The debate over natural selection has gone on too long.
Darwinists should have long since confessed the metaphysical speculation and
methodological abuse of right science latent in Darwin’s theory. We need to be finished with the matter by demanding proper proof.
It is an issue of science, not religion. Where did Darwin go wrong? Darwin’s theory is a provocative generalization applied to immense vistas of time
that are unobserved. Those unobserved intervals in deep time can fool us badly.
We can exit the chronic debate by simply demanding proper evidence. The demand
for evidence of the fact of evolution is far less stringent than that for
natural selection. Demonstration that the latter is the key to all forms of
higher complex structure has never been demonstrated scientifically. The task is
exceedingly difficult, for starters. The difficulty may preempt easy hopes for a
theory of evolution. One way to see the problem with claims for natural
selection is to look at history, and we will proceed to an examination of
in the dynamics of historical
Hurricane Argument Consider a hurricane, a very brief event by comparison, as a global ‘system evolution’ on the
surface of a planet. We know a hurricane when we see one, but its dynamics,
mechanism, and full progression require incremental ‘closing’ on degrees of
evidence and observation, a task not fully accomplished until the advent of
satellites able to map global coordinates. In the same way we know evolution
when we see it, roughly speaking, given the fossil evidence, but its dynamics,
mechanism and full progression require incremental ‘closing’ on degrees of
evidence and observation, a task not fully accomplished. Note the analogy
suggests global positioning satellites over the entire planet over millions of
years, to observe drifting species and their changes. Suppose an observer in
outer space only had loosely sampled data on pre-Neolithic man, and
post-twentieth century man, and then conjectured that some mutation caused this
This analogy shows at once where Darwinism departs from
scientific practice. Historians routinely assume they must close on the facts in
such an analysis, yet Darwinists wish to claim exemption. We have no fully
observed datasets in Darwinian deep time. It is an insidious trap.
In all the noise of the Darwin
debate, this judgment is final, and it is important therefore to grasp that no one is
under any evidentiary obligation to take Darwinian selectionism as
established scientifically, surprising as some may find that. We put it that way
because we can’t refute Darwinists in their provocative claims that
routinely ignore the basic objection. The question is very simple: were there
any witnesses to the facts claimed? No. We are done. If we find evidence of
‘evolution’ in history, Darwinian claims are void as counterevidence.
and Darwin in wild or jungle scenes We should note that Darwin and Wallace
observed ‘evolution’ as they worked in scenes of teeming jungle life or
natural environments in the wild. That can be misleading because the (micro-)
evolutionary processes visible (and which seem to explain speciation, especially
in special cases such as insect populations) to the naked eye neglects the
larger dimension stretching over tens of millennia which alone might throw light
on ‘how (macro-) evolution happens’. In any case, this selectionist frenzy
visible in nature fails at many points, such as the evolution of man, to provide
a satisfying set of answers.