Charles Robert Darwin was born in 1809 and authored a series of speculative articles on the origins of life later compiled into his famous book “The Origin of Species”. 

I have no personal objection to anyone publishing anything at any time, on whatever topic which pleases them.  I am, however, intellectually obligated to insist standards of methodology be adhered to when opinions are offered up as “science”.

Charles Darwin gets a pass owing to the fact that Empirical Method was only then just conceived and, at that early stage in academia, poorly articulated.  But Darwin and his colleagues were not only aware but beholden to process over product.

Charles Darwin’s successors were not.

Today, Darwinism persists as the only acceptable “theory” of Life’s origins, at least among secular scholars.  That makes Darwinism the consensus opinion among every biologist in existence, despite the fact a mechanism for evolution has never been identified or observed to have occurred in nature.

Even if Darwin is correct, because accredited academia has posthumously hoisted Darwin on their collective shoulders and paraded him around the quad of every University in existence, Darwinsim remains a hypothesis.

Why?  Because science, unlike religion, is required to prove every hypothesis advanced before it can be considered a scientific theory.

Read that again.

Empirical Method is designed with the expressed purpose of eliminating the bias of investigators and documentation of all experimentations which confirms the underlying hypothesis.  Once the investigator tests his hypothesis and verifies its validity through reproducible results, then and only then are the results publishable for Peer scrutiny.

Full stop. 

No matter who you are, It is imperative to understand that publishing a document does not in and of itself result in “science”.  More “scientific papers” have been published than have ever passed the scrutiny of Peer Review.  And we are talking about a ratio of failures to successes that boggles the mind.

Ask Scientific America how many papers they have rejected over the years compared to how many they have published.  You don’t want to know how often scientists are wrong, or never see the light of day because of fatal flaws in their work before it even reaches Peer Review.

Another full stop.

Peer Review requires emphasis in any analysis in the breakdown of Empirical Method, for Peer Review is not as simple as “thumbs up” and “thumbs down”.  Get over that ridiculous Facebook reflex right now. 

Peer Review isn’t even optional.  Peer review is not an opinion poll.  Peer Review is a mandatory process every “scientific hypothesis” must be subjected to before it can be considered science. 

Before Peer Review, the ideas of a scientist are the adjectives.  Hypotheses are “scientific”.

During Peer Review, hypotheses are determined to be “science fiction” or “scientific theory”.

What’s that?  You were never told this in high school?  I am not surprised.  Teachers, especially, are more inclined to reinforce the brand of academia than instruct their students on the rules of procedures governing scientific endeavor.

And get this, even after a hypothesis has passed Peer Review and is accepted as a “scientific theory”, that doesn’t render it correct.

You think I lie?

Check my math.  Go to any major university and read the publishing dates of any theory of science which still remains on the books today.  In all but the “social sciences” the majority of theories which remain operative at the present were confirmed within the last 100 years.

Still don’t believe me?

Try this exercise if you need further convincing.  Read any textbook on science, whatever branch you desire, published between 1809 and 1945 and you are in for some side-splitting fun.

What passed as “scientific knowledge” until 1945 was, for the most part, dangerously flawed.

You think I am being unfair?

I’ll play along.  Let’s see you walk the walk.  The next time you get sick, look up your symptoms in any medical text published before 1900 and follow the recommended course of treatment for what ails you.

If you are seriously ill, I don’t advise it.  You will likely harm yourself further and hasten your own demise.

Scientific is an adjective describing something which appears to be grounded in science.  Science is a standard every science works to achieve.   Ask any “scientist” alive today.  They will confirm for you only mathematics has been elevated to a reliable state.  All other “sciences” are a work in progress.

Returning our attention to the hypotheses of Charles Darwin, you will correctly ask, if Darwin never proved a single, reproducible experiment in which resulted in the “evolution” of one species into another, how can accredited academia claim Darwin is the father of modern biology?

Don’t ask me.  You won’t like my answer.  I advise asking Darwin.

Before Charles Darwin died in 1882, the “Father of Biology” recanted his own life’s work.

At the risk of condescending, and in the interest of anyone who was not aware of that fact, allow me to reiterate Charles Darwin’s own objection to his own work.  Darwin, like every evolutionary biologist between 1869 and 1926, insisted that the origins and diversification of species were attributable to a mechanism of action dubbed “natural selection”.

Full stop, yet again. 

Most biology professors teach that it was Charles Darwin who advanced the mechanism of “natural selection” though in fact he did not.  Alfred Russel Wallace was the man who first advanced “natural selection” as a mechanism for the diversification of species, not Darwin.  All Charles Darwin did was compile a copious amount of material in illustration of what Darwin claimed were traits attributable to “natural selection”.

On procedural grounds alone, if accredited academia insist that evolution is driven by “natural selection”, the credit belongs to Alfred Russel Wallace, not Charles Darwin.

Why, you correctly ask, is Charles Darwin credited for coming up with the theory of evolution?

If that is your question, it is a poorly worded question formed in complete refusal to accept the protocols governing Empirical Method.  Evolution remains a scientific hypothesis precisely because no mechanism of action has ever been proven in replicable experiments, or even observed to have occurred in nature.

If accredited academia were required to correct the academic record, which I insist academia must, academia would have to begin by acknowledging that Alfred Russel Wallace, not Charles Darwin was the rightful author of the hypothesis.

The only problem with my position is that Alfred Russel Wallace himself would have rejected the attribution.  You see, Wallace himself was just expanding on the central themes in the works of Thomas Malthus, the subject of the previous essay in this series.  If you are not reading these essays in series, go back since one essay builds toward the next.

While all my diligent readers are waiting for others to get caught up, I’ll just remind everyone still in the room it was Thomas Malthus who first screamed “We’re all going to die!”.

You see, the science of mathematics had advanced that statistical method was more than adequate for predicting quantitative outcomes and analyzing trends in normal distributions.  Populations of living organisms, including those of human beings, are normal distributions. 

Thomas Malthus, like nearly every academic who read and confirmed his theses on population growth, were the Greta Thunbergs of their day.  The numbers they were calculating had staggering implications.  Malthus correctly guessed that populations had historically “bottlenecked” and “crashed”.

Pay attention here because my discovery returns us to Indonesia in 80,000 BC, to the precise year when the human population “crashed” and formed a “bottleneck” later confirmed in genetic research.

There is no arguing against the Super Eruption of Sumatra’s largest caldera, or the near extinction of the human species on this planet.

Of course, neither Malthus, or his students, Aldred Russel Wallace and Charles Darwin knew anything about genetics.  You don’t want to even read a textbook on medicine from Darwin’s day.  What passed for medical knowledge in Darwin’s day would amount to a criminal offense by modern standards.

What Malthus, Wallace and Darwin were all saying is that we are all survivors.

That may not seem astounding to you and I, here in the comforts of the 21^st century, where diseases are cured at whim and everyone is expected to die of old age, but trust me, in Darwin’s day anything and everything could kill you.  A simple paper cut could, and probably would become infected, judging by the standards of community hygiene in the 17^th and 18^th centuries.

It was Ibn Sahl’s original breakthrough in optics which allowed scientists to first discover, then treat microbial infections.  Darwin put pen to paper in an age when diseases were still believed to be, if not punishments, the consequences of individual sins.

Mankind would not overcome the guilt and shame associated with disease until 1905.  Between 1855 and 1905, the scientific community had nothing but “survival of the fittest” to go on to explain the diversity of species on this planet.

Biology students today are led to believe, with almost religious fervor, that Charles Darwin was the prevailing theorist of the biological sciences, when in fact he is the only theorist in the biological sciences.

Accredited Academia clings to Darwin’s Origins of Species not because its efficacy has been proven, but because there is nothing whatsoever on the shelf.  Skeptics among my colleagues will insist I am grossly mischaracterizing academic consensus but, in fact, I am just reducing academic consensus to a fundamental fact:  No mechanism of evolution has ever been observed to have occurred, either in nature or under laboratory conditions, so no mechanism has, logically, been replicable.

Empirical Method requires documentable, replicable proofs before any hypothesis can be elevated to “theory” status.

If you are asking why, then, has accredited academia clung to Charles Darwin’s “Origins of Species?”, you would not be alone in questioning the status quo.

Charles Darwin would demand an answer to the same question.  How do I know Darwin would refute the elevation of his hypothesis to the status of “accepted theory”?  Because Darwin himself refuted his own hypothesis before he died.

One last, full stop.

I am obligated to admit the Skeptics will skewer me alive for bringing up accounts that Darwin refuted his own life’s work.  And I am also willing to accept there is more evidence in favor of dismissing that claim than accepting it.  I just wish accredited academia would devote as much of an effort to critiquing Darwin’s hypothesis as they do to sustaining his dubious reputation.

In conclusion, am I claiming Darwin made no contribution to biology as a scientific discipline?  Not at all.  I openly and heartily accept that Darwin made an extraordinary contribution toward documenting the process of hybridization in species.  But hybridization in a species is not the same thing as differentiation between species, and that, after all, is and remains Darwin’s claim.

All Charles Darwin accomplished in his copious illustration of variations within species, was natural hybridization, not natural selection.  Darwin asserted that plumage readily varies within species of bird, yet never identified how any particular hue or pattern of plumage imparted any advantage, nor offered a single example in biological history where a proposed “advantage” rendered the survivors of a population bottleneck a new and distinct species.

As a mere matter of criticism, Darwin does not offer a single leg to stand on.

Why, then, has accredited academia clung to Darwin’s Origins of Species like a drowning man clings to a life preserver?  Because evolutionary biologists are drowning men clinging to a life preserver.  Since Darwin’s day, the majority of all PhD’s earned in the field of biology are predicated on the popular validity of Darwin’s hypothesis.  The result is that every book report, and senior’s thesis for the last one hundred years is replete with footnotes and cross references all traceable to Darwin.

It is not the case that accredited academia is desperately attempting to rehabilitate Darwin’s hypothesis.  Accredited academia is attempting to rehabilitate nearly every major treatise on evolutionary biology offered between 1855 and 1926.

1926 is when the genome was confirmed in microscopy, the day, at long last when the Ibn Sahl’s theories on optics would yield a miraculous epiphany.  In 1926 it was discovered that life was indeed being created, over and over again by software stored at the center of every cell in every body, of everything that was alive or has ever lived.

We are a long way from 1926 in this essay, so I don’t want to predict where Darwinian apologetics leads, but you can probably guess from Darwin’s only lasting contribution to scientific endeavor.

During his famous voyage on the Beagle, Darwin branded the indigenous people of Tierra Del Fuego the “Fuegian savages”, the very kindred identified in my research as originating in an Exodus from Austronesia following the Super Eruption of Sumatra’s largest caldera in 80,000 BC.

Nobody could correctly claim Darwin was the author of the “noble savage” which did so much damage to European attitudes toward the rest of the world, an brought untold misery to indigenous people everywhere to this very day, but he was clearly reckless, callous and ignorant in liberally applying this dehumanizing critique to a distant culture.

In closing, I argue Charles Darwin may not have refuted his life’s work in a documentary form acceptable to accredited academia today, but the course his scientific study took later in life confirms Darwin refuted “natural selection” in his deeds.

Later in life Darwin abandoned all attempts to prove or disprove “natural selection” and focused almost exclusively on “sexual selection”.  Discussions on the necessity to jump tracks is replete in Darwin’s work, so here’s I’ll just state what should have been obvious all along.

Darwin realized that the fossil record did not reflect a history of biology hinging on “survival of the fittest” for what creature, if any, could have outcompeted the apex reptiles of the dinosaur age?

What, precisely, was T-Rex lacking that rendered T-Rex unfit to survive?  If anything, the fossil record confirms, over and over again, that it was the meekest of species which inherited the earth following every major extinction event.

Darwin realized the simplicity, and thus the fallacy of “survival of the fittest” and so switched to “sexual selection”.  Mind you, Darwin would have nothing to contribute to the origins of species by pursuing “sexual selection” as the mechanism of action in biological evolution, for the very definition of species hinges on the ability to procreate.

Any male and female producing offspring are, by definition, the same species as their offspring.  Just don’t raise this objection in any major university.  You will be cancelled for stating the obvious.

And this is where we leave Darwin behind us.  Darwin contributed nothing but a thick volume of illustrations documenting phenotypical hybridization within species. 

Darwin’s hybridization of species, in caustic combination with Darwin’s “noble savage”, leads directly to Eugenics and the National Socialist Worker’s Party’s war of extinction in 1939. 

By 1939, Malthus and Darwin combined to form an extremely dangerous delusion dominating accredited academia.

In the early 19^th century Malthus said “We’re all going to die!”, and Darwin said “We’re all sexual animals!”

At the beginning of the 20^th Century the Socialists International, conspiring from a café in Vienna, proclaimed “Not Us!”.

No, Socialists weren’t animals, they were a superior species, the most superior in history!

The rest, regrettably, is history.

Keep Vienna affixed firmly in mind as we continue in the Way Back Machine.  Everything I cover from here forward leads inextricably to the extermination of hundreds of millions of innocent human beings in the name of science.

Before we continue on to Walden Pond, just be certain to note, while all the reasons justifying the Socialist Outrages of the 20^th Century were extremely scientific, not one of them were based on anything which passed Peer Review.

The wholesale failure of accredited academia to adhere to the protocols of Empirical Method is the axiomatic cause of the Holocaust.

Do not mistake me for making any other claim in this series of essays.