“What if Charles Darwin got it wrong? What if all the crises, alienations, and losses of faith we associate with the aftermath of the publication of The Origin of Species had been triggered by a false prospectus?” – Neil Thomas, Taking Leave of Darwin

Like many people, Neil Thomas, a scholar of logic and literature, accepted the Darwinian “narrative without demur” and he “deferred to what [he] imagined must be the properly peer-reviewed orthodoxy.” Yet when he began to study what was behind the curtain he found the “grand story of evolution by natural selection was little more than a creation myth to satisfy the modern age.”

In Taking Leave of Darwin, Thomas details this journey as he explores the evolution of a myth, the counter-theories and criticisms that allegedly don’t exist, and finds Darwin’s model of origins supported by materialistic philosophy, not by empirical science.

He writes Darwinism is a throwback to the “pre-scientific mind [which] imputed agency to Nature by way of personification of Nature’s various aspects as individual divinities…Darwin appears, wittingly or not, to have channeled the spirit of the older, polytheistic world by crediting Nature with an infinite number of transformative powers.” The mechanism of speciation, driven by chance, “…falls at every hurdle. It lacks explanatory force, empirical foundation, and logical coherence…nothing can ‘magically emerge’ or ‘naturally evolve’ without a supporting agency.”

Thomas’ second book, False Messiah, focuses in on Charles Darwin, his development of his origins theory, and the age in which this all unfolded. He found Darwin struggled to put his theory on solid ground, questioning some of its tenants, and its lack of data. His critics were aplenty, questioning the logic of the proposed mechanisms of speciation, or the feasibility of life spontaneously forming in a “warm little pond.” Even in Darwin’s day, his model appeared as a “just-so story” of “fog piled on fog” that ignored the reality of the impossibilities it claimed to explain. Some of Darwin’s own supporters wrestled with the claims in his books, so how did the model rise about all these obstacles?

It rode the zeitgeist of the Victorian culture wars, not empirical science. Thomas writes, “Many Victorians very much wished Darwinism to be true. On the slightly dubious principle that empirical facts should never be allowed to get in the way of a good story, many turned a blind eye to the scientific inadequacies [of Darwinism].”

The 1860s were a counter-culture era, where the intelligentsia was revolting against traditional thought and religion. Clearly not all were onboard with Darwin’s claims, many realizing “materialism could not account for the totality of human experience.” Nor could Darwinism explain the “sheer exceptionalism of our terrestrial biosphere.” Sometimes facts get overwhelmed by louder voices. Unfortunately, Darwinism would be used as the basis for a horrifying new zeitgeist, eugenics, for much of the Twentieth Century. This would be quickly memory-holed in subsequent decades.

In the end, to this day, Darwinism has been a theory “much modified, festooned with revisionary patches akin to the epicycles employed to prop up geocentricism.” Even as evangelists of neo-Darwinism claim it is unchallenged and solid, in the journals and research labs, there are frantic searches for replacements. In spite of over a century of work, Darwinism still cannot explain ultimate origins, complexity, information in DNA, consciousness or much else other than minor adaptations. In frustration, more supporters have gone back to panspermia or multiple-universe speculations. In other words, they are just moving the problems of Darwinism out of sight, out of mind.

Thomas’ two books are together a very readable, and non-technical history of Darwin’s theory of biological origins. For those unfamiliar with the subject, or those who have been taught not to question the reigning narrative, these short volumes are packed with well-documented history.

Ultimately, Darwin’s model would have died long ago, had it not been hijacked by materialistic and naturalistic philosophies. It’s a shame really, because Darwin appeared to be trying to practice science, even if was ultimately a strained attempt by piecing together various existing claims. His doubts grew over the years, but he was so invested by then, he never gave it up (though some of his supporters did).

Science has always been beset by personalities, influenced by movements and causes. Much of this can be exposed and avoided if, as Thomas asks of us, we commit to being truth-seekers.

Seek truth, wherever it leads you.