Michael Ebifegha

Leading evolutionists in the scientific establishment contend that Darwin’s theory that all of life was the product of evolution, and that the evolutionary process was driven largely by natural selection, is the greatest idea that anyone ever had. They maintain that it is more than just a good theory because it happens to be true.

But scientists cannot guarantee the truth regarding events that cannot be tested, repeated, and reproduced in a laboratory setting. These are statements of faith in a scientist’s opinion that can indoctrinate the public, which is not the role of science. According to Albert Einstein, the man of science is a poor philosopher, and this perhaps explains why for the same scientific evidence, evolutionists and creationists within the scientific establishment are coming up with different philosophical conclusions. It also confirms Nobel laureate Ernst Boris Chain’s views that “Actually, scientists are often just as prejudiced in their theories and emotionally involved in the implications of their work as are other non-scientific members of the society and are unreliable in their predictions and interpretations” (Social Responsibility and the Scientist, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 14 (1971), p. 353).

For instance, evolutionists claim that the theory of evolution provides the truth about who we are, where we came from, and where we are going. How is this possible when the theory addresses only the material realm (such as the brain) and has no knowledge of where the immaterial component (such as the mind) came from and goes to? These are philosophical questions that are outside science’s purview. For example, when Albert Einstein passed away in 1955 his brain tissue was preserved and sent to different scientific laboratories for analysis. What was unavailable for analysis was his mind that developed his famous theories in modern science. What happened to his mind which scientists could not see, touch or smell? Science has no answer, but pseudoscience will always come up with a preferential answer.

Because authorities with predetermined philosophical conclusions control and monitor the studies in origin science, their views can easily culminate in academic delusion, which implies, false beliefs that persist regardless of contrary evidence. In a delusionary scientific environment, just-so arguments are used to maintain a desired philosophical preference. An example of academic delusion is when a theory is presented as a scientific fact and its advocates persistently repel any evidence that challenges its authenticity or constantly modify or extend it in light of new evidence.

The tell-tales signs and repercussions of academic delusion include the bullying of colleagues who refute the status quo, ridiculing and ostracizing dissidents who do not to comply or submit to the authorities, engaging in court battles, or soliciting media coverage and public acceptance through anniversary celebrations such as Darwin’s Day or Evolution Weekend. It is obvious the modern scientific establishment is engaging in these behaviours.

Michael Ebifegha capitalizes on the findings of recent empirical studies that show new species are produced rapidly through cooperation instead of gradually through competition as set forth in Darwin’s theory of evolution which is based on observations. The problem lies in the interpretation of his observations, which, historically, is controlled by authorities with predetermined philosophical preferences. Evidently, completely neutral, and flawless empirical evidence contradicts current evolutionary views.

Thus, whereas Darwinism requires missing links that have never been found, the empirical evidence invalidates the need for missing links. Darwinism predicts numerous intermediate varieties, and its adherents blame the imperfection of the geological record for our inability to find them. Anti-Darwinism, on the contrary, predicts the absence of intermediate types, which is consistent with observations today. Darwinists posit that most of our DNA is inconsequential or junk, but anti-Darwinists assert that there is no junk DNA, a claim that aligns with empirical scientific data.

Considering the aforementioned, Ebifegha contends that Darwinism is broken beyond repair, but it has not been as readily or easily abandoned like other disproven scientific theories because it is a delusion.