The use of the term Anti-Science today has evolved to mean anti-evolution and anti-climate change. How candidates manage the “evolution” question will likely leverage an effect on the final vote next year.” Question like “Do you believe in evolution” are now one of the most dreaded types of questions on the political campaign trail. But, what is Anti-Science? As we will see, the history of the Anti-Science is an amazing saga of irony.

At the core of the Anti-Science debate is the definition of Science. The Oxford English Dictionary says that science is “a method of procedures that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”

The father of “method of procedures” is the Scientific Method founded by English philosopher Francis Bacon (1561-1626). Use of Bacon’s method launched the Scientific Revolution in the late sixteenth century.

Often called the Baconian Method, or simply the Scientific Method, Bacon replaced deductive reasoning with strict adherence to inductive reasoning for the purpose of discovering natural laws, Bacon’s insistence on establishing a planned procedure marked a new turn for defining the essence of science.

Using Bacon’s method of investigation, the early Scientific Revolution period culminated in 1687with the publication of the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica by Isaac Newton. Darwin initially followed the footsteps of Newton. In the same way Newton discovered the natural laws of gravity and motion, Charles Darwin was intent on discovering the natural laws of evolution.

The Scientific Revolution was center stage in the eighteenth century. John Herschel’s book, Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy (1830), encapsulated the concepts of the scientific method. Darwin read Herschel’s Discourse while at Cambridge. William Whewell, a professor at the University of Cambridge, supported Herschel’s approach to the scientific method and later published The History of Inductive Sciences (1837) and The Philosophy of Inductive Sciences (1840).

In the prelude to The Origin of Species, Darwin quotes from William Whewell and Francis Bacon. Ironically, since even the fossil record failed to support his theory, Darwin was forced to abandon the Scientific Method.  Darwin was painfully aware that the Cambrian Explosion actually contradicted his theory.

In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” Darwin was “anti-Science”.

When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.”  Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution.  The “Anti-Science” movement was popular in the nineteenth century, sponsored by the emerging influential members of the X Club.

Darwin was very concerned about the effect of the Anti-Science approach. Just two weeks before the lease of The Origin of Species, Erasmus Darwin, his brother, consoled him in a letter: “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.”

In the final chapter of The Origin of Species, Darwin actually only lends hedging confidence to his theory of evolution, noting that the “whole volume is one long argument.… We ought to be extremely cautious in saying that any organ or instinct, or any whole structure, could not have arrived at its present state by many graduated steps.”

Ironically, the use of the popular Anti-Science labeling in politics should be applied to Charles Darwin−the founder of modern evolutionary thought.

Paul Nurse, writing in the September 14 edition of the New Scientist in the article “Stamp out anti-science in US politics” said, “Get the science right first, then discuss the political implications.”

The fact is, the evidence for developing a comprehensive theory of evolution is more in a crisis now, than at any time since the turn of the twenty-first century. As the evidence continues to mount, scientists are now abandoning the once central unifying dogma of evolution established during the late twentieth century−the Modern Synthesis theory that had replaced Darwin’s theory of evolution.

The Altenberg Summit in Austria during the summer of 2008 was a turning point for the evolution industry. At the summit, leading evolutionary scientists declared the Modern Synthesis theory of evolution extinct. Genetic mutations acted on by natural selection are no longer recognized as the natural law for biological evolution.

In the wake of the summit, evolutionary scientists are feverishly in the process of exploring theoretical replacements. The MIT Press book, “Evolution, the Extended Synthesis” (2010) edited by Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd B Műller presents 16 potential theories from the summit. Yet, none of the potential replacement theories have emerged as a forerunner. Currently, a cohesive theory of evolution simply does not exist.

Political candidates on both sides of the isle should actually be asked the question: “What is the theory of evolution?”

As it stands, evolution is simply a philosophy and not a science based on any known natural law verified by “systematic observation, measurement, and experiment(s)”. Ironically, the theory of evolution in the twenty-first century, as Darwin plainly acknowledged during the nineteenth century, falls into the realm of Anti-Science, not Science.

Presidential candidate, Jon Huntsman, highlights the current conundrum. In an interview with Bret Baier on Fox News “Special Report”, Huntsman said “When we take a position that isn’t willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Sciences has said about what is causing climate change and man’s contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on wrong side of science and therefore in a losing position.”

Amazingly, notice that Huntsman had to turn to “climate scientist[s]” to garner a mirage of scientific support for the theory of evolution.  Even the National Science Teachers Association, the vanguard of evolution in public education, takes distance from any particular theory of evolution by concluding: “There is considerable debate about how evolution has taken place.”

Today, evolution is only alive as a philosophy but not as a science. Contrary to Huntsman’s contention, to claim biological evolution as a scientifically proven fact plays into the realm of Anti-Science.

No wonder, Alan Love of the University of Minnesota and one of the Altenberg Summit members concluded that “a fully unified view of evolutionary processes may be out of reach.”

Ironically, the Anti-Science label applies to the sponsors of evolution. By Oxford English Dictionary standards, the Science label only applies to the “Teach the Controversy” sponsors.

In fact, Darwin abandoned the scientific method and declared that his theory of evolution was based on speculation –

I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.

Darwin ascribed to the popular nineteenth century theory of blending genetics of inheritance in which the new generation was simply an averaging of the previous generations. Blending genetics was debunked by a contemporary of Darwin, an Austrian monk.

Just a few years after the publication of the first edition of The Origin of Species, Gregor Mendel, now known as the father of modern genetics, using the scientific method published his landmark paper on genetic inheritance. Mendel in studying the genetics of the pea plant discovered that the theory blending inheritance was wrong.

Mendel’s findings were intensely criticized. It was not until the turn of the twentieth century that the significance of Mendel’s findings was appreciated. Mendel was the Vincent van Gogh of modern genetics.

Mendel’s laws of genetics eventually became the foundation of the Modern Synthesis theory of evolution developed during the twentieth century. The central dogma of the Modern Synthesis theory is based on an accumulation of genetic mutations passed on to the next generation through natural selection.

At the core of the theory was Darwin’s concept of “slight, successive” evolutionary changes. The Modern Synthesis was the central unifying theory for the evolution industry during the early twentieth century. The discovery of the DNA molecule structure by Francis Crick and James Watson in 1953 sealed a place for the Modern Synthesis theory with a molecular mechanism for evolution.

DNA was discovered to be a double helix structure composed of a sequence of nucleic acids. The sequence was thought to be the information source driving the code of biological life and evolution.

While the technology was not available to study genetic mutational changes, at the time, the hunt was on to discover the evidence for “slight, successive” genetic mutation changes in the sequence of nucleic acids found in the DNA and RNA molecule as evidence for evolution.

This past week, an international team of scientists lead by David Brawand of the Center for Integrative Genomics at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland published their work in the journal Nature. In the paper, “The Evolution of Gene Expression Levels in Mammalian Organs”, reported “the sequencing of polyadenylated RNA from six organs across ten species that represent all major mammalian lineages (placentals, marsupials and monotremes) and birds (the evolutionary outgroup), with the goal of understanding the dynamics of mammalian transcriptome evolution.”

The underlying purpose was of Brawand’s investigation was to demonstrate Darwin’s “slight, successive” changes in gene expression across a mammalian lineages. Amazingly, however, the investigators failed to discover any evidence for the expected progressive “slight, successive” evolutionary changes in gene sequences between mammals.

While the team reported “that the rate of gene expression evolution varies among organs, lineages and chromosomes”, the glaring problem for evolution is the failure to discover a progression of “slight, successive” evolutionary changes in gene sequences between mammals. Genes varying at different rates fails is compatible with a mosaic pattern of life, a pattern indistinguishable from a design theory of life. The scientific evidence points to the fact that life is a mosaic, not a pattern of “slight, successive” evolutionary changes forming Darwin’s Tree of Life.

Reflecting on the deepening theory of evolution crisis, as early as 1998, the distinguished professor of evolution at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, Douglas Futuyma opined: “Like most scientific theories, evolutionary theory is incomplete in several respects, most conspicuously in that… it lacks a sufficient body of principles for translating between genes and phenotypes.” In other words, the genetics alone cannot not differentiate between species−phenotypes.

In 2005, Sean B Carroll, Professor of Molecular Biology, Genetics, and Medical Genetics at the University of Wisconsin agrees with Futuyma:

The Modern Synthesis established much of the foundation for how evolutionary biology has been discussed and taught for the past sixty years. However, despite the monikers of ‘Modern’ and ‘Synthesis’, it is incomplete.

As scientific molecular evidence continues to accumulate, the Modern Synthesis theory of evolution is emerging more as a mirage than a mechanism.  In facing the reality, Alan Love of the University of Minnesota concluded

My account also meshes with the recognition that a fully unified view of evolutionary processes may be out of reach.

While the theory of evolution was once in crisis, now the concept of evolution is in crisis without even a theory.

“Looking for a textbook that teaches your high school science students about the fallacies of the theory of evolution? Darwin, Then and Now challenges the evolutionary theory with a critical examination of the science and history of evolution. Written by Professor Richard William Nelson, this book is an in-depth study of the most amazing story in the history of science, the rise of the evolutionary theory. Darwin, Then and Now, is a must-read for the home school science student.

Darwin, Then and Now, is a must-read for the home school science student

“In this recently published book, Darwin, Then and Now, Nelson gives a complete analysis of evolution’s entire history from before Darwin to the times of Neo-Darwinism. Nelson shows that the evolutionary theory originated in Greek Philosophy, such as the works of Aristotle and Heraclitus of Ephesus, and rose to prominence in the wake of the Scientific Revolution during the Victorian times. Then, Nelson discusses whether or not evolution is based on science or philosophy. Further, after finding that Darwin’s arguments use deductive, not inductive reasoning, Nelson answers the question of whether or not the basis of evolution is a subjective viewpoint or scientific investigation.

Nelson answers the question of whether or not the basis of evolution is a subjective viewpoint or scientific investigation

“Darwin, Then and Now opens with an account of Darwin’s early life and the lives of his naturalist friends and geology professors who mentored him. In complete detail, Nelson recounts the celebrated voyage of the Beagle and Darwin’s time on the Galäpagos Islands. Nelson proceeds to analyze the rest of Darwin life and writings, his admirers and critics, and most importantly his famous work, The Origin of Species, which changed the world and influenced modern society. Quoting from Darwin’s own works, as well as works of his contemporaries, Nelson reveals what makes Darwin one of the most remembered figures in the history of science.

Nelson reveals what makes Darwin one of the most remembered figures in the history of science

“Continuing, Nelson makes a thorough investigation of whether or not there is evidence that supports evolution, the Origin of Species, and Darwin’s theories about Natural Selection. Nelson examines the alleged evidence for evolution found in the fossil record, such as Piltdown man and Lucy, as well as that seen in geological columns, such as the Burgess Shale of British Columbia and the Ediacara Hills of Australia. Also, Darwin, Then and Now has in-depth discussions of molecular biology, chemical evolution, embryology, and genetics to see whether or not evolution has revealed the origins of life. Further evolutionary evidence is examined: peppered moths, Darwin’s finches, mutations in species. Throughout Darwin, Then and Now, Nelson carefully analyses over one thousand quotations from Darwin’s works and the writings of other scientist and historians. Nelson clearly and thoroughly answers the question of whether or not there is any scientific evidence for evolution.

Nelson clearly and thoroughly answers the question of whether or not there is any scientific evidence for evolution

“Darwin, Then and Now allows the home school high school student to understand the errors in one of today’s most commonly accepted theories: evolution. Darwin, Then and Now should be an essential book for every high school science class. Combine science, history, and philosophy into an amazing story, the Most Amazing Story in the History of Science: Darwin, Then and Now.”

Darwin, Then and Now should be an essential book for every high school science class

Lisa recommends the book for Grade Level 8^th-12^th.

For Charles Darwin, natural selection was the key natural law driving evolution, as reflected in the title, On the Origin of Species, by Means of Natural Selection. Natural selection was envisioned as the mechanism for the origin of species—evolution.

Darwin declared – “I do believe that natural selection will generally act very slowly, only over long periods of time…. natural selection acts slowly by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations.” In essence, natural selection was simply founded on a belief.

Darwin was very clear; natural selection was developed as an extension of a philosophical belief in evolution, not the result of scientific analysis of the evidence. Natural selection was not based on scientific observations since Darwin knew that even the fossil record evidence actually contradicted his theory –

Why, then, is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be argued against my theory.

Natural selection, amazingly, was simply developed from fabricated evidence. Darwin explains how this worked –

In order to make it clear how, as I believe, natural selection acts, I must beg permission to give one or two imaginary illustrations.

Darwin was forced to abandon the Scientific Method to propose natural selection as a natural law of evolution even though the Scientific Method had been established in academic circles for more than 200 years by Francis Bacon. Use of “imaginary illustrations” is only suitable for science fiction, not for scientific analysis.

Since the laws of nature are autonomous from human reasoning, the underlying tenet of the Scientific Method in the discovery of natural laws is inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning. But, Darwin abandoned inductive reasoning. In a letter to Asa Gray at Harvard University, Darwin honestly set his record straight -

What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.

While Darwin was concerned about his hypothetical deductive approach, he garnered widespread support, anyway. Even his older brother, Erasmus, just a week before the publication of The Origin of Species, consoled Darwin in a letter –

In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me / that if the facts won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.

The Origin of Species was certainly not a scientific work based on scientific principles; amazingly, even Darwin makes this point very clear –

I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.

As a consequence, during the 20 years while working on The Origin of Species, Darwin developed a litany of contradictions and highlighted in Darwin, Then and Now. In the final analysis, even Darwin recognized fundamental problems with natural selection as a mechanism for evolution -

Natural selection… is by far the most serious special difficulty which my theory has encountered.

Even Charles Lyell, Darwin’s good friend and originator of old earth uniformitarianism with the book Principles of Geology, never endorsed natural selection, much to the distain of Thomas Huxley, Darwin’s 19^th century bulldog. Darwin and Lyell were not alone, 20^th century scientists agree. Conrad H Waddington, a renowned evolutionary paleontologist, spells it out -

There, you do come to what is, in effect, a vacuous statement: Natural selection is that some things leave more offspring than others; and you ask, which leave more offspring than others; and it is those that leave more offspring; and there is nothing more to it than that.

Natural selection is the big Black Box of evolution. No one knows what it is, where it came from, or how it even works. Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti agrees with Waddington -

Natural selection could perhaps be invoked as a mechanism accounting for the survival of the species. But the claim that natural selection is creative of life… can only leave one dumbstruck.

In the 2010 book entitled What Darwin Got Wrong, even “card-carrying” atheists, Jerry Fodor and Massimo Palmarini, came to the very same conclusion –

We have both spent effort and ink… to show that Darwin’s theory of natural selection is fatally flawed.

In the book, The Altenberg 16: An Expose of the Evolution Industry, Suzan Mazar explores the mechanism of natural selection with “esteemed Harvard evolutionary geneticist Richard Lewontin in a phone conversation what role natural selection plays in evolution, he [only] said, ‘Natural selection occurs.’”

During the interview with Mazar, Lewontin only described the mechanism of natural selection by means of the following capitalism analogy -

Well, that where Darwin got the idea from, that’s for sure… He read the stock market every day… How do you think he made a living?

Mazar, in an interview with Anthony Lima-de-Faria, the award winning Swedish cytogeneticist, posed the question – “You’ve called natural selection ‘the opium of the biologist for over 100 years.’ … So why are most biologists and textbooks and scientific academies still embracing natural selection?”

Lima-de-Faria answered -  “Selection is a political not a scientific concept. At the time of Darwin it fitted perfectly the expanding colonialism of Victorian England.”

Bruce Runnegar, paleontologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of NASA’s Astrobiology Institute, cuts to the chase -

Natural selection is not a mechanism.

Natural selection was then, as it is now, irrelevant to the origin on species and, more importantly, the origin of life.

Stressing the importance of the fossil record to the theory of evolution Charles Darwin wrote – “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ exists which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Evidence for these “numerous, successive, slight modifications” in the fossil record remains a cornerstone to establish scientifically the theory of evolution. Darwin recognized, however, that the fossil record, “not being blended together by innumerable transitional links is a very obvious difficulty.”

Since 1859, the unsuccessful search through the fossil record for the expected intermediate or transitional links has produced a legacy of fraud.

In the journal Science (December 24, 2010), in the article entitled “Altering the Past: China’s Faked Fossils Problem”, Richard Stone highlights the current state of fossil fraud in China: “Specialists and collectors around the world have long decried the flood of sham fossils pouring out of China. But Science has learned that many composites and fakes are now finding their way into Chinese museums, especially local museums. One paleontologist estimates that more than 80% of marine reptile specimens now on display in Chinese museums have been ‘altered or artificially combined to varying degrees.’”

Over the past century, the Darwinian theory of evolution has played a significant role in China. While China was largely isolated when The Origin of Species was published in 1859, forty years later, however, a man by the name of Yan Fu introduced Darwinian evolution into China.

Fu was convinced that China must become acquainted with the philosophy of Darwinism in order that the country might survive by its own power, not relying on uncontrollable events or “destiny”. Fu extended Darwin’s biological theory of evolution to include social evolution, a logical application—Social Darwinism.

Educated in England, Yen Fu eventually became the most famous Social Darwinist in China. His message was well received by the Chinese. The 1890’s were a period of reform for China, a time of scrutinizing philosophies. Liang Ch’i-ch’ao, an influential spokesperson for the reform movement, began to promote Darwinian evolution.

Liang Ch’i-ch’ao fled China when the Manchu Empress Dowager attempted to subdue the reform movement; however, he continued to publish writings that were secretly imported to the people of China. Along with the philosophy of Karl Marx, the Chinese eventually revolted against the Manchu and the result was a constant warring of powers over the next 50 years—“survival of the fittest”.

Poet Alfred Lord Tennyson captured the essence of “survival of the fittest” in the now famous phrase—“Nature red in tooth and claw.”

The now infamous “Archaeoraptor” finding, published in the National Geographic Magazine, November 1999, was a product of China. The amazing fossil discovery, “Archaeoraptor”, a new species that appeared to be part dinosaur, part bird, was claimed to be the long sought after missing link between the two.

Philip Currie of the Royal Tyrrell Museum in Alberta, Canada, and one of the scientists involved in the examination of Archaeoraptor for National Geographic, boasted:  “We’re looking at the first dinosaur that was capable of flying.”

Several months later in the March 2000 issue of National Geographic, the magazine published a letter to the editor from Xu Xing, one of the scientists who had first examined and discussed the fossil discovery. The letter stated, “After observing a new, feathered dromaeosaur specimen … [t]hough I do not want to believe it, Archaeoraptor appears to be composed of a dromaeosaur tail and a bird body.”

Tragically, copies of the National Geographic November 1999 issue in libraries worldwide do not have the warning alert.

The “Archaeoraptor” illustrates the problem when the theory dominates a scientific investigation. Darwin touted this same approach in a letter to John Scott in 1863: “I would suggest to you the advantage … let the theory guide your observations.”

Since then, Darwinism has continued, as recommended by Darwin – let the theory guide the interpretation of the facts—an approach incompatible with the Scientific Method.

“Altering the Past: China’s Faked Fossils Problem” by Richard Stone serves as reminder: China, along with the evolution industry, starting with the Piltdown man, has developed a profitable business of re-inventing and selling the “scientific” evidence they “discovered.”

The fossil record has been as a problem for evolution, then and now

Charles Darwin, desperate to discover how evolution keeps going, in 1865, sent his good friend, Thomas Huxley, a thirty-page manuscript under the heading “The Hypothesis of Pangenesis.” Huxley’s response must have been discouraging, since Darwin replied, “I do not doubt your judgment is perfectly just and I will persuade myself not to publish. The whole affair is much too speculative.”

Pangenesis extended Aristotle’s concept of “spontaneous generation,” later popularized by French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Still anxious, two years late in 1867 Darwin sent a letter to American scientist, Asa Gray at Harvard University -

The chapter on what I call Pangenesis will be called a mad dream, and I shall be pretty well satisfied if you think it a dream worth publishing; but at the bottom of my own mind I think it contains a great truth.

Pangenesis was the “mad dream” answer to the question, how does nature acquire new information to keep going? In a letter to Charles Lyell in 1867, Darwin wrote,

I am inclined to think that if it [pangenesis] be admitted as a probable hypothesis it will be a somewhat important step in biology.

Darwin finally outlined his theory of pangenesis in his 1868 work The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication. Pangenesis is not mentioned in The Origin of Species, even in the sixth edition, which was published later in 1872. As reflected in a letter to John Jenner Weir in 1868, Darwin knew that the theory was sketchy, at best:

You will find pangenesis stiff reading, and I fear [you] will shake your head in disapproval.

Darwin historian E. Janet Browne in the book entitled The Power of Place, notes that Darwin clearly ascribed to the “mad dream” concept of pangenesis, “Pangenesis looked to him as if it might supply the answer.”

The pangenesis hypothesis was Darwin’s misguided deductive “scientific point of view” answer to the question – where do all the new variations needed to keep evolution going come from? In a letter to Fritz Müller in 1870, Darwin wrote, “Pangenesis will turn out true some day!”

Little did Darwin know that the “some day” had already come and gone. Using the Scientific Method, rather than deductive logic, French microbiologist, Louis Pasteur, demonstrated that fermentation is caused by the growth of micro-organisms, and that the emergent growth of bacteria is not due to spontaneous generation or pangenesis, but rather to biogenesis-Omne vivum ex vivo Latin for “all life is from life.”

In his triumphal lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864, Pasteur declared – “Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment”

While Girolamo Fracastoro, Agostino Bassi, Friedrich Henle had earlier proposed a germ theory, it was not until Pasteur, using the Scientific Method, demonstrated that Darwin’s pangenesis hypothesis did not pass the test. Today, Pasteur is known as the father of germ theory and bacteriology.

“The more I study nature,” Pasteur reflects, “the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator”. Along with the Scientific Method, Pasteur gives further insight into his key to success, “I pray while I am engaged at my work in the laboratory.”

The requests for divine intervention placed into action Pasteur’s “Absolute faith in God and in Eternity, and a conviction that the power for good given to us in this world will be continued beyond it, were feelings which pervaded his whole life,” according to his son-in-law. In Pasteur’s own words, “Science brings men nearer to God.”

Inspired by Louis Pasteur‘s germ theory, to combat surgical infections, Joseph Lister in 1867 published in the paper entitled Antiseptic Principle of the Practice of Surgery, introduced the prinicples of the modern antiseptic surgical method.

Lister acknowledged Pasteur’s invaluable contribution. In a letter to Pasteur in February 1874, Lister gave him “thanks for having, by your brilliant researches, proved to me the truth of the germ theory. You furnished me with the principle upon which alone the antiseptic system can be carried out.” Joseph Lister is now known as the father of modern surgery.

Darwin and Pasteur is a study of contrasts. For Darwin, use of the “scientific point of view”, who viewed the Bible as a “damable doctrine”, led to the “mad dream”, pangenesis. For Pasteur, use of the Scientific Method and praying launched the era of modern surgery.

Darwin along with the evolution industry, unlike Pasteur, has yet to deliver on the promise to discover and introduce advances in medicine. In the post-Modern Synthesis era, the theory of evolution, like the “mad dog” theory of pangenesis, has crash into an irrelevant dead-end.

Contrary to popular opinion, The Origin of Species was not a scientific work, and Charles Darwin makes that point very clear –

I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.

Rather, Darwin called The Origin of Species “one long argument”—not a scientific showcase. Darwin makes this point because he knew what differentiates science from logic.

More than 200 years before the publication of The Origin of Species, English scientist Francis Bacon formalized what is now known as the Scientific Method – the only proven method of scientific inquiry for discovering natural laws.

As a founding member of the Royal Society, Bacon was quoted by Darwin in the preamble of The Origin of Species. The Scientific Method had earlier been used by Copernicus and Galileo overturning the geocentric worldview, and later by Isaac Newton that lead to the discovery of the natural laws of motion and gravity.

The Scientific Method eliminates bias and pre-conceived ideas. A classic example of a pre-conceived idea was the Greek philosophy Aristotle popularized that the Earth is the center of the universe. Aristotle founded the geocentric worldview based on logic—not by analysis of scientific evidence.

Deductively viewing the Earth as of the great importance in the universe, the Roman Catholic Church embraced Aristotle’s geo-centric logic, until challenged by and overturned by Copernicus and Galileo. Natural laws are not necessarily logical.

The power of the Scientific Method is the separation fact from fiction, science from non-science, and science from faulty or unfounded logic.

With the Scientific Method, the evidence is the primary factor that controls the development of the hypothesis. This process of reasoning is known as inductive logic. Only the evidence can derive the hypothesis.

With logic, the process of reasoning is reversed—the hypothesis is the primary factor that controls the selection of the evidence. This process of reasoning is known as deductive logic – or, deductive reasoning.

The big downside of deductive logic is that the evidence can be manipulated to support the hypothesis. Deductive reasoning then can be easily infected with philosophy, bias, and pre-conceived ideas—like, Aristotle’s belief in a geo-centric worldview.

By using deductive reasoning, Darwin was free to use analogies and “imaginary illustrations” to develop his theory of natural selection—rather than by scientific analysis of only the evidence. Darwin had replaced the Scientific Method with his deductive “I Think” approach.

In place of the Scientific Method, Darwin called his approach a “scientific point of view”. This allowed Darwin to replace science with his own philosophy, bias, and pre-conceived ideas.

Despite known scientific problems and widespread criticism, however, natural selection was eventually accepted in the evolution industry largely due to the powerful influence of the emerging new X Club intellectuals of the nineteenth century. 

In fact, Darwin was actually forced to abandon the Scientific Method in order to propose natural selection as a natural law. In a letter to Asa Gray at Harvard University, Darwin set the record straight -

What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction, my commonest error being / probably induction from too few facts. 

While, Darwin was concerned about his deductive approach he garnered widespread support, anyway. His older brother, Erasmus, just a week before the publication of The Origin of Species, consoled Darwin in a letter –

In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.

The legacy of the evolution industry continues. Darwinism remains rooted in philosophy—not science. In the 2010 book entitled What Darwin Got Wrong, even “card-carrying” evolutionary atheists, Jerry Fodor and Massimo Palmarini are dealing with Darwin’s “scientific point of view” rather than the Scientific Method - 

We have both spent effort and ink… to show that Darwin’s theory of natural selection is fatally flawed.

Evolution, once a theory in crisis, is now in crisis without a theory. Evolution is a fact, only in the realm of philosophy.

At Bahia Blanca, Darwin discovered a very large fossil that was complete. The geological location of the fossil find was problematic, however. The location of the fossil was below a layer of white seashells, similar to the layer he found on the island of Santiago.

This puzzled Darwin. How could the large fossil be located below an ocean deposit, not above? Darwin knew this observation contradicted what Charles Lyell had proposed in his Principles of Geology.

By 1859 in The Origin of Species, despite known contradictions with the fossil record, Darwin explained the new unifying theory for evolution—natural selection:

I do believe that natural selection will generally act very slowly, only over long periods of time…. natural selection acts slowly by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modifications; it can act only by short and slow steps.

To find these “slight, successive” forms, Darwin suggested, “we should always look for forms intermediate between each species”.

However, the fact was “slight, successive” forms were missing in action, and “[t]he distinctiveness of specific forms and their not being blended together in innumerable transitional links is a very obvious difficulty.”

One of the classic evidences for evolution published in biology textbooks includes a graph of a hypothetical geological column with the primitive species on the bottom, with the column layered over by increasingly more complex species.

Even Darwin would argue that these graduated graphs were fiction: “Why, then, is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”

Geological column graphics are simply fraudulent attempts by frustrated biology textbook writers to sell “evolution as a fact” without the evidence. These graphics have been soundly rejected by modern paleontologists, including Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge who explains -

Indeed, it is the chief frustration of the fossil record that we do not have empirical evidence [as seen in the graph] for sustained trends.

The fact is the “slight, successive” changes are simply not found in the fossil record. Gould continues his criticism, stating -

The fossil record doesn’t show gradual change and every paleontologist has known that.

World-renowned American biologist and member of the National Academy of Sciences, Douglas Futuyma agrees with Gould:

The supposition that evolution proceeds very slowly and gradually, and so should leave thousands of fossil intermediates of any species in its wake, has not been part of evolutionary theory for more than thirty years.

Darwin agrees with Gould, noting, “several difficulties here discussed… we do not find infinitely numerous fine transitional forms closely joining them all together.”

To sell “evolution as a fact”, the evolution industry has been forced to abandon original Darwinism and embrace the practice of fraud. A practice the industry has embraced starting with Haeckel’s fabricated embryo drawings.

Evolution is a fact only in philosophy, not as a science.

Darwin’s preamble to the first edition of The Origin of Species includes quotations from William Whewell’s popular book entitled Bridgewater Treatise and Francis Bacon’s sentential work entitled Advancement of Learning. From different worldview, both Whewell and Bacon advocated the use of inductive reasoning—the scientific method.

 Bacon (January 1561 – April 1626) is noted as one of the founders of the Scientific Revolution that eventually lead to the establishment of the Royal Society by Charles II in 1660. Whewell, one of Darwin’s dons at Cambridge University, is credited for coining the term “scientist.” 

Taking a comprehensive approach to the study of evolution, Darwin presented the two different worldviews of Bacon and Whewell. Whewell, envisioning nature apart from a “Divine” intervention,

“But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this-we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws.”

Bacon, by contrast, envisioned nature as part of “God’s work,”

“To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God’s word, or in the book of God’s works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both.”

Darwin teaches, by example, to embrace the exploration of diverse worldviews. Modern education should take Darwin’s approach and “teach the controversy.”

Just two months before the release of the first edition of The Origin of Species in September 1859, Darwin wrote to Charles Lyell, “Embryology in Chapter VIII is one of my strongest points I think.”

Writing in his autobiography, Darwin recalls: “Hardly any point gave me so much satisfaction when I was at work on the Origin, as the explanation of the wide difference in many classes between the embryo and the adult animal.”

Darwin’s premise was that the similarity between the structure and the embryo of animal and man was primary proof that man evolved from animals. In The Descent of Man, published in 1871, Darwin writes in the first chapter that embryology provides the “ample and conclusive evidence in favour of the principle of gradual evolution.”

Darwin was not an embryologist, and instead relied on the work of others. In The Origin of Species, Darwin gave credit to Ernst Haeckel: “Professor Haeckel in his “Generelle Morphologie” and in [other] works has recently brought his great knowledge and abilities to bear on what he calls phylogeny, or the lines of descent of all organic beings. In drawing up the several series he trusts chiefly to embryological characters [to establish evolutionary sequences].”

Based on what Darwin thought was scientific evidence concluded: “So again it is probable, from what we know of the embryos of mammals, birds, fishes, and reptiles, that these animals are the modified descendants of some ancient progenitor.”

In The Origin of Species, Darwin wrote, “Thus, as it seems to me, the leading facts in embryology, which are second to none in importance, are explained on the principles of variation in the many descendants from some … ancient progenitor”

During the twentieth-century, Haeckel’s embryos were prominently displayed in nearly every biology textbook, even though Haeckel eventually confessed that the drawings were fraudulent.

In January 1909, Haeckel’s confession was published as a letter in the Munchener Allegemeine Zeitung, an international weekly publication for the sciences, arts, and technology. In the letter, Haeckel clearly states that the drawings were contrived by “comparative synthesis” and not by accurate reproduction. Without the fraud, the expected evolutionary embryonic sequences had obvious gaps. Haeckel concedes, “a small portion of my embryo pictures (possibly 6 or 8 in a hundred) are really ‘falsified’.”

Even more sadly, Haeckel’s only defense was that fraudulent practices were an accepted practice even by some of the “most esteemed biologists” of the day. Haeckel wrote, “After this compromising confession of ‘forgery’ I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner’s dock hundreds of fellow culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises, and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of ‘forgery,’ for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised, and constructed.” Indeed the scientific method had been abandoned not only by Darwin and Haeckel, but also by a large segment of the profession of biology.

Paul R. Ehrlich of Stanford University and author of the famous overpopulation book, The Population Bomb, wrote in 1963 that Haeckel’s law now only has a leading role in mythology—not in science. “This generalization was originally called the biogenetic law by Haeckel and is often stated as ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.’ This crude interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close examination, however. Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology.”

Like Haeckel’s embryo drawings, the history of evolution  has been laced with an insidious legacy of fraud.

Evolution is a theory in crisis. Even students pursuing advanced degrees in science cannot grasp the basics of evolution, according to a new study by University of Guelph researchers.

The finding reveals evolutionary teaching is in chaos from elementary school up, said Ryan Gregory, a professor in Guelph’s Department of Integrative Biology, who conducted the research with former student Cameron Ellis.

The study was published in BioScience and is particularly timely, given that this year is the bicentennial of Charles Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of publication of On the Origin of Species, which underpins understanding of the diversity of Earth’s organisms and their interrelations.

“Misconceptions about natural selection may still exist, even at the most advanced level,” Gregory said.

“We’re looking at a subset of people who have spent at least four years, sometimes even six or seven years, in science and still don’t necessarily have a full working understanding of basic evolutionary principles or scientific terms like ‘theories.’”

Many previous studies have assessed how evolution is understood and accepted by elementary, high school and undergraduate students, as well as by teachers and the general public, Gregory said. But this was the first to focus solely on students seeking graduate science degrees.

The study involved nearly 200 graduate students at a mid-sized Canadian university who were studying biological, physical, agricultural, or animal sciences. When the students were asked to apply basic evolutionary principles, only 20 to 30 per cent could do so correctly, and many did not even try to answer such questions. Of particular interest to Gregory was the finding that many students seem less than clear about the nature of scientific theories.

“This is telling us that traditional instruction methods, while leading to some basic understanding of evolution, are not producing a strong working knowledge that can be easily applied to real biological phenomena.”

The outcome underscores the failure of single cohesive theory of evolution to emerge since the collapse of evolution’s Central Dogma at the turn of the century. Ryan Gregory’s study further demonstrates that education on an non-cohesive theory leads to chaos in the schoolhouse.  

“No other work of mine was begun is so deductive a spirit as this; for the whole theory was thought out on the west coast of S. America before I had seen a true coral reef.”

Darwin’s theory was “thought out”—even before Darwin had seen the evidence. This is Darwin’s “I Think” approach. Darwin was caught swinging on the pendulum between the scientific method and logic, a popular trend in certain nineteenth century circles. 

At the time, use of inductive reasoning was being challenged by the popular British philosopher – John Stuart Mill. Mill promoted the use of deductive reasoning over the scientific method. In ascribing to Aristotelian logic, Darwin argues –

“How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observations must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service!”

Darwin continues –

“In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.” 

Ironically, the facts were irrelevant to Darwin. The major problem with deductive reasoning is that the conclusions can be misleading, inconclusive, and even erroneous. Darwin even concedes in The Origin of Species –

“For I am well aware that scarcely a single point (evidence) is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions (hypothesis) directly opposite to those at which I have arrived.”

Darwin did not use the scientific method, a fact he acknowledged. Two years before the publication of The Origin of Species, in writing to a friend, Darwin succinctly states –

“I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”

Newton applied the scientifc method. Discovery of the natural laws of gravity and motion by Newton over the centuries have been steadfast and practical. By contrast, in abandoning the scientific method with speculations, Darwin developed a theory that continues to be widely contested.

Do you think Darwin would have developed a different theory using the scientific method?

“Men have sought to make a world from their own conception and to draw from their own minds all the material which they employed, but if, instead of doing so, they had consulted experience and observation, they would have the facts and not opinions to reason about, and might have ultimately arrived at the knowledge of the laws which govern the material world.”

Bacon differentiated between “concepts” drawn from the “mind” and the “facts” drawn from the “evidence.” Concepts drawn from the mind can be influenced by prior knowledge, preconceived ideas, and traditions. Inductive reasoning limits the influence of bias.

In dedication to the estabishment of inductive reasoning, Bacon established the British Royal Society. Later in the nineteenth century, emphasis on the importance of inductive reasoning was further championed by William Whewell, a contemporary of Charles Darwin. To align with inductive reasoning, Darwin opens The Origin of Species with quotations from both Whewell and Bacon.

The question is, then, what is the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning? The difference between the scientific method and Aristotelian logic centers on determining the primary and secondary factors – also known as independent and depenent factors, respectively. The primary factor is the independent variable and controls the secondary (dependent) variable.

With inductive reasoning, the evidence is the primary factor and the hypothesis is the secondary, or dependent, factor. This means that the evidence takes precedence over the hypothesis – rejecting the influence of the bias.

This is the Scientific Method and the only approach proven to discover the laws of nature. Expressed in another way, the evidence with inductive reasoning is a free agent, and hypothesis becomes a slave to the evidence. The evidence trumps subjectivity.   

Deductive reasoning takes the inverse approach and the evidence becomes a slave to the hypothesis. This is known as Aristotelian logic where subjectivity can trump the evidence. Bias can rule. These diffences can be illustrated in a table format.

Scientific Method and Aristotelian logic are antithetical methods of inquiry. The next question is – what approach did Darwin take?

 Copernicus, by taking careful measurements to gather evidence, demonstrated that the Earth was not the center of the universe – rather, the Earth revolves around the sun. What made the key elemental difference was - the evidence. The evidence contradicted Aristotelian logic that had even crept into the Roman Catholic Church. The Scientific Revolution developed in concert along with a larger movement known as the Age of Enlightenment. In part, the movement was seeking to overthrow the Roman Catholic Church, which by the sixteenth century had even embraced Aristotle’s geocentric worldview.

 Driven to understand the universe as an act of the Creator, Copernicus wrote -  

 “The mechanisms of the universe, wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator… the system best and most orderly artist of all framed for our sake.”

 Copernicus died in 1543 almost immediately after publishing his findings in the epochal book entitled On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres.

 While Copernicus’ escaped Roman Catholic Church rule, Galileo after confirming Copernicus’ findings was found guilty of “heresy” by the Inquisition in 1632. Thereafter, Galileo spent the last 10 years of his life under house arrest.

 Isaac Newton, after studying the evidence later in the eighteenth century, verified Copernicus’ and Galileo’s findings by using the scientific method. Newton is also known for discovering the laws of motion and gravity. When scientists at Britain’s Royal Society were asked in 2005 about who had the greater effect on the history of science, Newton or Albert Einstein – the vote went to Newton.

 The question is – what made the Scientific Revolution a revolution? The answer is – the system of reasoning. Aristotle logic was based on deductive reasoning. The Scientific Revolution was based on inductive reasoning.

 We will be exploring these differences in this series of blogs. What do you think is the difference between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning? Is the difference important?

 Darwin goal was to achieve a noticeable place in history: “But I was also ambitious to take fair place among scientific men – whether more ambitious or less so then most of my fellow-workers, I can form no opinion.” Without question, Darwin has met that goal. Darwinism is today’s most contentious cultural and scientific topics.

The scientific method was not in Darwin’s toolbox, however. While Newton had demonstrated the value of the scientific method, for Darwin science stood in the way of the theory: “My error has been a good lesson to me never to trust in science to the principle of exclusion.” For Darwin, the evidence was an obstacle, not a trump card.

Recognizng Darwin’s shroud of science, Richard Owen from the Royal College of Surgeons that had originally surveyed Darwin’s work declared that the Origin of Species was strictly an “abuse of science.” Actually, Darwin clearly acknowledged, “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”

Had Darwin not gone “beyond the bounds” and adhered to the scientific method, would Darwinism have lead to such a stormy and contentious history?

Cambridge University

Without question, Darwin had a distain for Christianity. Darwin wrote, “I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlasting punishment. This is a damnable doctrine.” This is a remarkable statement for someone formally educated to be a clergyman in the Church of England.

Perhaps Darwin’s angst against Christianity stemmed from his father’s insistence that he attend Christ’s College at Cambridge University. Or perhaps, Darwin’s angst stemmed from speculating based the perspective of uniformitarianism that championed by Charles Lyell. While on the Beagle Darwin read Lyell’s book, entitled Principles of Geology. Lyell’s theory contradicts any concept of a global flood. 

Yet, like Lyell, once the scientific method had been abandoned, Darwin was free to explore concepts beyond the evidence. Two years before the publication of the Origin of Species, in an 1857 letter to Asa Gray, Darwin wrote, “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”

Ironically, even Darwin’s “bulldog,” Ernst Mayr, by the end of the twentieth century came to the same conclusion that “biology, even though it has all the other legitimate properties of a science, still is not a science like the physical sciences.”

Darwin had evidence, but the analysis was not bassed on the scientific method. Now 150 years later, the irresolvable issues could have been avoided had Darwin’s not reached “beyond the bounds of true science.” The convening of the Altenberg Summit in Austria this last summer highlights our entrance into the postmodern evolution era.