Why theory of Evolution is unscientific

Let us consider a scientific theory, the Big Bang for instance. That theory was first proposed uncertainly and as a hypothesis based on Einstein's concept of relativity. After that, the search began for the evidence needed to show that the Big Bang actually took place. That evidence genuinely existed. The radiation confirming the explosion was discovered, and an isotopic nature (the fact that all space is at –270oC) was established. It was also scientifically proved that the universe was constantly expanding. That was another important and definitive piece of evidence corroborating the theory in question. All the claims of the Big Bang theory were thus tested and confirmed, and it so became a proven theory.

Darwin's theory of evolution was put forward as a "hypothesis." (In fact, the reason for the launching of the theory of evolution was entirely ideological, but it was introduced under a scientific guise.) In order for the theory to be regarded as valid, its claims would have to be proved, just as with the Big Bang. To that end, it would have to be seen whether the fictitious mechanisms of evolution actually made evolution possible. Scientific progress in the 20th century proved that "natural selection," Darwin's fictitious evolutionary mechanism, had no evolutionary role. In the face of the science of genetics, new Darwinists abandoned all hope of natural selection as an evolutionary mechanism and attempted to point to mutations instead, but were again disappointed. Once it had been realized that mutations had no evolutionary effect, either, it was the turn of the fossil record, in which Darwin and Darwinists had placed most of their hopes. The conclusion produced by the fossil record literally stunned Darwinists! The illusory "transitional fossils" that had been sought for so many years existed nowhere on Earth. Deeper research did not alter that conclusion. Not a single transitional fossil has ever been discovered in any of the research conducted to date.
Unwilling to abandon the superstitious religion to which they were so devoted, Darwinists still hoped to find evidence for Darwinism for many years. But the fictitious evidence they anticipated never appeared. Nonetheless, Darwinist lies did not come to an end, and pro-Darwinist demagoguery was stubbornly persevered with. What is interesting is that despite the passage of 150 years, although not a single piece of supporting evidence has ever been found and even though the fossil record and genetics clearly proved the fact of Creation, Darwinists still imagine they could keep this superstitious religion propped up.

The Cambrian Period is one of the oldest in natural history and took place 543 to 490 million years ago. Prior to that, life consisted of single-celled organisms and a few multi-celled organisms, but during this period, the whole extraordinary variety of life emerged suddenly, in perfect, fully formed states. All of these life forms had extraordinarily complex features, totally unlike previous life forms, and very similar to living things today. This means that the Cambrian Period deals another deadly blow to the theory of evolution.

The fossils of Cambrian Period life forms provide specimens of 55 different phyla, including those in existence today. (Phylum: the largest category after the "world" in the classification of living things according to their basic physical characteristics.) To put it another way, present-day living things and an even wider variety, were in existence with all their perfect basic physical structures 540 million years ago. (The current number of phyla is 35.) Cambrian life forms are identical to present-day living things that exhibit a flawless complexity. This repudiates Darwin's fictitious evolutionary tree, and overturns the false mechanisms which have been proposed for this mythical process. According to Darwin's theory of evolution, following the formation of the first cell, supposedly by chance, single-celled organisms must have ruled the world. After that, the active life that began with simple-structured multi-celled organisms must continue in the form of a single, water dwelling phylum. The number of phyla should increase gradually, and the number of species should grow in proportion. But the reality revealed by the Cambrian findings is very different. Things happened in the exact reverse to Darwin's imaginary evolutionary tree, with a greater diversity than that in existence today appearing right from the beginning of natural history, immediately after single-celled organisms. 
The subject of human evolution is of vital importance to Darwinists. The idea they have tried for years to indoctrinate people with is the lie that man is a supposed evolved animal. They strive with all their power to maintain this lie, and attempt to insert the idea that human beings have supposed animal ancestors in even the most unrelated subjects. The deceptions to which they resort on this matter are breathtaking. Even totally unconnected fossil find is presented in such a way as to suggest they are human beings. So much so that Darwinists produced Nebraska Man from a single fossil tooth, which would later be proven to belong to a wild pig, and they had no qualms about depicting this entity's entire social life together with its family and community. One of the most significant examples of these astonishing endeavors is their long-time claim that Australopithecus is the so-called ape-like ancestor of man.

Australopithecus is an extinct species of ape. The name means "Southern ape," and Darwinists seek to depict it as the first ape-like ancestor of human beings. As with all other examples, since this species of ape is extinct, evolutionists have used it as a tool for speculation. But as with all other examples, the scenarios that Darwinists produce regarding Australopithecus are again based on deception.
In 1994, Fred Spoor and his team from Liverpool University in Britain carried out a comprehensive study in order to arrive at a definitive conclusion regarding the Australopithecus skeleton. An organ in the skeleton known as the "cochlea," which determines the position of the body in relation to the ground, was investigated. Spoor's conclusion was that Australopithecus did not walk in a bipedal manner similar to that of human beings.(1)

Another study in 2000 by the scientists B.G Richmond and D.S Strait, published in Nature magazine, examined the forearms of Australopithecines. Their comparative anatomical research showed that the species had the same forearm structure as those of present-day monkeys that walk on four limbs.(1)

All this evidence reveals that Australopithecines were nothing more than species of ape. Indeed, the evolutionist anthropologists who discovered Lucy, Donald Johanson and T. D. White, issued the following statement in Science magazine:

Fossils of Australopithecus have been studied in painstaking detail: their manner of walking, the structure of their ear, pattern of tooth development, their long and powerful forearms, short hind limbs, structure of their feet, small sized brains, and very ape- like skulls, jaws, and faces. These prove that Australopithecus was an ape and no way related to man. Donald Johanson himself, the discoverer of Lucy, later concluded that Australophitecus africanus (Lucy) was not related to humans at all.
1. ( D. Johanson - T. D. White, Science, 203:321, 1979, 207:1104, 1980 - Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, s. 187-188 )