Don't make Darwin Day an official celebration of science

Darwin’s theory of natural selection cannot qualify as science. It’s a teaching in a system of belief known as physicalism. Basic to physicalism is the claim that only matter and physical agents can cause change in the physical universe--it denies reality to mental capabilities such as consciousness and free will. There is no scientific evidence for this claim. As merely one teaching within this system of belief, Darwin’s theory of natural selection is certainly not “a worthy symbol on which to celebrate the achievements of reason, science, and the advancement of human knowledge” as Rush Holt (NJ) wrote in the resolution H. RES. 41 he introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives.... Given the failure of science to recognize the spurious logic of darwinism, and its compliance in the scaling down of the human spirit to what an origin story based on physicalism is capable of, I suggest we choose instead to use the human spirit as our touchstone for what an adequate account of evolution must be like.

For all those reasons and more it would be an extremely serious error of judgment to make February 12 an official day of celebration of Darwinism as tribute to the majesty of science. More...

Anti-darwinism but not anti-Darwin

Anti-darwinism covers a multitude of opinions. To Darwinists we appear as a united militant throng of anti-darwinists, but we're actually so thinly scattered we have difficulty finding each other. I have yet to find anyone with an opinion similar to mine (except perhaps Samuel Butler). Let me re-assure you, we are not a throng (except for creationists who do tend to huddle around altars).

Anti-darwinists are not usually anti-Darwin, Charles Darwin himself being a very likeable gentleman. I'm actually part of the scientific opposition to Darwin, and what he stands for. I feel entitled--I am British, the same age as he when his thinking finally matured (73). And I have a long beard like his. I feel entitled to judge.

More accurately, I am part of the opposition to Darwin's theory of natural selection. More...

Darwinism, to what shall I compare thee?

Where do you expect to find Darwinism being spoken about? At scientific meetings? In the school science classroom? How about in the nursery, along with other fairy stories? No, that would be undignified! How about in a new musical? That's better. That's the setting for a new story I've just added to the category "Contrarian Stories." See it here.

I’ve a good mind to give up Darwinism for.

I was challenged to say what I mean in a few words. The fewest I could come up with, nine, is the heading above. Here it is a little less condensed:

I’ve a mind good enough to give up Darwinism for.

Here, expanded further:

Because Darwinists can’t account for mind evolving they say it’s merely brain; I value mind too much to accept that.

In other words:

Because quality of conscious experience is my top priority I can’t accept a chemicals-in-a-test–tube origin story like Darwinism.


Story: Natural selection as creation

If the modern combination of natural selection and mutation feels just plain silly to you, as it does to me, how can you communicate that feeling effectively when everyone else seems in awe of "The Modern Synthesis"?

As a last resort, I tell a story. Someone has signed a contract with God to take over from Him as creator, using natural selection and mutation. Then they call in an evolutionist to fulfill the contract them for them. Shouldn't be hard, right? Turns out, he's not pleased! More...

Common sense faults Modern Synthesis

How can you judge the claim of young-Earth creationism, that the Earth and all life were created as little as 10,000 years ago? Plain common sense tells you it can’t be true. But how about what is claimed for the Modern Synthesis, that all life evolved over the past four billion years through the combination of genetic mutation and natural selection? How can you judge that?

Why not the same way, through common sense? When I do that, I get the same answer: it can’t be true. Here’s how my reasoning goes: if you plot the actual capability of evolution as a graph over time, it’s the opposite of what you’d get if the claims made for the Modern Synthesis were true. More...