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.  

Believe or be Banned: The Intolerance of the Darwinists

Darwinian evolutionists have a stranglehold the science of evolution.  A skeptic of Darwinian evolution cannot exist in any public institution of higher learning, High School and beyond.  If a teacher ever says anything close to casting any doubt on Darwinian evolution he/she will be expelled forthwith.  The fine documentary film,  Expelled, documented this well.

Now, I thought that science meant to follow the evidence wherever it leads.  Apparently not, when it comes to anyone challenging evolution.  Why is the science establishment so afraid of anyone who doubts or wants to look into anything other than the party line?  Could it be that they're not so sure, or better yet, they don't have the evidence?

I've been a Darwin skeptic since my first Anthropology class in college.  After reading Darwin's classic  The Origin of Species,  I suspected then that Darwin had jumped the sharks after he claimed that the beak change in Finches could be a sign of one species turning into another.  Nothing of the kind has ever happened.  I believed then and I still believe now that Darwin was a great scientist.  I believe that The Origin of Species deserves to be an all time classic;  it is.  Darwin, was an honest scientist.  He clearly stated that if what he proposed in this book did not turn out to be true, such as the fossil record, his theory would break down.  The fossil record is no better now than it was in 1859 when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species.  Where are the transitional forms?  They have not come up with a single one yet; evolutionists  will circle the wagons and dazzle you with their vacuous scientific jargon.  I have a simple question:  Show me the transitional forms?

Darwinian evolution is more blind faith than science.  Their definition of science is all the evidence that "we" allow and if you present anything else you will be eliminated.  Back to the fossil record.  Ask any Darwinian about the Cambrian Explosion and see what he says.  The Cambrian Explosion is a devastating rebuttal to gradual incremental change.  All the fossils found there were all fully formed; no transitional forms; no gradual incremental change.  Click here to watch this YouTube video about the Cambrian Explosion.  I'm convinced that Darwinian evolution has been the biggest fraud committed on science in history. Darwinians are the Bernie Madoff of science.  A house built on sand.

Most Darwinists will tell you that most scientists support Darwinian evolution.  In fact this is not true.  Click here for a list of hundreds of top scientists who dissent from Darwin.  The Darwinists will answer with ad hominem attacks; they will call you every name in the book but cannot prove their theory.  One of their favorite ad hominem attack is to call you a "creationist" or a religious zealot.  No, show me the transitional forms.  If you cannot prove your theory, calling people names will not do it.

To Chase the Wind: In Search of Darwinian Evolution

The 1960 movie Inherit the Wind is used frequently by those who support Darwinian evolution to point to the supposed stupidity of not believing in evolution .   The movie made those who opposed evolution look like religious fools.  Nothing is further from the truth.  The movie had a designed bent in favor of evolutionist and it was a very biased point of view.  The truth behind this movie is beyond this piece so I will not spend any more time on it.

In my introductory piece, I mentioned that Charles Darwin was a good scientist who was intellectually honest.  Darwin makes this statement in "On 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 out no such case."   Here is the question: Do we have evidence today that answers Darwin's statement?  After 150 years the answer is no. Darwin's theory has broken down, as he predicted.

It was no accident that two years after the publication of On the Origin of Species, Darwin's followers came up with a missing link:  Archaeopteryx, the oldest bird.  For 150 years Darwinists have used this bird as the missing link.  As it turns out this bird was not the oldest bird and Darwinist now have been reluctantly forced to abandon it, but it was done quietly.  Wow!  The bird that you based your belief in Darwinism is now gone?  Click here for more information on this.  As it turns out, Archaeopteryx was not really a bird after all, but a dinosaur.

Another arrow into the heart of Darwinian evolution are the icons they've trotted out in the last 150 years.  Icons such as Piltdown Man, The Miller-Urey Experiment, Haeckel's Embryos,  Darwin's Finches, Peppered Moths and many others have proved to be false or not supported by the evidence.  Let's take Piltdown Man who was first introduced in 1912.  Piltdown Man was exposed to be a fraud.  According the the book, Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells, in 1953 scientists proved that Piltdown Man, though thousands of years old, belonged to a modern human, while the jaw fragments was more recent, and belongs to a modern orangutan.  Haeckel's embryos drawings have been proven to be fakes. In his popular book, Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells points out that scientists in the middle 1990s, in an interview with Science Magazine, concluded that: "It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology (p.92).  Yet these drawings still appear in modern biology textbooks.  The Miller-Urey experiment has now proven not to support what it proposed to support.  The Peppered Moths turned out to be planted on the trees and a complete fraud, as described by Wells's Icons of Evolution.

The biggest challenge to Darwinism though is the Cambrian Explosion, which is rarely mentioned in evolution books.  The Cambrian Explosion which happened about 500 million years ago shows the animal forms complete with no evolutionary connection at all.  Phillip E. Johnson, in his book Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds says this about the Cambrian Explosion:  "The basic animal groups appear suddenly and without evidence of evolutionary ancestors.  What is even more interesting is that the evidence for Darwinian's macroevolutinary transformations is most conspicuously absent just where the fossil evidence is most plentiful among marine invertebrates." A documentary was done a few years ago by Illustra Media called Darwin's Dilemma that beautifully describes in vivid dramatic detail why this is such a big issue challenging Darwinism.  The DVD is still available.  Click on the indicated hyperlink to see it on Amazon.com.


Obviously, this is a huge subject and many books have been written on these issues.  One important clue about why evolution, as described by neo-Darwinists, is not credible is how they react to anyone who does not follow their line:  They blow them away, literally.  No biology professor can survive if he/she remotely questions Darwinism.  As an example, click here to read about how the editor of a Smithsonian science magazine was fired for printing a peer reviewed and approved article by Stephen Meyer, PhD, favorable to Intelligent Design. No opposing views are tolerated.

Dr. Meyer later wrote a devastating rebuttal to Darwinian evolution in his best selling book, Signature in the cell. The Darwinian way is "our way or the highway."  This is science?  The 2008 movie "Expelled" dealt with this issue in detail.  The movie is still available on DVD.  Click here for a short trailer.  This is akin to the Muslim way of executing anyone who leaves Islam, as is the current case of a Christian Pastor in Iran who has been sentenced to death for converting to Christianity.  Anyone who questions Darwin is sentenced to a figurative death by the Taliban wing of science, the Darwinian evolution lobby.

Opponents of Intelligent Design (ID) will often tell you that it is not science.  They will usually link ID to creationism.  This is totally untrue and a way to avoid the issue instead of giving an answer.  Dr. Stephen Meyer, author of the popular book just mentioned earlier has a fine seven minute video on just this issue.  Click here to view it.

Why I Believe in Intelligent Design

When I was a young, green, college student at Compton College California in 1966, I took an Anthropology class; the teacher was Mr. Kay, I don't remember his first name.  In the class we were required to read the classic by Charles Darwin, On The Origin of Species.  After reading the book and the following class discussions, I was puzzled by Darwin's argument on the Galapagos Finches, which is a major reason he gave for his theory.  I found the argument unconvincing to say the least.  How can a slight increase or decrease (no more than one fifth of an inch) in the the size of a small bird's beak  be used to jump to the conclusion that this supports species changing from one to another, say, a fish to a bird or an aquatic animal to a land animal, and all you needed is time.  I found it to be quite a stretch.

In the late 1990s, I happened to hear a radio interview with Phillip Johnson, a law professor from the University of California at Berkley, who had written a book called Darwin on Trial .  When I heard Dr. Johnson speak it quickly ignited my interest in Darwinian evolution.  Johnson challenged Darwin's views using a courtroom method of challenging a premise to see if it could be true.  To date, I've read about 30 books on the subject and continue to be energized by it.  What puzzles me today is how Darwinism is taken as proven fact and how anyone who challenges their view is demonized and, in some cases, viciously attacked.   Why would anyone be annoyed, as Darwinists are, when they hear dissenting views?  This, to me, says that they are not at all comfortable with their evidence.  if they were, why would they be so exorcised by any dissent?  It is obvious to me that the Darwinian view is more faith than evidence, whereas, Intelligent Design is based on the preponderance of evidence as seen in the fine tuning of the universe. How people can say that the universe is the result of mindless chance is, again, beyond me.  Darwin's main claim was that, although his fossil record was incomplete, in time scientists would find the missing links.  One hundred and fifty years later there are still no missing links.

Now, I have great respect for Charles Darwin, and specifically his work The Origins of Species.  Darwin was a good scientist.  I believe that he followed the scientific method and was intellectually honest.  In this work, Darwin did point out the weakness of his theory but he believed that his theory would be justified once science found the missing pieces, specifically the missing fossils.  Darwin further stated this about his theory: "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 out no such case."   

I will develop this subject in future posts and will provide links and supporting documentation.  I hope you will return and read them and comment on them.