[Charles Darwin (1809-1882) is considered one of the greatest natural scientists of all times.
His research into the origin of species is regarded as the basis of evolution theory.
It is known worldwide and taught at schools as well as universities in many countries.
In his time, Darwin's work represented a turning point, from a belief in divine creation to a materialistic world view.
Today, the theory of evolution is considered the complete explanation for the complexity of all life.
It states that living organisms can change over many generations by adapting to their
environment and that new species can emerge that way.
Media and scientific reporting constantly encourage the public to support Darwinism.
It is propagated that every scientist in the world believes this theory.
The "Darwinian world view" is firmly anchored in the minds of many people.
On the website biologie-lernprogramme.de you can read the following about the term "theory of evolution":
"In everyday language, the term "theory" refers to a rather uncertain statement; in science, this
would correspond more to the term "hypothesis".
In science, on the other hand, a "theory" is already backed up by many findings, almost like a "law of nature".
So when we talk about evolutionary "theory", we are actually emphasizing the very good body of evidence!"
But what does this good body of evidence look like?
Is the scientific community really in agreement, or are critical dissenting voices being
suppressed also in this field, like in many others?
All scientists in the world believe in the theory of evolution - at least that's what PBS - the Public
Broadcasting, TV network in the USA claimed in 2001
which led to a strong public reaction.
Bruce Chapman, president of the think tank Discovery Institute, accused the filmmakers of "stigmatizing"
all scientists who questioned the theory of evolution,
saying:"They wan't people to believe that the only criticism of Darwin's theory today comes from religious fundamentalists".
John West, the institute's Vice-President decried Darwinists deliberately influencing media, politics and the judiciary
to suppress dissenting opinions and prevent discussion.
He is convinced that this repression is only leaving people even more skeptical.
The Institute then published a list of names of scientists who think differently.
They all had the courage to sign and make it publicly known that they doubted Darwin's theory.
The list includes members of the American Academy of Sciences, the Russian, Polish and Czech academies as well
as renowned universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA and others.
All those who signed have doctorates in their subject-area. This is a remarkably broad consensus.
"Darwinists continue to claim that no serious scientists doubt the theory and yet
here are 500 scientists who are willing to make public their skepticism about the theory,"
said Dr. John G. West of Discovery Institute.
"Darwinist efforts to use the courts, the media and academic tenure committees to suppress dissent and stifle
discussion are in fact fueling even more dissent and inspiring more scientists to ask to be added to the list."
The list of Darwin dissidents is headed with the following statement:
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.
Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Today, this list already includes more than 1,000 scientists.
I am skeptical of the claims.
I am skeptical. I am skeptical. I am skeptical. We are skeptical.
More and more scientists are questioning the Darwinian theory.
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the
complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
Over 1,000 PhD scientists worldwide have signed the list.
I am skeptical, skeptical. skeptical.
I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.
Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Even Darwin himself assumed that the many gaps in his theory would be filled by later generations through corresponding findings.
In contrast, scientists from various disciplines have repeatedly made discoveries that led to his theory of
"evolution by natural selection" crumbling even further.
In the following you will hear some dissenting voices that mainstream press has not published so far.
In his book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", the Australian molecular biologist Michael Denton writes:
"Nowhere was Darwin able to point to one bona fide case of natural selection having
actually generated evolutionary change in nature..."
"The pioneers of genetics such as Karl Curns and Heribert-Nilsson have repeatedly pointed out that selection in itself cannot
create anything new. It is just a sieve that sifts things out.
Just as a sieve does not create new tea leaves, selection does not create new forms or new species.
It can only sift out what is offered, but cannot create new forms and species.
"What Darwin presented in his book were possibilities of thought: What might it have been like?
How might the organisms on this earth have developed?
But neither he nor the Darwinists, nor neo-Darwinists, can confirm this statement by experiment today."
In addition to archaeologists and biologists, some mathematicians have also questioned the theory of evolution.
Stanislaw Ulam, an engineer working on the Manhattan Project stated that from a mathematical point of
view, DNA contains a large amount of life information.
He says, nature is not able to rely on random processes to generate such information, as Darwin's theory suggests.
US molecular biologist Douglas Axe also carried out calculations in this context and came to the same conclusion:
It would take 10 trillion earths to create a normal protein molecule through random mutations. Obviously this is impossible.
"In the evolutionary system, chance plays a fairly strong role because it is believed that random
mutations, random changes can create a concept.
This overloads chance, chance does not achieve something like that.
If that were possible, then we could create the programs for our computers using random algorithms. But that is not possible.
We need thoughts, we need ideas, we need intelligence to create complex programs."
"One of the basic problems of evolutionary theory is the transition from aquatic to terrestrial life.
How can a fish develop into an amphibian?
The transition between the fish and between the amphibians, the connecting links, have not been found to this day."
"The question of the transitional links between the major groups of living beings was a burning question
for Darwin and it is a burning question to this day.
Surprisingly few fossils have been found that can be interpreted in terms of such transitions
between the major groups of living organisms."
Evidence for Darwin's theory of descent is still lacking today.
Since its publication, Darwin's theory has been disseminated and repeatedly expanded by loyal supporters.
The gaps in this theory were sometimes even concealed by misrepresentations, for example by
Ernst Haeckel, zoologist and advocate of Darwinism.
In the mid-19th century, he altered images of human and animal embryos in order to popularize evolutionary
biology, which was still in its infancy at the time.
In 1997, a group of scientists surrounding the embryologist Michael Richardson studied the
growth process of the embryos of 50 vertebrates.
They looked at them closely and made notes.
They discovered that Haeckel had not only added and deleted structures in the embryos, but also changed them.
He painted human embryos that more closely resembled fish and altered embryos of humans and dogs.
Some scientists speak of deliberate falsification in this context.
Haeckel's pictures were later used in biology textbooks, misleading generations of students who did not know the
truth and then blindly believed in the theory of evolution.
In the minds of young people this reinforced the idea that humans are descendants of apes.
In his book "The Beginning of Human Life", the German embryologist Erich Blechschmidt proved with detailed data that human fetuses
have exclusively human structures from the very beginning.
The Finnish professor of bioprocess engineering Matti Leisola has had personal experiences with critcism of evolutionism.
The Christian scientist has been working in research for 40 years.
In his book "Evolution - Criticism Unwanted: Experiences of a Scientist", he describes how
science has long ceased to be a neutral playing field.
This became particularly clear to him when it came to the topic of evolution.
Anyone who speaks out publicly against the prevailing evolutionary paradigm and the naturalistic world view behind it
must expect disinterest in the evidence, rejection of open discussion, persistent prejudice, disparagement, slander,
attempts at censorship and even hatred - because Darwin's hypotheses have long been taken for
granted as facts, Leisola describes in his book.
Dr. Hans-Joachim Zillmer, an expert on evolution, also criticizes Darwin in his book "Die Evolutionslüge" (The Evolution Lie).
The back cover of his book states:
[Speaker 2: "His current book illustrates the collapse of this doctrine as a construct of lies.
Numerous, previously suppressed, sensational findings are documented giving proof to the fact that the history of
human evolution, which has been systematically falsified by scientific establishment, needs to be rewritten.
And it also shows that the Darwinian principles of rivalry and merciless struggle are not the
successful strategies for the development of life.
The principles of the theory of evolution do not lead to further development, but to confrontation and
war instead of necessary cooperation - then as now."
In conclusion: These voices show that Darwin's teaching on the theory of evolution is by no means based on solid evidence.
On the contrary, the number of critical voices calling for a genuine scientific review is increasing daily, because an open
discourse and careful investigations into the supposedly reliable evidence are not taking place in this
field either, and are even being deliberately censored.
Anke Uhlenwinkel, university professor for the didactics of geography and economics, recently published a book:
"Those who disturb must go - the removal of critical professors from universities".
In an interview with AUF 1, she describes how more and more professors are losing their jobs - not because of poor academic
achievement, but because they ask uncomfortable questions.
What once were locations of free debate are now institutions of fear, censorship and political conformity. Anyone
who doesn't fit into the prevailing narrative is fired.
She talks about the abuse of power, conformity and the betrayal of the idea of science.
She believes that every citizen can only form their own opinion if they are given access to the full range of scientific facts.
"... and the better you know about the things that you could all actually know, and that is much more
than what is normally discussed in the public sphere.
... the more you know, the more you can form your own reasonably well-founded opinion as well as a social opinion."
In closing, let's recall the encouraging words of Dr. John G. West of the Discovery Institute. He said:
"Darwinist efforts to use the courts, the media and academic tenure committees to suppress dissent and stifle discussion are
in fact fueling even more dissent and inspiring more scientists to ask to be added to
the list of Critics of the Evolution Theory."