The views that Darwin advanced tell us nothing concrete about the origin of anything. And if science sheds no light on the problem of the origin of life, it cannot shed light on the origin of species, which depends on the origin of life. The irrelevance of the term “origin” in Darwin’s famous text is reflected in his recapitulation and concluding remarks. It is also noteworthy that the book’s index contains the terms “natural selection” and “varieties” but not “origin”.
Darwin’s overall deployment of the word “origin” is reminiscent of such usage by immigration or police officers in finding out people’s country of origin. Indeed, his use of the word is plagued with so much uncertainty that it is simply misleading. Little wonder, then, that physicist H.S. Lipson remarks:
Darwin’s book — The Origin of Species — I find quite unsatisfactory: it says nothing about the origin of species; it is written very tentatively, with a special chapter on “Difficulties on Theory”; and it includes a great deal of discussion on why evidence for natural selection does not exist in the fossil record. Darwin, I think, has been ill-served by the strength of his supporters.
An article that I published in Physics Bulletin (May 1980, p. 138) stating my views, has shown me that many people have doubts like my own.
It seems to me that, in our present state of knowledge, creation is the only answer — but not the crude creation envisaged in Genesis.
As a scientist, I am not happy with these ideas. But I find it distasteful for scientists to reject a theory because it does not fit in with their preconceived ideas.
Nobel laureate Arno Penzias contends that creation is supported by all the data so far. Lipson is write that Darwin “has been ill-served by the strength of his supporters.” It is in my view, therefore, that Darwin did not present a theory on either the origin of life or the origin of species. In his book Creations: facts of Life, ex evolutionist Gary Parker affirms this point: “In spite of the title of his book, The Origin of Species the one thing that Darwin never really dealt with was the origin of species.”
Science curricula can address topics such as the diversity of species without resorting to the word “origin,” which relates to the domains of philosophy and religion. In light of this point L. Harrison Matthews, in his introduction to a 1971 edition of The Origin of Species, writes:
In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct, or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus proved? … The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory–is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation–both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.
The doctrine of evolutionism profoundly influence students irrespective of their backgrounds. I first encountered evolutionist indoctrination during a conversation with my nephew when we met in Baltimore. I was then visiting from Canada. Raised as a Christian, I inquired about his religious beliefs. He confessed that he doubted the concept of a living God because evolution taught otherwise. Our conversation ended with my lesson on the giraffe’s neck. I promised him that I would do my homework and present my findings. When approximately ten years later I told him of my book entitled “The Death of Evolution”, he requested a copy and promised to follow up with a rebuttal.
Not long afterwards, I read an article about biological evolution and its alarming influence on students in Africa. Here Richard Dawkins is right in his argument that evolutionism leads to atheism. To ardent evolutionists anything is possible except God’s creation by fiat as recorded in the biblical text of Genesis.
Such evidence of evolutionary theory’s captivating power caused me to reflect on my own educational background. I do not remember ever having formally studied the subject. If evolution is about explaining things like the giraffe’s long neck, I acquired knowledge of this sort from stories told by illiterates. As children living in African village without electricity, at night we spread mats and gathered around kerosene lanterns. During these memorable sessions the adults told stories that explained how things came to be –for instance, how and why the tortoise assumed its present form, why some species are dumb while others are clever, and why some crawl on the ground. These stories often made sense by correlating with physical evidence. Therefore, when my nephew presented his views about the long neck of the giraffe, they fitted well with the folktales I had learned in my teens.
When it comes to the subject of human origins, these folktales are criticized as mythical. Small wonder, then, that most scientists denigrate the Genesis account of creation as utterly preposterous; even some theologians claim it as ancient mythology. Still, the explanations by which evolutionary scientists account for human origins, such as life’s springing from non-life, are even more mythical than the ones they seek to replace.
Creation and evolution are facts because they are natural processes. Creationism and evolutionism are beliefs based on these facts. Because they cannot be demonstrated or tested, they fall outside the purview of genuine science. Evolutionists mislead the public when they present their worldview as a fact. For instance, evolutionist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, while acknowledging that evolutionism is not pure science, maintained that evolution is a “movement” whose orbit transcends the natural sciences. The Darwinian Delusion contends that evolution is not a movement but that evolutionism as a religion is.
Darwinists mistakenly insist that evolutionism is a scientific fact. Delusion involves the denial of truth even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Science is not the only path to truth; we also rely on experience and common sense to arrive at truth. Darwin used common sense when he recognized that, if scientists could not find fossil evidence of numerous transitional stages leading from bacteria to human, his theory of evolution by natural selection would not be valid. Such irrefutable evidence has not been found because his theory is a myth, and to insist that it is valid today makes belief in Darwinism a delusion.
Because two organisms have similar material features, they should have a common ancestral progenitor. For Charles Darwin and his followers, this is sufficient reason to hypothesize bacteria-to-human evolution (macroevolution). However, both body (material) and mind (immaterial) characterize the development of living systems. When pictured from both of these perspectives, as opposed to only the material realm, would today’s scientific community reach the same conclusion? Those who adhere to good science would say no because science does not understand the immaterial realm, but those who cling to materialism would say yes because their espousal of pseudoscience overrides scientific principles and laws. Nobel laureate Ernst Chain thus perceives evolutionary arguments as “gross oversimplifications of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts. Creation or Evolution? looks beyond such simplistic and materialistic points of view. For instance, what would scientists deduce is the relationship between two organisms with (1) similar brains and minds, (2) similar brains but dissimilar minds, (3) dissimilar brains and similar minds, and (4) dissimilar brains but dissimilar minds? Within the limits of real science, the answer is that the relationship is indeterminate. However, to Darwinists, there is no distinction because it makes no difference whether humans evolved from chimpanzees or chimpanzees from humanlike ancestors. Darwinists thus will give the same answer to all possible combinations since the preconceived conclusion is that they all share a common ancestor. This simple illustration fulfills the three attributes that Darwinists L. C. Birch and P. R. Ehrlick assign to evolutionism: (1) every conceivable observation can be fitted into it; (2) it is outside empirical science; and (3) no one can think of ways in which to test it. Reaching the same conclusion for radically different events proves the inefficacy of evolution as a unifying theory in biology, unlike the atomic theory in chemistry and physics.
While science has limits, pseudoscience has none and hence plays to evolutionist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s assertion that evolution is a movement whose orbit transcends the natural sciences and has invaded a myriad of other disciplines.