I am disappointed by the lack of scientific rigor that is applied to Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, a theory that basically states that random mutations (mistakes in genetic replication) are the fuel that drives the evolutionary machine. While proponents claim that it is the natural selection of those mutations that actually makes us winners in this cosmic game of dice, it still all begins with a crapshoot. Basic scientists are a brilliant bunch bound to the scientific method. They perform their work in a methodical, logical, and meticulous way. They ask questions, gather data, form hypotheses, and then test them in carefully controlled experiments. The data they acquire is then plugged into statistical formulas to determine whether or not the results are significant. These formulas are designed to determine whether the data obtained is suggestive of a distinct phenomenon or just random chance. If statistically significant then their work may offer real answers to scientific questions and be deemed worthy of publication. If, however, the data acquired is random, then it is irrelevant and scientifically unfit for publication. How then is it possible for a Neo-Darwinian evolutionary scientist to attribute the appearance of complex beings to random genetic mutations?

Randomness is a science killer. It is anathema to the scientific pursuit of truth. Can a scientist in good conscience reject the work of a colleague because his work doesn’t reach statistical significance and then triumphantly declare that random mistakes are responsible for the appearance of complex life? It makes no sense. Science is based on statistically verifiable theories. So once you offer randomness as a valid mechanism you have gutted science of its gold standard and pulled the rug out from under the scientific enterprise. When I treated disease, I had to ask myself if the use of a particular drug or therapy was supported by sound research. It was no different when I contemplated Neo-Darwinian theory. I had to ask myself, if this theory were a drug would I prescribe it to my patients? The answer was a resounding, No! I found that it lacked compelling statistically significant data, it had the terrible side effect of making man act like a beast, and finally, was suspiciously promoted as a miracle cure by a number of overzealous atheist salesmen rather than thoughtful scientists. If I wouldn’t include it in my therapeutic arsenal then I shouldn’t include it in my worldview infrastructure either.