|
Click
for PDF version of the following
There was a time when our
planet was a totally dead world. Today there is a rich abundance of life.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is an attempt at a purely naturalistic
explanation of the development of all life.
The basic assertions of
Darwin's Theory, as expressed in 'The Origin' (1859), are well known, namely that simple organisms of many millions
of years ago have gradually changed into the vast array or organisms alive
today, the changes being produced by the action of Natural Selection
preferentially preserving advantageous and inheritable characteristics.
'Darwin In Doubt' had its own origin
in my desire to improve my understanding of Darwin's Theory. My background
is mostly in Physics/Maths, which I have taught since 1982. I have a BSc in Physics
and an MSc in Scientific Computing. Hence, my approach to Darwin's Theory is
from the point of view of an interested amateur with a scientific background.
Fortunately, it is not necessary to be a specialist in Biology or Palaeontology
in order to
understand what Darwin's Theory asserts, and assess its credibility based on
the relevant data and arguments.
It came as a real surprise to me to discover
that most of the data presented as evidence for Darwin's
Theory, including that in 'The Origin', does not relate to or support his main assertion, namely that of extremely gradual organic change via huge
sequences of intermediate life forms. The evidence for such sequences might
exist as living descendants of intermediate life forms and/or in
fossilised remains - but such evidence did not exist in 1859 - and it does not exist today, after 150 years of
searching.
In 'The Origin' Darwin
expressed his concern about the absence of fossil evidence for sequential change
- so he clearly took it seriously, though he must have expected such evidence
would turn up it time. But it has not. All we have are well-defined
groupings of fish, reptiles etc plus stand-alone
individuals, of dubious status, claimed as 'missing-links' - but no sequences,
alive or long-dead, corresponding gradual but great organic changes.
One reason (maybe the only one?) why Darwin's Theory was and is so readily accepted,
and activley advocated by many, in spite of the lack of
direct evidence, is indicated by Richard Dawkins, who says - on page 249 of
his 1986 publication ‘The Blind Watchmaker’:
'In Darwin’s view, the whole point
of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non-miraculous
account of the existence of complex adaptations. For what it is worth, it
is also the whole point of this book.'
But this will not do.
Human
recorded history goes back thousands of years - but modern science, as founded
by the true greats, such as Newton and Galileo, has only existed a few centuries
- and it is only in the last hundred years or so we've had the subsequent explosion of
technologies which so characterises our modern age.
It is fundamental to modern
science that theories are derived from relevant data, and not influenced by preferred
beliefs - and that they are held with a
'light hand' - if the data goes against a theory then the theory goes. And
if one investigates beyond the usual superficial presentation in the media or
educational texts, it is clear that Darwin's Theory is in trouble - for
entirely scientific and rational reasons.
Time to get Darwin off our tenners?! 
In the complete 'Darwin In Doubt'
[about 27000 words, downloadable in PDF (Adobe) format] I seek
to discuss Darwin's Theory and its problems in a structured manner - the following is the
index to the book:
|
@Amazon.com
@Amazon.ca
