Reading time: ~4 min read
An article in Scientific American, known for its devotion to Darwinism, has described the Cambrian explosion as “Evolutionary biology’s deepest paradox.”183The Cambrian explosion has totally overturned the basic assumptions—development from the simple to the complex, the transitional form claim, the claim that species diversified first, the assumptions regarding mechanisms—on which the evolutionist perspective is based. However, Darwinists have adopted their theories as a dogma, as laws of nature. Because of their stubborn beliefs, they have grown accustomed to questioning the evidence wherever it conflicts with the theory, rather than the theory itself.
The theory of evolution that they have so blindly adopted has so dominated their world views that they find it almost impossible to feel the slightest doubt about the idea. The only doubt they experience concerning Darwinism concerns those who doubt the theory itself!
Marjorie Grene, a historian of science, describes this closed mindset:
It is as a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds, men’s minds. . . The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few meddlers imperfect in scientific faith.184
Darwinists maintain this mindset and never question their blind beliefs when dealing with a phenomenon such as the Cambrian explosion that loudly contradicts evolution in all respects. The Cambrian fossils are scientific fact. Therefore, any mindset that rejects their implications is dogmatic and totally illogical. This mindset inevitably compels Darwinists to engage in unscientific behavior.
The most telling example of this is certainly Walcott’s covering up of the evidence. Academically, Walcott was a knowledgeable and talented scientist who worked for the United States Geological Survey for 27 years, serving as its director for 12 of them. Later, he became the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution and held this post for 20 years, and rose to the position of president of the US National Academy of Sciences. His career made him one of the most important figures in American scientific history.
But despite his knowledge and experience, his blindness in the face of the Burgess Shale fossils was seldom to be equaled. Many Burgess Shale life forms told science of the existence of brand new phyla. It was clear to him that these needed to be considered and added alongside other known phyla. Yet Walcott completely ignored the Cambrian explosion, described by paleontologists as “the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.”185Instead of naming these new phyla, he tried to fit the fossils into already existing phyla—a most superficial and contrived approach. The world of paleontology realized how rottenly distorted Walcott’s analyses were thanks to Stephen Jay Gould’s award-winning book Wonderful Life (1989), and studies by Morris et al.
Gould examined Walcott’s notes and photographs and subjected them to fierce criticism in his book. He wrote that Walcott had ignored the extraordinary nature of the Burgess Shale fossils because of his Darwinist preconceptions. Because of his devotion to Darwin’s scenario, Walcott had described a story of his own invention, rather than the facts before him.
In fact, Walcott was only the first of scientists in denial. In the face of the Cambrian explosion, present-day evolutionists have also adopted a far from scientific approach. This dogmatism displayed by Darwinists did not change even in the face of the zircon dating that reduced the time span of the Cambrian explosion to a mere 5 million years.
Darwinists have failed to accept such powerful evidence, something which is an easy requirement of both science and logic. When it comes to their own world view, they immediately set to one side any scientific doubts.
Scientific progress is only possible by way of skepticism. If skepticism is the basis of science, then in the same way that Darwinists believe that chance can give rise to all things, so should they also admit the possibility that everything was created by Allah. Since science requires skepticism, they should allow a 50% possibility that species did not evolve, but were created. But they insistently deny that, assuming evolutionary origins for the Cambrian explosion right from the outset, because they reject the possibility of deliberate creation. And they insistently ignore the facts obtained about the Cambrian explosion as the result of a great deal of research and hard work. Although science gives them the answer, they prefer to ignore it. What a blindly held belief Darwinism is!