Why in this year of the anniversary of Darwin’s birth and the publication of his Origin of Species is Darwinism coming to an end? Of course, it should have come to an end over a century ago when its flaws were first being brought to the attention of the scientific community. But too many philosophical interests were at play.
Give a natural reason for the origin of life, as did Darwin and others that followed him, and the constraints of morality fall. One of his many followers was humanist Julian Huxley, secretary of the Zoological Society of London (1935-42), first director of UNESCO, the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization.
He expressed his feelings on evolution and those of his contemporaries and successors in writing, “The sense of spiritual relief which comes from rejecting the idea of God as a superhuman being is enormous.” (Essays of a Humanist, 1966, p. 223).
Each time an objection was made to the theory of evolution on scientific grounds a modification was introduced. Normally, any standard scientific theory would have been abandoned after two or three legitimate objections had been raised. This was not, however, the case with evolution. The continuing series of ‘ad hoc’ modifications made since the theory was launched in 1859 to this day distinguishes it from any theory claiming to be scientific.
Too many vested ideological interests of scientists and philosophers alike looking for a natural explanation of origins have interfered with a balanced objective scientific approach to Darwinism. As a simple change in wind direction at the battle of Lepanto in 1571 brought victory to Christianity over the Ottoman Empire, so new winds of change in scientific data are about to bring defeat to the errors of Darwinism.
Although the volume of scientific evidence against evolution theory has been accumulating ever since Darwin’s theory was introduced, the certainty about its downfall arises from recent discoveries in stratigraphy. Whereas in the past, every time a valid criticism was levelled against the theory a new ‘ad hoc’ modification however weak was made to counter it, this time there is no possible way round.
The geological time-scale: The very roots from which Darwinism draws its rationale, has been invalidated. This is not just another model, but laboratory experiments whose peer-reviewed reports have been published by academies of sciences. The experiments have been tested in the field and hold true in every case.
Sedimentary rocks formed of sediments laid down by moving currents of water do not take millions of years to form and the fossils in them are not, therefore, millions of years old. It is the velocity of current that determines the time for strata to form.
The empirical proof that rocks can and do form rapidly is unassailable. The experiments can be observed and repeated in any university laboratory. They show that rock strata do not form one upon the other in succession but laterally and vertically at the same time. This fact in itself falsifies the basic principle of superposition upon which the entire geological time-scale was constructed.
Of course, there are critics, but invariably they are those who resort to ‘ad hominem’ remarks about the experimenter. They say he can’t be right because all geologists accept the time-scale. But that is not a scientific argument.
All that has to be done to disprove the experimental results is for the critics to produce a single experiment demonstrating that in moving water strata form according to the principle of superposition. Anybody knowledgeable in mechanics has to admit that this is impossible.
The obvious question is why this empirical evidence is not taught in our places of education? The reason is the same as why criticisms of Darwin’s theory are not part of school programs: they challenge ideologies.
But in this instance papering over the cracks doesn’t work because they are chasms, not cracks. The best defense against such evidence is to give it the silent treatment. Such a method can, of course, only be temporary. The truth will eventually be known.
To hasten it, a series of conferences is being held to draw the attention of, at least, some of the less ideologically motivated members of the scientific community to a situation that is retarding the advance of science.
Guy Berthault is a researcher in fundamental physics and sedimentology and a graduate of the L’Ecole Polytechnique de Paris. His research has been published in both the French and Russian Academy of Sciences.
Courtesy of http://cnsnews.com/news/article/56427