Mistakes in historical details, however, are not what infuriated Darwin’s defenders. The problem is Mr. Wilson’s irreverent attitude toward Darwin’s theory of evolution. Mr. Wilson points out that there is a difference between minor changes within existing species (“microevolution”) and the origin of new species, organs, and body plans (“macroevolution”). (One hostile reviewer claimed that this distinction is merely “a strategy of the modern creationists,” but it actually originated with evolutionary biologist Yuri Filipchenko soon after 1900.)
So Darwinian evolution is not so much a scientific theory as it is a secular creation myth. According to Mr. Wilson, “Darwinism, as is shown by the current state of debate, is resistant to argument because it is resistant to fact. The worship of Darwin as a man, the attribution to him of insights and discoveries which were either part of the common scientific store of knowledge or were the discoveries of others, this is all necessary to bolster the religion of Darwinism.”
Mr. Wilson’s book is not flawless, but on this point he’s right.
And that is the reason that no fact base makes any dent in Darwinism, any more that it makes a dent in astrology or voodoo.
Note: Jonathan Wells is the author of Zombie Science.
See also: Science historian: AN Wilson’s Darwin biography contains a baseless charge, factual errors (science historian Michael Flannery)
A. N. Wilson on Darwin in the London Times
High dudgeon over A. N. Wilson’s new book on Darwin Like we said, plenty of time for Darwinians to beat their iron rice bowls into hatchets.
A.N. Wilson on Darwinism and Christianity