he modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory, has itself become an orthodoxy preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers, imperfect in scientific faith. (Marjorie Grene, Encounter, November 1959, p.48.)
As stated in our introduction, the theory of evolution has now been discredited in scientific circles. Since this theory first appeared, a large number of scientific findings have invalidated its claims one by one. The development of the electron microscope, new knowledge of genetic laws, the discovery of the structure of DNA, the revelation of the complexity of every living organism, and other modern advances have defeated Darwinism and will continue to oppose it. In other books by this author, you can read about the collapse of Darwinism in light of scientific facts and about the scientific proofs that have invalidated the theory of evolution.1
But despite the fact that science is developing so quickly and is continually introducing something new into our lives, certain scientists of an unenlightened, bigoted and conservative mind continue to defend theories developed in the 19th century, theories originally elaborated within a primitive scientific understanding, whose naiveté and superficiality would make a child laugh.
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
So what explains the fact that Darwinism is still so popular in some scientific circles? There is not even one concrete scientific proof in place; on the contrary, it is clearly evident that every living thing has been created according to a flawless design and that nothing has come into existence by chance, as the theory of evolution claims. How can it be, then, that many people, nonetheless, continue to be strong advocates of this theory?
The reason is this: the theory is more an expression of a certain mentality and belief than a scientific formulation. It is a mentality that does not view evolution as a mere theory whose validity can be investigated by scientific method, but sees it as a belief that must be vindicated at all costs. Because their faith cannot be substantiated by scientific facts, people with this mentality have a dogmatic bond with their theory which cannot in the least be influenced by the scientific proofs that refute it. No matter how cogent the evidence against evolution, evolutionists continue to ignore it and vigorously defend their faith.
For Darwinists, the theory of evolution is much more than a scientific proposition. When their theory becomes a matter for discussion, evolutionist scientists immediately lose their impartiality and scientific objectivity. They are so fiercely bound to their theory that most distinguished biologists "would rather lose their right hands than begin a sentence with the phrase, 'If the theory of evolution is true...'"2 They do not even want to consider that the theory of evolution might not be true.
When Darwin's theory was proposed, science and technology were on a very primitive level. Scientists of that period used very basic equipment, whereas computers and electron microscopes are used today. The development of equipment, from the microscope to other technical devices, began only in the 20th century. The results of scientific advances have nullified the claims made by Darwinism with its primitive level of scientific knowledge.
People are not accustomed to seeing this attitude among scientists. They generally imagine that scientific discourse is independent of the individual scientist's philosophical and ideological prejudices and that scientists are objective individuals whose facts are substantiated by concrete evidence and their truth proven by experiment. For this reason they seldom doubt the correctness of the theory of evolution.
This is a great error, however, because when evolutionist "scientists" are discussing the theory of evolution, scientific criteria are not brought to bear on the issue. These words of the eminent Darwinian, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, expose the position of "science" in the Darwinist outlook:
Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more. It is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow. This is what evolution is.3
As can be seen in the above quotation, the terms used by Darwinists when they speak of their theory give important clues about their dogmatic attitude and blind allegiance. Taking other examples, one of the leading evolutionists of the world, G.W. Harper, calls the theory of evolution a "metaphysical belief";4 the outstanding Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr calls it "man's world view today."5 Sir Julian Huxley, probably the most prominent evolutionist of the 20th century, saw evolution as "a universal and all-pervading process" and, in fact, nothing less than "the whole of reality."6 A leading evolutionary geneticist of the present day, writing an obituary for Theodosius Dobzhansky (who himself was probably one of the leading evolutionists at the time of his death in 1975), says that Dobzhansky's view of evolution followed that of de Chardin. Karl Popper, one of the world's leading philosophers of science, has stated that evolution is not a scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.7 Following these definitions, H.S. Lipson has reached the following conclusion:
In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to "bend" their observations to fit in with it.8
aaaaaaaaaaTheodosius DobzhanskyvvvvaKarl Popper aaaaaaaaaaaErnst Mayr
When the aforementioned authorities discuss Darwinism, it is interesting to note the words and expressions they use. They make no reference to any mathematically or scientifically proven evidence by experiment or observation to support their assertions. Instead, they offer strange descriptions, calling evolution "the whole of reality," "an all-pervading process," "a light which illuminates all facts."
No one makes such dogmatic assertions, metaphysical inter-pretations or exaggerated inferences with reference to, say, the law of gravity, the rotation of the globe, or laws of thermodynamics. These are scientific facts which are readily accepted, yet no one makes such excessive claims about Newton, Einstein or any other scientist. No one calls the law of gravity a "convincing belief," and no one says of the laws of thermodynamics, "I would rather lose my right hand than begin a sentence with the phrase 'If it is true...'"
However, the style of the evolutionists is quite different. By what these people say, they give the impression that they have sworn an oath to protect their religion under all circumstances. Therefore, they need not follow scientific method or employ scientific discourse. They make no reference to any experiment or finding but merely use words with metaphysical connotations. If the words are scrutinized, an interesting picture emerges: "evolutionary dogma!," "scientific faith!," "a convincing faith!," "man's world view today!," "method of dissemination!," "the whole of reality!," "a light which illuminates all facts!," "metaphysical belief!," "a metaphysical research program!," "an orbit that every system of thought must follow!"...
If evolutionary literature is examined further, one will encounter many more examples of the religious nature of this belief and see that it looks at every social and psychological phenomenon from the point of view of the theory of evolution. L.C. Birch, a biologist from the University of Sydney, and P.R. Ehrlich, a biologist from Stanford University, describe the evolutionary dogma this way:
Our theory of evolution has become... one which cannot be refuted by any possible observation. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus "outside of empirical science" but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.9
1. Particularly, The Evolution Deceit: The Scientific Collapse of Darwinism and Its Ideological Background, 8th updated edition, Taha Publishers, London, 2003 and Darwinism Refuted: How the Theory of Evolution Breaks Down in the Light of Modern Science, Goodword Books, New Delhi, 2003.
2. "Darwin's Death in South Kensington," Nature, February 26, 1981, vol. 289, p. 735.
3. Francisco Ayala, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution: Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1900-1975," Journal of Heredity, vol. 68, no. 3, 1977, p. 3.
4. G.W. Harper, "Alternatives to Evolutionism," School Science Review, vol. 51, Sept., 1979, p. 16.
5. Ernst Mayr, "Evolution," Scientific American, vol. 239, Sept., 1978, p. 47.
6. Julian Huxley, "Evolution and Genetics," Ch. 8 in What is Science?, pp. 272 and 278.
7. The Philosophy of Karl Popper, vol. 1, pp. 143 and 183.
8. The Long War Against God, p. 127.
9. L.C. Birch and P.R. Ehrlich, Nature, vol. 214, 1967, p. 369.