Google’s AI Overview Debunks Design Arguments Every Time!

Evolutionary Assumptions Disguised as Evidence

One of the biggest problems with evolutionary theory is that what is assumed is almost always presented as if it were evidence. The reasoning runs in circles: an assumption is made, and then that assumption is pointed back to as proof the assumption was correct. Any objection raised is brushed aside, not with substantive evidence, but by presenting the same purely speculative talking points as if they were definitive proof.

This is how the logic works: fossils are assumed to be stages in a long process of gradual change, so fossils are presented as evidence of gradual change. DNA similarities are assumed to prove common ancestry, so DNA similarities are presented as evidence of common ancestry. Missing steps in cell evolution are assumed to have been filled by processes not yet understood, and the very assumption of those processes is offered as evidence that they must have occurred. Round and round it goes.

In the 1800s, the majority of the scientific community assumed the universe was eternal. The idea of a beginning was written off as an ancient religious fable, unworthy of serious thought. At the same time, the notion of global catastrophes shaping the earth was mocked as unscientific, while slow, gradual change was treated as the respectable explanation. Anyone who challenged these assumptions, by pointing to evidence of catastrophe or by questioning the idea of an eternal universe, was dismissed as a religious crank.

Yet these settled assumptions were not evidence. The belief in an eternal universe and the rejection of catastrophes were part of a dogmatic framework imposed on the facts, a framework that blinded the scientific community to explanations that were, in reality, better supported by the evidence. When the evidence finally overturned both the denial of a beginning and the dismissal of catastrophes, the same institutions that once mocked them absorbed the change and carried on as though it had always been accepted.

The same thing is still happening now. The majority of what is called “evidence” for evolution is not evidence in the proper sense at all. It is assumption stacked on assumption, a house of cards built on the premise that evolution has to be true.

Question the assumptions, and you are handed explanations that are themselves assumptions, presented as proof.

Real evidence should stand independent of the theory. It should be observable, testable, and not dependent on assuming the conclusion in advance. Evolutionary theory fails this standard again and again. Until this is acknowledged, the public will continue to be sold assumptions as evidence, and objections will continue to be waved away. Because Darwin’s theory cannot tolerate being questioned, any assumption is accepted as plausible so long as it offers protection.

In reality, Darwin’s theory fails exactly where he said it would need answers. He warned that without evidence of countless slight, successive changes in the fossil record, his whole theory would break down. That evidence has never been found. Instead, the gap is glossed over by presenting egregious assumptions.

In response to many of my articles on social media, I see the same pattern repeat. Smooth-talking, self-assured commenters rush to Google or ChatGPT, type in a question, and then copy and paste whatever the algorithm feeds back. What do they get? Not independent evidence, not new discoveries, but the same AI overview regurgitation — the dominant voice that has ruled the conversation for the last 165 years.

They proudly post this as if it were a gotcha, saying “see, here’s the evidence.” But if you look closely, what’s actually being presented? Articles that admit their scenarios are perhaps, maybe, or likely — words that signal speculation, not demonstration. These researchers must provide something, because something is not as embarrassing as nothing at all. But that is not to be confused with actual evidence.

If any of these responses really were evidence that solved the core problems, they would be so monumental that Nobel Prizes would be handed out. Think about it:

• If someone showed how abiogenesis actually occurred — life from non-life — it would be the greatest scientific breakthrough in history.

• If someone demonstrated how single-celled organisms transitioned straight into animals with thousands of cells, that would instantly settle one of the most intractable gaps in biology.

• If anyone explained how DNA itself arose, or how the flagellum could be built by gradual, step-by-step changes, the headlines would scream across the world.

But no such evidence exists. Instead, what we get are scenarios patched together with “perhaps” and “possibly.” The public allowed to believe this is evidence when in reality it is no more than standard assumption, recycled endlessly through Google summaries, Wikipedia entries, and AI models trained on the same speculative papers.

This paradigm is not meeting objections with data. This is a framework defending itself by treating pseudoscientific assumptions as proof and dismissing objections as ignorance.

The tragic irony is that the questions being raised (the origin of life, the origin of multicellularity, the origin of complex molecular machines) are not small gaps at the edges of a robust theory. They are the foundation stones. If the foundation is assumption, what does that say about the entire structure?

Some social media users even boast under my articles, ‘Google debunked you,’ proudly posting a screenshot of a search result as if that settled the matter. They don’t even realize what they’re showing is not evidence, but an algorithm spitting back the same dominant talking points, recycled from the assumptions being questioned.

Still, no one has ever answered what Michael Behe presented nearly 30 years ago in Darwin’s Black Box (1996). To this day, there is no explanation for how the bacterial flagellar motor could not only arise by random processes, but how such a pathway would even be logical. The silence speaks louder than the speculation.

If you want to dig deeper into the problems Darwin’s theory cannot answer and the politics behind why these cracks are kept from the public, get your copy today: See what is hidden in plain sight. Reading these books puts you far ahead of most people — even those inside the field who are simply told to “shut up and write.”

📖 Natural Technology: The Theory of Everything: a comprehensive look at the evidence for design in the structure of reality.
📖 War of Cosmogonies: uncovering the hidden history and the ideological battles that shaped the “consensus.”

Both are available now. Don’t wait — get your copies today and see the evidence for yourself.

For suggestions on future articles, or for questions and clarifications, feel free to contact me here.

If you like this content and want to be updated when new articles come out, follow me here on Facebook. And don’t forget to like and share so others can see it too.