Singapore Students Interview

Me on Evolution


Recently a group of students from the National Junior College of Singapore asked if they could interview me for their group project on the subject of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. This was a privilege for I take real joy in helping young students to unravel these difficult issues. In the area of science, I believe that the assumption of the theory of evolution has held back valid scientific research for over a hundred years.

Here are the questions put to me by a group of students from the National Junior College of Singapore and my responses to them:

1) In the field of evolution, do you agree that Darwin should be the only one credited for the theory of evolution through natural selection?

Absolutely not! Evidence grows that Darwin was quite a plagiarist. Of course, he contributed to the theory, but he was strongly influenced by his own grandfather, Charles Lyell, Alfred Wallace and Edward Blyth. Blyth is the man who first outlined Natural Selection. There is no evidence that Darwin ever gave credit to Blyth for being the first man to outline Natural Selection. Blyth was actually a theist and his schema of Natural Selection supported a belief in God. In fact, Natural Selection is entirely biblical.

2) How would you describe the impact Darwin's theory had on society when it was first introduced? How do you think people's opinions in general have changed over the years?


The National Junior College of Singapore operates according to noble standards of open-mindedness.

Well, Darwin turned the world upside down at the time he first published the theory of evolution. Many considered him a heretic, and it certainly took many years for evolution to gather wide support. Thomas Huxley can largely be credited with the ultimate wide acceptance of the theory. Huxley outlived Darwin by several years and became known as 'Darwin's bulldog' because of his continuous aggressive promotion of Darwinism.

Within about 50 years Darwinism became fully accepted by the British scientific establishment although several other countries were far more reticent about accepting all of Darwin's conclusions.
In our own day there is widespread indifference coupled with a lukewarm acceptance of Darwinism by, perhaps, most of the public in Europe, but American public opinion still mostly rejects evolution. Among scientists it is simply assumed and young scientists can place their careers in serious jeopardy by challenging it. Yet very little research continues to ask serious questions of the theory; this assumption that it is true may be found almost everywhere. Most new research is in peripheral areas which just carries the erroneous assumption forward. This is often because (as already mentioned), there is huge prejudice against any who would suggest new lines of research which actually challenge evolution.
But, during the last 25 years, the smooth waters of Darwinistic acceptance have become decidedly choppy. Now at last more and more scientific voices are being raised which dare to challenge Darwinism (or, 'Neo-Darwinism' as it has now mostly become). Challenges come from the lack of substantial fossil corroboration as well as from biology. Michael Behe , who is a molecular-biologist, has now caused evolutionary theory even more difficulties, with his discovery of the principle of 'Irreducible Complexity.' The world of molecular biology has moved on since Darwin's day. To Darwin the human cell was little more than a tiny blob of gunk, today we know that the human cell is a miniature factory of the most amazing complexity. Undoubtedly, this would have astonished Darwin, indeed he might have revised his teachings if he knew what we now understand. If one takes just one part of a cell away, nothing works, so there is no available system for gradually adding changes, yet evolutionary theory demands very gradual changes.

3) Over a century has passed since Darwin's theories. Since then, there have been various scientific breakthroughs that have brought about a greater understanding of human evolution. Do you think that Darwin's theory of natural selection is still relevant to the world today?

No. There have been no "scientific breakthroughs" which have brought about a "greater understanding of evolution." Every breakthrough has actually given evolutionary theory more problems and challenges. Absolutely nothing has happened to fortify evolution. To take DNA, it really shows that superior intelligence and design is involved in animal and human genealogy. Of course, evolutionists have moved in quickly to provide an evolutionary explanation.
Do I think that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is still relevant today? There is a logical problem with this last question. Natural Selection was never a Darwinian theory - he appears to have stolen it from Blyth. But, as Blyth outlined it, it is absolutely true. Natural selection, variations within 'kinds' and the survival of the fittest present no problem to those who reject Macro-evolution, that is, to those who reject the schema that homo sapiens evolved from monkeys over countless ages.

4) What are your opinions on the subject of Darwin's theories, bearing in mind some of the criticism his theories have received?

I think I have probably already answered this point.



5) Darwin's theories provide an alternative to the origins of the human species, essentially contradicting certain religious teachings. This has inevitably caused a split between believers and non-believers. What impact do you think this divide has had on our society?

You only have to look at the record of the entire 20th century. Hitler was a huge supporter of Darwinism and only recently I learned that Mao Tse Tung in China was as well. These people just loved the concept that there is no moral meaning to anything in life and that 'the survival of the fittest' is all that matters. If such a thing were really true (thank the Lord it is not true), then why not just annihilate all your enemies?
But regarding the specific point of evolution causing a split between believers and unbelievers, I don't think anything becomes changed; there has always been a split between these two groups. The only difference was that evolution gave atheists the (apparently) strong arguments which they had spent centuries craving for! Most of those who support evolution do it for philosophical - not scientific - reasons. I have even heard evolutionists privately admitting that the "science" is probably more pseudo-science than real science. The blind faith acceptance of evolution has held back real scientific progress.

6) What scientific evidence, in your opinion, could credit or discredit Darwin's theory?

Well, Darwin himself said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (Origin of Species, 6th ed. 1988, p. 154). We already know that the "simple" human cell is actually highly complex in a manner which Darwin could never have understood, and Irreducible Complexity shows that this complication could not possibly have gradually 'evolved' - Irreducible Complexity is now being increasingly applied in other areas of biology. The evidence already discredits evolution. Darwin thought that fossil evidence would very soon prove him correct but the fossil evidence stubbornly refuses to yield to evolutionary dogma, pointing to forms of life suddenly appearing in mature form.

7) Would you say that Darwin's work has had a dramatic impact on the society in this day and age, to the extent that his work can be considered groundbreaking? How so?

Again, maybe I have covered this one. Yes, Darwin's work can be considered 'groundbreaking' because it caused would-be despots everywhere to think, 'Why not just kill all our enemies?' It destroyed respect for religion which had been strong even among most unbelievers. To quote from my 2006 article Charles Darwin; Its Time For The Truth To Be Told,
"Darwinism offered a new theory of life to replace an older one: theism, and a belief in divine creation right across many religions and cultures. In the new theory of Darwinism, the survival of the fittest is all that really matters. Since Mankind simply evolved, human suffering is largely irrelevant and responsibility for one's actions is also removed. Can we seriously wonder at the hideous suffering and violence which the 20th century witnessed? Many philosophical influences are to blame for the loss of influence of Christianity in the West from the 19th century onwards which led to the imagination-defying suffering of the wars of the 20th century, but I maintain that - without a shadow of a doubt - Darwin, Nietzsche, Marx and Freud bear a lion's share of responsibility. Yet even of these four, it was Charles Darwin who was the primary encourager and whose theories most turned society upside down, tending to diminish and overturn strong concepts of human decency and responsibility which had been such strong forces in the pre-Darwin era; for where is the essential dignity, decency, compassion and responsibility in 'the survival of the fittest'??
How interesting, then, that Darwin is so revered by a society which he did so much to create and which has so fully imbibed his theory's essential despair, desperation, anarchy and hopelessness."

Robin A. Brace, 2007.


ESSENTIAL FURTHER READING:
1. Internet.

God, the Universe and Darwin; The Jury Speaks
Challenging the Naturalistic Philosophy of Evolution
Charles Darwin; Its Time For The Truth To Be Told
Yes, Evolution IS a Religion
The Bible and Evolution
The Truth About Evolution
Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust
Can Neo-Darwinism Survive?
Darwin's Rules of Reasoning
Five Questions Evolutionists Would Rather Dodge
Do Any Vestigial Organs Exist In Humans?
Refuting Evolution
Molecular Machines; Experimental Support for the Design Inference
How Darwinism Dumbs Us Down
Challenging Darwin's Myths


2. Books.
(It should be noted that these books are chosen because they show the failings of evolutionary dogma; not all of these books are necessarily Theist/Creationist and several decidedly not. I just list a few books here but there are probably at least 25 more which should be on this list).

* The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism by Michael Behe
* Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe
* Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution by David Stove
* Evolution; A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton
*Not By Chance by Lee Spetner
* What Darwin Didn't Know by Geoffrey Simmons
* Refuting Evolution (2nd edition) by Jonathan Sarfati
* The Origin Of Man by Stuart Burgess
* The Collapse Of Evolution by Scott M. Huse
* A Meaningful World: How the Arts And Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature by Benjamin Wiker
* Billions of Missing Links by Geoffrey Simmons
* Darwin's Nemesis: Phillip Johnson And the Intelligent Design Movement by William A. Dembski
* Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists by Benjamin Wiker
* The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities by William A. Dembski
* The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design by Jonathan Wells
* Icons of Evolution; Science or Myth? by Jonathan Wells
* Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No by Duane T. Gish
* On Common Descent by Paul Nelson
* Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design. Editors: William A. Dembski and James M. Kushiner
* The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods by John Woodmorappe

UK APOLOGETICS