Smoodock's Blog

In 1959 Julian Huxley stated: “Darwin’s theory is no longer a theory but a fact.”[1] Is this so, and does this scientific fact follow the rules of a normal scientific hypothesis, or is it simply a theory given tremendous levity denied all other legitimate hypothesis that would oppose it? [2]

Let me say from the beginning that natural selection and adaptation are indeed scientific principles, but some scientists would argue that the evolutionary theory[3] may have a legitimate place in philosophical endeavor such as religious belief has, but it is by no means a scientific fact that can be proved through scientific hypothesis. For example:

“…for those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any criticism of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.” (Professor James A. Shapiro, bacteriologist; University of Chicago; May 12^th, 2006, an open letter to the Kansas State Board of Education)

Whether or not Charles Darwin was under pressure to reveal that his theory was not original is arguable, but it wasn’t until his 6^th edition of his book that he revealed the roots of the theory. Notice:

“…until recently the great majority of naturalists believed that the species were immutable productions, and had been separately created. This view has been ably maintained by many authors. Some few naturalists, on the other hand, have believed that species undergo modification, and that the existing forms of life are the descendants by true generation of preexisting forms. Passing over the allusions to the subject in classical writers, the first author who in modern times has treated it in a scientific spirit was Buffon.[4]” [emphasis mine in citation]

Therefore, according to Darwin, himself, the theory of evolution can be traced back at least to allusions in the classical writers, who lived a minimum of two thousand years before Charles Darwin and other scientists of the 19^th century began to take the idea seriously. In a footnote pointing to the classical writers in the above citation, Darwin referenced Aristotle’s Physics, 2:8:2, from which he claimed the “principle of Natural Selection shadowed forth.” Again, let me emphasize once more that I have no argument with natural selection, but the theory of evolution itself, which claims that life formed by itself, and ancient and lower, less complex species evolved into different life forms of a higher nature and complexity, is not true. I believe the geological table would support this statement. In future blog posts in this series, I hope to elaborate on this theme to show exactly where the theory originates. Later, I’ll address the more modern scientific issues directly, but if the theory of evolution has more to do with ideology, what business does it have in science?