Darwinism: Flawed, Disastrous-And Stolen: Eugene G. Windchy Calls to the Stand Numerous Credible Witnesses to Make the Case That Not Only Has Darwinism Not Been Proven, but That Charles Darwin Was an Unscrupulous Man Who Stole and Then Peddled Others' Theories

Article excerpt

The End of Darwinism: How a Flawed and Disastrous Theory Was Stolen and Sold, by Eugene Windchy, Bloomington, Indiana: Xibris Corp., 2009, paperback, 264 pages, $19.99.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Within 20 words of the beginning of the prologue to his book, The End of Darwinism, former U.S. Information Agency Assistant Science Adviser Eugene Windchy announces the thesis upon which the rest of the book will be built: "In reality, Darwin was a master of tact and charm, but underneath those polished manners lurked an intensely ambitious scientist who advanced his career by means of deception and intrigue. In that way he also advanced the theory which is attributed, incorrectly, to him."

Upon that forthright foundation is built a compelling and certainly controversial compendium of the foibles, fibs, and outfight fabrications that undergird Darwinism and the quasi-religion established around it.

Flawed

Most disinterested scientists will admit the existence of gaping holes in the tapestry of Darwinism, the most famous of which is the story of the origin of the long necks on giraffes. Darwin asserted that the necks of the giraffes were elongated over time so as to aid the animal in eating the leaves from tall trees. Truly, as Windchy reports, "most American adults living today have had this hoary nonsense foisted upon them," despite overwhelming contrary scientific and observational evidence regarding the feeding habits of giraffes that makes this "proof" absurd and illustrative of other fatal cancers in the body of Darwinian "science." (Giraffes eat mostly from bushes, not to mention that the female giraffes are so much shorter than males that according to Darwin's theory, they would eventually die out.)

The sine qua non of Darwinian doctrine is the theory of natural selection. Darwin argued that 90 percent of the evolutionary change we see is the result of natural selection. Yet the former president of the Paleontological Society and recipient of the National Science Medal, David M. Raup, has called into question the importance of natural selection and, as Windchy rightly reasons, "that criticism goes to the very heart of Darwinian theory." As fossils are found and the tools for studying them improve, there is much in them that reveals contradictions to Darwinian natural selection and shines the light of doubt onto many of the central assumptions of this well-established key principle of evolution. Windchy's book is rife with compelling examples of these scientific advances and the problems they cause for Darwinism's first article of faith.

Stolen

Not only is Darwinism a theory that hasn't well withstood peer scrutiny, it wasn't even developed by Charles Darwin, according to Windchy. He quotes journalist Arnold C. Brackman as saying, "Darwin engaged in what Leonard Huxley called 'a delicate arrangement,' the greatest conspiracy in the annals of science." In fact, so successfully did Charles Darwin steal the theories ascribed to him that the other scientists from whom be plagiarized are unknown to most people, even the educated.

After briefly (though engagingly) describing ancient Roman and Greek adherents of evolutionism, Windchy begins his explication of the theft of the theory by revealing other scientists who had contemplated the same subject.

Despite the synonymous attachment of "natural selection" with Charles Darwin, two British scientists had works on the subject that preceded Darwin's own and, according to Windchy, significant portions of the findings of these two men were stolen by Darwin, including the term "natural selection," which was derived from a book written by Patrick Matthew in 1831. Despite Darwin's assertion that he never read Matthew's book, much less plagiarized from it, Darwin biographer Loren Eiseley reckons that, given many circumstantial similarities, Darwin was in fact familiar with Matthew's work. As a matter of fact, Darwin mentioned Matthew in later editions of his own book. …