"One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school'."

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London.
Keynote address: American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November, 1981

Certainly one of the most beautiful, and surely the simplest, of all understanding that exists in the world of Science, is that Darwin's "Natural Selection" is the explanation for the most complex phenomenon, by far, ever known to mankind: organic life. Could there be something wrong here?

The Doubting Thomas, 2001

The Doubting Thomas, 2007

published JUL 23, 1999
last rev. Dec. 14, 2006
Mar. 7, 2004

1. Darwin's other error: CLICK HERE
Darwin never understood the conceptual nature of man, finding only an animal nature; current biological belief points out a possible 2% difference in genetic material between man and the primates, suggesting close affinity. Both conclusions are wrong.

2. Darwin's great tautology: CLICK HERE
This page discusses some of the logic errors in his theory. It looks at the tautological aspect and the error concerning his cause/effect relationship. A new look at the term "fittest".

3. Darwin's theory of evolution: CLICK HERE
An overview of Darwin's theory; Is it atheistic? Is it a valuable contribution to science? Was Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-founder, a creationist?

4. The poor beleaguered Fruit Fly: Currently undergoing revision.

5. The 81st. Indy 500 auto race: CLICK HERE
Yes! Darwin's theory does have a practical use. It can explain anything. See how it is used to analyze Arie Luyendyk's stunning victory in the 1997 Indy race.
ALSO: Bonus Feature. A new study shows Part of Darwin's theory is 100% correct.

6. A book review: CLICK HERE
An unauthorized review of the book "NEXT OF KIN" by Roger Fouts. Fouts (among others) thinks that chimps could talk if they only had vocal chords. Item (3) above points out that other facilities are required. His book inadvertently proves it.

GENERAL COMMENTS
The Doubting Thomas* is happy to have the opportunity to present a series of web pages which discuss topics felt to be presented with a distinct bias in the Media* (e.g. textbooks, but see below). By virtue of this, the views presented here may seem uncommon and yes, controversial. Please understand that the views are most likely in sharp contrast with current biology texts, not from a lack of knowledge of their content, rather from a position which is familiar with Darwinian theses and finds major faults in them. In other words, much of what appears in print about Darwinism is considered to be wrong. There is much in current day Darwinian conclusion which is based on "circular reasoning" (i.e. is tautologous) and in fact much of the information is exactly contrary to reality, a mistaking of "cause" for "effect" ("inverse reasoning" in terms of logic). For example, evolutionists generally consider "Natural Selection" to be the "cause" of evolution; in fact, if it is anything at all, it is the cause of only one thing,   survival   of organisms. In other words, it would be an "effect" of evolution, not a "cause" of it. (There need be no concern for those organisms who do not survive, another supposed effect of "Natural Selection"). Arguments to support views such as this are presented on the various pages. This medium has been set up as a two-way street, and to those who wish to reply by email, click on the following: dbtngtms@tdtone.org

Coming Soon:
"Sexual Selection" (SS) will be analyzed in the same sense that "Natural selection" (NS) has, and it can easily be shown that the very same erroneous Darwinian logic and pattern of thought applies to this very important facet of "evolution", as is used in the understanding of NS. It is another bogus idea used to explain a feature of organic life which does not independently exist.

In reality, Sexual Selection is completely nonexistent because (again) there is no selection made, because "evolution" by SS does not have an outside influence which "directs" new species: all the actions of living organisms are an integral result of the DNA molecule and thus pre-ordained when that molecule is formed and before it begins life. Thus the Sexual Selection is not at all "random" or "intelligent", and therefore not explanatory in the sense that Darwin used it (heavily) to explain new features of evolution.

Thus, if Evolution exists in any form, (note that the DT takes no position on this possibility) it is a completely "closed" system, in the sense that all the information which is required to form a "new" species is completely contained in the DNA molecule. This molecule has (apparently) existed in its current form since the beginning of organic life. Therefore, organic life as we know it requires explanation outside of the explanation of current evolutionary theory. Truly "new" species require "new" (external) information. So-called "SS" cannot fulfil this requirement.

For example, if one looks at the building of a bird nest, or the construction of a spider web, both extremely complex actions (which have never before been seen by the organisms which construct them) one can see how intricate and complex is the DNA molecule. To assume that this complexity does not operate in all facets of SS is, simply, more Darwinian wishful thinking of the same type that produces the concept of NS. It is tautological in the sense that the choice made by, say, a female in the selection of a mate, has been pre-ordained in the genome of that female and thus is not explanatory in the formation of new life: [it is either going to rain tomorrow or it is not, and this statement (made here) will have no effect on the weather]. Likewise the "choice" made by an organism will have no effect on the "evolution" of that organism which does not already exist.

The idea is a nearly perfect example of a logical fallacy called "circular reasoning". A look at the "brilliant" minds that have adopted it (Mayr, Gould, Simpson, Dobhzansky to name a few) should give one a fair view of the (in)accuracy of much of the understanding of the entire Darwinian legacy. These individuals are classic portrayals of brilliance run amok: they are bonded to Darwin's beliefs as a mother is to her child. No amount of argument (such as that presented on this and many books or other sites on the web) will dislodge them or their followers from the beliefs of the past.

PREAMBLE: (to all the pages)
For nearly the last 150 years, the most popular explanation for the order and diversity of the living matter of the universe (except for the belief in creation) has been Darwin's theory of evolution as originally outlined in his 1859 book "The Origin of Species". This theory has been taught beginning with grade school, so that a 6 year old has likely been taught that the giraffe's neck is long so that it can feed above the other animals and thus survive when others cannot get food; (more like Lamarckism, but usually presented as Darwinism). The neck supposedly became long because of the process of "Natural Selection" which continually chose giraffes with longer necks for survival, over the shorter-necked variety which did not survive as well. (Never mind that the male neck is a foot or so longer than the female neck, a sure scenario for extinction of the females and the young). Evidence has been accumulating for years that problems exist not only in this explanation, but more importantly, with regard to other aspects of Darwin's theory, such as how two simple words "natural selection" can explain the formation of the most complex phenomenon known to man: organic life, its order and complexity.

In the comparable scientific field of physics for example, scientists universally agree that the "cause" of gravity is unknown (NOT the "effects" of gravity). Since gravity is a far less complex action than the formation of living from non-living matter, one might be suspicious of Darwin's seemingly simple explanation. (Note that formation of the first living cell from non-living matter is most often explained by Darwin's theory because science has no other way to explain the origin of living matter. Never mind that Darwin gave credit to "the Creator" for this occurrence, from the 1860 edition [2nd] of his book. This fact is almost always ignored and most texts are so biased as to leave out the word "Creator" when supposedly presenting his statement on the subject).

Thus, Darwin's theory as it was originally and is normally presented, and all derivatives, such as Neo-Darwinism, (sometimes called "The New Synthesis"), Punctuated Equilibrium etc., provide an explanation for the occurrence of life and order in the organic world, without the necessity of intervention by any intelligence or design whatsoever. Darwin and his followers believe in a purely natural progression of circumstances ("Naturalism") that eventually, given proper time, will inevitably lead to the complex, interacting system of living matter which we currently see all around us. While ostensibly not atheistic in philosophy, this proposition provides a comforting belief system for those inclined toward atheism/agnosticism, which includes virtually all the Media as well as many scientists. In practical fact, the concept as it is taught, is virtually a "stalking horse" for atheism.

It is the author's belief that, without this feature, Darwin's theory would be as unknown as Wallace's theory, which is basically identical in nature to Darwin's (and some believe the basis of it - another story) except for the fact that Wallace expressed belief that some sort of a Creator was involved in the "matter-to-life" process. In other words, the crucial aspect of Darwin's theory is its explanatory power which supposedly validates Materialism, that is responsible for its viability for the last 1 1/2 centuries, rather than its scientific contribution. Thus the Darwinian theory, as erroneous as the giraffe scenario, has become the dominant explanation in biological science for the existence of organic life and it is this conclusion that is examined in these pages.

Darwin's theory is probably the most commonly accepted "scientific" belief of the 19th century, one of three widely known theories dealing with the nature of life and man developed in this time period. (It is termed "scientific" [" "] because the ramifications of its belief are perhaps of more interest then the scientific aspect in many other areas of life, such as religion and philosophy). It has agreeably risen to a prominence never seen before in history. The two other ideas spoken of are Marxism, and Freudianism. They, as opposed to Darwinism, have risen to prominence almost solely in academic circles, and are perpetuated by a secular press (the Media) who in presentation of these theories speak virtually with one voice in their approval. Freudianism has, after three generations of misery inflicted on patients, fallen of its own weight; Communism, after a similar period and untold millions of deaths by starvation and other inhumane measures, has fallen from favor in the political world but still holds sway in Academia to a very surprising degree. In fact, one of the major proponents and advocates of Darwin's theory, [the late] Stephen Jay Gould, is in spite of this noteworthy failure still a dedicated Marxist; this fact alone should raise concerns about Darwin's theory but he is by no means alone among Darwinists. (It should be noted here, that the major errors in these latter two theories - as Darwinism - were basically the result of "logic reversals" - they are "backwards", as opposed to being erroneous through simple errors of fact; this topic alone could make a nice several volume set of books and will not be discussed further here, although several of the pages discuss the issue).

Hopefully you will note that no reference has been made to the Bible, the Koran, or any religious principle in these pages. This should not reflect on the beliefs of the author, rather it is an indication that the errors of Darwin's theory can be disproved by the use of the scientific method alone, and reference to a belief system, really a question of philosophy, is not required. Many others have attacked Darwin's theory by other means, but here you will find arguments based on logic and science.

To summarize, it is the contention of these pages that virtually all aspects of Darwin's theory are erroneous, built around the concept of Natural Selection, an unexplained phenomena which is the supposed "cause" of evolution.

Near the bottom of each page is the email address of the author (in blue letters); a click on this will open a reply page which will allow a message to be sent, providing you have an email server. Comments are solicited on problems, questions, or your own opinion.

*General Notes:
Some terms are used throughout these pages and they may or may not be defined on that page. This is a collection of several terms with an explanation:

Doubting Thomas: (DT) a pseudonym used by the author which has been adopted from the Biblical story of the same name, wherein Thomas, an apostle, (the name means "twin") refuses to believe that Christ, who had been killed by crucifixion, actually had risen from the dead. Thomas had to see evidence such as the nail holes and the side wound before he would believe. He is thus the most prominent "doubter" in the Christian world. This current version of the DT disbelieves a great deal of what is presented in the Media, ideas such as global warming, overpopulation, nuclear winter, and a myriad of others, generally held "in unison" by that Media. The articles presented at this site reflect these beliefs, mostly limited to discussions of Darwin's theory.

Dogmatic Evolutionist: one who is as devout a believer in, and defender of, Darwin's Theory of Evolution as is a Creationist with the Bible. This distinction is made to separate the bona fide scientist (who may believe in Darwinism in some form) from the dedicated proselytizer of Darwinism. For example, it is the belief of the DT that anyone claiming to be a "scientist" who believes that Evolution is a "fact" is biased to the point that their opinions on any topic involved with the field of biology must be suspect. This is dogma at its best and is no different from the opinions of those of the (generally loathed by the Media) "Bible Thumper".

This includes many of the Media revered Ph.D.'s such as Gould, Dawkins, Dennett, who look at their field through a microscope but see little or nothing of the surrounding connective logic. It appears after analysis such as those contained in these pages (and hundreds of similar arguments never refuted by the Darwinists), that both the Evolutionists and Creationists are using the same basis for their beliefs: Faith. This statement is not made in an effort to belittle "faith" rather to point out that there are many "experts" in the field of biology who have no scientific basis for their ideas.

(the) Media: Capitalized as with any other class such as Republicans, Americans, etc. This cohesive group includes all secular press not excluding authors of books, textbooks, news, radio and TV and all others who disseminate information to the public. They are grouped under this heading because of their singular beliefs on almost all popular subjects of the day. While there may be some differences in secondary ideas, there is not a "dimes worth" of difference in their conclusions (as above), and more importantly, they speak with one voice. No attempt is made to explain this phenomenon, but to ignore it would be most naive. (Where have you ever seen, say, A.B.C. [the American Broadcasting Co.] expressing the belief that N.B.C. is wrong in its belief on "Global Warming")?

NS: Abbreviation for natural selection, used on some of the Pages. Used sparingly, as opposed to Darwin's use. He never once abbreviated the term despite some 350+ uses of it in Origins, back in the days when type was set letter by letter, by hand. Yes, there is a story here.

Note to previous readers: former editions of this Index Page mentioned proposed articles concerning such topics as "global warming" and Carl Sagan's bogus "Nuclear Winter"; these plans have been dropped in favor of further discussion of the errors of Darwinism. The more the field is studied, the more errors appear.

dbtngtms@tdtone.org