Both Newton and Darwin proposed systems that were partially correct. Newtonian physics is extremely accurate under conditions that we typically encounter on earth. In this “normal” paradigm, Newton’s equation may be used to calculate forces required to accelerate an object, such as a jet aircraft accelerating down a runway. Similarly, Darwin made a useful contribution to biology by showing that natural selection is the mechanism by which some organisms adapt in the wild, without the guiding hand of a human breeder. This was useful empirical causal model science, and Darwin was one of the first to propose this.
However, problems with both Newtonian and Darwinian science become apparent when they are extended beyond their original paradigms. Newtonian physics breaks down when velocities approach the speed of light or when gravitational fields become very strong. At that point, Einsteinian physics must be invoked. It is our contention that, in a similar way, Darwinian evolutionary science breaks down when it is extrapolated to origins issues as a holistic account. Indeed, since the disproving of spontaneous generation, the emergence of higher life forms is no longer the foundational issue that secular origins scientists need to address. The emergence of life is. The situation is, in fact, striking: that Darwin published at the same time that Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation is arguably the greatest scientific wrongfooting in history.
The scientific community has responded to Newton and Darwin in inconsistent ways. Physicists would be cautious invoking Newtonian physics when investigating, for example, Big Bang cosmology. But something different has happened with Darwinism. Contemporary science is yet to acknowledge that the Darwinist scheme breaks down when extended holistically to origins. This leaves dissenters, such as Thomas Nagel[1] and Yale professor David Gelernter,[2] as lonely voices for the time being. For our part, we believe that Darwin’s success is in the process of winding down and that Darwinism and its adherents will soon find themselves on the wrong side of an intellectual divide which is increasingly manifest in the West. We present details of this forecast in Part 4.
[1] Nagel, 2012.
[2] See “Giving Up Darwin” (Gelernter, 2019).