A Review of The End of Darwinism and How a Flawed and Disastrous Theory Was Stolen and Sold

“The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom…”^[i]–Aldous Huxley

This is an important book that belongs in your library. It’s subtitle sums up the author’s message: “How a Flawed and Disastrous Theory Was Stolen and Sold.”

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is the philosophical basis of anti-Christian culture. It is the source of all the rot—runaway statism, institutionalized atheism, eugenics, “gay pride” parades, “transgender” restrooms, the destruction of “inferior races,” and all the rest. If it stinks, Darwinism is at the root of it.

It’s not only pervasive; it’s also politically powerful. Any public figure who says he doesn’t believe in evolution will be flayed alive by the media and our self-proclaimed intelligentsia. You may remember a Republican presidential primary debate in May, 2007, in which ten candidates were asked to raise their hands if they did not believe in evolution. Only three—Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, and Tom Tancredo—raised their hands.

“These three were the only ones to answer that they didn’t believe in evolution,” sneered the Left. “The question of a flat versus round earth did not come up. It is pretty pathetic when even three candidates do not believe in one of the fundamental principles of modern biology, but for a party which frequently expresses a world view which is counter to reality, this was better than expected.”^[ii]

Even prospective world leaders are expected to genuflect to Darwin.

The Argument

Investigative reporter Eugene Windchy, a former science advisor to the U. S. Information Agency, has done such important work here that we feel justified in perpetrating a “spoiler” or two. His closing paragraph, for instance (to which we have added some emphasis), deserves to be quoted in full:

Gradual evolution by natural selection has been rejected repeatedly in the scientific literature, but Darwinism, like Dracula, keeps coming back. The science establishment likes it, textbooks present false evidence for it, and a series of famous biologists have appeared to support the theory even though they did not believe in it. The fear of creationism has warped generations of thinking, and telling the truth has been frowned upon if not excoriated. Science thrives upon accurate information, original thinking, and free discussion. Supporting these principles ought to be praiseworthy, not a firing offense.” (p. 251)

The world is full of credentialed scientists who have been fired from their academic positions, lost their grants, or otherwise punished just for questioning Darwinism, let alone rejecting it. Last year, in the movie Expelled, Ben Stein interviewed a number of them.^[iii] They have a chilling tale to tell.

Let us briefly present Windchy’s argument, which is very well organized and easy for the lay reader to follow:

–Charles Darwin “stole” the theory of evolution, which had been pioneered by others and even laid out in detail by Alfred R. Wallace, without giving due credit to any of them.

–From the moment the first edition of On The Origin of Species was published in 1859, the theory came under fire by reputable scientists in many different fields. These attacks have continued to this day—but not in public.

–In an expressed and deliberate attempt to undermine Christianity, Thomas Henry Huxley (Aldous’ grandfather) and other influential scientists relentlessly promoted Darwinism, even though they themselves had problems with it.

–Various hoaxes—Piltdown Man, the Scopes Trial, Ernst Haeckel’s intentionally misleading embryological studies, and the famous “melanistic moths” of industrialized England—have been knowingly perpetrated on the public to shore up belief in evolution.

–In spite of this sustained effort to promote Darwinism, scientists continue to question it and the public continues to doubt it.

Windchy proves his case beyond a reasonable doubt, resorting to scientists’ own papers, diaries, and correspondence, and the minutes of scientific societies’ meetings. By their own words they condemn themselves.

In light of all this information, we can confidently say: Darwinism is, and always has been, total humbug.

They Don’t Believe It!

Darwinism is the straw that stirs the drink we’re all choking on today. The theory is “flawed” because there’s no solid scientific evidence for it and it explains nothing—least of all the origin of life itself. Rejecting God, Darwinists postulate that life arose accidentally, by purely naturalistic causes: the famous “lightning strikes a puddle of slime and turns it into protein” scenario.

They have pushed it hard since 1859, and are still pushing it today. Last year the National Academy of Science published a new edition of Science, Evolution, and Creationism. In it, the NAS writers argued that there is “overwhelming evidence” for evolution and that we should all believe in it because every scientist believes in it and no one questions it. Although both these arguments are demonstrably false, in the little book’s fifty-four pages of text, they are repeated forty-three times.^[iv]

It would be easier to bear if we knew these people were sincere in their belief, but they are not. The late Stephen J. Gould—Harvard University, the American Museum of Natural History, and for many years the most-quoted evolutionist in America—once said, “Perhaps we should all lie low and rally round the flag of strict Darwinism, at least for the moment—a kind of old-time religion on our part” (p. 22). He makes it sound like Custer’s Last Stand.

Gould at least was reasonably candid in his discussions of some of the holes and hangups in evolutionary theory—so much so, that one scientific writer commented, “[E]volutionary biologists … tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists” (p. 215)—this on the occasion of Gould’s election as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

In 1921, at a meeting of this same AAAS, William Bateson, one of England’s leading geneticists, gave a speech entitled “Evolutionary Faith and Modern Doubts.” Faith? Did we hear that right? Bateson’s speech was widely reported at the time, and “this hullabaloo produced in the United States a revolt against evolution itself” (p. 108). Indeed, it inspired the drafting of state laws to restrict the teaching of evolution in the public schools—not because fundamentalist know-nothings were trying to suppress it, but because so many of the scientists themselves seemed to be saying Darwinism wasn’t true (p. 108).

Behind closed doors, out of public view, the dissension in the ranks continued. In 1979 David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, spoke on “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology.” Conflicts? The fossils don’t support the theory? Raup said, “We have no idea why most structures in extinct organisms look the way they do … And it is not always clear, in fact it’s rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find” (pp. 225–226). And in 1980, at a Macroevolution Conference in Chicago, 166 biologists, and other scientists in other fields, rejected “neo-Darwinism”—a term denoting modern scientists’ continuing efforts to keep evolution on a form of intellectual life support. “Unfortunately, the spirited and often acrimonious proceedings were not published” (p. 221). “’We all went home with our heads spinning,’ said one participant” (p. 222).

Winchy gives many examples of prominent scientists battering Darwinism—but never for public consumption. They’ve all followed Gould’s advice to circle the wagons and fight off those pesky creationists.

The X Club

Why would scientists work so hard to sell the public a theory which they themselves believe to be flawed—even deeply flawed? Why are they so afraid of the creationists?

Darwin himself was a lapsed Christian who “only pretended to believe in God” while pushing “his anti-Biblical theory” (p. 19). In this, his indispensible accomplice was Thomas Henry Huxley.

Although Darwin’s book “was rejected immediately by virtually the entire scientific community” (pp. 27–28), Huxley embraced it. Huxley started as a critic of Darwin, “he did not really believe in Darwin’s theory” (p. 29)—but he had his eye on a bigger prize. “[W]hat Huxley consistently campaigned for was not Darwin’s theory, which he soft-pedaled, but the principle of secular evolutionism as opposed to creationism … Huxley did not believe in Darwin’s theory and he had no real theory of his own. Nevertheless, in his view of evolution there was no place for a Creator” (pp. 29–30).

Of course, in our view of the Creator, there is no place for evolution! Trying to shoehorn it in only leads to theological confusion. But that was not what Huxley was trying to do. He was seeking victory for atheism, not compromise.

In 1864 Huxley and a few other influential scientists founded the X Club, dedicated to advancing secular “science” at the expense of religion. They weren’t aiming just for an atheistic biology. Physicist John Tyndall, a member of the club, said, “We shall wrest from theology the entire dominion of cosmological theory” (p. 92). Why is “dominionism” so acceptable when atheists practice it?

The X Club knew its business. “The compact band of evolutionists was adept at dealing with people and wielding influence,” and convincing rich capitalists to fund their work (p. 90). “For about three decades the X Club functioned as a self-appointed government of Britain’s scientific affairs … [Members] infiltrated every government panel and committee that dealt with scientific affairs” (p. 93).

Yes, it sounds like a conspiracy theory—but don’t blow it off. The greatest triumph of “science” has been to convince the public that its practitioners are disinterested seekers after truth. The reality is that “scientists” are every bit as greedy, power-hungry, egotistical, mendacious, and corrupt as politicians, businessmen, churchmen, or any other subset of this fallen, sinful human race. Windchy’s evidence is abundant and persuasive.

Besides which, the X Club wasn’t the only bunch of intellectuals trying to get out from under God’s law-word. “Darwinism, Marxism, and Freudianism become ideologies which, to their followers, seemed to explain everything; and all three ideologies broke down constraints that had been holding back powerful human desires” (p. 101)—in Aldous Huxley’s words, constraints that “interfered with our sexual freedom.”

Once we realize that scientists are subject to the same low passions that infect Congressmen and Vikings, it’s easy to understand why scientists like Huxley would try to undermine Christianity. “The instruments of man’s decree,” R. J. Rushdoony explained, “are science and the state; brought together, they mean scientific socialism, a society planned by a scientific elite, social engineers and social scientists.”^[v]

If you don’t think the goal of Huxley and his philosophical descendants is “Man must now control and guide evolution,”^[vi] read The Humanist Manifesto II. This incredible document, signed by scores of Nobel Prize-winning scientists in various fields, spells out exactly what these God-denying fools aspire to do someday.^[vii]

Without Darwin, there could be no Humanist Manifesto promising to “change the course of evolution.”

Some Notable Hoaxes

Most of us know Piltdown Man was a hoax. “Discovering the forgery was quick and easy, once somebody took a careful look at it,” and the famous fossil turned out to be a medieval human cranium coupled with an orangutan jaw, filed to fit and stained to look old (p. 149).

Discovered, or rather perpetrated, in 1912, Piltdown inspired screaming headlines (“Darwin Theory Proved True,” p. 133). “The Piltdown story is a striking example of how the intense desire to prove a theory can produce a mass delusion among scientists” (p. 138). It should be pointed out that there were always some scientists who were not taken in by Piltdown Man, and warned their colleagues that it was a hoax; but the establishment wanted to believe, and would not listen to them.^[viii]

Most of us know the infamous Scopes “Monkey Trial” of 1925 only from the play and movie, Inherit the Wind. That script, Windchy takes pains to prove, is mere propaganda: it ignores some facts, glosses over others, and fills the gaps with fabrications. It is at best a work of fiction.

Windchy goes to John Scopes’ own memoirs and other primary sources to get the true story. Which is: a) the whole business was a put-up job, cooked up by the ACLU and some overzealous local machinators in Dayton, Tennessee; b) Scopes was recruited as a defendant, he did not in fact teach evolution, and his students were coached to lie about it on the witness stand; c) Clarence Darrow waltzed in late to steal the ACLU’s thunder, make himself the star of the show, and strike a blow against “religious fundamentalism.” As we have noted, the real reason for banning the teaching of Darwinism in the 1920s was because scientists were so critical of it.

Then there are the famous melanistic moths, supposedly “evolved” to blend in with the industrial pollution of northern England. Windchy, in great detail, exposes this hoax, too: “We do know that later researchers used dead moths and fastened them, wings outspread, to tree trunks with glue or pins” (p. 181). But the moths continue to this day to appear in biology textbooks as observable proof of “evolution.” Many of those textbooks are endorsed by accredited scientists. Windchy asked, “Do scientists endorse textbooks the way athletes endorse shoes and breakfast cereals?” (p. 164).

A Fraud from Top to Bottom

Darwin and his theory reshaped Western civilization. Granted, it was a civilization ready and willing to be reshaped: sinful men are always ready to rebel. Once upon a time, we called it Christendom. But even as God’s people in the Old Testament turned against Him in revolt, and took up idols, so were the Christian nations of the West eager to take up a new vision of “science” that promised them liberation from God’s laws. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Rom. 1:22).

We suspect, but cannot prove from the text, that Mr. Windchy favors the doctrine of intelligent design—which is not the same thing as Biblical creationism, but nevertheless is anathema to the scientific establishment.

However, it doesn’t matter what the author believes personally. The business at hand is to expose Darwinism for the fraud it is, and to liberate civilization from its chains. For as long as Darwin’s theory, atheistic to the core, is allowed to be the reigning paradigm in science, there can be no end to the revolt against God’s Word.

But it’s equally important to expose “scientists” as frauds, liars, charlatans, and hypocrites. After all, we’re talking about persons who promote a theory which they themselves don’t believe in, and knowingly manufacture false “evidence” to convince the public that it’s true. They do it because they have anointed themselves as priests in the service of an idol, Science. They present themselves as the sole authority for the interpretation of the natural world—the only world, they say, there is. They pretend to an intellectual purity. They have imposed on us.

Emboldened by their success in foisting evolution on a public undernourished in its faith, many of these same scientists are now trying to follow it up by establishing global warming as the ruling boogeyman of the age. As Thomas Huxley’s X Club did in the nineteenth century, they see to it that global warming “deniers” are demonized, mocked, and get no grants. In alliance with equally power-hungry politicians, they manipulate science to make themselves the slave-masters of mankind.

If we won’t serve the true God, we will surely wind up serving false ones.

Mr. Windchy’s message should be shouted from the housetops. Darwin’s theory—which gave the “scientific” license to the Nazi death camps, the “psychiatric hospitals” where the Soviets tortured dissidents, and all the other vast crimes of the twentieth century, and on into the twenty-first—is not true! The whole thing is nothing but a walking, talking Piltdown Man.

This book belongs on the best-seller list. Let us all do whatever we can to put it there.