Frogger banned science in "natural science

So, I got slapped with a red card, a 300-point deduction, and a ban from the natural science sub for being labeled a "crackpot." My crime? I started a thread where I presented a live experiment clearly proving that reality doesn't match evolutionary theory—specifically, that even after 500 million years, we aren't seeing what the theory claims should have happened in just a couple of million (like the Cambrian explosion). That gap between reality and theory is the textbook definition of falsification. I even put that in the title, but the moderator arbitrarily changed it.

On top of that, I demonstrated that evolutionary theory relies on a philosophical fiat built on a logical fallacy.

Bottom line: I presented direct observations from nature and one logically sound argument. What followed was a debate where I responded to counterarguments while strictly following all the rules of the sub. Most importantly, my responses were based purely on science—knowledge derived from observing natural processes and phenomena. That’s literally the entire purpose of the "natural science" section.

Instead, the opposition completely ignored the actual natural science and my experiment. They just kept regurgitating theoretical assumptions and veered off-topic with generic appeals and ad hominem attacks against me.

After all that, I—the author of the thread and the only one holding a consistent position—get branded a crackpot, lose 300 points, and get blocked from replying to my own thread. All thanks to Zachary Mendoza2. It’s bizarre. The moderator of "natural science" essentially banned direct observation. In short, they banned science. They left the opposition free to just repeat theoretical scenarios. Banning science while leaving pure imagination unchecked on a sub titled "natural science" is an unprecedented move on Reddit.

I’m asking the administration to fix this obvious injustice and lift these sanctions.

Greetings, hiddenpilot80!

As others have already pointed out, the common misunderstanding of the word "theory" often leads laypeople to dismiss it and attempt to debunk it through their own efforts. However, in natural science, a "theory" is actually a broad, well-reasoned, and extensively verified system of ideas. Countless scientists spend their entire lives studying the theory of evolution, either directly or indirectly. There is such a wealth of material available that it is truly a stroke of luck that this specific field interests you. I would say you could spend a lifetime studying it and never grow bored, because there is always an infinite amount left to learn, and it remains consistently fascinating and worth the effort. Beyond that, you are essentially exploring the endless riches of both the living and non-living world—a place where so much remains undiscovered, where new things are constantly happening, and where you can make your own contribution if you dedicate yourself to it.

While you search for your path, the world keeps moving, and so does natural science. Your topic has even left a meaningful legacy; it has prompted many scientists to share their wisdom, and now those individual efforts have merged into a lively, engaging discussion. Let this encourage you to take that next step—into books, documentaries, museums, classrooms, and laboratories. Hurry and enrich yourself with knowledge, so that you too may participate!

There you go. Missing the point again. What on earth do specific observations in natural science—which is what my thread is actually about—have to do with the philosophical question of how one defines a scientific theory? Absolutely nothing. Science is about uncovering reality. That’s the whole point of science, and that's my stance: discovering how the actual world functions. A theory, on the other hand, is just a way people conceptualize things; it's an idea about certain aspects of the real world before they are scientifically discovered. Through the process of scientific observation, testing, and experimentation, we then determine if those ideas hold water. None of that has anything to do with how someone chooses to define a theory, how long they've studied it, or how popular it happens to be.

In that sense, your logic is just bizarre. You’re banning any comparison between a theory and reality simply because the theory is "popular" or because scientists have spent their "entire lives" working on evolutionary theory. Just as a reminder, the Inquisition once ran things for the Catholic Church, too.

But beyond being weird, your approach is flat-out wrong. Scientists don't actually "work on" the theory of evolution. It’s an a priori philosophical fiat. What scientists actually work on is the PROCESS of evolution: genetics, paleontology, geology... or evolutionary biology, which merely compares organisms based on a paradigm built upon that initial philosophical fiat. What this live experiment is doing is attempting to falsify that philosophical fiat. That fiat assumes the PROCESS of evolution is capable of producing the rapid functional changes seen in the fossil record discovered by paleontology. This assumption exists because that process is what our current senses and instruments can actually reach.

So, that philosophical fiat is like the idea that erosion could produce sculptures of attractive women. Obviously, such an IDEA is not the PROCESS (erosion). It isn't science dealing with erosion. When we attack that idea, we aren't denying erosion itself, nor are we attacking science. Similarly, the philosophical fiat in the form of evolutionary theory is not the PROCESS of evolution. It isn't geology. It isn't paleontology, etc. It’s just an idea. And that is what is being challenged. We are challenging an idea that doesn't align with revealed reality. The problem is that this idea has been embedded into science by aggressive, popular naturalism apologists as an unquestionable truth. Consequently, it makes it look like an attack on evolutionary theory is an attack on science itself. That’s why, in today's scientific community, criticizing evolutionary theory is impossible, making it the only theory that had to be protected from criticism through institutional repression. Sure, you *can* criticize it, but you'll end up being ostracized like a pariah.

So, everything you and your buddies are doing here on Reddit by trying to ostracize me is just an imitation of mainstream tactics. It's a desperate attempt to defend a scientifically falsified idea. You don't care about the truth, reality, debate, or arguments. You're just mimicking what you see and then rationalizing your behavior with empty philosophizing and personal insults—like this response of yours, which is a perfect example of how the opposition responds to my thread. A thread where I’m no longer even allowed to reply.

That’s why I don't expect anything from you. I'll just wait to see if this behavior aligns with Reddit's standards. If it does, no big deal; there are plenty of other online forums where free discussion actually happens.

Can someone from management finally tell me why I got banned from the natural science board for being labeled a "crackpot"? According to the dictionary, that basically means you're a lunatic or an idiot. All I was doing was sharing observations about the natural world and defending arguments built on actual facts. Can I at least see one example of a comment being called "crackpot"? Honestly, I can point to one right now from the very person who banned me. Here’s the comment and my response (at the top).

Since Frogger went silent after that—probably realizing his own suggestions were pure crackpotery—wasn't my ban actually just a result of his personal frustration?

Whatever the reason, there's clearly no basis for this action, so I'm requesting that the ban be lifted. Besides, once I was kicked out (the only one holding that position), the entire discussion just died. Isn't the whole point of a forum to have a debate?