Pseudoscience Advocates Darwinism

Whereas

Science Endorses Anti-Darwinism

Darwin's theory of evolution, which asserts that new species are formed gradually through competition, is being challenged as empirical studies show that new species are, instead, produced rapidly through cooperation. In other words, the mechanism set forth in Darwin's theory are not the ones that result in the development of new species. The empirical evidence against Darwinism is laid out in multiple scientific books such as What Darwin Got Wrong (2010) by the atheists Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli Palmarini, and Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis (2016) by the agnostic Michael Denton. New Scientist magazine's headline "Darwin Was Wrong: Cutting Down the Tree of Life." in its January 24-30, 2009 issue, (marking the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth) represents the overwhelming scientific truth.

Darwin's theory is based on observations instead of scientific experiments. For this reason, the problem lies in the interpretations of his observations, which, historically, has been is controlled by authorities with predetermined philosophical preferences. Evidently, completely neutral empirical evidence, contradicts current evolutionary views.

Thus, whereas Darwinism requires missing links that have never been found, the empirical evidence invalidates the need for missing links. Darwinism predicts numerous intermediate varieties, and its adherents blame the imperfection of the geological record for our inability to find them. Anti-Darwinism, on the contrary, predicts the absence of intermediate types, which is consistent with observations today. Darwinists posit that most of our DNA is inconsequential or junk, but anti-Darwinists assert that there is no junk DNA, a claim that aligns with empirical scientific data.

Considering the aforementioned, Michael Ebifegha contends that Darwinism is broken beyond repair, but it has not been as readily or easily abandoned like other disproven scientific theories because it is a delusion.