Is the theory of Evolution authentically scientific? (III)

(Excerpted from the author’s article, “Richard Dawkins’ Foundations of Morality: A Critical Evaluation” [MA Philosophy, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Philippines]. Notes and references are found in the footnotes of the paper from which this article was taken. This article is the last of three parts.)

… ‘Lacking factual support’

“DARWINISM IS WOEFULLY LACKING FACTUAL SUPPORT and is rather based on philosophical assumptions.”

According to American chemist and Nobel laureate Robert Woodward, respected professors at prestigious secular universities are rising up and arguing this, together with the point that “empirical evidence, especially in molecular biology, now points compellingly to some sort of creative intelligence behind life [62]. This view is shared by Arthur N. Field, a journalist of New Zealand who, after keenly investigating the claims of evolutionists, made the following statement: “What is it (evolution) based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological evidence that does not exist, belief in the breeding experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works.” [63]

Virtually the same comment is said by Theodore D. Hall (Ph. D) concerning, in particular, Dawkins’ presentation of his pet topic which is natural selection. According to Hall:

“… [Dawkins] is not just referring to proven, factual, variation-`within-a-kind type natural selection, such as different length bird beaks and dog fur (resulting from an observed loss of genetic information). He means the fully unproven, factless, spoon-bending Amoeba-to-Armstrongwalksonthemoon version (resulting from a glaringly unobserved increase in genetic information). Of course, his modus operandi when such discussion arises is to precede the words "natural selection" with any number of flattering adjectives – as though such a procedure could ever improve the validity or truthfulness of an idea.” [64]

… The absolute categorical statement that “evolutionary theory does not have any factual support whatsoever” may be an overstatement, indeed. However, what makes people suspect that the theory is in fact lacking factual support is the ‘suspicious’ manner by which evolutionists present the theory as hinted by Dr. Hall and also noticed by other reviewers. This leads us to our next point.

‘tells but does not show the evidence’

Having pointed out earlier evolution’s real status in the field of science as being questionable, one of evolutionist’s ‘epistemological and scientific’ obligations therefore is to demonstrate to the public the reliability of the theory. And in the name of truth, when a theory is underdetermined by the evidence, such as in the case of evolution, it is incumbent upon the theorist to tell the reader how much is theory, and how much is evidence. [66] An evolutionist therefore ought to show us where the actual evidence leaves off and the theoretical interpolations or extrapolations begin. A faithful seeker of truth demands the theorist, “Show us, and don’t just tell us.” As contemporary philosopher of science Steve Hays explains, seeker of truth “won’t be satisfied with mere summary of the evidence, for any summary is bound to be a theory-laden summary which is reconstructing the evidence according to a theoretical outline [67]. A curious mind thus requires the evolutionist to show him the raw evidence as it exists in nature, to publicly explain what dating techniques were used, what assumptions are feeding in the dating techniques, how he correlates evidence from one site to that from another, and how he classifies fossils from disparate sites [68]. Evolutionists have the burden to “walk us through the entire process from start to finish’.

This is lacking in Dawkins’ presentations of his evolutionary beliefs, especially in The God Delusion. Sugar-coated by his excellent writing prowess, Dawkins’ presentations are undoubtedly interesting and entertaining that evolutionary accounts are portrayed as if they happened ‘true-to-life’, when in fact, they are mere summaries of the evidence which are not open to the public. As Steve Haysalso noticed:

“Maybe I’m just forgetful, but when I read evolutionary writers like Dawkins, Dennett, Eldredge, Futuyama, Gell-Mann, Gould, Kitcher, Lewontin, Mayr, Raup, Maynard Smith, etc., I never see them lay their evidence on the table—spreading it out for all to see—and then connect the dots in public view. What they do, instead, is to summarize the evidence or characterize the evidence. They talk about the evidence rather than actually showing us the evidence. An interpretive representation rather than a direct presentation. The reader is never admitted into the smoke filled room where the evidence is cobbled together. Instead, the reader is treated to a press release. A fait accompli. Apparently, the reader lacks the security clearance to be trusted with direct access to the evidence room. You have to be a thirty-three degree Darwinian to be initiated into the esoterica of the fossil record.” [69] (emphasis added)

Steve Hays therefore ‘smells fishy’ in Dawkins’ laboratory and suspects, thus: “Could this be due to the fact that if we were actually admitted into the evidence room, and allowed to see the evidence, as well as the methodology involved in piecing it together to create an evolutionary trajectory, it would be nine parts conjecture to one part evidence?”[70]

… [So] what is again clear here is that evolution as a theory in science is indeed questionable, and it is stressed by the fact that the manner through which evolutionists like Dawkins present the evidences in defense of evolution is deemed suspicious and doubtful, if not automatically erroneous.

‘Delayed the progress of biological science’, ‘encouraged speculation & falsification of scientific facts’

… [L]et’s somehow go back to the evolutionists’ contention that evolution does science an excellent favor.

As to the propaganda that evolutionary theory has been a great stimulus to scientific thinking as a whole, and to biological sciences in particular, Professor H. Enoch directly begs to disagree. While admitting that the theory of evolution acted as a stimulus to biological research for a time, Enoch observes that the nature of the stimulus was such that it has stimulated biologists to “let in clouds of speculation into scientific research:”

“Much time was wastedin determining the systematic position and relationship between the basic kinds of animals and plants. Many hypothetical ancestors were invented to bridge the gaps existing between the basic kinds, consequent on assumptions that they were descended from a common ancestor. Almost every invertebrate phylum was wasted in trying to fit the facts of embryology into the biogenetic “law” and prove the theory of evolution. Only after much study and unfruitful labour, Professor Westoll could call such embryological evidence for evolution “sheer nonsense”. Likewise breeding experiments carried on for years, and on more than a thousand generations, only led Morgan and his school to the “cul-de-sac” of Lysenko. Such ceaseless attempts of evolutionists to fit scientific facts into the evolutionary would have in fact delayed the progress of biological science.” [87] (emphasis added)

The introduction of much futile speculation into scientific thinking is said to be effected by Darwin’s theory also. About the theory of evolution, Professor W. R. Thompson (F.R.S) in his Introduction to The Origin of Species wrote: “Personal convictions and simple possibilities are presented as if they were proofs, or at least valid arguments in favour of the theory.”[88] And it was Charles Darwin himself who is said to have pioneered this ‘unscientific’ practice:

“Since the knowledge of fossils was meager, and experimental data in breeding experiments were inadequate, Charles Darwin had to support his theory by speculative arguments and assumptions. Throughout his book Origin of Species expressions such as “we may therefore assume”, “it is possible”, “it may be supposed”, etc., are often used instead of definite statements of facts… All that he did was to present certain observed facts of nature and by persuasive arguments show how species might have originated… he left a legacy for biological sciences which cannot easily be disinherited, namely, that of speculative thinking. [89] (emphasis added)

That this may not appear as mere empty accusation, Professor W.R. Thompson cites a classic example of such imaginative speculation by evolutionists. Also in his Introduction to the Origin of Species, he reports:

“In the article on ‘Mimicry’ in the 14^th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, we find a remarkable explanation of the form of a tropical insect, which is not very large, resembles in miniature the head of an alligator, being prolonged into a snout at the base of which is a protuberance resembling an eye, while along the side are formations resembling minute teeth. Curious though the resemblance is, it is obviously a coincidence. The insect as a whole does not look anything like an alligator. However for the Darwinian author of the article we have here an example of the development of protective resemblance by natural selection. The similarity of the head of an insect to the head of an alligator is a protection against monkeys. The monkey does not actually mistake the insect for an alligator, butthe sight of its head recalls him the occasion in which an alligator almost seized him when he was drinking from a stream. Such is the effect of Darwinian fantasy on biological thinking.” [90] (emphasis added)

The theory Darwin and Dawkins promote is said to have also encouraged ‘manipulation of findings’. So obsessed with the idea of evolution, some biologists had “rejected or suppressed or sometimes even deliberately falsified” scientific facts which do not fit into the evolutionary pattern [91]. One example given is thatunder the blood test, facts showing a closer blood relationship between the tiger and the whale were rejected, and only those facts which served to support the evolutionist’s doctrine were made known. [92]

“Even such a man of great scientific reputation as Sir Arthur Keith is accused of having deliberately suppressed the facts about the skulls of men found at  Calavaras and Castenedolo, which were older than all the “apemen” ever discovered. In an article on Evolution in the Encyclopedia Britannica he mentioned only “Pithecantrhopus” instead of the “Castenedolo” finds. The same may be said or Professor E. Dubois who suppressed the find of true human remains (the Wadjak skulls) found at Java on the same strata as Pithecanthropus (Java ape-man). Why such suppression of facts? Because they did not fit into the evolutionary pattern. If only these scientists had mentioned the facts about these earlier truly human finds, much, if not all, of the speculations regarding ape-human ancestry could have been avoided.” [93] (emphasis added)

Instances of intentionally falsifying or faking evidences just to support the theory of evolution are not inadequate in other fields. German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel confessed of “falsifying diagrams of embryos to establish his biogenetic law” and consequently revealed “that hundreds of the best observers, and most reputed biologists lie under the same charge.” [94]

This brings to mind again the controversial deliberate hoax in the manner in which Dawson and his friends concocted Piltdown man which has been exposed by evolutionists themselves, though forty years later [95].  This, actually, is what prompted Professor W.R. Thompson to state that “the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline of scientific integrity.” [96]

Therefore, Thompson’s conclusion that a great deal of the research work stimulated by Darwinism “was directed into unprofitable channels or devoted to the pursuit of will-o-the-wisps,” [97] and Enoch’s recommendation that “both for the progress of science and for the moral and spiritual progress of the human race, the earlier we abandon the philosophy of evolution, the better it will be for mankind”, [98] may have a shade of exaggeration, but the bases on which such statements were made are something one cannot lightly dismiss.

A ‘politically correct’ conclusion

… Contrary to what [Darwinists] confidently assume, evolution, to say it still in a ‘politically correct’ manner, is not a scientific fact, but remains to be just a ‘theory in science’ (as opposed to ‘scientific theory’).

This conclusion is shared by the John Maynard Smith, pioneer professor of Biology at the University of Sussex. Though he thinks that “ the direction of evolution is largely determined by natural selection”, he nevertheless says: “I am enough of a Popperian to know that it is a hypothesis, not a fact, and that observations may one day oblige me to abandon it, but I do not expect to have to.”[54] (emphasis added)…

How to cite this article:

Jensen DG. Mañebog. “Is the Theory of Evolution authentically scientific? (III)" @ www.OurHappySchool.com