The Darwinian Delusion: The Scientific Myth Of Evolutionism

By Michael Ebifegha

Pseudoscience Advocates Darwinism

Whereas

Science Endorses Anti-Darwinism

Darwin's theory of evolution, which asserts that new species are formed gradually through competition, is being challenged as empirical studies s

• Language: English
• Publisher: Brilliant Books Literary
• Release date: Dec 10, 2022
• ISBN: 9781641337489

Michael Ebifegha

Michael Ebifegha is a certified science, math, and religion instructor. He earned a certificate in religious studies from the Toronto Catholic School Board and a Bachelor of Education in science and mathematics and doctorate in physics from the University of Toronto. He is the author of Farewell to Darwinian Evolution: Exposition of God's Creation Patent and Seal, The Darwinian Delusion: The Scientific Myth of Evolutionism, Creation or Evolution? Origin of Species in Light of Science's Limitations and Historical Records, 4th Origin: Refuting the Myth of Evolutionism and Exposing the Folly of Clergy Letters, and Origin: Satan's Shadow in Religion.

Book preview

The Darwinian Delusion

Copyright © 2022 by Michael Ebifegha

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system without express written permission from the author, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid.

Scripture quotations marked NIV are taken from THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSIONâ. Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49530. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NLT are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, Copyright © 1996. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois 60189. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America.

Brilliant Books Literary

137 Forest Park Lane Thomasville

North Carolina 27360 USA

Books by Michael Ebifegha

Farewell to Darwinian of Evolution: God’s Creation Patent & Seal

The Darwinian Delusion: The Scientific Myth of Evolutionism

Creation or Evolution?: Origin of Species in Light of Science’s Limitations and Historical Records

4th Origin: Refuting the Myth of Evolutionism and Exposing The Folly of the Clergy Letters.

Satan’s Shadow in Abrahamic Religions: Clerics’ defiance of God’s Creation Sabbath Day mandate in celebrating Charles Darwin’s Evolution Day in their places of worship

Dedicated to the Almighty God,

WHO,

as

ex-atheist Antony Flew

stipulates in his last will and testament,

IS

a self-existent, immutable, immaterial,

omnipotent, and omniscient Being.

Creation and Evolution Ultimately it comes down to the alternative: What came first? Creative Reason, the Creator Spirit who makes all things and gives them growth, or Unreason, which, lacking any meaning, strangely enough brings forth a mathematically ordered cosmos, as well as man and his reason. The latter, however, would then be nothing more than a chance result of evolution and thus, in the end, equally meaningless.

—Pope Benedict XVI, Creation and Evolution (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2007)

Table of Contents

Why this Book Matters

Preface

Introduction

Chapter 1: Unfolding the Darwinian Delusion

Chapter 2: Evolutionism: Purpose and Concerns

Chapter 3: Debunking Falsehood: The Earth’s Age Not Implied in the Bible

Chapter 4: Resolving The Micro-Macro Evolution Dilemma

Chapter 5: Creation Vs. Evolution Cosmology

Chapter 6: Exalting the Creationist Worldview

Chapter 7: The Natural Selection Delusion

Chapter 8: The Fossil Record Delusion

Chapter 9: The Origin of Life Delusion

Chapter 10: Evolution: Unifying and Information Theory Delusion

Chapter 11: God Is No Delusion But Scientism Is

Chapter 12: The Media and the Creationism-Evolutionism Controversy

Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References/Notes

Appendix A: Teaching of Origins

Appendix B: The God of Creation & the Ten Commandments

Why this Book Matters

This book matters because, regarding origin, morality requires the truth and nothing else; the philosophical preferences, such as intelligent or unintelligent design, of any discipline of knowledge is irrelevant.

Origin science (such as the science behind missing links in the fossil record) addresses events that are not testable, repeatable or reproducible and should not be confused with operational science (such as the science behind cell phones). Origin science consists of a scientific component (the evidence) and an opinion component (the interpretation or explanation of the evidence from a historical perspective). Whereas the scientific component is a fact, the opinion component is a belief. The creationism–evolutionism controversy involves different philosophical opinions of the same scientific data. Creationists scan the evidence with reference to divine revelation (intelligent design), and evolutionists view the evidence through the lens of absolute materialism (unintelligent design) and expert (intelligent) opinions. Science is neutral about the origin of God or absolute materialism; hence, acceptance of either worldview is based on faith.

In his mission to promote Darwinism, Jerry A. Coyne, author of Why Evolution Is True, writes:

Darwin’s theory that all of life was the product of evolution, and that the evolutionary process was driven largely by natural selection, has been called the greatest idea that anyone ever had. But it is more than just a good theory, or even a beautiful one. It happens to be true" (2009, xvi).

These are statements of faith in a scientist’s opinion that can indoctrinate the public. Indoctrinating the public is not the role of science. How can the theory of evolution provide the truth of where we came from or where we are going when it addresses only the material realm (such as the brain) and has no knowledge of where the immaterial component (such as the mind) came from and goes to. These are philosophical questions that are wrongly perceived as scientific.

Because authorities with predetermined philosophical conclusions control and monitor the belief component in origin science, their views can easily culminate in academic delusion, which implies, false beliefs that persist regardless of contrary evidence. In a delusionary scientific environment, just-so arguments are used to maintain a desired philosophical preference. An example of academic delusion is when a theory is presented as a scientific fact and its advocates persistently repel any evidence that challenges its authenticity or constantly modify or extend it in light of new evidence.

The tell-tales signs and repercussions of academic delusion include the bullying of colleagues who refute the status quo, ridiculing and ostracizing dissidents who do not to comply or submit to the authorities, engaging in court battles, or soliciting media coverage and public acceptance through anniversary celebrations such as Darwin’s Day or Evolution Weekend. It is obvious the modern scientific establishment is engaging in these behaviours.

The Darwinian Delusion lends support to honest evolutionists who base their arguments solely on empirical evidence, contending that Darwinism is the biggest mistake in the history of science. Why? Because Darwinism claims that new species are formed gradually, by random variation, and through competition; however, empirical evidence shows that new species are formed rapidly, with intent, and through collaboration. The empirical evidence reflects a creationist as opposed to an evolutionary scenario, which refutes Coyne’s claim:

Evolution is a fact. And far from casting doubt on Darwinism, the evidence gathered by scientists over the past century and a half supports it completely, showing that evolution happened, and that it happened largely as Darwin proposed, through the workings of natural selection (pp. xiii-xiv).

Empirically speaking, when Darwinism does not produce new species, anti-Darwinism does. Natural selection loses its glory. Late Harvard University paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould was sincere in saying, Evolutionary biologists in general are famous for their facility in devising plausible stories; but they often forget that plausible stories need not be true (Paleobiology 3.1 [1977], pp. 34–35).

The citizens of this world deserve the truth and not the pseudoscientific preference of experts about how we got here. Only those who fear the truth will strive to deflect any valid criticism of Darwinism. Any desire to extend the Darwinian paradigm of evolution in the face of contradictory empirical evidence is an unequivocal indication of delusion.

Preface

The relatively small changes we do see in species, such as wolves growing a heavier coat in a colder climate, or the beak of the finch adapting to the size of available seeds, tend to preserve a species rather than transform it into something brand-new. These small ecological adjustments don’t seem to go very far, except in the minds of Darwinists, who view them as exhibiting the entire process that created wolves and birds in the first place.¹

—George Sim Johnston

Emily Standen is a scientist at the University of Ottawa, who studies Polypterus senegalus, AKA the Senegal bichir, a fish that not only has gills but also primitive lungs. Regular polypterus can breathe air at the surface, but they are much more content living underwater, she says. But when Standen took Polypterus that had spent their first few weeks of life in water, and subsequently raised them on land, their bodies began to change immediately. The bones in their fins elongated and became sharper, able to pull them along dry land with the help of wider joint sockets and larger muscles. Their necks softened. Their primordial lungs expanded and their other organs shifted to accommodate them. Their entire appearance transformed. They resembled the transition species you see in the fossil record, partway between sea and land, Standen told me. According to the traditional theory of evolution, this kind of change takes millions of years.²

—Stephen Buranyi

Evolution is the science of change when it is observable in our lifetime and empirically and repeatedly demonstrable. It is only under these scenarios that it becomes scientifically correct to say biological evolution has occurred in the past, is happening today and will persist in the future. Accordingly, bacteria-to-bacteria evolution that culminates in variants or strains of bacteria is a timeless reality, but the Darwinian bacteria-to-human brand of evolution which is not observed, testable or repeatable today, did not happen in the past and will not transpire in the future.

—Michael Ebifegha

The truth about the origin of species is forever lost to science because knowledge of the origin of life is an unsolvable scientific problem. For biological microevolution in the form viruses-to-viruses, bacteria-to-bacteria, or finches-to-finches, the issue of origin is unimportant in that the progeny are variants or strains of their progenitors. Evolution under these circumstances falls within the scientific domain and is the cornerstone of medical applications for the prevention and treatment of human diseases, such as SARS or COVID-19, the development of new agricultural products, and the production of industrial innovations. For these applications, dogmatic assumptions are not required, as scientists understand the mechanisms involved and the results can be reproduced. However, for the idealized and idolized biological macroevolution in the form bacteria-to-human beings, the progenies are genetically, morphorgically and cognitively different from their progenitors and so the subject of origin of life and consequently the origin of species becomes a central issue. The alleged numerous transformations spanning millions of years from bacteria to human beings were not observed or reported by any means in the past and are not observable today; these events cannot be tested or repeated and, hence, the events are outside the purview of everyday use of science. Because they are outside the limit of pure science, doctrinaire assumptions, such as life originating from nonlife which are contrary to established scientific findings, are invoked. Subsequent conclusions are governed by dead-end philosophical preferences. The inconsistencies have divided the scientific establishment into philosophical camps, namely creationists and evolutionists. The split is inreconcilable because it exists as a result of different philosophical interpretations of the same scientific evidence. For instance, creationists maintain that a world that is fine-tuned and governed by natural laws cannot be the product of blind chance, but evolutionists insist it is.

Although science cannot solve the origin of life problem through the natural law of biogenesis, it stipulates that life can only come from a preexisting life. It is a delusion then to associate this preexisting life to (1) any being who has not formally and publicly, in words or in print, claimed credit for having created the world, or (2) any theory that directly or indirectly suggests otherwise. In accordance with conventional standards, this book advocates that the God of Abraham, who formally claimed credit for having created the world before an audience of Israelites and engraved his words on a pair of stone tablets, is not a delusion. Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion is, therefore, misguided.

Dawkins’ mission, as the leader of the New Atheist movement, is to prioritize Darwin’s theory of evolution as the foundational scientific truth and dismiss special creation by God as a delusion. But Darwin’s theory (1) is based on analogy and just-so claims, as opposed to experiment, (2) is sustained by authority and not by hard scientific evidence, (3) relies on the successes achieved in the breeding enterprise, (4) derives its justification from circular reasoning and (5) is invalidated by the absence of the numerous transitional life forms it predicts would be found in the fossil records in populated deposits. If science is based on uniformitarianism, why are there also no intermediate life forms among the basic or primary lifeforms in the world today to justify their existence in the past? The claim of imperfection of the geological records is not a scientific reason but a philosophical excuse! It is now over a century, and evolutionary science has not advanced beyond the limit achieved in the breeding enterprise; the new species produced in science laboratories today are still consistently variants or strains of their progenitors. The routine extrapolation from the empirical bacteria-to-bacteria microevolution studies to justify Charles Darwin’s theoretical bacteria-to-human macroevolution is, therefore, naturally forbidden and hence scientifically inappropriate.

Apparently, unlike other scientific theories, such as Phlogiston, that were brushed aside purely on scientific grounds, Darwin’s theory on the origin of species by means of natural selection survives today because of its religious, political, social, and economic ramifications and an unwavering media endorsement. Under the premise of authority rather than concrete scientific evidence, the theory has attained the status of a foundational scientific theory and considered as authentic as the heliocentric theory or cell theory. This claim is certainly not true. The present treatise is to dissect and unravel the nature and extent of the Darwinian delusion.

Some of the websites I have cited may no longer be available. I am grateful to all the authors whose works are quoted. I also am immensely indebted to and thankful for those who opt for scientific truth rather than fiction about our origin.

Introduction

Life, consciousness, mind, and the self can only come from a Source that is living, conscious, and thinking. ... It is simply inconceivable that any material matrix or field can generate agents who think and act. Matter cannot produce conceptions and perceptions. A force field does not plan or think. So at the level of reason and everyday experience, we become immediately aware that the world of living, conscious, thinking beings has to originate in a living Source, a Mind.¹

—Antony Flew with Roy Abraham Varghese

[S]cientists concluded that life could not come directly from inert matter; therefore, it could come only from life itself. Contrary to popular opinion, science does not set itself up in opposition to God. Science can neither prove nor disprove His existence. That subject transcends the limits of science.²

—Hubert Reeves, Joel De Rosnay,

Yves Coppens, and Dominique Simonnet

The controversy within the scientific community is not between creation (inventing or producing new things) and evolution (things changing with time), both of which are facts of life and processes in science. Instead, the controversy concerns creationism versus evolutionism, which are different beliefs about the origin and diversity of life on earth. The creationist within the scientific community believes in an intelligent, conscious, omniscient Creator, the God of Abraham who, in a formal speech before a scheduled meeting with ancient Israelites at Mount Sinai, claimed credit for having created the world. Evolutionists, in contrast, believe in natural selection, a blind, mindless, and unconscious process proposed by Charles Darwin, as the primary mechanism behind the emergence of all life forms. Creationism is the religious belief in creation, and evolutionism is the religious belief in Darwinian evolution. These are two mutually exclusive beliefs or worldviews. Both are outside science’s purview because they are not capable of proof. However, one of these worldviews must be a delusion since both cannot be true. Richard Dawkins believes God is the delusion; my objective is to explain why the Darwinian theory of evolution is the delusion.

—Michael Ebifegha

The doctrines of evolutionism profoundly influence students irrespective of their backgrounds. I first encountered evolutionist indoctrination during a conversation with my nephew when we met in Baltimore in 1997. I was then visiting from Canada. Raised as a Christian, I inquired about his religious beliefs. He confessed that he doubted the concept of a living God because evolution taught otherwise. Our conversation ended with an explanation on why giraffes have long necks. I promised him that I would do my homework and present my findings. When approximately ten years later I told him of my book titled The Death of Evolution , he humbly requested a copy and promised to follow up with a rebuttal.

Not long afterwards I read an article about biological evolution and its alarming influence on students in Africa. Here Richard Dawkins is right in his argument that evolutionism leads to atheism. To ardent evolutionists anything is possible except God’s creation by fiat, as recorded in the biblical text of Genesis.

Such evidence of evolutionary theory’s captivating power caused me to reflect on my own educational background. I do not remember ever having formally studied the subject. If evolution is about explaining things like the giraffe’s long neck, I acquired knowledge of this sort from stories told in social gatherings. As children living in an African village without electricity, at night we spread mats and gathered around kerosene lanterns. During these memorable sessions, the adults told stories that explained how things came to be—for instance, how and why the tortoise assumed its present form, why some species are dumb while others are clever, why some crawl on the ground, and so on. These stories often made sense by correlating with physical evidence. Therefore, when my nephew presented his views about the long neck of the giraffe, they fit well with the folktales I had learned in my teens.

When it comes to the subject of human origins, these folktales are criticized as mythical. Small wonder, then, that most scientists denigrate the Genesis account of creation as utterly preposterous; even some theologians claim that it is ancient mythology. Still, the explanations by which evolutionary scientists account for human origins, such as life’s springing from non-life, are even more mythical than the ones they seek to replace.

NASIM, for instance, claims that the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees lived 6–7 million years ago and the common ancestor of humans and the puffer fish lived 400 million years ago,³ yet these hypothetical progenitors are unknown. It takes more faith to believe in a series of evolutionary myths than to believe in a single myth of creation! The physician and molecular biologist Michael Denton, comparing the Darwinian theory of evolution with the Genesis account, reaches this conclusion:

Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more or less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century. Like the Genesis-based cosmology, which it replaced, and like the creation myths of ancient man, it satisfies the same deep psychological need for an all-embracing explanation for the origin of the world which has motivated all the cosmogenic myth makers of the past, from the shamans of primitive peoples to the ideologues of the medieval Church.⁴

Given all the rhetoric that Darwinian evolution is a scientific fact, one expects something more than a myth. What is deeply troubling is that evolutionary scientists adamantly present their side of the argument while too often refusing to compare their worldview with that of creationists. For instance, NASIM seeks to discredit the creationist worldview by claiming, Common structures and behaviours often demonstrate that species have evolved from common ancestors.⁵ This is NASIM’s generalization that promotes an exclusively evolutionist worldview. As Mary Midgley remarks in Evolution as a Religion, The theory of evolution is not just an inert piece of theoretical science. It is, and cannot help being, also a powerful folktale about human origins.6 Another group of scientists that chooses to promote the creationist worldview could look at the same evidence and come up with the explanation, Common structures and behaviours often demonstrate that species have been created by a common designer. Science has no knowledge or record of the common ancestor/s or common designer. Therefore, both worldviews are not falsifiable and, consequently, are equally plausible from a philosophical point of view.

We know that organisms are both similar and dissimilar in morphology and behaviour. Thus, we can reach another conclusion based on the marked dissimilarities: Different structures and behaviours demonstrate that species evolved from different ancestors or were created by the same designer or different designers. Evolutionists shy away from focusing on dissimilarities because they illustrate the weakness of their theory, which focuses entirely on homologous similarities. Nobel laureate Sir Ernst Boris Chain argues that we should be more interested in the differences rather than the similarities.⁷ In other words, it is simply an issue of which story to tell. In the kind of bacteria-to-bacteria evolution that is demonstrable in the laboratory, the similarity is obvious. In the bacteria-to-human model of evolution, however, scientists emphasize limited similarity in DNA since this approach leads to a preferred philosophical conclusion. Let us consider a couple of examples of how evolutionists manipulate the scientific enterprise.

Consider the belief that life can arise from non-life. Although empirical science discounts this view, evolutionists still posit the spontaneous generation of life because the only other choice is intelligent design, which they dislike on philosophical grounds. Suggesting that, given our present state of knowledge, creation is the only answer. Physicist H. S. Lipson, Fellow of the Royal Society, remarks in a letter to NewScientist, published in May 1981, that it is distasteful for scientists to reject a theory because it does not fit their preconceived ideas.⁸ Natural science should not be a religion.

Another example is the belief that random and mindless processes can transform protozoic slime, over the span of millions of years, into hands, limbs, torso, eyes, brain, face, and skeletal system, enabling in turn the development of abstract intelligence, love, hatred, and spirituality. How ludicrous! Die-hard atheistic scientists, such as Richard Dawkins, maintain that genes created us, body and mind.⁹ In his book God: The Failed Hypothesis, Victor J. Stenger blankly asserts, The eye is neither poorly nor well designed. It is simply not designed.¹⁰ Stenger believes that the laws of physics came from nothing and laments that his views are not recognized by a consensus of physicists.¹¹ What would the implications be if the laws of physics were arbitrary?

You could use Stenger’s views on the laws of physics to practical advantage. If you find yourself in traffic court for a collision, simply tell the judge that the laws of physics are capricious and, thus, that you do not deserve to be charged. For immediate release, hope that the judge turns out to be someone like Dawkins who, on the jacket of Stenger’s God: The Failed Hypothesis, is quoted as saying, I learned an enormous amount from this splendid book. Dawkins, however, should recall that Albert Einstein, whom he admires as an illustrious thinker,¹² espoused a philosophical view radically different from Stenger’s. According to Einstein, Everyone who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.¹³ Dawkins, therefore, will have to make up his mind about whom to believe—Einstein or Stenger.

You also might take another cue from atheist Taner Edis, a physicist colleague of Stenger, who in The Ghost of the Universe posits, We can understand the laws of physics not as expressions of a divine will, but as frameworks for accidents.¹⁴ Really? Therefore, to improve your chances of winning in court, you should go with both books in hand. Edis also asserts, The complexities of life do not require intelligent design; accidents and blind mechanisms do the trick.¹⁵ In reality, accidents and blind mechanisms produce chaos, not meaningful and complex designs. Besides, if the laws of physics are the frameworks for accidents, then different accidents will require different sets of laws and there will be utter confusion.

So, in accordance with Edis’s postulate, the next time you have a complex research project that does not seem to work, dump it on the highway to wait for accidents and blind mechanisms, perhaps in the form of a hurricane, to do the trick. According to Dawkins, Given infinite time, or opportunities, anything is possible.¹⁶ The problem with the atheistic solution, however, is that you have to wait millions of years for anything to materialize. To be honest, such pseudoscientific fables concocted by atheists are even more illogical than the folktales of my teenage years. The storytellers should replace the god of the gaps with the delusions of the gaps.

Many in the public eye find these fables unconvincing. For instance, G. K. Chesterton, the famous English novelist and critic, once mused, It is absurd for the evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into anything.¹⁷ Former atheist Lee Strobel has written that the more he analyzed the Darwinian paradigm, the more it appeared to be too far-fetched to be credible. For it to be true, Strobel points out, he would have to believe in several impossibilities: that nothing produces everything, that non-life produces life, that randomness produces fine-tuning, that unconsciousness produces consciousness, and that non-reason produces reason.¹⁸ In the absence of any empirical data to back up these tenets, the Darwinian narrative remains unconvincing.

There are, however, some remarkable differences between conventional folktales and their pseudoscientific variants. Ordinary people circulate folktales within their local communities, but academicians in science classrooms present their fables as fact worldwide. Unlike conventional folktales, the latter are accompanied by interpretations that sometimes involve circular reasoning; they also are supported by circumstantial evidence that cannot be falsified scientifically. In addition, these fables are promulgated with public funding and usually are promoted by the media and defended by courts of law against conflicting views. Ordinary folktales are presented as entertainment, invoking some mythical past to make sense of life, whereas their pseudoscientific equivalents seek to change people’s minds about the basis of life itself.

Evolutionary biology is essentially a collection of fables told by leading modern biologists. Dawkins’ books (The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving the Rainbow, and The Ancestor’s Tale) fit neatly in this grouping. For example, The Selfish Gene, according to Denis Noble at Oxford University, is a metaphorical story as opposed to a properly empirical scientific study.¹⁹ Harvard University paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould confesses, Evolutionary biologists in general are famous for their facility in devising plausible stories, but they often forget that plausible stories need not be true.²⁰ In this way, plausible stories can culminate in academic delusion.

Like folktales, evolutionary narratives justify a preconceived conclusion. The long neck of the giraffe is a scientific fact, but how and why it is so is simply the opinion of some scientists. In this book we shall not credit such pseudoscientific fables. Instead, we will be concerned with credible narratives that relate to the origin and diversity of life forms. These involve religious elements and provide answers about our origins and the meaning of life. Because the latter are philosophical points, religion and science are in conflict. Creationists seek answers from both the material and immaterial world, but evolutionists are committed solely to materialist answers. Within the scientific establishment, creationists and evolutionists are in endless competition over whose worldview prevails rather than over a search for truth. I recall my encounter with a professor from the University of Toronto, regarding the creationism-evolutionism debate. This conversation was during The Word on The Street Toronto Festival, which is