Darwin Day Is Not Really About Darwin

Posted: February 11, 2011 by Alan Shlemon in Intelligently Designed

It’s Darwin Day tomorrow, a day when evolutionists celebrate “science and reason,” allegedly.

But this annual celebration is more about the Darwinists of today than the Darwin of yesterday. Conspicuously absent each year is a tribute to one of Darwin’s most noteworthy traits: intellectual honesty.

When you read Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species, you can sense his honesty about the problems with evolutionary theory. Like a good scientist should do, he acknowledges that his theory could be proven false (it’s falsifiable). He even offers specific examples of the kind of data that is necessary to show he’s mistaken about his theory. He was a fair-minded man.

Not so with Darwinists today. According to them, evolution is not only a proven fact, but impossible to disprove. It’s scientific dogma. Sure, they give a nod to falsifiability by saying evolution is “testable,” “open to evidence,” and is “forever uncertain,” but this is just lip-service. Their lips would serve the scientific community far better if they uttered the words “open to error” and actually meant it.

If Darwinists were open to evidence against evolution, they would consider the evidence of design and intelligence in biology. Though these might qualify as evidence to reasonable scientists, they are the very things Darwinists disqualify by definition!

Noted Darwinist Douglas Futuyma says, “In a scientific sense, there can be no evidence for…creation.” Notice he doesn’t say, “There is no evidence,” or “We haven’t found any evidence yet.” He says there can’t be. That’s because he’s not open to any evidence that might possibly cast doubt on Darwin’s theory. So much for continuing Darwin’s legacy of being fair-minded. Futuyma has left the school of science and entered the department of dogma.

Why have Darwinists abandoned the falsifiability of evolution? It’s because, in their mind, any evidence against evolution is evidence for an intelligent Designer. Darwinists aren’t interested in the right answers, but the right kind of answers.

It’s too bad for Darwin. His legacy couldn’t continue the treasured scientific tradition of fair-mindedness and falsifiability. Instead, Darwin Day celebrations reflect the mentality of Darwinists rather than Darwin, a man of more noble character than his theory’s progeny.

  1. rob says:

    alan i dont u why ur agianst darwinsts evolution does not go against christianity

  2. Sam Harper says:

    Good post.

    That is an interesting caption: “Let’s resolve to evolve.” How would we do that? Evolution depends on natural selection–weeding out inferior members of a species. Modern medicine and psychotherapy are designed to PREVENT natural selection from taking its toll on the weakest members of society. So how can we resolve to evolve unless we adopt some kind of program of eugenics?

  3. Alan Shlemon says:


    I’m not “against Darwinists.” My post is simply making the point that many Darwinists aren’t intellectually honest in the same way that Darwin was.

    According to noted Darwinists, evolution does go against Christianity. Darwinian evolution teaches that God had nothing to do with the development of what we see in biology, that human beings are not intrinsically valuable, that humans have no soul, that free will is an illusion, etc. These run counter to Christianity in significant ways.

  4. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tony and Matthew Burford, Brett Kunkle. Brett Kunkle said: RT @STRtweets — Darwin Day Is Not Really about Darwin: http://j.mp/hdILvA […]

  5. yakamoz says:

    Your premise is completely untrue.

    The most famous example of a way evolution could be falsified is finding a rabbit fossil in the preCambrian layers.

    But rationalwiki (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Disproving_evolution#What_would_falsify_evolution.3F) has more:

    “Consequently any of the following would destroy the theory:

    * If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
    * If it could be shown that, although mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
    * If it could be shown that, although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
    * If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.”

    Though it would be really, REALLY hard to falsify evolution given 150 years of converging lines of many different kinds of evidence (genetic, morphological, fossil, experimental, etc.), it isn’t, in theory, impossible to falsify evolution. It’s just unlikely – about as unlikely at this point as falsifying heliocentrism or the germ theory of disease.

  6. Bernie says:

    Thanks for your contribution here.

    I think the main premise is that many Darwinists, or evolutionists are less than honest intellectually about the theory. Evidence that suggests problems with the theory are ignored or discredited without full investigation.

    I read the page you linked to. Michael Behe has recently had a peer reviewed article challenging “gain of function” mutations. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/peer-reviewed_scientific_paper041131.html

    Here also is a link regarding how Richard Dawkins has given answers about the genetic “tree of life” that are either false or shows he lacks knowledge about studies that contradict him. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/02/for_darwin_day_false_facts_and043691.html

    I think these articles show that the basic premise that evolutionists sometimes practice intellectual dishonesty is true.

    • yakamoz says:

      “…the basic premise that evolutionists sometimes practice intellectual dishonesty ..”

      That’s quite a watered down version of the article’s claim – that “Darwinists” believe Evolution is “impossible to disprove” and that “Darwinists [have] abandoned the falsifiability of evolution.” Here I am, a Darwinist, saying “no, that’s not true.”

      Your response is to backpedal and commit the no true scotsman fallacy.

      I show up saying, actually, here are specific ways evolution can be disproved. You rewrite the article, pretending it was only saying that those Darwinists that are intellectually dishonest are intellectually dishonest, which is a tautology.

      So who is the intellectually dishonest one here?

      “Evidence that suggests problems with the theory are ignored or discredited without full investigation.”

      What problems? WHO is ignoring these problems? What would constitute a ‘full investigation’? “Behe doesn’t understand some minute aspect of genetics” doesn’t cut the mustard.

      As for your link about Dawkins, its argument is very misleading. For now I’ll just point out that it effectively concedes common ancestry. Whoops! I’d encourage you to get your information about evolution from scientists, not from creationist sources.

      Here’s a great explanation of why your link re: Dawkins is dishonest:

  7. yakamoz says:

    More completely falsifiable evidence for evolution:
    “The standard phylogenetic tree has small cats diverging later than large cats. The small cats (e.g. the jungle cat, European wildcat, African wildcat, blackfooted cat, and domestic cat) share a specific retroviral gene insertion. In contrast, all other carnivores which have been tested lack this retrogene”