selection.

So, this has nothing at all to do with “gap” arguments but is merely stating the obvious based on the laws of probability! Something Darwinian biologists tend to be uniquely inapt at using or even understanding.
Designists are not saying, “we can’t see how this happened therefore God id it” at all; on the contrary!  They are saying, “the laws of probability”, thermodynamics and physics do not allow any purposeless, unguided process to create this kind of integrated functionality.

That is a very different thing from a mere gap argument.  So in fact, they are not arguing from ignorance but from well documented knowledge!  Knowledge of proven mathematics applied to the mechanics of biological machinery.

See?

That is NOT a gap or ignorance based argument at all.  It is a solid scientific empirical method being used to calculate whether nature can even do such things. When facing the odds of events that have estimated with between 1 in 10^20 to 1 in 10^130 to even worse odds, the obvious answer is that blind evolution could not have done it, no matter how much time you allot!
Secondly, there is a humongous hypocrisy at work among the Darwinists when they foolishly choose to use this rebuttal.

Notice that Darwinists have NEVER, not even once, provided a viable mutation/selection pathway for the existence of even the smallest living things.  This means that the ONLY way they can claim that any living thing evolved is through speculation and conjecture -most of the time just wishful thinking and vivid imaginations are all they have.

For example, how does Darwinism explain the incredible integrated circuitry of vision, the eye?
They invent, yes invent, out of thin air, a story!

If you’ve seen the perfectly naive, childishly simplistic explanations given by Darwinists for the origins of sight and eyes you know what I’m talking about it.  Even the scenarios given by so-called professional scientists.  There simply are no viable, serious Darwinian pathways for vision and eyes.  None.  Not even remotely close.

Their explanation is always the same – an imaginary pathway -less than 100 steps (rotflmao)- that they think may have, could have, must have etc., been the real evolutionary one.   So how about evidence for such naive suppositions -they’re ALWAYS ridiculously naive- on how something may have happened by evolution? Nope. Don’t need any real empirical evidence.
Really? Why not?

Because they simply invoke evolution of the gaps! They do this everywhere, “evolution did it”. Oh, sorry, they use slightly different terms but the answer is always the same – evolution did it!
In other words, Darwinists are the WORST offenders of “gap”, ignorance-based arguments!  They never have any viable mutational-selection pathways to explain anything but the very very trivial!  So, without a grain of empirical evidence that really does explain how vision systems developed without a “seeing” intelligence, they simply claim -loudly and with much bombast and pompous fury against any other theory, “evolution did it!”
“Proof?”
“We don’t need proof!! We KNOW evolution did it!”
“How do you know this, without proof?”
“Because no God exists! “

Oops.  There you have it.  The cat is out of the bag.  The whole system is 99% religion based. Metaphysical Naturalism. In other words. The religion of atheism.
Don’t believe this? Well then you’re being incredibly naive and demonstrating a very profound ignorance.
Just to help you out:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”  –
Richard Lewontin, 1997. Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997 (review of Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark).- Dr. Richard Lewontin, Geneticist, Harvard U.
Wow, if that isn’t clear enough, nothing is.  So, Darwinists are in fact religious adepts of Naturalism (materialism), a very very old heathen religion.
Therefore it must be illegal, in the USA, to teach Darwinism is public schools.  So why isn’t it?