“We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
– from A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
These words of wisdom are found in a document called “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism”, which has been signed to date by 400 scientists from various scientific disciplines. Since Darwin’s theory has been entrenched in the public arena, you would expect a controversy to arise when scientists disagree about its claims to explain life on Earth. A battle of Darwinian proportions is raging in the public arena, but not over the “evidence” for Darwinism. This battle is over whether Darwin’s theory should be challenged at all. It is a battle for survival.
This war is being waged against what we know to be ‘Intelligent Design’. For our world to have been purposely created demands the acknowledgment of an Intelligent Designer. The existence of a Creator is a fact that many people refuse to accept. These people would rather think of life, all life, as a series of successful accidents. And there are those within this camp that believe that Darwinian theory must never be challenged. If Darwinian theory does not survive the struggle, everyone would be faced with the unthinkable – the existence of the Creator.
In order to ensure the survival of Darwinian thought, a concerted effort has been mounted to protect it. After all, it is natural for individuals to question and look for alternatives when presented with a theory. In fact, careful examination of any theory is the heart of sound scientific investigation. But the proponents of Darwinism will not entertain examination of this theory. They have to ensure that future generations will be indoctrinated into the Darwinian worldview. Darwin’s theory must be marketed to the public as fact-based and scientifically sound, and above scrutiny and debate. Challengers to Darwinism must have any shred of credibility stripped from them. They must be labeled as crazies, or worse – religious nuts. This is the survival of the fittest.
“A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism” identifies some of the groups that are actively protecting Darwinism. “Public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin’s theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured, most recently by spokespersons for PBS’s Evolution series, that ‘all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution’ as does ‘virtually every reputable scientist in the world.’ The following scientists dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second.” Four hundred names of scientists appear in dissent to those claims. Broadcast media and educational policy-makers have done their work in marketing Darwin’s theory to the public, and especially to children. Most adults today first learned of Darwin’s theory in schools across America. Most students today are still learning about it.
Consider Darwin’s theory – that all life is the result of random mutations and natural selection. The origin of life is reduced to a freakish tale that begins with life generating spontaneously out of non-living matter. Despite the fact that spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved centuries ago, this foundational principle must be accepted by faith in order to continue down the Darwinian path.
Our single-celled, simplistic organism survived in its questionable environment and went on to multiply and mutate randomly into more and more complex organisms that were naturally selected by a process called “the survival of the fittest”. We were taught that this process would have wiped out any misfit mutants that appeared. If the Earth was ever home to a three-eyed flying creature that quacked like a duck, we will never know it. That is because this creature does not exist today and there are no fossil records of its existence. In fact, there are no fossil records of any misfit mutants. There is no evidence of their existence at all. So we are forced to accept by faith the existence of all misfit mutants.
It is also true that there is no evidence of crossover mutants (missing links) either. There are no fossil records of part-amoeba, part-algae creatures or part-grass, part-centipede creatures or part-reptile, part-bird creatures, etc. There are also no fossil records of such crossover mutants within classes such as cat – dogs (mammals), butterfly-ants (insects), or turtle-snakes (reptiles). Despite the attempts of several hoaxters to the contrary, there was no Neanderthal ape-man. None of those creatures exist today. There is no evidence of their existence at all. To say that they existed, without any evidence, amounts to an act of faith.
The fossil records we do have indicate a very different story. Creatures in existence today are proof of this story. Although creatures may adapt to their environment in order to survive, a moth still stays a moth, a tree still stays a tree, and a man stays a man. There is no evidence to the contrary. To reject those facts and embrace Darwinism requires a giant leap of faith.
At the heart of Darwinism is atheism, or the denial of the existence of God. When humans did not understand that we live on a globe, they believed that the world was flat. When humans did not understand the structure of the solar system, they believed that it was earth-centered, not sun-centered. When humans do not understand God, they believe he does not exist. The danger of Darwinism is in how it is being marketed to the public, especially to the young and very young student. All attempts to stop the theory of Intelligent Design from being considered by students have been based upon the refusal to acknowledge a Creator. Opponents of Intelligent Design object to it because they say it is religious in nature and has no business in the public arena.
Almost a decade ago, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals made a landmark ruling involving the censorship of religious expression in schools. “‘Cleansing’ our public schools of all religious expression, however, inevitably results in the ‘establishment’ of disbelief–atheism–as the State’s religion. Since the Constitution requires neutrality, it cannot be the case that government may prefer disbelief over religion.”
The court made it clear that atheism is a belief system and therefore a religion. By denying the Theory of Intelligent Design equal access into public classrooms, school systems are establishing the religion of atheism in those same classrooms. Students are being taught to embrace atheism through Darwinism. Moreover, Darwin’s theory is far from being scientifically sound or factually true.
There is an old saying that sums up the truth of Darwin’s theory. If a princess kisses a frog and the frog turns into a prince, that’s a fairy tale. If the transformation takes thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of years, that’s evolution.
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism rightly ends with the following words,
“There is scientific dissent to Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.”
