How Authoritarianism in Science Prevents Objective Evaluation of Darwinism

Mockery is not an argument.
Let the science speak.

 

 

by Jerry Bergman, PhD

The common definition of a vestigial organ is a body part that is “degenerate, rudimentary, or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution.”[1] Since all vestigial claims have now been refuted by empirical science,[2] how do evolutionists deal with this fact? On the website Reddit, a post dated March 1, 2023, had a comment about vestigial organs in which the editor raised a valid concern:

I wanted to ask if vestigial organs are really vestigial if they still have a function? If so, wouldn’t that be an exaptation then? The original function then is reduced and the trait is used for something else. For example, ostrich wings would no longer be a vestigial organ because there is a change in function. It’s an exaptation because it now functions for balancing while running… or is my thought wrong?[3]

An exaptation is a trait, feature, or structure of an organism that takes on a function in the body when none previously existed, or that differs from its original, assumed function. The first reply to the post above defines ‘vestigial’, then writes that an organ can be vestigial and functional. My response is that if it is functional, it is not vestigial. A nonfunctional organ, by definition, cannot have a function.

We usually use the word “vestigial” to mean any structure or organ that no longer performs the function for which it originally evolved. For example, it turns out that your appendix–a vestigial cecum–can actually function to serve as a sort of refugium for your intestinal flora when you get diarrhea. Your coccyx is a vestigial tail, and you certainly don’t use it to knock flies off your back, or to balance while you swing through the trees, but it does have some function as far as attachment points for some ligaments and tendons and so forth. So yes, it’s possible for a structure to be vestigial and functional….[4]

The other 12 replies all assumed, or implied, that if some structure is required, life can evolve it to satisfy that need. We need an attachment for the ligaments and tendons of the organs in this part of the body, so we evolved it. Specifically, the

coccyx functions as an important insertion site for multiple muscles, ligaments, and tendons. The gluteus maximus, levator ani and coccygeus muscles attach to the coccyx and provide support to surrounding structures. As well as being an important attachment site, the coccyx also functions in providing weight bearing support to a person in the seated position.[5]

The problem is, how did we function until the coccyx evolved to support the muscle system? In spite of some very good reasons to reject the vestigial organ concept raised in the series of posts, most of the responses to the post noted above attempt to retain both the vestigial concept and evolution. One person even offered this explanation: Vestigial just means “reduced,” it doesn’t mean “not functional.” The fact is that the coccyx is not reduced and has a critical function in humans, as is clear from the quote from the anatomy book referenced above.[6] One reader responded correctly, noting in response to this redefinition-of-the-word-vestigial claim:

if that’s the case then would penguin wings have to be vestigial too? They no longer serve their original function, although now it’s good for swimming. Wouldn’t everything then be a vestigial organ? Every feature is original in the course of evolution, isn’t it?[7]

One poster named Capercaille responded to the post noted above by correctly noting:

your basic idea is correct–not many structures in tetrapods are being used in just the same way that they were originally, and a lot of different structures are repurposed “something-else’s.” I guess you could say that a bird wing is a vestigial fin because all tetrapod limbs started out as fins, but that’s not the way the term is usually used. I think the connection you’re making is valid.[8]

No one had the gumption to acknowledge the fact that the vestigial organ idea as originally proposed by Darwin and others is wrong.[9] Useless organs do not exist, never have existed, and all attempts to tweak the concept to save it are pathetic.

Why do so many accept a belief disproved long ago? 

Darwinists believe that the process which produced the entire natural world as we know it today was biological evolution. These scientists have concluded that all living things now existing on our Earth evolved from a set of pre-cell (“pre-biotic”) organic compounds, such as amino acids, that somehow, after many eons, formed cells through a hypothetical biochemical spontaneous generation process called abiogenesis. This event is commonly believed to have occurred in some hypothetical sea “soup” that supposedly existed many hundreds of millions, or some other enormous number, of years ago.[10]

Although atoms-to-Adam naturalistic evolution is now accepted as “fact”, both by many scientists and non-scientists, very few scientists have carefully considered both sides. The reason is that, thanks to a series of over 100 American court decisions, both sides are rarely discussed in public school and college classes or textbooks. And, unfortunately, much of the Western world follows America’s lead. Also unfortunately, very few students study the topic extensively on their own. Even if they wanted to, this goal would be difficult because very few libraries contain much material critical of Darwinism. It is also a rare secular journal that will publish articles openly critical of Darwinism. Consequently, most Darwinism believers have very little knowledge about the overwhelming case against their worldview.

Another problem is that few scientists have an in-depth knowledge of Darwinism itself.  This includes many, if not most, scientists – including biologists. Most undergraduate degree programs in biology require, at most, only one class dedicated solely to evolution. And biologists who majored in some area of evolution in graduate school most often did not study the evidence against Darwinism. They usually know only that scientists speak of it as fact, and that many, but by no means all, clergy accept it. As a result, many scientists are totally ignorant about the case against macroevolution.

If naturalistic evolution had a solid case, it would welcome open examination. But it does not have a solid case, and many evolutionists know this. Furthermore, most evolutionists do not welcome criticism, but rather actively suppress it. As a result, evolutionists now often emotionally attack their critics—who are many, varied, and growing. They even sometimes take the defensive position that their theory is no longer debatable, and that only the “ignorant” attempt to attack it. They often meet their opposition with an intolerant attitude of superiority and belittle the intellect of non-Darwinists as shown in the common cartoons published for this reason.

This common response calls into question the confidence Darwinists have in their position. A science that rests on a solid empirical basis does not need to block criticism. Nor does it need to smear its critics to defend its validity, (as illustrated in the cartoons). Yet, in spite of the serious problems with the theory, bold, evolutionarily inspired conclusions flow steadily from the pens and lips of modern high school and college educators. Their ideas are then broadcast to the entire world by the internet, radio-television airwaves, and magazines. The sheer number of words written in support of naturalistic evolution likely has influenced many persons to accept the theory.[11] The mass media in general speak as if Darwinism was a fact proven beyond doubt, when actually the opposite is the case. Rarely will they permit airing dissenting views or a fair hearing. Repeating something often enough tends to cause people to believe it, even if no valid evidence exists for the idea.

Testing of scientific concepts has been stifled (or stopped) by this authoritarianism since ancient Greece. Scholars have tended to blindly accept the “truth” of their orthodox predecessor’s pronouncements, seriously hindering scientific progress. It required brave and bold thinkers like Galileo Galilei and William Harvey to break free of the shackles of their day and brave the persecution which followed.

Authoritarianism in Science

Authoritarianism remains deeply entrenched in science even today. To get good grades, students are often expected to unquestioningly accept the information and conclusions conveyed by their teachers, professors, and textbooks. This even includes ideas which are unfounded opinion and poorly supported. Much that is now taught as “fact” in science has not been empirically demonstrated and is often un-demonstrable.

While most information passed off as science today is correct, much of it is totally false, or consists of deceiving half-truths designed to support a science belief, such as evolutionism. The real danger of authoritarianism is that it impedes the inquiry process—and thus slows science progress.[12] When a book is published by a Darwin critic such as double-PhD Jonathan Wells, the response is often

wild and furious denunciation…  a firestorm of vilification; and if the superlatives become any more spiteful I may have to enter the witness protection program. It seems that I am guilty of the one unforgivable sin in modern biology: I am openly critical of Darwinian evolution. In Icons I pointed out that the best-known “evidences” for Darwin’s theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked. I argued that a theory that systematically distorts the evidence is not good empirical science — perhaps not even science at all. In fact, Darwinism has all the trappings of a secular religion. Its priests forgive a multitude of sins in their postulants — manipulating data, overstating results, presenting assumptions as though they were conclusions — but never the sin of disbelief ….. “For the past year and a half, however, defenders of Darwin’s faith have been roasting me for being ignorant, stupid and wicked.[13]

As a result, it is widely assumed that naturalistic evolution is fact and, therefore, because this assumption is so universal, both the facts and conclusions of dissenting scientists are reinterpreted, mocked, or even ignored, to “fit” this perception. Students of nature need to realize that all generalizations are subject to challenge, and all theories are subject to modification, or even rejection.[14] The fact that many conclusions in science—even those widely held as true—are no more than assumptions—is often not made clear in school textbooks or classrooms.

Large areas of science are simply a collection of “facts,” such as the classification and descriptions of various types of animals or animal structures and behavior. Science also consists of many assumptions or generalizations based on facts—but many of its conclusions (such as naturalistic evolution) are clearly speculation based primarily on beliefs.

Creationists and evolutionists rarely dispute the empirical facts. It is the interpretation of those facts that is the major area of contention. Stressing the clear division between the data and the conclusions that flow from the orthodox scientists’ worldview contained in the literature of evolutionists would go a long way toward a better evaluation of the data, and help to resolve the creation-evolution conflict as well.

References

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=vestigial+definition.

[2] Bergman, Jerry. Useless Organs: The Rise and Fall of a Central Claim of Evolution. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Bartlett Publishing, 2019.

[3] Understand vestigial organs. https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/comments/11f3nxa/understand_vestigial_organs/, 1 March 2023.

[4] Understand vestigial organs. https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/comments/11f3nxa/understand_vestigial_organs/; emphasis added, 1 March 2023.

[5] Stewart, Sophie. Library of Anatomy. “Coccyx.” https://www.kenhub.com/en/library/anatomy/coccyx, 2022.

[6] Bergman, Jerry, et al. “Vestigial Organs” Are Fully Functional: A History and Evaluation of the Vestigial Organ Origins Concept. Creation Research Society Books, Terre Haute, Indiana, 1990.

[7] Understand vestigial organs, 2023. Emphasis added.

[8] Understand vestigial organs, 2023.

[9] Bergman, 1990.

[10]  Schopf, William J. Microfossils of the Early Archean Apex Chert: New evidence of the antiquity of life. Science 260(5108):640, 1993.

[11] Bergman, Jerry. The new state religion: Atheism. Impact 257:i-iv. https://www.icr.org/article/new-state-religion-atheism/, November 1984.

[12] Cox, Gavin. Matti Leisola—bioengineer dumps Darwin, declares design. Journal of Creation 33(2):46–50, August 2019.

[13] Wells, Jonathan. Critics rave over Icons of Evolution. https://www.discovery.org/a/1180/, 2002.

[14] Pennisi, Elizabeth. Static Evolution. Science News 145(11):168-169, 12 March 1994.

---

Dr. Jerry Bergman has taught biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, and microbiology for over 40 years at several colleges and universities including Bowling Green State University, Medical College of Ohio where he was a research associate in experimental pathology, and The University of Toledo. He is a graduate of the Medical College of Ohio, Wayne State University in Detroit, the University of Toledo, and Bowling Green State University. He has over 1,300 publications in 12 languages and 40 books and monographs. His books and textbooks that include chapters that he authored are in over 1,800 college libraries in 27 countries. So far over 80,000 copies of the 60 books and monographs that he has authored or co-authored are in print. For more articles by Dr Bergman, see his Author Profile.