Darwin, Those Who Bought The Lie Salute You!
A Blast from My Past. Enjoy!
[NOTE: Almost 20 years ago I wrote a monthly column for the website Access Research Network. This Substack is a re-post of one of those essays. As you will notice, the examples and some terminology may be a bit dated. But the fundamental truth remains. Enjoy!]
Noli turbare circulos meos (Do not disturb my circles) —
Archimedes, reportedly his last words when, so focused on his science, he had not noticed the city had been breached by Roman soldiers, one of whom killed him.
A question mark turned exclamation mark—that's the state of origins science today. Science educators tell rather than ask on the one topic where questions matter most. Stiff answers in search of safe questions and stiffer exclamations in response to unsafe—such is the substance of science education on the topic of origins. Working backwards from answer to question, today's origins science has achieved the glorious status of a T-shirt truism previously reserved for love and Jesus: Evolution is the answer, what's the question?
Truisms abound in a land where truth is beholden to an ism. "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution," launched from the pen of an otherwise obscure luminary who claimed to be "a creationist and an evolutionist," has become the science stopping Truism of truisms on the subject. No other lights are necessary when scientific inquiry becomes so myopic that the penlight of evolution appears bright as the sun. The current myopia survives in the face of modern evidence only by tacking a huge "ism" onto a little truth—the grand presumption of matter and all-that-matters: all things are caused solely by the mindless laws of physics. And when this, the lifeless machine of naturalism, forces the life science of Darwinism to be the answer instead of a question, science has swallowed a lie.
Naturalism, the unscientific crutch for unguided, purposeless Darwinism, turns scientific inquiry on its head. Suddenly a philosophy that presumes only unintelligent causation becomes gatekeeper to the intelligible world of scientific knowledge. Guideless, godless, guile usurps legitimate authority of evidence-based reason as the backdrop against which every hypothesis is judged as being "science". And any claims that are apparently "religious"—or at least those that are congenial to a theological worldview—are marginalized and can never be defeaters of "science". Science defined by non-science defining competing science as non-science—naturalism is quite the wonderworker.
But what if naturalism is a lie? What if atheists are wrong? What if all material evidence were permitted to be considered freely, without naturalistic blinders? On the topic of origins, might Darwin's mountain of truth-by-decree then look more like a molehill of lies-by-degree? What fear this must strike deep in the heart of every atheist and scientist of the National Academy of Sciences. With respect to naturalism forcing a narrow range of "scientifically acceptable alternatives," John Searle was correct in observing, "Acceptance of the current views is motivated not so much by an independent conviction of their truth as by a terror of what are apparently the only alternatives." When it comes to the question, Where did we come from? philosophical naturalists would rather glory in a lie than face the terror of the truth.
Letting the bully-boy of naturalism protect the pretty-boy of Darwinism on the playground of ideas is an effective strategy for perpetuating a lie. Strutting about as untouchable among the impressionable pretty-boys of science, 19th century Darwinism has yet to go alone behind the gym for a few rounds with 21st century evidence. Knowing that without the constant protection of a philosophical thug their theory could not survive as science in the sunlight of modern evidence, pasty-skinned Darwinists ballyrag about in the shadow of naturalism, pretending to play science while ducking and dodging in diametrical opposition to the light of truth.
Contemporary popes-playing-science protect old theories from new data the same way their predecessors did, by banning all challenging theories not conforming to their philosophy-constrained truth. When contrary interpretations of the evidence are banned from consideration, is it surprising that the protected interpretation is accepted by all scientists? Is it surprising that a "mountain" of evidence supports Darwinism when all the evidence is permitted to be pushed into only one pre-determined, protected pile? Even landfills can become mountains if enough trash is pushed in and piled up in one place.
The fate of competing evidence is nowhere more evident than in the "publish and/or perish" dichotomy of academic truth suppression: unwarranted praise of Darwin—publish or perish, and unwarranted stifling of every other evidence-based theory—publish and perish. Publication for the former seems inevitable based on the unending stream of scientific papers that have little to do with Darwinism yet nevertheless bow, genuflect, and gratuitously pay homage to the Great Man. The latter is evidenced by the virtually complete ban on publishing any non-materialistic, evidence-based scientific theory; and what publications do slip through are accompanied by tenure-denying, petition-generating, hatred and vitriol. Like a modern-day Roman emperor enjoying his forced adoration in the coliseum of academia, Darwin-on-the-dais demands a salute from all who come to participate, knowing that survival of the skittish depends entirely upon his opposable thumb.
Read for yourself—in articles of popular and unpopular science alike you will find the "secret handshake" of "my idea supports Darwinism" in the oddest of places. Popular science articles purport to show the use of "evolutionary principles" for design, while actually showing how intelligence is necessary to achieve any meaningful result. In peer-reviewed journals the salute to the emperor often appears as an afterthought, perhaps added in at the request of a fearful editor sensing a trace of murmuring or a look of defiance before the emperor's thumb. It seems very difficult today, however, to write in scientific journals and make the salute to mindless Darwinism (the only kind there is) hardy and sincere. Usually, the duck-and-dodge is handled with a hearty—if not hardy—"this study supports 'evolution'" rather than "Darwinism", because, as everyone knows, all evidence proves the former, while the latter is merely the currently accepted theory.
The following examples of bullying in academia remain valid, if not a bit dated. I originally published this essay around 2007.
Consider the plight of credentialed scientists who attempt to publish scientific findings slightly critical of "evolution". Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution, and as credentialed as most scientist get in the field of life sciences, first encountered what he refers to as a "Catch-23" in 1998 while a post-doctoral researcher at the University of California, Berkeley. Wells realized that pictures in his biology textbook were based on drawings that had been faked by 19th century German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel (knowingly so by all, but these pictures continue in use today!). Wells submitted an article about such a significant error in popular biology textbooks to the peer-reviewed American Biology Teacher--the official journal of an organization whose declared mission is to empower educators "to provide the best possible biology and life science education for all students." His article did not criticize Darwinian evolution; in fact, it explicitly pointed out that "it would be illogical to conclude that Haeckel's distortions invalidate Darwin's theory," because Darwin did not base his inferences on embryological evidence alone. His article did, however, state, "It might be better to look elsewhere for evidence of evolution."
Wells’ article was given to two anonymous reviewers; one liked it, and the other did not. The only change recommended by the first was that he include more references. The second recommended, among other things, that Wells "emphasize what is useful about the study of embryology in evolution" and that he "detail some positive lessons that could be demonstrated through comparative embryology." The journal editor agreed, telling Wells, "Your paper is acceptable for publication, provided you revise the paper according to the comments provided by the reviewers." Salute. Secret handshake. Wink, wink.
Wells added some quotes from other biologists who thought that the study of embryology would add to Darwin's theory; with this mandatory affirmation of faith in evolution, his article was published in May 1999. Wells has since learned well the rule: "A theory such as intelligent design, that fundamentally challenges Darwinian evolution, is not scientific so it can't be published in peer-reviewed science journals; and we know it's not scientific because it hasn't been published in peer-reviewed science journals. Catch-23!"
That was then, this is now. While evidence continues to flee from Darwinism and point to intelligent design like iron filings to a truth magnet, those of the opposite pole suppress truth by more cruel means. Consider the fate of Iowa State University's Guillermo Gonzalez, who has no problem generating peer-reviewed publications--nearly 70 of them--as well as being a co-author of a major college-level astronomy textbook. But because Gonzalez sees his truth in light of a different ism, Iowa State this month denied tenure to the ID-friendly astronomer. You see, in addition to performing undeniably stellar (so to speak) teaching and research, the good professor also happened to co-author a book presenting empirical evidence for the hypothesis that the universe is the product of intelligent design. A petition signed against him by 120 of his own faculty presages history-repeating irony: astronomer scientists with the initials G.G. seem destined for paradigm-changing greatness in the face of religiously inspired intolerance.
Sadly, intolerant invective toward disfavored viewpoints has become a virtue in origins science. Materialism—the reigning ism of Western culture—like its cousin naturalism, bears down hard on the evidence, seeking to smother it into suffocating submission. In such circumstances truisms must suffice for truth, but reliance on truisms can be risky business where darkness holds more than academic pitfalls and small faults open great chasms. As St. Thomas Aquinas remarked in his introduction to De Ente et Essentia, "a little error in the beginning leads to a great one in the end." By all evidential accounts materialism is a lie in the beginning, but what a wonderful lie it is. Matter alone means self on the throne. And self on the throne means truth all one's own. And truth all one's own means true truth unknown. A great error indeed.
Great errors are rarely corrected by working sideways to true truth. Little lies like naturalism set the trajectory so that great distortions like Darwinism only get greater as academic inertia enforces the lie so that those forced to believe diverge steadily away from the evidence. Only by humbly starting at the beginning to eliminate the little error can there be any hope of discovering the true truth about our origins. And like a lighthouse among theory-laden ships at sea, only true truth remains unchangeable and unchanging. Those who love truth know this. And those who don't will find out.
Darwin, we who doubt the lie refute you!
References:
"Nothing in biology . . ." quote from Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the light of Evolution, a 1973 essay by evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky. The essay was first published in the American Biology Teacher, volume 35, pp. 125-129.
Thoughts in third paragraph adapted from Francis J. Beckwith, Rawls's Dangerous Idea?: Liberalism, Evolution and the Legal Requirement of Religious Neutrality in Public Schools, Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. XX, 423, 429.
John Searle: John Searle, The Rediscovery of the Mind, 3-4 (M.I.T. Press 1992), quoted in Beckwith, Rawls's Dangerous Idea, p. 428-9, footnote 18.
Catch-23, by Jonathan Wells found here: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1212
Bio-sketch for Guillermo Gonzalez: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2378
Denyse O'Leary's quote from her take on the denial of tenure to ID-friendly astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez here: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/denial-of-tenure-to-id-friendly-astronomer-mere-bigotry-or-a-money-issue-2/
(C) 2025 Creation Reformation. Roddy Bullock is the founder of Creation Reformation and author of several books related to creation and evolution. For more information, visit www.creationreformation.com, or visit (and follow!) us at Facebook.
Please send editorial comments, including indications of typos and grammatical errors to info@creationreformation.com. If you want to know why there are typos, see my post On the Origin of Pieces by Means of Natural Correction. Enjoy!
And finally, one of our latest videos. It’s long, but good. Enjoy!
