1/10 The Fragility of Secular Hypotheses
I find it interesting that the vast number of secular hypotheses proposed by mankind since the beginning of time have been proven wrong. Proven wrong by later scientific research and discoveries.
Few have stood the test of time. Exceptions are Isaac Newton’s “Law of Gravity” and his three laws of motion. What once was a hypothesis became a theory, and with the test of time, became a law. And so also, Albert Einstein’s “Law of Relativity.” Today, clocks on satellites in elliptical orbit keep time as Einstein would have predicted.
However, most hypotheses have been disproven. “Spontaneous Generation,” (abiogenesis – the idea that living things arise from non-living matter) was elucidated by Aristotle three hundred years before the birth of Christ and survived until Francisco Redi’s experiment in 1668and Louis Pasteur’s experiments in 1859. Pasteur’s experiments and refutation of spontaneous generation earned him the prestigious“Alhumbert Prize” from the Paris Academy of Sciences in 1862.
Today, the McGraw Hill dictionary of technical terms, describes abiogenesis is an “obsolete concept.” Per the Oxford Dictionary ofScience, abiogenesis is a “discredited concept.”
And then there is the “Geocentric Model of the Universe” elucidated byGreek astronomer, Eudoxus around 380 BCE and later developed byAristotle. This was the idea that the Earth was the center of the universe.They even developed mathematical formulas backing their claim. This idea was disproven by Copernicus when he proposed the heliocentric model in his book De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, published in 1543.
With a more modern telescope, in 1610 Galileo provided significant evidence against the geocentric model. He observed that Jupiter had moons, which disproved the idea that all celestial bodies would orbit the Earth. He also saw that Venus had phases, a phenomenon only possible if Venus orbits the Sun.
Darwin, perhaps knew of the refutation of the above hypotheses; however, most likely, didn’t know that the Phlogiston hypothesis would be thrown on the “junk pile” as well. The Phlogiston proposition proposed that all combustible materials contained a substance called “phlogiston” which was released during combustion. This hypothesis explains why things burn and why metals gained mass when they rust. This was disproven by Antoine Lavoisier when he conducted experiments in closed containers and found that the mass of the substance that burned was matched by a corresponding loss of mass from the air.
Our history is chock-full of hypothesis proposed/hypothesis disproven. So, this begs the question, “what lays in store for Darwinian evolution and neo-Darwinian theory?” British philosopher and journalist, Malcolm Muggeridge stated. “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent of which it has been applied, will become one of the great jokes in the history books of the future.” He went on to say that posterity will marvel that such a flimsy and dubious hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has. Muggeridge throws it out there – Darwinian evolution will also be thrown on the “junk pile.” True or not true? Only time will tell; however, here are some interesting facts:
In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the sugar phosphate backbone of the DNA molecule. In 1958, Francis Crick, a code breaker in World War II, hypothesized that the interior of the DNA molecule, the nucleotide bases, carried a chemical code (language). This was later confirmed with research done on both sides of the Atlantic. Since all language can be traced back to an intelligent source (a mind), this rules out a prokaryote rising out of primordial goo for the beginning of life. Francis Crick, an atheist, had been known to say, “every time that I look into a microscope at the DNA molecule, I have to remind myself that this wasn’t designed.” With the discovery of the DNA molecule and its supernatural implications, cracks began to form in the foundation of Darwinian evolution.
In 1972, after expressing frustration with the lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record, Niles Eldredge and Stephen J. Gould elucidated their evolutionary proposition called “Punctuated equilibria.” They expressed doubt in Darwinian gradualism and proposed that evolution happened in spurts with long periods of stasis.
ICR (Institute for Christian Research), when beginning to understand that the natural selection/random mutation process lacked the creative power to explain the complexity of life, started a petition titled, “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.” This petition was for PhD scientists to sign who agreed with their position. Today, over 1,000 scientists have signed on. Even more cracks arise!
In 2016, Denis Noble, James Shapiro, Eva Jablonka, and Kevin Laland spearheaded the convening of a meeting by The Royal Society in London. The theme of the meeting was, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology.” It was said by Perry Marshall, author of Evolution 2.0, that this meeting nor its theme would not have happened five years earlier. This speaks to the growing dissent among our more sophisticated scientists that the natural selection/random mutation mechanism lacks the creative power it has been purported to have. At the meeting, many scientists spoke out against Darwinism including Dr. Gerd B. Müller, emeritus professor at the University of Vienna. Müller opened by naming a set of “explanatory deficits” in the standard neo-Darwinian theory.
Origin of phenotypic complexity: The standard framework struggles to explain how complex anatomical traits (e.g., eyes, limbs, body plans) arise.
Origin of anatomical novelty (phenotypic novelty): How truly new forms (not just variations on existing traits) — such as entirely new body plans — appear in evolution.
Non-gradual modes of transition: He raised the problem of abrupt transitions in the fossil record (“non-gradual forms of transition”), implying that change is not always slow and incremental as typically modeled.
Today, the foundation of Darwin’s hypothesis and new-Darwinism are badly cracked. This was the view of those who spearheaded the conference and many who attended. The overall vibe was, “we need a new theory of evolution.”
The dynamic of hypotheses that get disproven is that it takes a long, long time to filter down to the public. In a 2017 podcast with Justin Brierley, Dr. Stephen Meyer stated: “Rarely has there been such a great disparity between peer-reviewed PhD scientists and the perception by the public on evolution.”
However, skepticism in the Darwinian evolution is gaining traction. And like so many hypotheses before it, its death will run a slow course. As physicist Max Planck has been known to say, “science progresses one funeral at a time.”