In this discussion, I approach Darwinism in terms of its philosophical presuppositions. The focus of my critique is in terms of the Darwinian worldview and its origins. I will not be giving cheesy creationist arguments here: this is a historic, epistemic and metaphysical critique. Does Darwinism provide "explanatory power" for such issues as the origins of life, biological science, and man's so-called future progress (or lack thereof)? Is it "scientific"? Why is it so widely held? What are the strongest presuppositional arguments against it?
In part 2, I pick up where I left off, devling deeper into the Darwinian and evolutionary paradigms. I focus more on the philosophical problems, particularly its chief flaw - the lack of a unifying principle. This constitutes the most significant philosophical contradiction in thie outdated theory/narrative.