The search for... Oh whatever

Truth, its a fundamental necessity in life, without knowledge of basic day to day truths our lives would be, well, they'd be likely over. We learn them as we grow, fire is hot, water is wet, usually followed closely by we can't breath water, gravity exists, food is necessary, and mother's don't like it when you bring snakes into the house. Then we go to school and learn more truths: 2+2=4, Asquared+Bsquared=Csquared, biology means 'the study of life', and cafeteria food isn't generally eatable. Somewhere along the lines, hopefully, we learn more basic, meaningful truths of life like love, respect, obedience, and loyalty. The point is, truth is to be sought, not sought because it gives us something to do but because it exists and without it we are meaningless, pointless, and well, wrong.
The search for truth drug western civilization out of the mess of the middle ages and into the Era of Enlightenment, pushed us into the Scientific Era, carried us breathlessly into the Industrial Revolution, and finally settled us into this modern era of convinces and general good living. Most people have jobs, most people can afford food, electricity, education, and medicine, and even the lowest of modern society live better than most of the population did in the middle ages.
Note I used the terms 'western civilization' and 'modern society' this is not a global concept, just like search for objective truth is not a global concept. It takes a very precise footing for science, which is in its best and purest form the search for objective truth, to spring to life and flourish. It takes a belief in the existence of objective truth. Science didn't bloom in the great Oriental regions because as a civilization China, Japan, Korea, et all do not believe objective truth can be achieved. *I am speaking historically here* It didn't flourish in India as that subcontinent does not traditionally believe that objective truth exists. Most of Africa believed in the whims of their gods, not a stable operating force, the same for the ancient Greeks and Romans, who came so very close but were ultimately defeated.
Only in the great halls of Europe and later America did the Scientific Method find a foothold. The Scientific Method was discovered by Sir Francis Bacon, an Englishman, and its states simply that one must Observe some segment of the universe, create a Hypothesis, create a Test that is capable of Proving or Disproving your hypothesis, Test the hypothesis and Update the hypothesis as needed by the outcome of the test. Its simple, clear cut, and always produces results. It also tells us something about objective truth, its testable. Its provable. Its able to be known. This is upheld by the Second Law of Logic, called the Law of non-contradiction, which states "something can not be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same respect." In laymen terms it means two opposites cannot both be right. Its a fundamental law.
So why are people abandoning true science and objective truth like its going out of style? Why do people insist on saying 'we can agree to disagree', 'we're both right', or 'there is no right or wrong'? These philosophies come from lands that rejected science. Many of these lands still, in this modern era, struggle to pull themselves up out of a third world condition simply because they still hold the basic belief that truth can not be known or does not exist. Why do we have what seems like a whole generation of people that suddenly don't care to learn the truth and even go so far as to refuse its existence? How could any logical, intelligent person tell another when faced with an opposing side 'I don't want to hear your proof', 'I don't care', 'just because you're right doesn't mean I'm not right too', or 'you have your beliefs, I have mine'. Beliefs? Who said anything about what you believe?? I believe black shouldn't be a mourning color, that's a belief. I'd be more than happy to debate with you, see your side, and even agree to disagree about that belief. In opposition, that an in-utero baby is a living human being, is tested, proven, and objective fact. Now, if you want to believe that fact doesn't have any barring on whether or not that baby human should have the right to life that is your right and an opinion, and its a debatable point that two people can have different opinions, depending upon their underlying beliefs. It does absolutely no good to say 'that's just your belief' when a FACT is presented. Not only does it make you sound like an idiot it makes any further discussion ABOUT ANYTHING utterly pointless as you've proven you care not for logic, fact, or even simple common sense. If you refuse to 'believe' one fact you've laid the foundation to ignore any you wish to. Now, that doesn't make any logical sense, jumping off an overpass is going to result in a splat regardless of your 'belief' in gravity, and it makes no sense as a personal belief, for any belief system that contradicts truth if flawed and cannot be true itself. So, why the obsession?
The obsession with making truth into belief and making all beliefs 'valid' regardless of their nature, contradictions, or flaws is directly linked to mainline science ignoring objective truth and following beliefs. Foul you cry? Not at all, just because something calls itself 'science' doesn't mean it is. Words have definitions for a reason, and when something not A is called A people get confused. Science was founded on the fact that the observable world can be known and and understood by the process put forth in the Scientific Method. Mainstream Science today, at least the part that gets the most attention, does not follow the Scientific Method and instead tries to force discoveries into a pre-existing belief. If they cannot manipulate the discoveries the discoveries, which are physical fact, are dismissed instead of dismissing the 'theory' that has been disproved. This obvious belief espoused as objective truth has degraded the very definition of truth till it has become the sad cousin of opinion.
This false science that has torn down real science and the real search for truth is, of course, the Theory of Evolution. It has paired with the religions of Naturalism and Humanism and has toppled that perfect search for truth that brought us the Law of Biogenesis, the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Relativity, and the Law of Genetics. In fact, even labeling it the "Theory of Evolution" is a misnomer as, according to the Scientific Method it is at best a hypothesis. The problem is not that such a hypothesis exists, but that is has not only failed numerous tests but also that it has someone managed to attain the coveted standing of Scientific Theory despite its faults.
Its not complex, its not difficult, its easy. Logic always is. If A and non-A can not both be true at the same time in the same sense then evolution can not both be false and true. So, a simple question then, what could prove evolution false? First, lets define the term evolution. Evolution can mean many things, its most basic meaning is 'change over time' that form of evolution is proven fact, things DO change over time. Few argue that. What the Hypothesis of Evolution is referring to, and I am objecting to on the basis of objective fact, is what is called 'molecule to man' evolution or 'upwards evolution'. This is the belief that change over time moves in an upward directions producing increasingly complex structures, organisms, and systems. Its called a lot of names but the closest to a Scientific name it seems to have is Macro-Evolution and it is this that we will be dealing with.
Its also pretty easy to disprove. To make the best use of space I will be writing a number of posts over the next while dealing point by point with various requirements of the Macro-Evolution hypothesis and tests that can be used, or truths already known, to falsify each requirement. I will deal with no beliefs, only facts. It is this 'theory' that has led Western man down the path of 'all paths' instead of seeking to better ourselves in the search for true knowledge. If this shining box of belief is toppled off the pillar of truth we can perhaps go back to a mindset where people sit down and debate until one or the other has been convinced of the truth, where people seek true because they know it can be known and it MUST be known. For that reason showing evolution for exactly what it is, and is not, is ever so important. I do not undertake this in jest, but with all seriousness of faith in the truth and in the necessity of knowing truth.