The postulate of molecules-to-human evolution by natural selection (evolutionism), like creationism, cannot be demonstrated empirically. Therefore, the creationism-evolutionism controversy offers a choice between intelligent design by God and unintelligent design by evolutionary selection. Scientists are split on philosophical grounds since events in the immaterial realm are outside the purview of science. In reality, designers claim products; no product of a process, can account for how it was designed or for its ontology. Accordingly, Scientific American Editor John Rennie suggested that one way to override a purely evolutionary worldview is, if the creator/s appeared and claimed credit. Author Michael Ebifegha's previous book The Death of Evolution provides the historical details of God’s ancient claim for creating the universe before an audience. Dawkins, in his The God Delusion, failed to address this historical event; hence, his statement that “There almost certainly is no God” is flawed. The Darwinian Delusion discusses the fossil record, the role of natural selection; the mystery of the origin of life and God’s affirmation of agency in world history. Ebifegha argues that both the scientific and philosophical analysis point to God as the Creator and hence the delusion as such is not about God, but about the Darwinian paradigm of materialism.
Science and religion share a common goal—the commitment to reveal and explain, with integrity, the truth about nature. This book addresses two objectives: first, to clear the materialistic roadblocks that diehard evolutionists have erected on the path to truth; and, second, to argue that God is the totality of truth. The creationist/evolutionist controversy began, of course, with Darwin. Contrary to the views of many of his disciples, Darwin did not change science. Science, the study of nature, has not changed, but the scientific community has shifted from a predominantly religious orientation to an increasingly secular, agnostic, and atheistic outlook. Scientists are unanimous about the relevant facts but divided over their interpretation and philosophical implications. Evolution is a fact in the sense that human beings can produce different breeds of animals and plants. Darwinian evolution is not a fact in the sense that human beings through farm breeding or in science laboratories are unable to produce breeds that are intermediate, say, between a cat and a dog. If linearity of the DNA program is what affirms the Darwinian theory of evolution, then it has failed in this regard. Although it is true that several creationist worldviews exist, the biblical account overshadows all others because it is the cornerstone of world history and, unlike many competing versions, posits a veridical claimant. Evolutionism, born of the denial of a creationist worldview, falls short of the scientific requirements of testability and repeatability. The formal endorsement in 1864 of the biblical creationist worldview by the Philosophical Society of Great Britain, a body of scientists that included 86 Fellows of the Royal Society, constitutes a major event in the history of science. Between that time and now there has been no scientific breakthrough in evolutionary biology. The only major changes within the modern scientific community are the steady growth in the atheistic/agnostic population of scientists in the National Academy of Sciences and Royal Society, and the subsequent rise in the number of pseudoscientific speculations and assertions. Delusion is the deliberate and continued insistence on the impossible in the face of mathematical, empirical, and objective truth. Darwinism has all the symptoms of an intellectual delusion. The rules of scientific integrity demand that every scientific theory must be compared with alternative theories. Darwinists, however, reject this expectation for fear that the evolutionist worldview will be defeated by the creationist worldview. In fairness to children of any generation, both worldviews must be taught in every educational institution and in all places of worship. Empirical evidence says “No” to the doctrine of life’s spontaneous generation. Darwinists say “Yes” and tell folk stories of miraculous primordial conditions that produced living matter at some point in Earth’s history. Such imaginary events in the past for which no evidence exists cannot constitute a legitimate part of science. The fossil record says “No” to evolutionism for its failure to demonstrate the numerous transitional stages between molecule and human being, whereas Darwinists say “Yes” and blame the geological record for being imperfect. Information theory, mathematical deductions, and common sense say “No” to the evolutionist worldview because the genetic program is far more sophisticated than any existing computer program. Darwinists, on the other hand, say “Yes” and argue that inert matter can blindly program itself without outside intelligence. If the human race are, indeed, the product of mindless natural processes, then these embarrassing interpretations of the scientific data should be prima facie evidence. But, of course, the truth is that human beings are endowed with great and complex minds. Little wonder that a growing number of thinkers, particularly in countries where the creationist/evolutionist controversy still rages, are insisting on the need to restore scientific integrity. Scientific facts are transparent and need no defense, but pseudoscientific speculations and deductions require constant defense in science classrooms and courts of law. It is against the spirit of science to make irrational assumptions, such as abiogenesis, in order to get around evidentiary roadblocks and establish a preferred worldview. If scientists manipulate data to justify a philosophical preference, some people would expect them to do the same in order to achieve a political goal. Public administration’s interference in science is one of the reasons why the Union of Concerned Scientists is fighting to restore scientific integrity in policymaking. The glory of science is waning under the mandarin insistence on evolutionism. Both creationism and evolutionism have profoundly religious implications. The controversy between these two camps will continue indefinitely so long as both sides rely only on pieces of circumstantial evidence. Such fragmentary evidence, however, is inconclusive. God’s claim in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures is either true or false and hence conclusive. Natural selection, a mindless process, is useless in this regard. The Judaeo-Christian God intervened to claim credit for creating the world with power, wisdom, and understanding. Dawkins’ The God Delusion purposely ignores the crucial historical event of God’s claim, for it discredits his argument. His omission is consistent with Dawkins’ pattern of entertaining his readers by capitalizing on issues that are seemingly supportive of his thesis while slighting other evidence. For instance, Dawkins devotes many pages of his book to developing an Einsteinian construct of God that favours his thesis, but he sees no need for a Newtonian God because that conception opposes his own beliefs. Dawkins gives the impression that Newton had no other option than to embrace the dominant creationist worldview of his time. Einstein, however, endorsed the idea of a Divine Creator, albeit an impersonal Being. Dawkins also neglects to inform his readers that Einstein never subscribed to the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection. Why was Einstein reluctant to endorse the Darwinian theory of evolution? A solid scientific theory is only tenable for events that are testable and reproducible. For the bacteria-to-bacteria or finch-to-finch evolution, the mechanisms are understood because the events are testable and reproducible. This field of evolution, thus, represents good science and it is not antithetical to a belief in the existence of a Supreme Creator. However, for the bacteria-to-human evolution, which is the essence of the Darwinian Theory of Evolution, the mechanisms are not understood, as the events are not testable and reproducible. Since this autonomous field of evolution is outside the domain of science, acceptance of the evolutionist worldview is based on faith that is clearly antithetical to a belief in a Divine Creator and hence contrary to Einstein’s perception of the universe. On the matter of origins, the appropriate question that every individual must answer is not whether one believes in creation or evolution; it is whether one by faith believes in creationism by divine intervention or evolutionism by chance. For mutually exclusive propositions, only one can be true. Unless God’s historical claim to have created the world is proven false, then God is no delusion, and therefore any contrary worldview is quite simply the delusion. This book concludes that evolutionism is a delusion in the minds of people who regard themselves as products of natural selection. Such persons choose to ignore the permanent benchmarks of God’s ownership of the world: God’s six days of creation and one day of rest define our weekly cycle, for which there is no astronomical reason. Moreover, God’s intervention through Christ to redeem the fallen human race traditionally calibrates our years of e
MICHAEL EBIFEGHA earned a PhD in physics from the University of Toronto and is currently a science and mathematics instructor at the Toronto District School Board. He is the author of the Death of Evolution and Creation or Evolution? He lives with his family in Toronto, Canada.