Is the theory of Evolution authentically scientific? (I)

(Excerpted from the author’s paper, “Richard Dawkins’ Foundations of Morality: A Critical Evaluation” [MA Philosophy, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Philippines]. You, too, can have your lectures, readings, modules, researches, articles, etc. posted here. Send them through e-mail to

IT WAS CHARLES LYELL book Principles of Geology (1830) that inspired Charles Darwin to publish his work Origin of Species in 1859. After his book came out of the press, Darwin out-famed Lyell and the idea of organic evolution “spread like wildfire, and caught the imagination of all intellectuals.” [31] This novel thought soon “revolutionized the very thinking of man and had significant repercussions on the life and morals of all Western civilization.” [32] Though renowned scientists like Darwin’s teacher Adam Sedgwick took exception to many of his student’s propositions, “the majority of scientists and the general public accepted the theory of evolution by Natural Selection as a proven fact.” [33]

Today, the theory of evolution’s basic principles have permeated human thought and influenced institutions to a large extent that anyone who opposes the theory of evolution is taken to be an enemy of science and human progress. He is dubbed as an obscurantist by its avid proponents like Richard Dawkins (British biologist, author of popular science books such as the controversial The God Delusion [2006]). “Even publicity agents like newspapers and the B.B.C. refuse to publish anything against the evolutionary concept” [34]. But do all scientists agree that evolution should be believed in as a scientific fact? Is it really true that to be scientific is to be an evolutionist? ...

It is very important to note here however that… we are concerned here with analysis… and not necessarily with metaphysics.

World-class scientists skeptical on evolution/ natural selection

‘100 vs. 1”

Lest people suppose that to advocate evolution is necessarily to support science, and that Dawkins’ moral theory, as it is evolutionistic, must be consequently accepted by people who believe in science, it’s a must that we set here evolution’s real status as a theory in science….

… So let’s tackle questions like, do all authorities in different fields of science agree that evolution must be accepted without a doubt? Is it true, as Darwinists like Dawkins suggest, that to reject evolution is to refuse to believe in science?

In 2004… award-winning investigative journalist at the Chicago Tribune and authors of winning books Lee Strobel published his another New York Times bestseller book which tackles about evolution, Darwinism, sciences, theism, and atheism. Well convinced that Darwinism had made the idea of a Creator irrelevant and admitting that it was science which paved his way to atheism, Strobel was astonished to learn the two-paged advertisement in The Weekly Standard by a hundred of respected and distinguished scientists openly submitting their significant skepticism toward Darwinian theory. Here is how Strobel introduces in his book the said advertisement:

“There were one hundred of them—biologists, chemists, zoologists, physicists, anthropologists, molecular and cell biologists, bioengineers, organic chemists, geologists, astrophysicists, and other scientists. Their doctorates came from such prestigious universities as Cambridge, Princeton, Purdue, Duke, Michigan, Syracuse, Temple, and Berkeley.

“They included professorsfrom Yale Graduate School, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Tulane, Rice, Emory, George Mason, Lehigh, and the Universities of California, Washington, Texas, Florida, North California, Wisconsin, Ohio, Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa, Georgia, New Mexico, Utah, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere.

“Among them was the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry and scientists at the Plasma Physics Lab at Princeton, the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institute, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the LawrenceLivermore Laboratories.

“Andthey wanted the world to know one thing: they are skeptical.”  [35] (emphasis added)

Skeptical! What it means by the phrase “they are skeptical” and on which these contemporary renowned scientists are skeptical are further clarified by Strobel:

“After spokespersons for the Public Broadcasting System’s seven-part television series Evolution asserted that “all known scientific evidence supports (Darwinian) evolution” as does “virtually every reputable scientist in the world,” these professors, laboratory researchers, and other scientists published a two-page advertisement in a national magazine under the banner: “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.”

“Their statement was direct and defiant. ‘We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life,’ They said, ‘Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.’” [36] (emphasis added)

Perhaps anticipating a quick ad hominem rebuttal from Darwin’s fanatics, Strobel continues, thus:

“These were not narrow-minded fundamentalists, backwoods West Virginia protesters, or rabid religious fanatics—just respected, world-class scientist like Nobel nominee Henry F. Schaefer, the third most cited chemist in the world; James Tour of Rice University’s Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology; and Fred Figworth, professor of cellular and molecular physiology at Yale Graduate School.

“Together, despite the specter of professional persecution, they broached the politically incorrect opinion that the emperor of evolution has no clothes.” [37] (emphasis added)

Trained in investigative writing and propelled by his love of science as the “search for the truth”, Strobel was compelled to reassess his ‘faith’ in Darwinism by probing what “science has been busy writing over the past few decades”. His approach was cross-examining authorities in various scientific disciplines about the most current findings in their fields. He sought “doctorate-level professors who have unquestioned expertise” to interview. He stood in the shoes of the skeptic, reading all sides of each topic and posing the toughest objections that have been raised. The product of the interviews became the core contents of his international hit The Case for a Creator (2004), on the back cover of which he wrote his conclusion, “My road to atheism was paved by science … but, ironically, so was my later journey to God.”…

Darwin himself ‘doubted evolution’, and so do scientists after him

Charles Darwin himself, the instant celebrity and now a historical figure especially in the field of science for fathering the theory of Evolution, is said to gradually become aware of the lack of real evidence for his evolutionary speculation. In his later days he was quoted to have written: “As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well defined species?” [38] This is also the reason Darwin is said to have recanted towards the end of his life [39]. In fact, Darwin’s ardent supporters like H.H. Newman, after a century of research, are forced to confess: “Reluctant as he (Darwin) may be, honesty compels the evolutionist to admit, that there is no absolute proof of organic evolution.”[40]

It is not unexpected therefore that after Darwin’s death in 1882, the theory he proposed was refused by many experts in different fields of science in the early 90’s, not to mention the respected authorities in sciences in contemporary era as discussed earlier. Some of the well known scientists right after Darwin’s time who are not only reluctant to uphold but also in direct opposition to evolutionary theory are Louis Agassiz, professor of Harvard University; William Bateson, F.R.S., of Cambridge University; Professor R. Goldschmidt of the University of California; Sir William Dawson, Professor of Geology; Dr. A.H. Clark of the U.S. National Museum, Washington; Dr. George Gaylord Simpson of the American Museum of Natural History… etc… [41] … (with continuation)

Read: Evolution: The Theory’s Implication to Ethics and Human Life

*Notes and references are found in the footnotes of the paper from which this article was taken.


Click Facebook account to "Like" this website. Thanks.

(Contributions [essays, poems, blogs, lectures, researches, etc.] are sent through e-mail to For comments, queries, and suggestions, kindly visit our Facebook Page and  Facebook accounts )

© 2010 All rights reserved.


Related articles:

Is the theory of Evolution authentically scientific? (II)

Is the theory of Evolution authentically scientific? (III)


How to cite this article:

Jensen DG. Mañebog. “Is the Theory of Evolution authentically scientific? (I)" @


Sponsored Links