Published on December 18th, 2022 | by


DARWINISM–A Crumbling Theory

Charles Darwin stood on a very slippery slope when trying to explain how something as biologically and biochemically complex as even the simplest form of life could have spontaneously generated itself from organic molecules and compounds loose in the early Earth’s environment. Because that part of Darwin’s theory has always been glaringly specious, moden Darwinists get hammered about it from all sides, including from the likes of me…


In Charles Darwin’s time, nothing was known about life at the cellular level. Protoplasm was the smallest unit they understood.

Yet Darwin’s theory of natural selection stated that all of life–every living entity known then or to be discovered in the future–simply had to function from birth to death by “natural laws” that could be defined and analysed. This would of course include the origin of life. Darwin suggested life might have gradually assembled itself from stray parts lying about in some “warm pond” when the planet had cooled enough to make such an assemblage possible. Later it was realised that nothing would likely have taken shape (gradually or otherwise) in a static environment, so a catalytic element was added: lightning.

Throughout history up to the present moment, scientists have been forced to spend their working lives with the “God” of the Creationists hovering over every move they make, every mistake, every error in judgment, every personal peccadillo. So when faced with something they can’t explain in rational terms, the only alternative option is “God did it”, which for them is unacceptable. So they’re forced by relentless Creationist pressure to come up with answers for absolutely everything that, no matter how absurd, are “natural”. That was their motivation for the theory that a lightning bolt could strike countless random molecules in a warm pond and somehow transform them into the first living creature. The “natural” forces of biology, chemistry and electromagnetism could magically be swirled together–and voilla!… an event suspiciously close to a miracle.

Needless to say, no Darwinist would accept terms like “magic” or “miracle”, which would be tantamount to agreeing with the Creationist argument that “God did it all”. But in their heart-of-hearts, even the most fanatical Darwinists had to suspect the “warm pond” theory was absurd.

And as more and more was learned about the mind-boggling complexity of cellular structure and chemistry, there could be no doubt. The trenchant Fred Hoyle analogy still stands: it was as likely to be true as that a tornado could sweep through a junkyard and correctly assemble a jetliner.

Unfortunately, the “warm pond” had become a counterbalance to “God did it”, so even when Darwinists knew past doubt that it was wrong, they clung to it, outwardly proclaimed it and taught it. In many places in the world, including the USA, it’s still taught.


The next jarring bump on the Darwinist road to embattlement came when they learned that in certain places around the globe there existed remnants of what had to be the very first pieces of the Earth’s crust. Those most ancient slabs of rock are called cratons, and the story of their survival for 4.0 billion [4,000,000,000] years is a miracle in itself. But what is most miraculous about them is that they contain fossils of “primitive” bacteria! Yes, bacteria, preserved in 4.0-billion-year-old cratonal rock. If that’s not primitive, what is?

However, it presented Darwinists with an embarrassing conundrum.

If Earth began to coalesce out of the solar system’s primordial cloud of dust and gas around 4.5 billion years ago (which by then was a well supported certainty), then at 4.0 billion years ago the proto-planet was still a seething ball of cooling magma. No warm ponds would appear on Earth for at least a billion years or more. So how to reconcile reality with the warm-pond fantasy?

There was no way to reconcile it, so it was ignored by all but the specialists who had to work with it on a daily basis. Every other Darwinist assumed a position as one of the “see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil” monkeys. To say they “withheld” the new, damaging information is not true; to say it was never emphasised in the popular media for public consumption is true.

That has become the way Darwinists handle any and all challenges to their pet theories: if they can no longer defend one, they don’t talk about it, or they talk about it as little as possible. If forced to talk about it, they invariably try to “kill the messenger” by challenging any critic’s “credentials”. If the critic lacks academic credentials equal to their own, he or she is dismissed as little more than a crackpot. If the critic has equal credentials, he or she is labelled as a “closet Creationist” and dismissed. No career scientist can speak openly and vociferously against Darwinist dogma without paying a heavy price. That is why and how people of normally good conscience can be and have been “kept in line” and kept silent in the face of egregious distortions of truth.

If that system of merciless censure weren’t so solidly in place, then surely the next Darwinist stumble would have made headlines around the world as the final and absolute end to the ridiculous notion that life could possibly have assembled itself “naturally”. They couldn’t even be sure it happened on Earth.


The imposing edifice of Darwinian “origin of life” dogma rested on a piece of incontrovertible bedrock: there could be only one progenitor for all of life. When the fortuitous lightning bolt struck the ideally concocted warm pond, it created only one entity. However, it was no ordinary entity. With it came the multiple ability to take nourishment from its environment, create energy from that nourishment, expel waste created by the use of that energy and (almost as an afterthought) reproduce itself ad infinitum until one of its millions of subsequent generations sits here at this moment reading these words. Nothing miraculous about that; simply incalculable good fortune.

This was Darwinist gospel–preached and believed–until the bacteria fossils were found in the cratons. Their discovery was upsetting, but not a deathblow to the Darwinist theory. They had to concede (among themselves, of course) that the first life-form didn’t assemble itself in a warm pond, but it came together somehow because every ancient fossil it spawned was a single-celled bacteria lacking a cell nucleus (prokaryotes). Prokaryotes preceded the much later single-celled bacteria with a nucleus (eukaryotes), so the post-craton situation stayed well within the Darwinian framework. No matter how the first life-form came into existence, it was a single unit lacking a cell nucleus, which was mandatory because even the simplest nucleus would be much too “irreducibly complex” (a favourite Intelligent Design phrase) to be created by a lightning bolt tearing through a warm pond’s molecular junkyard. So the Darwinists still held half a loaf.

In the mid-1980’s, however, biologist Carl Woese stunned his colleagues with a shattering discovery. There wasn’t just the predicted (and essential) single source for all forms of life; there were two: two types of prokaryotic bacteria as distinct as apples and oranges, dogs and cats, horses and cows… Two distinct forms of life, alive and well on the planet at 4.0 billion years ago. Unmistakable. Irrefutable. Get over it. Deal with it.

But how? How to explain separate forms of life springing into existence in an environment that would make hell seem like a summer resort? With nothing but cooling lava as far as an incipient eye might have seen, how could it be explained in “natural” terms? Indeed, how could it be explained in any terms other than the totally unacceptable? Life, with all its deepening mystery, had to have been seeded onto Earth.

Author’s web site is http://www.lloydpye.com

[from Nexus Dec-Jan issue]

Tags: , , ,

About the Author

9 Responses to DARWINISM–A Crumbling Theory

  1. Aman Pandey says:

    I feel disgusted even thinking about teaching this theory to young children.

  2. Mahender says:

    Yet another new christian crusader war on science!! First the theory that this earth is only 4 billion years old is wrong, as it is at the minimum 8 billion by the Vedic knowledge (*accepted as much as 14.6 billion by some modern scientists) just by tweaking the energy equation of light particle and the Big bang theory. mote over Hindu Vedic scripts (science & mathis) amply state on multiple occasions that this universe is 322 trillion year old and earth is created & destroyed several times times in a day of Brahma A day of Brahma time is 8 billion years scientifically & mathematically calculated to time now.

  3. Aman says:

    When atheists are embarrassed after getting defeated, they try to defend their theories by asking then what is the source of God not knowing He is the source of everything, cause of all causes.

    • Mahender says:

      when time of this earth per the Bigbang teory is exted for the new calculations anywhere from 8 billion to 13.6 ; the debunked Darwin goes out of the window. & in fact confirms it.

      • Mahi says:

        Great Mahendra. Now write a paper on it and get it published in a top journal. Let’s see what happens.

  4. Namesake says:

    All glories to Srila Prabhupadat
    Hare Krishna

    They cannot understand things of this material world without understanding the other aspect of this world ; the subtle science and for that they will have to take help from scriptures otherwise only by studying at gross level they will be left baffled.
    Well after reaching that level they will ask what is the source of material world then? As they can experience only the effulgence coming from spiritual planets and the superosul they will conclude : this must be it and this will go on and on , they will be played with by maha-maya , leaving them baffled yet again but once they reach to the platform of bhakti they will understand that krishna is the actual source of even those two things.
    Be sincere with your devotional service and follow regulative principals.

    Your servant

    • It is not exactly like this. Before Darwin everyone knew and accepted that God created the world. There was no confusion. This Darwin theory of evolution was only introduced by athiests to paint God out of the picture. That is all. It is totally illogical nonsense with no proof whatsoever. Only a totally insane iddiot could accept Darwins theory, and they know it also, the supporters of Darwin’s theory. They are a difficult position, they can accept a totally insane and incorrect theory that paints God out of the picture or they can accept God. So the insane choose Darwins theory…

      That is all. Anyone who accepts Darwin’s theory is insane and they know it. But they prefer to be insane than to accept the existence of a God who is above them.

      • Namesake says:

        All glories to Srila Prabhupada!
        Hare Krishna Madhudvisa Prabhu

        After reading my comment again , i think i tried to include some of my ‘speculative knowledge’.
        My sincere apologies for that , i will try to be more careful next time , my apologies again for that alas i am as ignorant as a human can be.

        Yes the main point remains that this is just one of their ‘theories’ which…..well change everyday but the path to perfection is already provided to the devotees. (like you said)

        Your lowly servant

  5. Muslim guy says:

    awesome, thank you

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Back to Top ↑