They Have Eyes to See but Don't See

 "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.”

 

Charles Darwin made this assertion in his seminal work, On the Origin of Species, published in 1859.  Nearly 170 years later, advocates of Darwinian evolution continue to uphold this principle. However, they have yet to provide demonstrable evidence supporting the gradual evolution of species as described by Darwin. While academic discourse often attempts to address these gaps, no definitive proof has emerged to show a species evolving, for example, from a fish into another animal.

 

Darwin predicted that the fossil record would eventually validate his theory by revealing transitional forms between species. Despite the passage of time, the fossil record has not confirmed the gradual evolution of animal forms. Instead, one of the most striking examples—the Cambrian Explosion—suggests that major animal groups appeared abruptly, without obvious transitional forms. Click here for a short video on the Cambrian Explosion.  The Cambrian Explosion occurred approximately 539–541 million years ago.

 

Michel-Yves Bolloré, in a compelling article published in the May 2026 issue of the magazine First Things called “How Science Killed Materialism,” points out four devastating upheavals that damage Darwinian Evolution and the foundations of materialism:  1).  The Second Law of Thermodynamics, 2). The discovery of the expanding universe, 3). The fine tuning of the universe, 4.) The discovery of DNA.  Given all the evidence against Darwinian Evolution, most scientist fiercely resist it, as explained by Bolleré. 

 

Up until the late 1920s when it was discovered that the universe is expanding, in what became called the “red shift” scientists had always believed in a static universe that had no beginning.  When Albert Einstein came up with hisTheory of Relativity, he could not believe his own calculations. He was so stunned by what his calculations showed, namely that the universe had a beginning, that he came up with his “cosmological constant,” a fudge factor, a calculation that showed no beginning.  After Georges Lemaitres showed him his calculations that did show a beginning, Einstein finally accepted, what became known as the Big Bang and said his cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of his life. 

 

Einstein was not only a brilliant man but a reasonable man; when it was demonstrated that he was wrong, he admitted it and changed.  The same cannot be said of today’s Darwinian Evolution proponents.  I like the old saying “you can take a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.” 

Science and Darwinian Evolution

Darwinists often say that the Intelligent Design theory is not science. Really?  What is science?  Ask any scientist for a definition of science and watch him/her twist into a pretzel with a long, drawn-out definition.  The truth is that there is no standard definition of science.  Sure, if you look at a dictionary it will give you a broad general definition but it’s not definitive. It will say things like the pursuit of knowledge, understanding the natural world and the like.  But who is to judge if something is science or not science?  Is Intelligent Design not the pursuit of knowledge in the natural world?  Is the judgement that something is or is not science a scientific, metaphysical, or a philosophical issue?  Can someone who says Intelligent Design is not science prove his point scientifically?   J.P. Moreland, one of the finest philosophers of our day, in his book “Christianity and the Nature of Science” says this about a definition of science:

 

“There is no definition of science, not set of necessary and sufficient conditions for something to count as science, no such thing as the scientific method, that can be used to draw a line of demarcation between science and nonscience. Nothing about science essentially excludes philosophical or theological concepts from entering into its very fabric. Science is not an airtight compartment isolated from other fields of study, and there is nothing unscientific about “creation science.”

 

In general, we can agree that the scientific method is the process of establishing facts through testing and experimentation.  We could probably agree that anyone doing science will go where the evidence takes him/her.  Here is where we can go astray.  Do Darwinists go where the evidence leads?  Have they found evidence that documents their theory of evolution?  Darwin himself was quite honest about it and said that his theory had not been proven but it would with more research.  Have Darwinists met the standard of going where the evidence leads?  I don’t think so.  They claim that, in doing science, only methodological naturalism can be accepted. There is no room for dissenting views. Certain conclusions like design are not allowed. According to world renowned philosopher, Professor Alvin Plantinga of Notre Dame University methodological naturalism is:

 

 “The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as "scientific," it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or any sort of divine activity). The methods of science, it is claimed, "give us no purchase" on theological propositions--even if the latter are true--and theology therefore cannot influence scientific explanation or theory justification. Thus, science is said to be religiously neutral, if only because science and religion are, by their very natures, epistemically distinct. However, the actual practice and content of science challenge this claim. In many areas, science is anything but religiously neutral; moreover, the standard arguments for methodological naturalism suffer from various grave shortcomings” (arn.org).

 

The second objection that Darwinists have about the Intelligent Design theory is their claim that it’s religion.  What is religion and what is not and who says it is or is not?  How did they come up with that answer?  It’s just an ad hominem attack without basis or evidence.  You cannot win an argument by simply attacking the other side, you must have convincing evidence that your position has supporting evidence.  The fact that such people make such charges tells me that they have no answer.  If I want to prove to a person who claims that the earth is flat, I present evidence that it is round.  I do not attack him/her personally.

 

Intelligent Design, contrary to what its opponents say, does not claim that design points to God; they never refer to God.  What they’re saying is when they look at the universe, its fine tuning and its complexities, it’s better described as design by an intelligent agent rather than random chance as the Darwinist say.  The universe is so finely tuned that if it varied the width of a single strand of hair, life would not exist.  To understand the precision of the universe, watch this short video clip explaining it.  Click here.  Once you see this fine tuning you’re left with only one conclusion:  Designed by and intelligent agent is the best explanation. 

 

The most famous Darwinist of our day is the British evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins.  In his book, “The Blind Watchmaker,” he makes this statement about design: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Notice that he refers to design as an “appearance of design.”   Now, the first question I would ask Dr. Dawkins is how did you arrive at this conclusion?  Was your declaration of “appearance of design” derived from science or philosophy, and can you prove your conclusion scientifically?    See this short YouTube video where Dr. Stephen Meyer explains this:  Click here.  This, to me, is like looking at Mount Etna in Sicily for instance, and saying it only appears to be there, but it is not there; don’t believe your lying eyes.  This is bizarre thinking, and Darwinists fall in line with Dawkins and believe that design is only an appearance of it. They blindly follow the herd. Is this how science is supposed to be practiced?

 

In the “Blind Watchmaker,” Dawkins refers to William Paley, a British scientist who in the early 1800s made the argument for design by giving the example of stumbling upon a watch on the ground.  You look at it and easily conclude that an intelligent agent designed it. Similarly, if you’re driving down the I-405 Freeway in Los Angeles and you’re surrounded by cars, you can easily conclude that they were designed by and intelligent agent and could not possibly have been made by chance or random mutation.  It follows then that Dawkins would look at all those cars as an “appearance of design.” This type of thinking is not science but pure, unadulterated speculation without supporting evidence.

 

Tim Berra of Ohio State, a biologist and evolutionary scientist, compared the evolution of the 1950s Corvette to argue not for design but to the evolutionary process.  Darwin critic Phillip Johnson, in his book “Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds” calls this “Berra’s blunder.”  Johnson states it this way: “Of course, every one of those Corvettes was designed by engineers. The Corvette sequence — like the sequence of Beethoven’s symphonies to the opinions of the United States Supreme Court — does not illustrate naturalistic evolution at all. It illustrates how intelligent designers will typically achieve their purposes by adding variations to a basic design plan.”

 

In my neighborhood, I see signs that read: “Science is real,” love is love” “black lives matter,” and other such sayings.  But it all depends on what you mean by science.  A statement like science is real, may be true but just what kind of science are you referring to? It sure looks like it’s only science you agree with. 

The Problem With Darwinian Evolution

 You have to have faith to believe in Darwinian evolution.  Lots of faith.  What is their evidence for change over time?  Does the Fossil Record back them up?  Does science back them up? Do they allow other points of view?  Does the Second Law of Thermodynamics back their position of gain of function over time?

I am not a scientist.  I have been interested in this subject since reading the classic Darwin work, Origin of Species in my second year of college.  I was impressed by Darwin's work but I kept scratching my head as to how he can jump to the conclusions he did.  How did a minuscule increase or decrease in the Finch beak indicate a change in transitional animal forms?  How did the Fossil Record lead him to believe in change over time when he could not find such a record?  Since those early years I've read extensively on this subject.  I have yet to see proof that Darwinian evolution is true.  I agree that Darwin was a brilliant scientist.  Darwin was up front about his scientific views. He stated that he did not have proof of his theory; he believed that the Fossil Record would eventually prove him right.  163 years later, the Fossil Record is worse than at his time.  Darwin stated in the Origin of Species:  

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.”

To this day no transitional forms have been found.  His theory has broken down.  The Fossil Record as shown in the Cambrian explosion proves him wrong.  For years I had serious doubts about Darwinian Evolution, then one day I heard an interview with the author of Darwin on Trial, by Phillip E. Johnson.  Johnson verified every doubt I had.  Here is a short video of Johnson on the problem with Darwinian evolution.  Phillip Johnson died a few years ago.

Fossil Record:  The Cambrian Explosion shows all the animal forms appeared fully formed.  So, they have a hell of a time trying to use the Cambrian Explosion to prove their point.  Click here for a short video clip of Dr. Stephen Meyer on the Cambrian Explosion.  So, what do they use?  Lots of fancy double talk and no scientific proof, in my view. Cell biologist Jonathan Wells, in his book Icons of Evolution, list 12 Darwinian icons that Darwinists use to "prove" evolution, such as The Miller-Urey Experiment, Haeckel's Embryo's, Archaeopteryx, and Peppered Moths, all have proven to be either fakes or have been debunked.   I have a strong suspicion that what drives them is their fervent atheism, such as the well known British Darwinist, Richard Hawkins, a proud atheist.  In his popular book, The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins states:  "Darwin made it possible to be a fulfilled atheist." Don't know if this is true but I suspect that it has a lot to do with it.  Dawkins says that design is an illusion basically; it looks like design but it's not.  So, where is the beef?  He presents no evidence for his position; just an arbitrary assertion.  You just have to have faith in Dawkins.

Does science back up Darwinism?  I have yet to see it.  Again, you must have faith. 

Do they allow different points of view?  Just try to speak at any college about Intelligent Design or say anything that challenges Darwinian evolution and see what happens.  Or, try to teach Intelligent Design; you will be fired on the spot, as was Washington state High School teacher Roger DeHart.  DeHart was not trying to reach Intelligent Design, he just wanted his students to look at both sides of the issue. So what are they afraid of? The truth perhaps?

The Second Law of Thermodynamics.  Does the second law support Darwinian evolution?  No, it's the opposite.  According to this law, energy goes from order to disorder, or what is called entropy, not the other way around like the Darwinist believe.  Just look at a human being.  What happens over time? Are you in a better physical shape at 90 years old as you were at 18?

Biologist Michael Behe, in his classic work, Darwin's Black Box, talks about "irreducible complexity." Unless all the parts are there, the mouse trap does not work.  This is totally the opposite of what Darwin proposes.  So, I'm still waiting for the evidence of Darwinian evolution.  James Perloff, in his book, Tornado in a Junkyard, equates Darwinian evolution as having a 747 aircraft being assembled by a tornado in a junkyard.  

Darwinism and the Problem With the Fossil Record

I'm a Darwin skeptic, and it has nothing to do with religion, the Bible or creationism.  I say this because the Darwinists do not take too kindly to anyone who does not buy Darwinian evolution as being without question.  My skepticism is due to the fact that the theory has not been proven, despite what you hear from Darwinists.  My main point is that the fossil record does not have any proof of any transitional forms, required by Darwin's theory.  On social media, you should see the responses to any dissent; it is vicious.  Ad hominem attacks are the order of the day.  The Darwinist immediately go to their first strategy when answering a Darwin skeptic: you're a creationist or a Bible thumper.  This is a way of dismissing you without answering your argument.

I admire Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution.   I read his masterpiece, "On the Origin of Species;" twice.  First as a young college student and a second time over 30 years later.  Darwin was a great scientist.  He stated his theory and made it falsifiable.  According to Wikipedia falsifiability is: "refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is the inherent possibility that it can be proven false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates the statement in question."  Darwin specifically hung his theory on the fossil record.  He made this statement in The Origin of Species:  “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.”  Darwin believed that the fossil record eventually would prove his theory, once it was complete.  One hundred and fifty years later, the fossil record is no better than in 1859 when the Origin of Species was published.  Click here for a fine article by Casey Luskin on this problem.

Darwinists will tell you that there are transitional forms such as Archaeopteryx, wales and others.  None of these have any conclusive proof that such is the case. Here is another article in a science journal that denies that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form.   The data, on the contrary, lacks conclusive evidence of any transitional forms.  The Cambrian Explosion is one of the best case against transitional forms.  All the fossils appeared suddenly and complete species.  Most scientists admit that they have a problem with the fossil record.  Ask any Darwinist where the conclusive evidence is and they will circle the wagons.  There is no conclusive evidence, period.