To be accepted as a paradigm, a theory must seem better than its competitors, but it need not, and in fact never does, explain all the facts with which it can be confronted.”
– Thomas Kuhn pp. 17-18 ( The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 2nd Edition, Enlarged, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1970)
Darwinism was first forced on my notice by the Darwinists’ unseemly habit of persecuting scientists who question it – I mean, really question it, as if it could actually be wrong. Way back in 1996, I noticed that Darwinism seemed to be the only theory you could not safely criticize.
Later, I began to pay attention to a curious pattern in the pop science media’s coverage. Many, many stories heralded new evidence for Darwinism. Virtually none talked about problems with it. The few that did admit to any problems assured the reader that they would soon be solved – as if we are all heavily invested in when or whether they get solved.
For example, in stories on the Cambrian explosion, the point of much coverage is to force a Darwinian interpretation on the picture. Yet, a very minor investment of time in story research will turn up the fact that even Darwin knew that the Cambrian and its subsequent rollout did not really fit his theory.
Somehow one just did not talk about problems with Darwinism unless one had turned up a scrap of evidence that suggested that they might not be problems after all.
Now, I did not need a background in science to see that any theory might sound good if only the evidence that favours it can be published or openly discussed.
Indeed, I observed just the sort of behaviour among materialist scientists as I have seen in religious cults: Acknowledgment of problems with the group’s belief system is simply not permitted, and any acknowledger is assumed to be a traitor-in-waiting – at best.
So not only did Darwinism have undisclosed problems but I found it difficult, unde the circumstances, to estimate their size or depth.
I eventually noticed the ridiculous adulation of such figures such as Darwin and even Dawkins, for pity’s sakes, who hasn’t had an original idea in years and seems to devote all his time to attacking traditional religions.
Worst of all, I forced myself to admit that I myself suppressed elements in some of my stories that might be interpreted as questioning Darwinism, because I did not want to arouse suspicion, and maybe get dropped as a freelancer. Well, there’s no point assuming the risks and costs of being a freelancer and then just bark some party line …
Anyway, I concluded that Darwinism was – and is – unmistakably a cult. Even if Darwinism were correct as an origin of species theory (which seems very unlikely) the Darwin cult must be disestablished, in the public interest.