Why We Can’t Trust Charles Darwin

Photo credit: atheism (Creative Commons)Why We Can’t Put Our Trust Darwin and His ‘Science’
(Notes drawn from the geneticist John C. Sanford)

1. Charles Darwin was primarily a philosopher not a scientist; his only formal study was in theology!

2. His ‘science’ was only a product of his time; philosophical naturalism was the cultural milieu in which he lived. This is what he propagated and then made popular. His ‘slow and gradual biology’ (gradualism) was only a parallel with the ‘slow and gradual geology’ that had become popular at the time.

3. He was not an experimentalist, more an adventurer for a short time (7 years in terms of the Beagle), but mostly an ‘armchair scientist’ developing theories (to be tested by others) from the comfort of his home.

4. He relied heavily on unbounded extrapolation – a practice scientists usually avoid. (This is the current dilemma for climate scientists.)

5. He used stories and proposed theories with some argument and defences, but has no scientific rigor or procedure, has no maths, no equations, no logical proofs or formal logic. Instead of the scientific process of a) ‘conception’ (speculation) then b) ‘hypothesis’ (for testing), c) experimental research (which is reproducible) and d) a concluding ‘thesis’ with defence arguments… you have in Darwin: speculation, story telling, use of supporting examples of nature (then extrapolating many of them) and then argument to defend his view. The core testing or research of a hypothesis is not done. This is left to others.

6. When looking at the (now vast and conclusive) fossil record, we find stasis (uniformity of life forms) not divergence or evolutionary change, and we find immutability of species over time. While small changes may be noted within a species (to preserve its life in differing circumstances) no big switches of species are on record in fossil form supporting evolution theory. The missing links are still missing! (Even with a billion fossils, 250 million documented.) Darwin himself knew this was his weak point (in 1857) but expected new fossil finds to prove his theories correct. They have not.

7. When looking at evolutionary ‘trees’ of biological phylogeny (the so called ‘tree of life’ in evolution theory – or modern cladagrams) we see that all lines are speculative, imaginative and arbitrary, suiting the categorising style of the speculating author, not a science based on evidence. (See New Scientist magazine 2009 – ‘Darwin Was Wrong’)

8. He lived before the biological revolution. Spontaneous generation as he espoused, stating in a letter to a friend that “in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc.. that a proteine (sic) compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes…” has no authority, validity or traction when placed up against what we now know concerning the complexity of even one single cell.

9. His ideas of ‘natural selection’ should really be called ‘differencial reproduction’, because to ‘select’ is a verb, implying an intelligent selector (and not the metaphorical idea of a ‘mother nature’) which Darwin rejects. Microevolution within a species is fine and explains in a small way certain variations and adaptations or fine tuning to preserve a species. But that is as far as you can go with Darwin’s theories! Differencial reproduction does not create new life forms it only preserves the current forms. (Note that current genetic research shows the devolution of the human species and a mutation form and rate that is slowly deleterious! Evolution in fact is going the wrong way!)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *