What do you consider to be the major problems with Darwinian theory?
Well, there is so many it's hard to know where to start, I suppose the first place to
start is with the fossil evidence. Darwin said in 1859 that he acknowledged that
that was dead against his theory and he just had to assume the fossil record was
very incomplete in order to save the theory from the otherwise devastating
criticism of the fossil experts like for example professor Louis Agassiz of
Harvard, now the fascinating thing is that the fossil record hasn't gotten any
better in the intervening century and a third, in spite of the fact that it has
been explored and interpreted by people who were practically desperate to
confirm the Darwinian picture, what we found in the 1980s was that the fossil
record was still characterized by two important features: one is sudden
appearance. When new things appear they appear just as they are. There's no
visible history of step-by-step development from earlier forms, and then
what after they have appeared they stay the same, that's called stasis in the
jargon of the trade so that once you get the shark or the horseshoe crab or
anything else into existence it stays the same throughout its tenure in earth
there's variation within that type but knows step by step development into
something different, no directional change of the Darwinian kind and this I
might add is not the absence of evidence, it is positively documented as so you
see that the fossil record is and remains on the whole completely
different from the picture of it you would expect from the Darwinian ideology
and that's I think the the first difficult point that you would say.
The second one is that the mechanism remains unproved, and indeed even really
disproved. By the mechanism I'm referring to what I call in lectures the blind
watchmaker thesis which is that the random purposeless force of mutation
essentially DNA copying errors generates the creative change and that this is
then sifted and preserved by natural selection so that you get the building
up of complex organs such as eyes and brains and hearts and livers and kidneys
and all those things by this step by (tiny) step process of creativity and
that's of course also how you get the changing of one kind of thing into
something else. You can see that by this theoretical process that that whole gulf
in the Precambrian era where you have nothing at all between the single-celled
organisms and then the animal phyla is particularly hard to explain because you
have to have just a complete universe of things going in all directions down
there that's been lost but any event this mechanism
can't be confirmed, it isn't reflected in the fossil record, it isn't reflected in
the world of experiment or experience and so it's it's a total fiction really
I said in one chapter of my book that it's as invisible as supernatural
creation by God. Now the third a major a problem I would
say which is really related to the first two is that what the Darwinians did was
to take a theory that was valid at what we call the micro level that is to say
it actually does explain how if you get oh say a pair of birds that migrate to
an island in the ocean and then are cut off from the mainland and they give
birth you know to a lot of descendants through inbreeding
there's mutation, there's a certain amount of selection that you'll get
variation finches that migrated to it an island in the Galapagos group did vary
and change but they're still finches they you know they they got there as finches
and they still are finches with variations so the Darwinian theory
explains that kind of change but it was extrapolated without any justification
in the evidence to explain how you get finches in the first place how you get
birds in the first place how you get animals in the first place and that was
all just a wild extrapolation and it's I think really
generally recognized that this is the great weak point of the theory, that it's
been arbitrarily extended so that you see if you ask how does a bacterium
become a butterfly the answer you will get is oh look at those finches on the
Galapagos they changed so the bacterium can change into a butterfly can't it
well that's a ridiculous extrapolation if you've got a critical mind at all but
the Darwinians are committed to it because if they didn't do that they
wouldn't have an answer and in their view a bad answer is better than no
answer at all so that's what they