How can Darwin be so wrong and still be right?


By Alan Winslow

Charles Darwin’s 162-year-old theory of evolution has failed to explain the miraculous history of life on Earth. Darwin’s theory is wrong. It is defective. It is deficient. It is faulty and flawed.

How can Darwin be so wrong?

There is scant fossil evidence of progressive stages of evolving animals in the world’s fossil beds. Instead, the fossil record manifests geologically sudden appearances of fully-formed animals in the fossil deposits around the world. This sudden appearance of fully-formed preserved fossilized animals rather than sequences of gradually evolving ones sorely conflicts with Darwin’s theory.

Beneficial gene mutations in offspring are the bread and butter of Darwin’s theory. Try now to imagine the staggering number of beneficial, coordinated mutations required to evolve from the proverbial original one-celled organism to, say, a hippopotamus. Regrettably, for Darwin, time studies of the frequency of beneficial, coordinated mutations reveal that these mutations require such vast amounts of time to arise that the Darwinian process is astronomically improbable. Such gene mutations are exponentially rarer than IU national championships.

Darwin’s evolution mechanism of mutation acted on by natural selection cannot generate the development of complex structures or systems such as wings or eyes or the blood-clotting mechanism. Such marvels are irreducibly complex and would require so many numerous simultaneously coordinated mutations that they are an engineering and statistical improbability for the Darwinian mutation-selection mechanism. Darwin versus biological complexity is like the difference between checkers and chess. Darwin’s mechanism plays checkers and real biological life plays three-dimensional chess (and that’s at its lowest level of complexity).

Changes in species, such as anti-biotic resistance, new dog varieties, bird beak changes, the development of the polar bear, etc., are not the result of the building of new genes or positive coordinated mutations, but rather the result of the breakdown of normal genes. Thus, Darwinian “evolution,” when chromosomes are actually studied, proves to be a devolutionary process. It’s actually a minor adaptive mechanism, not the prodigious process capable of creating all plant and animal varieties.

Darwinian theory cannot account for the formation of the DNA molecule and its genetic code (which actually provides instruction for protein assembly and much cellular operation). DNA literally proves to be an information-bearing molecule and a kind of nano-scale CAD-CAM! A random, unguided, aimless mutation process, which is Darwin’s description of his mechanism, simply cannot generate such an immense and intricate molecule. (For example, human DNA contains 3.5 billion systematically organized coding and cell-regulating molecular subunits.) Even Bill Gates, in one of his saner pronouncements, has said, “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

And, finally, both last and least:

A mid-century mind reveals further weakness in Darwin’s theory with this compelling question: “If evolution really works, how come mothers only have two hands?”

These fundamental challenges to Darwin’s momentous theory are drawn from several sources: reports from the 2016 conference of the British Royal Society (the world’s most prestigious science organization) titled “New Trends in Biological Evolution,” from science-based research of Michael Behe and Stephen C. Meyer, and from a critical assessment of Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory by Phillip Johnson. (And, lastly, credit the great and delightful TV humorist, Milton Berle, now gracing eternity.)

But, wait. Even an evolution sympathizer, the eminent paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, in 1980 (!) was quoted as saying that Neo-Darwinism (the modern-day type as it’s called) is “effectively dead, despite its persistence as ‘textbook orthodoxy.’”

So, how can Darwin be so wrong and still be right?

Because, right or wrong, Darwin’s theory of evolution and the biological sciences are not engaged, they are married. They are hitched, and in a “what-therefore-God-hath-joined-together-let-not-man-put-asunder” sense. And they have been for about a century. In the very bright minds of professional biologists, they are inseparable. For example, Theodosius Dobzhansky, a great evolutionary biologist, declared last century, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”

As St. Mark says, “…let not man put asunder.”

Today, sit in on any high school or college biology class and you will hear that evolution is a fact and a proven one, and a theory without any weaknesses. Read any approved college or high school text and you will realize evolution is one of biology’s central driving facts. Without its unifying role biology would just be “stamp-collecting,” said one steadfast Neo-Darwinist on a PBS telecast. (What is it now, upscale taxidermy?)

Thus, the need for Darwinian evolution to remain bound to biology is so great that science-based challenges are rejected, scorned, and dismissed without open debate. And, perhaps that’s understandable. After all, to have the foundations of your one true faith shaken after a century of certitude is no easy experience. It would be like sending Moses back up the mountain and telling him to get it right this time.

But, never fear, national advocacy organizations such as the National Center for Science Education (NCSE, look it up) and the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT, check it out, too) stand at the ready to defend Darwinian orthodoxy, and damn any evidence to the contrary. And they will assist any plaintiff who sues a local school board that seeks to have both strengths and weaknesses of evolution theory taught. (NCSE: there are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution.)

Amazing, a scientific theory requires an advocacy group! (Albert Einstein, call your office.)

Challenge it and you are threatening the most sacrosanct belief system in the life sciences and maybe all the sciences.

And, so, Darwin has to be right. He’s just got to be. Therefore: Darwin is right.

And for today’s benediction, we have Richard Dawkins, PhD, an emeritus professor of evolutionary biology at Oxford University:

“…Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

So, Darwin has to be right. He’s just got to be!

And thus, remains he. World without end,


No posts to display