Darwinism in the Dock:
Assessing Its Mortal Wounds

By Billy C. Sichone

Introduction

That evolution has crumbled under the weight of its faulty theories is an idea that has been under great dispute. Pundits from either side of the argument have raised issues to support or demolish the purported fact of Evolution. While pundits confidently assert that evolution is alive and well, beyond a mere theory claim, the contra side equally asserts that evolution, in its original form and premise, is grossly weak; worth trashing. They (i.e. the latter group) further claim that Creationism makes better sense, given the objective scientific evidence that has been forth coming over the years, admissions by some experts and damning facts that have been coming to the fore, despite desperate attempts by evolutionalists to the conceal truth. This paper aims at highlighting some key aspects that need considering if a sound argument is to be sustained either side of the coin. To make our argument intelligible, we shall state what Creationism and Evolution are or stand for. We shall further seek to answer the question whether Evolution qualifies to be treated as science in the truest sense of the word.

Creationism defined and described

Creationism is a view supported or held by people that claim the world was created by a supreme intelligent being with a purpose and design. Creationism asserts that this deity created the world ex-nihilo, without any pre-existing material in a space of six literal 24 hour days. On the seventh day, this being had perfectly created all things in a mature and complete state then He rested (Genesis 2:3). The human being was the final, epitome and prime of His creation, giving him dominion over all creation, to work and manage it to the glory of this being called Elohim. Creationism therefore posits that all that exists appeared from the invisible and eventually begun to develop, not in the sense of macro-evolving into something else but replicating itself in its respective classes using natural selection or micro evolution rather than macro evolution. Thus, what is seen today did not evolve by some magical happy accident in the distant remote past billions of years ago but rather were created complete and unchanging for as long as creation has been. The Bible, in the book of Genesis states that in the beginning (Genesis 1:1;John 1:1; I John 1:1-3: Colossians 1:16), whenever that beginning was, Elohim created everything. At the end of that first Chapter, Elohim takes a panoramic evaluation of what He had created and declares that it was very good (Genesis 1:31). Thus, Elohim now enters the mode of preserving and sustaining all He had created. From this scenario, we see that all is well and beautifully working according to design but then something tragic happens in chapter 3 leading to the fall and thus corrupting of all that has been hitherto created by YHWH. As wickedness increases, YHWH determines to destroy the entire creation by a global flood of cataclysmic proportions. Apart from the animals that are preserved in pairs with the ark, all living things perish and are subsequently buried. This presupposes a sudden death and burial of species, whether trees or animals, in a mixed type of strata, unlike a uniformitarian gradual orderly sense where dead species are buried in sedimentary layers thus offering some form of age or epochs of time when they died and thus buried over. Creationists also hold that evidence of divine order, design and purpose are written all over the created world, all pointing to the creator called YHWH, Adonai or Elohim, the three commonly used names attributed to God in the Bible.

Darwinian Evolution defined and described

Darwinism on the other hand is the alternative view posited by Charles Darwin in 1859 in his monumental book, the Origin of Species: evolution by natural selection that hit the book shelves by storm effectively turning tables. This view has literary taken over all the institutions of learning and is perceived the preferred view on origins as opposed to creationism. Charles Darwin was born of relatively good stock in The UK and for a moment studied medicine before abandoning it to study theology. He however did not find theological studies equally appealing despite completing the studies and headed out on a five year boat expedition on the Beagle around the world. It was during that trip that Darwin claims to have received some insight into the Evolution idea, collecting fossils and remains of species around the world before settling to write his legendary book mentioned earlier. Sensing that others would beat him to the idea, Darwin speedily co-wrote a paper (with Wallace) to a journal and later his book that immediately shot him to fame because his work came at just the right time when the waiting world needed an alternative theory to that held by theists. Darwin claimed originality in all he wrote and was the leading champion of those that had lost all religious faith to embrace another type of faith resting on evolutionary process of origins. That others had written about or suggested evolution before Darwin is evident but what Charles did was to collate all these ideas, packaging them into one cohesively integrated potent argument, despite minor difficulties or challenges with his theory such as the lack of fossils to effectively demonstrate the gradual evolution of species from simple to more sophisticated organisms. Charles Darwin opened the door of what is known as "evolution" as opposed to the creationist perspective. Like wild fire, this theory has affected about everything in the world today and is the leading default theory defining what the world is about and how things got to what or where they are. Although Darwinism has been heralded as the ultimate solution to the issue of origins, it does not exactly deal with the origins but the process of how they got where they presently are and most likely still mutating to something else. We next investigate what Darwinian evolution actually stands for.

The claims of Darwinian Evolution

Darwinian evolution claims that the world was never created by God but merely evolved into what we now see (Sunderland 1988). This evolution took place via a mechanism called natural selection where the fitter species survived and outlived the weaker ones. Further, Darwinism posits that over long periods of time, micro evolution led to macroevolutions of entire populations that adapted and changed into something else in the quest to survive. This view then assumes that there could be fossil records that can and would subsequently be discovered to cover up the apparent fossil gap leading to the evolution of man and other life forms. Not only does Darwinism claim to replace creationism, it claims to be reasonable, scientific, testable and a fact rather than a mere theory as some have attempted to discredit it. Countless fossils and evidences have been tested and brought to the fore apparently proving that Evolution is true. A mere look at the embryology of species (cell development) points to similarities, homologies and adaptations of species, so pundits argue. Consider the Bat and human hands, does that not strike a similarity pointing to species having evolved and adapted over time? Moreover, these adaptations point to mutations and a common ancestry of all species. These and many other arguments have been adduced to prove that evolution is truly scientific and has been proved to be so, pundits claim.

Is Darwinian evolution 'scientific' in nature?

As hinted at above, Darwinism claims to be scientific in every sense because it can and has been tested given the evidence resident in the fossil record thus far found. As more and more discoveries of fossils are made around the world, Darwinism emphatically claims to be true. Secondly, pundits aim that the fact that there is a search of knowledge, with more light coming to the fore and thus adapted, Evolution can be classified as a science, unlike Creationism that is static claiming to have found all the truth that there is or could be. Furthermore, Darwinism has been around for scrutiny for over 150 years and seems to make better sense hence its wide acceptance and enabling to the world to delve into hitherto restricted areas when theism reigned supreme. Although some claim that Evolution is just a mere theory, never proved, evolutionists claim that evolution has repeatedly been tested and found true. They claim that the meaning of the terms "theory" and "law" have been grossly misunderstood or misinterpreted by theists. According to Darwinism and some leading scientific philosophers, a theory is an attempted explanation of what is happening or what could be causing some thing to happen while a law is an established fact that has repeatedly been found true. Darwinists further claim that a theory remains a theory and never graduates into a law once proved as alleged by other pundits. Although there are some problems here and there, according to supporters, evolution is a far superior argument for origins compared to Creationism or other alternative theories that can scarcely stand any scrutiny that Evolution has.

Nature of True Science

According to famous and leading Scientific Philosopher, German Born Karl Popper, true science is premised on experimentation, empirical evidence and repeated standard testing. If anything cannot be tested in that sense of the word, then it cannot qualify to be a scientific theory or law. Thus, faith statements without proof cannot qualify to be scientific as much as those theories make assertions hoping to be proved at some future time as information become available. In its intrinsic meaning and sense, Science carries the connotation of knowledge or the quest for this self-same knowledge. Popper's definition has huge implications for whatever claims to be scientific in nature and purpose.

Why Darwinian Evolution is Increasingly in Trouble

Darwinian evolution, on the face of it appears attractive and a potent alternative view of origins until several points are raised. Below are some of the weaknesses that have caused some people, even once ardently potent supporters, to abandon it or at least doubt its potency:

1. Darwinism is premised on several assumptions, which amount to faith presuppositions. It needs a huge amount of time for it to be credible.

2. Darwinism has been around over 150 years but has never been conclusively proved. The fossil record proving gradual evolution remains far from being completed. Some potent scientists such as Dr Gould have come out in the open that no such record is available or possible.

3. Darwinism cannot stand once some hidden evidence is made public. We here refer to the discredited view of embryological recapitulation, biochemical findings pointing in opposite direction, homologies assumptions, contradictions to science laws and a whole host of other evidences that effectively refute evolution.

4. Macroevolution cannot be proven though micro may be because mutations are always taking place despite species remaining the same.

5. Common ancestry of species has not been proved. Instead, DNA, Amino acid sequences, homologies etc. point in the opposite direction.

6. Some people in the scientific community depend on Evolution lies to survive and earn a living. If the truth were to come out, the price is too high to pay. So they would rather conceal and promote wrong assertions.

7. Darwinism contradicts some of the fundamental laws of science such as the first and second laws of thermodynamics-entropy etc.

8. Some assertions and claims of Darwinism are subjective and found false by scientific findings.

What Others have Said or Written about Evolutions' Problems

Many have written on the subject matter here under consideration. An increasing number of scientists are boldly coming out to expose evolution as a failed theory, project needing countless amendments to keep it alive. Many more remain timid and dare not publish what they truly think because they must sing the same chorus and from the same hymn book with the rest of the evolutionary crowds they mingle with. Among those scientists that have openly come out to expose the weaknesses and fallacies inherent within Darwinism is Dr Luther Sunderland whose book "Darwin's enigma" is a must read by every person worth their salt and wanting an objective exposure of the lies inherent in evolution. Dr Sunderland has done a great service to the world by pointing out that evolution is inherently weak, a mass of confusions and contradiction that people have been holding on to for egocentric reasons. He further points out that Darwinian evolution is premised on some faith presupposition and thus religious in nature. Dr Duane Gish is yet another creationist giant that has waged potent campaigns proving that evolution is not science but a religion of sorts. The reader is encouraged to peer through Dr George Price's work—The Predicament of Evolution. This work has further exposed the frailties and inconsistencies of Evolution, though some of the fine works are dated needing review, they give a deep kernel of truth for the learner. Amending the works to include current bugging issues would be great. Some Scientists, though avowed evolutionists, have come out dismantling Darwinian evolution as being wrong and unsustainable. Dr Gould, Bateson and others have openly stated that Darwinian Theory is unscientific and needed to be either discarded or seriously amended to reflect new light that has come to the fore. They suggest many avenues that include the hopeful monster theory (by Dr Goldschmidt, Norman Macberth; Darwin retried, 1971), punctuated equilibria (Dr Eldredge & Gould). These people think that Darwinism is inadequate and must be replaced because it its present state, it was not only embarrassing the scientific community but was untrue. Though their views are equally somewhat faith based, they claim to be more reasonable and could sort out the fossil record problem. Graduationism should be debugged in preference for punctuated sudden stage development of species or some such sensible development. Whichever way evolutionists look at it, there is an element of the miraculous somewhere, which they embarrassingly try to elude.

Lessons Gleaned from the Evolution Dilemma

The study of Darwinian evolution brings a number of interesting points to the fore. Some are well known but others discovered as the readers plough through works on the subject. Below are some of the views one would reasonably pick up as take home lessons:

1. Darwinism is a theory that has been around for over 150 years. It has had fluctuating fortunes over that time period.

2. Darwinism survives on a number of assumptions. The prime ones include lots of time, common ancestry, natural selection and gradual evolution of species.

3. Not all evolutionalists hold the same views on Darwinism. Dr Gould, Edredge and others have held different views of evolution claiming that Evolution took place in stages, dramatic stages and then stabilised. These are faith miraculous steps of sorts for sure.

4. Evolution is not science because of its essential nature and lacking full evidence-fossil record gap.

5. Macroevolution does not exist as claimed by the evolutionist. Micro however, does.

6. Students ought to be introduced to competing theories of origins, not exclusively to evolution as is presently the case in some contexts.

7. Dr. Carl Sagan was a champion for evolutionary extra-terrestrial life-SETI. He died without realising his dream but was confident that future generations would complete his mission communicating with extra-terrestrial life. This is yet to happen.

8. Evolution as a theory keeps rapidly changing; this is not good for a scientific theory. Some stability is essential.

9. New laws are needed to explain the origin of life since evolution has lamentably failed.

10. The fossil record to this date does not present evidence for gradual evolution as claimed by Darwin.

11. Darwin was aware of the limitations of his theory-especially the lack of the complete fossil record.

12. New theories on origins have emerged since Darwin including those by the following: Dr Richard B Goldschmidt (hopeful monster theory); Dr Niles Eldredge; Dr Stephen J Gould (punctuated equilibria) etc.

13. Others have acknowledged limitations of Darwinism or express desire for new theories. These include: Dr. David Pilbeam, Dr Donald Fisher, and Dr David Raup, Dr Colin Patterson-British Museum of Natural History among others. Others such as Isaac Asimov and Gould suggested a debate with creationists was not the wise thing given the creationist's high success rate.

14. Evolutionary concepts did not originate with Charles Darwin but from a long list of advocates. Darwin, in his quest for fame, did not acknowledge this fact, not even giving credit to his own grandfather-Erasmus Darwin! Here are some people that passed down their views to subsequent generations:

A. Plato

B. Aristotle

C. Erasmus Darwin

15. Interpretation of data is influenced by ones' hind bias, grids or world view. There is no neutrality as objectivity is lost.

16. There is a cartel of Darwinists that will do any and everything to religiously defend Darwinism come what may. Even in the face of new damning evidence, they will do whatever it takes to defend their turf since their survival depends on it.

17. Evolutionists are not agreed on every point. In some instances, they are clearly at daggers' drawn against each other.

18. Some scientists insist that modifications to a theory are acceptable and thus, evolution survives.

19. Evolution fails to pass the test of a science theory, as earlier hinted at.

20. A theory must be testable, capable of falsification through verification using the scientific method- depending on whether it is a hard, exact science or not.

21. Once at the British Natural Museum, it was declared that evolution was a faith based theory much like creation.

22. After declaring Evolution as unscientific, many scientists like Karl Popper back tracked on their assertion(s). This is tragically sad, a shame really! Authentic giants stand their ground, so we think.

23. Several honest scientists acknowledge that evolution is not truly scientific a model.

24. There is a contention in some circles that creation makes more sense and should be admitted as an alternative model, fit to be taught in learning institutions.

25. Some secrets are never let out to the world-including the true nature of evolution.

26. Two contending views that demand a verdict: Did organisms just appear complete or evolve gradually over time?

27. Natural selection is real and takes place in ordinary life BUT evolution or macroevolution leading to entire organisms changing into something else does not.

28. Did species have a common ancestor or not? Evolution claims it is so while creation rejects the notion.

29. Embryological recapitulation proved false (by 1921) but still taught in schools.

30. Biochemical tests have pointed in the opposite direction of evolution-amino acid sequences but people still cling to evolution claiming that some information is yet to be discovered to explain the variance(s).

31. Homologies (comparisons from what we see in physical appearance of organisms) do not hold, they are false although admittedly make look the same from the outside.

32. The scientific world allows false views that appear to support their cause e.g. embryological recapitulation.

33. There are cartels akin to times past that religiously protect evolution.

34. Some prominent scientists have questioned evolution views such as gradualism.

35. Some hold equated equilibria, a stage by stage form of evolution. Sudden or gradual evolution is the issue at hand.

36. Creationists hold sudden appearance of complete mature created beings/things.

37. Evolution, as earlier asserted, is religious in nature and never been proved.

Recommended reading

The book by Dr Sunderland was an excellent piece of work as the primary reference material. Evidently, a lot of work went into it as well as research. Many insights presented in the book are completely new to many first time readers on evolution. Having read the book, I went away convinced that evolution is a faith based argument without sufficient scientific proof. In it's original or current form, evolution will continue to depend on religious support and protection from it's ardent adherents. That said, Evolution must be exposed for what it is. I would propose that further propose that readers consult additional resources in order to consolidate their views. A reading of Dr M G. Price will do one much good, although new issues keep coming up. That's fine, just keep updating your mental server! Moreover, Reference to current materials such as Journals, books among others would be good.

Conclusion

From what has been observed and adduced, we can safely conclude that Darwinian Evolution is not scientific in nature but metaphysical and religious in nature. True science as demonstrated by Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn and affirmed by the British Museum of Natural History, is premised on repeated experimentation, which test, evolution flunks, on all accounts. The claims to the contrary are unfounded and weak. Creationism makes a better case of origins.

References

Kuhn T.(1986). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, The University of Chicago Press.

Morris H.M. & Whitcomb J. (1961). The Genesis Flood

Popper K.(2002). The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Batam.

Price .M. G.(1925). The Predicament of evolution, Southern Publishing Association.

Schaeffer F. (1970). Genesis: In time and Space, Intervarsity Press.

Sunderland L.D. (1988). Darwin's Enigma: Ebbing the tide of Naturalism

Whitcomb, J. (1972). The Early Earth,