How Authoritarianism in Science Prevents Objective Evaluation of Darwinism

Jerry Bergman

(Investigator 211,  2023 July

Darwinists believe the process that produced the entire natural world as we know it today was biological and physical evolution. These scientists have concluded that all living things now existing on our earth evolved from a set of pre-cell organic compounds, such as amino acids, that somehow, after many eons, formed cells through a type of spontaneous generation called abiogenesis. This event is commonly believed to have occurred in the thin sea "soup" that existed many hundreds of millions, or some other enormous number, of years ago (Schopf, 1993).
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, thanks to a series of over 100 American court decisions, both sides are rarely discussed in school or college classes or textbooks. And, unfortunately, much of the Western world including Australia naïvely follows Americas lead. Also unfortunately, very few students study the topic extensively on their own. Even if they wanted to, this 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 abiogenesis theory.  
Another problem is 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 in the field of evolution. And biologists who majored in some area of evolution in graduate school most often do not study the evidence against Darwinism. They usually know only that scientists speak of it to be fact, and many, but by no means all, clergy accept it. As a result, many scientists are totally ignorant about the case against macroevolution.  
Why are both sides not taught in the schools? If naturalistic evolution had a solid case, it should welcome open examination. But because it does not have a solid case, and many evolutionists know this, it does not welcome criticism but suppresses it. As a result, evolutionists now often emotionally attack critics—which are many, varied, and growing. They even sometimes conclude the defensive position that their theory is no longer debatable, and only the ignorant attempt to attack it. They often meet their opposition with an intolerant superiority and belittle the intellect of non-Darwinists.  
This common response calls into question the confidence of Darwinists about 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. Yet, in spite of the serious problems with the theory, bold evolutionary inspired conclusions steady flow from the pens and lips of modern high school and college educators. Their ideas are then broadcast to the entire world by our 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 (Bergman, 1984). The mass media in general speak as if Darwinism was a fact proven beyond doubt, when the opposite is the case. And, 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.
Testing of scientific concepts have 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 and Harvey to break free of the shackles of their day and brave persecution.  
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 designed to support science belief, such as evolutionism, is not correct, or consists of half-truths. The real danger of authoritarianism is that it impedes the inquiry process — and thus slows science progress (Cox, 2019). When a book is published by a Darwin critic, 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 (Wells, 2002)
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 everywhere are reinterpreted, or even ignored, to "fit" this perception. Students of nature should realize that all generalizations are subject to challenge, and all theories are subject to modification, or even rejection (Pennisi, 1994). The fact that many conclusions in science — even those widely held as true — are no more than assumptions — is often not made clear in textbooks or classrooms.
A parallel example is the difference between what happened, and the observer's opinion of what happened, a difference that should be — but is often not — made clear. For example, the statement "Johnny threw an eraser at Sally" is partly a judgment. The most that we can say about what happened was Johnny threw an eraser in the direction of Sally. Although the statement that Johnny threw the eraser at Sally may be true, it implies a deliberate act and is an assumption until we have evidence of Johnny's intention. Likewise, much that is assumed to be truth in science is based on a similar leap from fact to conclusion.  

The Age Question
A good example of this problem is the question of the age of something in Darwinism, a field called dating. It is often stated that some object is so many millions or billions of years old when the only accurate statement is "the carbon 14 dating technique indicate that this fossil bone is so many thousands of years old." The latter is more descriptive and informative. It is also more honest and less dogmatic. As a collector of old science books, I have noted hundreds of now discarded dates were propagated in the older literature, each stated as if it is an undisputable fact.
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 in the literature of evolutionists would go a long way toward a better evaluation of the data, and helping to resolve the creation-evolution conflict as well.


Bergman, Jerry. 1984. "The New State Religion; Atheism." Impact, Nov., 257:i-iv.

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

Pennisi, Elizabeth. 1994. "Static Evolution." Science News, 145:168-169.

Schopf, William J. 1993. "Microfossils of the Early Archean Apex Chart: New Evidence of the Antiquity of Life." Science, 260:640.

Wells, Jonathan. 2002. Critics Rave Over Icons of Evolution.