The Sunset of Darwinism

By Julio Loredo   
February 12, 2009

Praised until recently as dogma, Darwin’s theory of evolution is now fading away, discredited by the same science that bore its poisoned fruit. Instead, the Christian vision of a supernatural design is being increasingly affirmed.

“Evolution is now a datum proven beyond any reasonable doubt and no longer a theory, it’s not even worth taking the trouble to discuss it.” This is what a spokesman proclaimed at the Festival of Science held in Genoa in November 2005, thereby neglecting a very important aspect of modern science—the need to be open to new perspectives. Instead, the truth is quite the opposite. Paradoxically, evolutionists are taking an ever greater distance from empirical science and are wrapping themselves up in a dogmatism that borders on ideological fanaticism.


Unprovable Hypothesis

“What is left, then, in evolutionism, that is valid according to the scientific method? Nothing, actually nothing!” This is the conclusion of journalist Marco Respinti in his recent book Processo a Darwin (Darwin on Trial, Piemme, 2007). He continues: "Not one of his postulates can be verified or certified based on the method proper to the physical sciences. His whole claim escapes verification. Based on what, therefore, other than on strong prejudices of an ideological nature, can anyone affirm or continue to affirm that the evolutionist hypothesis is true?"

Indeed, the consistency of a scientific theory is founded on its capacity to be verified empirically, be it through observation of the phenomenon in nature or by reproducing it in the laboratory. The evolutionist hypothesis fails on both counts. “Thus,” Respinti shows, “Darwinism remains simply an hypothesis devoid of empirical or demonstrable foundation, besides being unproven. . . . The evolutionist hypothesis is completely unfounded for it does not master the very domain in which it launches its challenge.”

Respinti reaches this “verdict” after a rigorous “trial of Darwin” in which he analyzes the main arguments that debunk the notorious theory, ranging from nonexistent fossil records to the conflict of Darwinism with genetic science and the flimsiness of the “synthetic theory” of neo-Darwinism, without forgetting the countless frauds that have stained notable evolutionists in their insane quest to fabricate the “proofs” that science tenaciously denied them.

Respinti concludes by denouncing the ideological drift of the evolutionist school: “To categorically affirm the absolute validity of the theories of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolution based on the claim that discussing them would be unscientific by definition, is the worst proof that human reason can give of itself.”

A Long Sunset

The sunset of the Darwinist hypothesis has picked up speed over the last two decades. For example, consider the work carried out by the Osaka Group for the Study of Dynamic Structures, founded in 1987, in the wake of an international interdisciplinary meeting convened “to present and discuss some opinions opposed to the dominant neo-Darwinist paradigm.” Scientists from all over the world participated, including the outstanding geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, then a professor at the University of Perugia, Italy. In 1980, together with Roberto Fondi, now a professor at the University of Siena, Sermonti wrote Dopo Darwin—Critica all’evoluzionismo (After Darwin—A Critique of Evolutionism, Rusconi, 1980). “Biology,” Sermonti explains, “has no proof at all of the spontaneous origin of life, or rather biology has proved its impossibility. There is no such thing as a gradation of life from elementary to complex. From a bacterium to a butterfly to man the biochemical complexity is substantially the same.”

For his part, Fondi shows that from the first appearance of fossils to this day, the variety and riches of living beings have not increased. New groups have replaced older ones, but the intermediate forms that the evolutionists have so frantically searched for do not exist. “The theory of evolution,” Sermonti and Fondi conclude, “has been contradicted as have few other scientific theories in the past.”

In Le forme della vita (The Forms of Life, Armando, 1981), Sermonti unveils other obstacles to Darwinism. According to the renowned geneticist, the “random” origin of life and the gradual transformation of the species through “selective change” are no longer sustainable because the most elementary life is incredibly complex and because it is now proven that replacement of living groups takes place “by leaps” rather than “by degrees.”

Putting together forty years of experience, in 1999 he wrote Dimenticare Darwin—Ombre sull’evoluzione (Forgetting Darwin—Shadows on Evolution, Rusconi, 1999). With rigorous argumentation, the author demolishes the three pillars of Darwinism: natural selection, sexual mixing and genetic “change.” According to him, history will remember the theory of evolution as the “Big Joke.”

Not Just Creationists

Sermonti has been often accused of being a “creationist” or a “religious fundamentalist” even though he has always said he does not fit his scientific vision into a Christian perspective, and this yet one more aspect to note in the polemic against Darwinism, which many people other than Christians also contest it.

In this sense, it is interesting to note the recent editorial in Il Cerchio, “Seppellire Darwin? Dalla critica del darwinismo agli albori d’una scienza nuova,” ("Bury Darwin? From a Critique of Darwinism to the Dawn of a New Science") containing essays by seven specialists including Sermonti, Fondi and Giovanni Monastra, director of Italy’s National Institute for Food and Nutrition Research. The title refers to the famous phrase by Chandra Wickramasinghe, a professor of applied mathematics of the University College of Cardiff, “The probability that life was formed from inanimate matter is equal to 1 followed by 40,000 zeros . . . . It is large enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution.”

From Dimenticare Darwin—Ombre sull’evoluzione’s introduction: For the first time in Italy, a critique of Darwinism is presented in all its complexity thanks to the interdisciplinary contribution of scholars of several orientations—[b]eyond the polemic between neo-Darwinian fundamentalists and religious integralists, the essay demonstrates how the critique of the now old neo-Darwinist paradigm opens the doors to a new science.

A Crisis of the Positivist Paradigm

Francis Crick, who together with Watson discovered the structure of DNA, openly declared, “An honest man, armed only with the knowledge available to us, could affirm only that, in a certain sense, the origin of life at the moment appears to be rather a miracle,” In the same wavelength, Harold Hurey, a disciple of Stanley Miller who made history with his failed attempt to recreate life in the laboratory from a so-called primordial broth, said, “All of us who studied the origins of life uphold that the more we get into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved in any way.” Indeed, a lot of faith is required to believe in evolutionism, and it is precisely that faith, of a clearly positivistPositivism is the philosophical system created by August Comte (1798–1857), which only accepts the truths that we can reach by direct observation or by experimentation. Thus it denies classical philosophy, theology and all supernatural religion. mold, that is now beginning to weaken.

In Darwinismo: le ragioni di una crisi (Darwinism: The Reasons of a Crisis), Gianluca Marletta sticks his finger in the wound by observing that “The crisis of Darwinism is above all a crisis of the philosophical paradigms that allowed its success.”

“One cannot understand the origin of this doctrine,” Marletta explains, “without going back to the cultural climate of ‘triumphant positivism’ straddling the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.” According to Marletta, Darwinism constituted a wonderful occasion to strengthen the positivistic view of the world being affirmed at that time. Darwinism represented the perfect tool to transplant, into the biological field, the mechanic and materialist paradigms already imposed on the social sciences. This is the true motive of this theory’s success. A motive that now begins to subside with the crisis of the positivist paradigm. This explains the almost fanatical tenacity with which evolutionists are defending their convictions. “Many fear,” concludes Marletta, “that the fall of Darwinism can bring down with it the whole positivist vision of the world.”

God’s Comeback

The crumbling of positivism is bringing back to the limelight issues that a certain conventional wisdom thought to have definitively eliminated. Shaken from the sudden crumbling of old certainties, worried about the chaos that increasingly marks this postmodern age, many people are once again asking the fundamental questions: Does my life have a transcendental meaning? Is there an intelligent project in nature? In short, does God exist?

Sociologist Rosa Alberoni wrote about this in her book, Il Dio di Michelangelo e la barba di Darwin (The God of Michelangelo and Darwin’s Beard), published last November by Rizzoli with a preface by Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council Justice and Peace. The onslaught of “Darwin’s worshippers,” Alberoni explains, is carried out by the “usual destructive atheists obsessed with the goal of stamping out Christ and destroying the Judeo-Christian civilization after having sucked its blood and essence.” This sullen assault, however, in the deeply changed ambience of post-modernity, risks being counterproductive: The monkey myth is what really shook ordinary people. Like soldiers woken up by an alarm in the middle of the night, Christian believers and [O]rthodox Jews prepared for the defense. Or rather for the war, because that is what it has become . . . [o]n the symbolic level, the bone of contention is the ancestor of man: God or a monkey? Should one believe in God or in Darwin? This is the substantial nature of the ongoing clash in our civilization.

In other words, a real war of religion looms in the dawn of the Third Millennium. Precisely that which secularists have tried to avoid at all cost.

 

Comments  

 
-12 # David Blyth 2010-11-28 13:04
Thank you for this stimulating article.
Places the athiests' ideas in perspective!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+19 # Josh 2011-09-16 08:33
Creationists have been making the claim that Evolution is dying for decades. It's really a lie. Evolution is stronger than ever and serious scientists are NOT turning from it. Creationism mainly appeals to people who have no clue what they are talking about.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-3 # Bernadette 2012-01-24 06:16
Quoting Josh:
Creationists have been making the claim that Evolution is dying for decades. It's really a lie. Evolution is stronger than ever and serious scientists are NOT turning from it. Creationism mainly appeals to people who have no clue what they are talking about.


I am really interested. What are your sources for this statement?
The article gives good sources for every statement it makes but your comment seems to lack any of the scientific objectivity your statement implies that you value so highly.

As for serious scientist not turning from it, they never really turned to it (not the honest ones anyway).

My proffessors at university have all, at one point in time, told us that evolution IS JUST A THEORY (their emphasis). This despite the fact that they are all confirmed atheists and teaching archaeology.

All right, the zooology proffessor (who really was emphatic about it being a theory) is a vegan/materialist.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+5 # Alice 2014-01-17 23:20
I'm sorry, but did you ever take a simple science class? A theory is accepted as true because there is no evidence to imply otherwise. (Source: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=11 paragraphs 2 and 3, and every science textbook ever)
Also, GRAVITY IS A THEORY. Newton's theory of gravity.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+15 # Evan 2012-11-23 23:06
this article is hilarious. creationism is whats on the fall. in 2011 a poll was done by Ipsos for Reuters News in twenty-four countries, and it found that 41% of respondents identified themselves as "evolutionists" and 28% as "creationists," with 31% indicating that they "simply don't know what to believe,". the poll also showed that acceptance of evolution was higher among respondents who were younger, with a higher level of household income, and with a higher level of education.(http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=52170) in modern times, with education as comprehensive as it is, people are finding its hard to find legitimacy in living your life according to a prescience doctrine. and evolution is most likely not the final answer. science progresses as the human race does, eventually evolution will probably be looked at as a piece in the grand scheme of things. while creationism will be placed behind the glass in a museum, next to other thousands of creation storys
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+13 # Mairi Catherine 2013-03-12 15:55
Darwinian evolution does not claim to know the origin of life or the reason or beginning of the universe. It provides no "missing links." It doesn't need to. Even though it's just a "theory" it's a "theory" that can be proven with empirical evidence. The Galapagos Islands are home to animals with specialized adaptations. Evolution has also been observed with microbes in the lab setting. Science is different than religion because it is based purely on what can be observed, and only what is observed. Otherwise it wouldn't be science. The reason that we haven't seen large scale evolution in humans or other large creatures is because it takes thousands and millions of years. The time our solar system has existed is also incomprehensible to humans, so of course the beginning of life seems impossible. And this is the basic biology that most people can tell you if they've been educated.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+2 # charles allan 2013-06-16 18:55
Darwins finches are still finches and the iguanas are still iguanas. Darwin confused breeding - adaptation of the EXISTING genome - with evolution. The finches beaks can change back in a few generations depending on diet. Microbes have bred trillions of times but are still microbes - thus disproving evolution. Adaptation of microbes to adversity is within their genomes and often involves loss of DNA information.
The time the universe has existed cannot be proven - the long time scale is a priori reasoning - eg diamonds carbon date to thousands of years - they should have no C14. This is the same with oil gas and coal. Radio halos in granite prove it was never molten - but instantly created.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-3 # Joe 2013-09-15 14:44
I find it curious that while I was searching for information to help my son who is addicted to computer games I should find this article with all it detractors. The irony is that the concept of Darwinian Evolution directly related to the disintegration of modern society. In other words, belief in evolution is causing human the devolution of the human social structure and has created degenerate generation that hates God, but has no idea who or what He is. There was a book written thousands of years ago that accurately describes what is happening and what the results will be.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-3 # Deirdre McNamara 2013-12-03 14:15
Has 'science' CREATED so much as a blade of grass, or a leaf? Science is, in fact, the STUDY of CREATION!
As for the existence of God, if my childhood survival depended on Medical 'Science,' I wouldn't be writing this now. As my left wing scientist father would say, 'Under Darwin's Law, you're not fit to survive.' Fortunately, GOD's Law prevailed, lol! :)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 

Add comment

Comments will be approved by a moderator before appearing on the site. Any comments that contain inappropriate language or content will not be posted. Your email is required but will not be made public.


Security code
Refresh