What Qualified Charles Darwin
To Propose the Theory of Evolution?

Well, let's look at his background. At the age of 13, Charles Darwin was sent to school to study letters. He failed miserably. At the age of 16, his father used his influence to get Charles accepted into medical school.

But Charles was not cut out for this. In January 1826 Charles had written home complaining of "a long stupid lecture" about medicine. He loathed medicine and left in April 1827 without a degree.

Finally, at the age of 22 Charles Darwin studied and received a degree in Theology.

A degree in Theology?

A degree in Theology qualified Charles Darwin to postulate the theory of evolution? What exactly was his theory based on?

Apparently, Charles Darwin based his theory of evolution on little more than personal observations and subjective reasoning. That is, an entire branch of "science" today is based on the imagination of one person who had no scientific credentials. The average high-school student today knows more about genetics than Charles Darwin knew about it then.

What's even stranger is that a contemporary of Darwin, Gregor Mendel, was more qualified than Darwin to speak of biological life and challenged Darwin's views. Yet, Mendel's views never took hold in a big way, and much of his work was not even recognized until after his death.

Darwin assumed that there were no limits to biological variation and that, given enough time, a fish could eventually evolve into a human being. Gregor Mendel challenged this assumption, claiming evolution was restricted to within the "kinds." That is, Mendel maintained that a life form could evolve into something related to its own "kind," but a drastic development such as a fish evolving into a human being, no matter how much time was allowed, could never happen.

Was Mendel's version of evolution not accepted because he was less qualified to speak about biological life than someone holding a degree in theology?

Well, what was Mendel's background? Mendel was an Austrian biologist whose work on heredity became the basis for modern genetics. He had a science education at the University of Vienna, and wrote about geology and organic evolution on his 1850 teaching examination.

Unlike Darwin, Mendel's theories were based on extensive research and experimentation, which began in 1856, three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species. Mendel carefully designed and meticulously executed experiments involving nearly 30,000 pea plants followed over eight generations.

In 1866, Mendel published his work on heredity in the Journal of the Brno Natural History Society. However, the importance of his work only gained wide understanding in the 1890s, after his death, when other scientists working on similar problems re-discovered his research. William Bateson, a proponent of Mendel's work, coined the word genetics in 1905.

With all of Mendel's qualifications and achievements, you'd think his version of evolution would have been the one to catch on. After all, archeological discoveries to this day show that Darwin's long progression of slow, incremental, evolutionary changes never happened; archeology could certainly not have supported evolution in those days. But, somehow, it was Darwin who received widespread recognition, not Mendel.

How did this happen?

Apparently, Darwin's theories had more political attraction than scientific substance. Here's an excerpt from the National Institutes of Health, nih.gov, from an article entitled "Theories of evolution shaping Victorian anthropology. The science-politics of the X-Club, 1860-1872:"

It refers to a paper that " ... discusses the role that a group of evolutionists, the X-Club, played in the epistemic and institutional transformation of Victorian anthropology in the 1860s. It analyses how anthropology has been brought into line with the theory of evolution, which gained currency at the same time. The X-Club was a highly influential pressure group in the Victorian scientific community. It campaigned for the theory of evolution in several fields of the natural sciences and had a considerable influence on the modernization of the sciences ... evolutionary anthropology emerged in the 1860s also as the result of science-politicking rather than just from the transmission of evolutionary concepts through discourse."

And, to this day, some of the strongest voices behind evolution argue not from a scientific perspective, but from personal conviction. If you look at evolution blogs you'll find that Darwinian evolution quite often (although not always) goes hand in hand with atheism. Evolution is regularly used by atheist as an intellectual tool for arguing that life took no intelligence to design.

Why attempt to use science to detract from life's obvious inherent design? Well, it's difficult to deny, especially in this day and age, that there is complexity and sophistication in nature. So to deny that life required an intelligent creator, no matter how desperately you'd like to, for whatever personal reasons, just seems illogical and downright idiotic.

But, what if you can come up with a "modern" idea that denies it for you, and, at the same time, makes you look like a "progressive?" Now that's something some people can sink their teeth into. Darwinian evolution is just that vehicle. Is it science? Absolutely not. But in the hands of an atheist, it's an armored tank. One well-known British evolutionary biologist is known more for his rants and lectures against the concept of God than for his discussions on science.

In the final analysis, all evidence points to order and harmony governing every aspect of the development of life. Random external forces may play a role in a new life form emerging, they may also play a role in bringing out certain features that will help an organism survive, but they do not design physical features or the genetic switches that control these features. New features are nothing more than expressions of dormant genetic traits.

Thus, not only is there nothing accidental about the development of life, but the genetic structure, as complex as we've already known it was, appears to be even more complex than anything we've imagined. For the genetic code to hold the key to an organism's current form and also to the forms of several new variations or species is truly mind-boggling. How serious does one's evolution delusion have to be to not see the design in all this?

What's interesting is that DE has more holes in it than the big bang. Yet, you'll occasionally hear scientists admit there are problems with the big bang and question whether it's the correct theory about the beginning of the universe. I even saw one scientist write that he believed in the big bang because "we have nothing better."

Not so with evolutionists. Just about every evolutionists I've encountered is absolutely convinced that DE, despite all evidence against it, is a solid, one-hundred-percent-correct theory. With all the obvious problems with DE, how can one be that sure? The answer is, DE has turned into a cult.

DE evolutionists, I believe, fall into two broad categories. Those who perpetuate the theory and know it has no legs to stand on, and those who don't know better and just rely on "the scientist."

One guy I spoke to recently had exactly that response. He admitted he knew little about science but said he believed in DE because he relied on scientists. Scientist, he reasoned, gave us things like cell phones, heart transplants, Ipads, etc., they must know what they're talking about.

The truth, however, is that the scientists who gave us all of life's conveniences are not necessarily the same ones who perpetuate DE. Scientists are human (even those who sound like they evolved from apes). Just like there are good doctors and quacks, good lawyers and shysters, good car mechanics and crooks, there are "good" scientists and "junk" scientists. DE evolutionists are the shysters of molecular biology.

I had one debate with someone on an atheist forum who was absolutely convinced about the veracity of DE and claimed he even had a paper by a molecular biologist that proved the correctness of DE. When I examined his paper, and saw that it made little sense, I asked him to explain what he understood about the paper. He couldn't explain any of it.

The paper I believe was written by a molecular biologist, and perhaps it somehow made some sense to him, or perhaps it was deliberately written to confuse, but it was presented as "proof" by someone who had no idea what it said. This approach, I believe, represents the majority of laymen who believe in evolution; they have little knowledge of science but simply take "scientists" word for it.

I later debated the molecular biologist who supposedly wrote this paper. His reasoning went in circles, he clarified nothing, but he had everyone on the forum convinced he was a "superstar" and knew why evolution worked.

The perpetuation of DE also has elements of intimidation. There's a documentary out by a famous actor/comedian who interviews scientists who have been harassed and even fired from universities for suggesting that life could not possibly have evolved without intelligence. Is this what they call a scientific debate? As I've mentioned before, DE is not at all about science. It's a cult with an agenda.

DE also gets much unwarranted traction from the media, which also relies on "the scientists." Here's an article that ran in the New York Times on May 18, 2009:

"On Tuesday morning, researchers will unveil a 47-million-year-old fossil ['Ida'] they say could revolutionize the understanding of human evolution at a ceremony at the American Museum of Natural History.

"But the event, which will coincide with the publishing of a peer-reviewed article about the find, is the first stop in a coordinated, branded media event, orchestrated by the scientists and the History Channel, including a film detailing the secretive two-year study of the fossil, a book release, an exclusive arrangement with ABC News and an elaborate Web site.

"The specimen, designated Darwinius masillae, is of a monkeylike creature that is remarkably intact: even the contents of its stomach are preserved. The fossil was bought two years ago in Germany by the University of Oslo, and a team of scientists began work on their research. Some of the top paleontologists in the world were involved in the project, and it impressed the chief scientist at the Natural History museum enough to allow the press-conference.

"'We would not go forward with this, even in a hosting capacity, unless we had a sense of the scientific importance,' said Michael J. Novacek, the provost of science at the museum.

"'It's the most newsworthy and noteworthy special we've been a part of,' said Nancy Dubuc, the general manager of the History Channel. 'We made a commitment early on to get behind it in a big way: to see it through peer review, and see that it is the media event it should be.'"

This was my response, which was published in the New York Post on May 26, 2009:

"The fossil Ida is being used by scientists as an assault on a gullible public.

"One fossil does not represent a transitional species, any more than the remains of a two-headed snake represents a transition of snakes from one head to two heads. They're simply aberrations of nature.

"You'd need more than one fossil to represent a species, and you'd need many transitional aberrations that couldn't survive to show an evolutionary process was going on.

"Ida represents the fanciful speculations of a scientific community determined to publicize its biased agenda."

On October 22, 2009, the New York Post ran the following article detailing how scientists realized in the end that Ida was just one big mistake:

"Remember Ida, the fossil discovery announced last May with its own book and TV documentary?

"A publicity blitz called it 'the link' that would reveal the earliest evolutionary roots of monkeys, apes and humans. Experts protested that Ida wasn't even a close relative. And now a new analysis supports their reaction.

"In fact, Ida is as far removed from the monkey-ape-human ancestry as a primate could be, says an expert at Stony Brook University on Long Island.

"Professor Erik Seiffert and his colleagues compared 360 specific anatomical features of 117 living and extinct primate species to draw up a family tree. They report the results in today's issue of the journal Nature.

"Ida is a skeleton of a 47-million-year-old cat-sized creature found in Germany. It starred in a book, 'The Link: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor,' and a TV documentary narrated by David Attenborough.

"Ida represents a previously unknown primate species called Darwinius. The scientists who formally announced the finding said they weren't claiming Darwinius was a direct ancestor of monkeys, apes and humans. But they did argue that it belongs in the same major evolutionary grouping, and that it showed what an actual ancestor of that era might have looked like.

"The new analysis says Darwinius does not belong in the same primate category as monkeys, apes and humans. Instead, the analysis concluded, it falls into the other major grouping, which includes lemurs.

"The primate skeleton 'Ida,' once called 'the link' to an evolutionary ancestor of humans and apes, turns out not to be even close."

So, that Ida was a link in the evolutionary chain was trumpeted with a ceremony at the American Museum of Natural History, peer-review articles, the History Channel, a film, ABC News, an elaborate Website, some of the top paleontologists in the world and the chief scientist at the Museum of Natural History. In the end, it turned out to be not even close.

What happened in the case of Ida is similar to what happens with many evolutionary claims. The initial claim gets widespread publicity, while the refutations barely make the news.

Ida's demise as an evolutionary link ran in a few articles here and there, but got nowhere near the publicity that Ida's unveiling got. How many people do you think still believe the original hype about Ida? Probably anyone who read or heard the hype but never got wind of the retractions. That's a heck of a lot people. This is how such an empty theory can have such a wide following.

And how did so many "experts" get fooled by a fossil that had no relevance to their claim? Were they all really fooled? They can't all be that incompetent. I don't think they are. Some of them are downright dishonest.

Here's one response I saw on an online forum to my statement that one fossil does not represent a transitional species: " ... scientists have many transitional fossils ... "

Right. Is that why they made such a big deal out of Ida? Do they normally hail the five-thousandth "discovery" of the same thing? Do we have a record of who "discovered" Florida for the five thousandth time? Do we know who "invented" the engine even for the five hundredth time?

Ida received such accolades because scientists knew they had

nothing like what they believed Ida represented. If scientists believed they already had evidence of Darwinian evolution, what was the big deal about Ida?

Ida was a big deal because there was no empirical evidence to support Darwinian evolution as late as 2009. And now that Ida has been debunked, DE remains a figment of the imagination, based on no science whatsoever.

(Needless to say, the guy on the forum never presented even one of the many fossils he claimed proved Darwinian evolution.)

In the final analysis, it's not the job of scientists to tell us what science is. It's their job to investigate nature and present their findings. And it is these -- provable -- findings that constitute science.

For scientists to ignore the obvious because it may lead to what in their view is unscientific, is grossly disingenuous and simply not their call. To ignore the obvious fact that life was not the result of accidental events -- a fact supported by almost every fossil ever found -- because the concept of God is not scientific, is really jumping the gun. Scientists do not have to talk about God, if they prefer not too. But they do have an obligation to put forth their honest findings, and let the public decide whether they want to talk about God.

That life shows no signs of being an accident is a simple conclusion and, at that level, does not constitute religion. Not reporting such an obvious conclusion, however, is nothing short of bias and deception.

The sad part is that in this day and age Darwinian evolution is still being taught in school as science. Unfortunately, most of our legislators and school board members are, when it comes to science, laymen. So when evolutionists, some of whom may have accredited degrees, argue in favor of teaching DE in school, how can legislators and school board members argue against it? They really don't have much of a choice.

I'm convinced that if the argument presented in the last chapter, that the fossil record shows absolutely no signs of an accidental evolutionary process, is presented to legislators and educators, and evolutionists are challenged to produce fossils that show otherwise, this cult called Darwinian evolution can be eliminated from the classroom.