Given the current debate regarding intelligent design (ID) theory, it seems everyone has forgotten that evolution was already a theory in trouble. ID theory is merely another hole punctured in the sinking ship of neo-Darwinism. The debate in education should not be whether to include ID theory, but, rather, if Darwinian macroevolution should be taught at all given there is no scientific proof it has ever occurred. Macroevolution is merely a conglomerate of hypotheses not rising to the level of theory, as it lacks experimentation to validate its conclusions and is not supported in the fields of statistical analysis, mathematics, physics, engineering, biochemistry and many more.

How did, and how does, evolution maintain its position within the scientific and education realms as the only way life could have originated? Of course there is the old saying ”a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth,” and there is also the fable of the emperor’s new clothes. Let me attempt to explain.

As students come up through the school system, they are taught evolutionary theory as though it were a law of nature and totally agreed upon by all competent scientists. Any teacher who challenges this mandate, publicly or in the classroom, is marginalized and blackballed out of the profession. In secondary schools, the dissenter’s peer-reviewed papers are not allowed to be published, and all this done by the upper echelon of ”scientists” who rose to their positions via the same system, and maintain them by agreeing to the current dogma.

I call this hierarchy the flat-earth society. They are not interested in the free exchange of ideas, real science or discovering the truth. Just like the theocratic governments of the past, they have decreed flat-earth Darwinism to be just so, and praise the emperor’s new clothes to the delight of materialistic naturalists. Of course, what you end up with is a system that embraces any data, idea or person who promotes the preconceived conclusions and the underlying doctrine of materialism (matter and energy is all there is, was or will be) and rejects anything that would negate or even question its tenets. Proponents of the system may go to great lengths to hide the lack of evidence (still no intermediary fossils when there should be millions), change the real evidence (fossil record indicates many diverse and mature species springing into existence with no history), and create their own evidence (hypothesizing to fill holes in the fossil record).

The fossil record is only one small example of an area in macroevolution where hype and hide-the-facts is the name of the game, truth and science are the victims, and must succumb to Darwinian flat-earth ignorance. You see, stretching the truth is still a lie, and no matter how many times you tell it, nor how much you embellish it with more half-truths and speculations, drawings, printed pages or Ph.D.s, a lie will never become truth. You may see King Darwin adorned in the marvelous attire of naturalism. I, however, see a buck-naked man with only some small understanding of how he himself, or the natural world, came into existence, and how it continues to function. And guess what: He was wrong at that.

Darwin did not even address the most basic question (chemical evolution), the origin of life itself. NASA, however, is busy spending your money to send yet another probe to Mars in hopes of finding liquid water since we all know (or at least we’ve been told by evolutionists) that where there’s water, life can evolve. Given we have the technology to send space probes, to decode genomes, to accelerate particles, and to cause all sorts of chemical reactions that do not occur naturally, doesn’t it seem curious we cannot create life in the lab? After all, it’s so simple it can happen all by itself, even on Mars.

Maybe those millions would be better spent to update the textbooks used in our schools, the signs at museums and national monuments and parks, etc., to tell all the truth, which is simply that when it comes to the origin and diversity of life, the information contained in the DNA, and the apparent design inherent in nature, we now know that evolution cannot explain what we see. All ideas need free competition in the academic and scientific realms. Real science drops the theory and creates new hypotheses when the data no longer supports the tenets. It is more than time for Darwinian evolution to step aside (into the history books) and allow competing theories their chance to explain nature.