The influential National Academy of Sciences, representing the nation's most notable scientists, has argued that the concept of creation is not scientific: fails to display the most basic characteristic of science: reliance upon naturalistic explanations. Instead, proponents of "creation-science" hold that the creation of the universe, the earth, living things, and man was accomplished through supernatural means inaccessible to human understanding." (National Academy of Sciences, 1984)

The National Academy of Sciences simply defined away all alternatives to purely naturalistic evolution by insisting that only naturalistic explanations can be considered in answering questions of ultimate origins. By definition there is no scientific alternative to the idea that "man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind" (Simpson, 1967).

Proponents of "creation-science" or advocates of "intelligent design" have never pretended to explain the mechanism by which the universe, the earth, living things, or man came into existence. For the most part, they have attempted to critique evolutionary theory and to point out areas of the theory which are either untestable or in conflict with empirical data. In so doing, they have inferred that purely mechanistic processes are insufficient to account for the order and complexity of the cosmos. This has provoked an almost religious reaction from the Academy:

"Creation-science" is thus manifestly a device designed to dilute the persuasiveness of the theory of evolution. The dualistic mode of analysis and the negative argumentation employed to accomplish this dilution is, moreover, antithetical to the scientific method." (National Academy of Sciences, 1984)

Berkeley law professor, Phillip E. Johnson, in his recent book, Darwin On Trial, concludes:

"The Academy thus defined "science" in such a way that advocates of supernatural creation may neither argue for their own position nor dispute the claims of the scientific establishment. That may be one way to win an argument, but it is not satisfying to anyone who thinks it possible that God really did have something to do with creating mankind, or that some of the claims that scientists make under the heading of "evolution" may be false." (Johnson, 1991)

“I cannot doubt,” wrote Faraday, excitedly, “that a glorious discovery in natural knowledge, and the wisdom and power of God in the creation, is awaiting our age, and that we may not only hope to see it, but even be honoured to help in obtaining the victory over present ignorance and future knowledge.”


"We must ask first whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudoscientific .... Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test."

Adam Sedgwick’s Letter to Professor Owen on March 28, 1860:

“The highest point we can, I think, ever reach is a law of succession of forms, each implying a harmonious reference to an archetype, and each having indications of the action of a final cause—i.e. of intelligent causation, or creation. My belief is: 1st, that Darwin has deserted utterly the inductive track—the narrow but sure track of physical truth,—and taken the broad way of hypothesis, which has led him (spite of his great knowledge) into great delusion; and made him the advocate, instead of the historian—the teacher of error instead of the apostle of truth (361).”

Darwin’s college degree, believe it or not, was in Theology. His degree was not in mathematics, nor was it in any other field that would be conducive to the founding of a new theory in science.

Charles Darwin – Education
Charles Darwin entered Shrewsbury School as a boarding student in 1822. He left three years later, at the age of 16, called by his father to study medicine with his elder brother, Erasmus, at Edinburgh University. Repelled by the horror of early 19th century surgery, Darwin dropped out of Edinburgh in 1827 and enrolled in Christ College, Cambridge University, studying to be a clergyman in the Church of England. Charles earned his Bachelor’s Degree in Theology in 1831.,,,

In fact, Darwin himself said that he found mathematics to be quote unquote, ‘repugnant’,,,

“I attempted mathematics [at Cambridge University ], and even went during the summer of 1828 with a private tutor (a very dull man) to Barmouth, but I got on very slowly. The work was repugnant to me, chiefly from my not being able to see any meaning in the early steps of algebra. This impatience was foolish, and in after years I have deeply regretted that I did not proceed far enough at least to understand something of the great leading principles of mathematics; for men thus endowed seem to have an extra sense. But I do not believe that I should ever have succeeded beyond a very low grade.”
– Darwin – Autobiography (p. 58 of the 1958 Norton edition)

Bornagain 77
Uncommon Descent, january 8, 2021