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 outright 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 he 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.

The second prominent man to publish theories of evolution was naturalist Edward Blyth. Blyth wrote of natural selection, variation, adaptation, and gradualism in his studies that were published in 1835 and 1837 in the journal The Annals and Magazine of Natural History. Again, Darwin failed to give proper credit to this seminal work and passed off much of Blyth’s proposals as his own.

Neither of these examples mentioned by Windchy is nearly as shocking or shameful as the scholarly swindle perpetrated by Darwin on the work of a third biologist, Alfred Wallace.

Wallace was a Welshman who published an article entitled “On the Law Which Has Regulated the Introduction of a New Species” in 1855. This article described what came to be known as the Sarawak Principle, the salient point of which was quoted by Windchy: “Every species has come into existence coincident in time and space with a closely allied species.” Despite the well-founded explication of his theories, Windchy relates, Wallace’s work made little mark in the scientific community, with the notable exception of Charles Darwin, who was involved in writing his own monograph on the subject.

Surprisingly and notwithstanding their apparent status as academic rivals, in 1858 Charles Darwin received a “completed formal paper on evolution by natural selection.” In the letter accompanying the manuscript, Wallace asked Darwin to forward it along to Sir Charles Lyell. Although reputedly meticulous as to saving correspondence, Windchy reports, Darwin destroyed all the letters he received from Wallace, a fact Windchy calls “odd.” Odd or not, it is remarkable if one accepts the description of Darwin as a fastidious letter saver (evidence of which is provided by Windchy, who mentions that Darwin’s collected correspondence fills 15 volumes). Windchy, it seems, describes this habit of Darwin for the purpose of implying that Darwin deliberately destroyed the correspondence with the purpose of hiding his tracks.

Other scholars have unearthed indisputable evidence that Darwin drew significantly from Wallace’s effort and then took advantage of his money (Darwin’s father was prosperous and his mother was a Wedgewood) and his connections at the influential Linnean Society to diminish Wallace’s contributions to the field of evolutionary theory and exaggerate his own. Two of Darwin’s cronies — Sir Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker — acted as co-conspirators in concocting and carrying out the plan to promote Darwin and thus relegate Wallace to footnotes in the annals of scientific development. Regarding the particulars of this all-but-untold story, Windchy adroitly stacks brick after brick of evidence into a seemingly insuperable wall of proof.

Sold
Although it only took three powerful and prominent men to invent “Darwin as the father evolution,” it took many more to foist this theory on the public as sound scientific fact. It took support by moneyed interests, ambitious investors, and scientists servile to an “ism” in opposition to Christianity and its doctrines (including the creation of all things by God).

One of the conspirators in on the ground floor was Thomas Huxley. Windchy quotes Darwin as explaining to Huxley, “If we can once make a compact set of believers, we shall in time conquer.” Huxley stepped to the sound of his master’s voice and immediately wrote a favorable review of On the Origin of the Species. Darwin demonstrated his gratitude by making a timely deposit of £ 2,100 into Huxley’s perpetually empty bank account, thus enabling the penniless Huxley to pay off his mountainous and immobilizing debts.

Huxley found and formed a cadre of influential and well-placed scientists and socialites (Darwin’s “compact set of believers”). Huxley and his band would capitalize on the seminars, books, and speeches to be given, not to mention trading on the allure of the power to be had by placing converts in positions of power whereby they could make gain from peddling influence.

In fact, many of these wealthy investors and silk-stockinged hucksters were able through the pulling of school ties and purse strings to place Darwinists on the science faculties of Oxford and Cambridge Universities, thus ensuring that the theories would be disseminated in the minds of generations of students, who in turn would broadcast them throughout the world.

A Telling Tale
Eugene Windchy has convened a trial on the merits and true provenance of the theory of evolution known as “Darwin’s theory of evolution.” He has ably and convincingly presented evidence to inculpate Darwin and others in masterminding and purposely perpetrating a massive fraud on the world. To this day, Darwinism has supporters, including scientists, who are as zealous and brainwashed as followers of any of history’s notorious cult leaders, even in the face of dispassionate, disinterested, distinguished detractors.

In fact, Eugene Windchy’s book is a convincing, well-researched, and well-crafted brief against the continuing and irrational acceptance and spread of Darwinism and its concomitant doctrines.


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.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (12)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Lee Gonzales said:

The Fraudulent theory that is Darwinism When "Piltdown Man" was discovered to have been a fraud http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man the theory that man evolved from the apes hardly shook the "scientific" community into questioning Darwin's theories. Piltdown man became somewhat of an urban legend http://www.psych.uiuc.edu/~wbrewer/piltdown.html and one entrepeneur at least is making a living from the hoax. In Roswell,New Mexico another kind of creature has given the town some business via the UFO phenomenon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roswell_UFO_Incident More entrepeneurs have established businesses associated to pay tribute to the aliens that came to pay us "earthlings" a visit (an unplanned one!) one cold desert starry night, or on one hot July day back in 1947. The US government has added fuel to the UFO "incident" by simply being the government that it is - a secretive and too big for its britches type of entity. It was during the 40 years that "Piltdown Man" was still being kept on display as a genuine artifact that the Scopes Monkey Trial led to breaking down more Creationist barriers in public schools. Clarence Darrow cited "Piltdown" in his case against the state to support his client's case. Tennessee, whose state law- the Butler Act- forbade the teaching of "any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible." The law also prevented the teaching of the evolution of man from lower orders of animals in place of the Biblical account. However, the law did not prohibit the teaching of evolutionary theory for other species of plants or animals. The case was a critical turning point in the United States' creation-evolution controversy. Darrow lost the case to William Jennings Bryan, but the evolutionists and their ACLU lawyers, didn't let this case keep them from arriving at where they'd arrived at today!

July 23, 2009

HDX said:

... 1) Most scientists 'interested' in doing good science support evolution and common descent. 2) Current research shows the evolutionary advantages to a long neck Cameron, E. Z. & du Toit, J. T. (2007). "Winning by a Neck: Tall Giraffes Avoid Competing with Shorter Browsers". American Naturalist 169 (1): 130–135. 3) Darwin did not steal any ideas. Blyth's hypothesis were nothing like Darwin's. He was talking about artiifical selection and was talking about stability of species, not the creation of new species. 4) Darwin was working on natural selection long before Wallace. His work was much more complete and provided far more evidence (A few hundred page book vs a few pages of an article). You write: "Surprisingly and notwithstanding their apparent status as academic rivals, in 1858 Charles Darwin received a “completed formal paper on evolution by natural selection.” In the letter accompanying the manuscript, Wallace asked Darwin to forward it along to Sir Charles Lyell. Although reputedly meticulous as to saving correspondence, Windchy reports, Darwin destroyed all the letters he received from Wallace, a fact Windchy calls “odd.”" This is an outright lie. It was not a completed manuscript. Darwin sent the manuscript on to Lyell and also offered to send it to any journal. You also write "In fact, Eugene Windchy’s book is a convincing, well-researched, and well-crafted brief against the continuing and irrational acceptance and spread of Darwinism and its concomitant doctrines." Obviously not

July 23, 2009

Professor Milton Wainwright said:

Professor IT'S NOT DARWIN'S OR WALLACE'S THEORY Readers may wish to check my research showing that the calim in the above title is correct.This is best found by searching Google for "wainwrightscience" and by also reading the link to the Dawkins' website Professor Milton Wainwright,Dept Molecular Biology and Biotechnology,University of Sheffield, UK.

July 23, 2009

Science fraud by the marihuana generation, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Mr. Orange said:

Impressive Very impressive to maintain such dramatic ignorance in such close proximity to reality. The degree to which Darwin and Wallace or Patrick Matthew and others were describing "original" ideas has always been greatly overstated. These ideas EVOLVED more gradually than popular and/or politically motivated descriptions (especially this one) would have us believe. Darwin's breakthrough was to organize the ideas into a coherent scientific theory together with a huge quantity of evidence and testable predictions that have stood the test of time probably better than any other work of science from that time period. It appears as though the author of this review [and possibly the book] read a couple of pamphlets and is confusing the neatly packaged anecdotes with some kind of understanding.... It doesn't appear that much effort was put into either understanding the history of ideas regarding evolution or actually understanding evolution as it is currently understood by science in light of advances in physics, chemistry, and information theory. For a better understanding of how "Darwin's" ideas developed from before Darwin to present, read Carl Zimmer's book.

July 23, 2009

Eugene Windchy said:

Author One of the inaccuracies in the above material is so egregious as to demand correction. HDX said in reference to Wallace's manuscript: "This is an outright lie. It was not a completed manuscript." Wallace indeed sent a completed manuscript, which he mailed from the Malayan Archipelago. No editing took place before its publication. Darwin, however, supplied two extracts from old documents, and they were edited by him, by his friend Joseph Hooker, and even by Hooker's wife. Darwin himself did not see the final product until it was printed. Darwin's giraffe fantasy assumed incorrectly that giraffes compete on a life and death basis for tree leaves during times of drought. They do not. During droughts giraffes survive on the leaves of bushes; they also eat grass. It is during the rainy season, a time of plenty, that giraffes like to eat the leaves of the acacia tree. Stephen Gould tried for many years to get Darwin's giraffe fantasy removed from textbooks.

July 23, 2009 | url

Eugene Windchy said:

Author Having gotten steamed up about the "lie," I neglected to thank Joe Wolverton for his kind and lengthy review. Thanks, Joe.

July 23, 2009 | url

paul hannon said:

Origins of a scientific crime If anyone is in doubt how Darwin could have stolen Wallace's ideas, take a look at "The Darwin Conspiracy - Origins of a Scientific Crime" published last year. http://www.darwin-conspiracy.co.uk/book/synopsis.html The book details how Darwin blatantly plagiarised other scientists' work and crucially provides new research about postal shipping timetables that show Darwin was in possession of groundbreaking letters from Wallace months before he claimed they arrived at his home in London. Paul Hannon

July 24, 2009

Gary D. Timothy said:

The bucket is overflowing I have never read so much garbage in one single article before. It is tired, old, reused refuse, that is refuted by the Actual evidence and reality itself. On the other hand, this concentration of garbage can't Really be refuted because it is so far from the truth as to be the mere fantasy of the delusional. It is sad, so Very sad, that so many people aren't willing to actually seriously learn about the very thing they criticize. And most of those that do undertake at least some educational efforts to learn end up learning from the nutcases that swallow the garbage instead of from actual scientific sources. Can you really learn about how people think the Earth is round from someone who claims it is flat?

July 30, 2009 | url

Lee Gonzales said:

Didn't refute a single thing the author of the article said. Gary D. Timothy uses the words "garbage," "fantasy," and "delusional," but cites no single argument made by the author or refutes one single statement that Joe Wolverton makes. The earth is round. We all know that. Mr. Wolverton didn't say otherwise since his focus was a review of the book "The End of Darwinism" written by U.S. Information Agency Assistant Science Adviser Eugene Windchy. It is Windchy who says "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.” The theory is still as fraudulent as "Piltdown Man," which evoluntionists tried to pass off as authentic.

August 04, 2009

Flu-Bird said:

Evolutionists fakes Back in 1999 NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC had a article about the so called link between dinocours and birds it even showed a model of what the creature looked like but it was soon proven a fake like the fiji mermaid and other such hoaxes just like piltdown man,nebraska man,and what DON;AD JONHANSENS fake he called LUCY. jUST CALL THAT DINO-BIRD PILTDOWN BIRD

August 05, 2009

Anthony said:

Grasping at Straws Everyone, knows the saying "grasping at straws" or "grasping for straws". After reading this book review, it seems that both the author of "The End of Darwinism" and the review fit this saying perfectly. There is a claim that Darwinism (theory of evolution) "hasn’t well withstood peer scrutiny." However, both author fail to recognize the obvious. First, there is an acknowledgment that Alfred Wallace, Patrick Matthew and Edward Blyth all worked on similar theories. So there are three naturalists/scientists that work on the theory of evolution at different times and come to the same conclusion. Whether or not Darwin stolen the idea, which he didn't, this demonstrates the discover of a scientific theory where each person came to the same conclusion independently. However, it is history that has declared Darwin the father of the theory of evolution. Second, after 150 years of scrutiny evolution has gotten strong with discoveries of things such as fossils, DNA, and genome. One has only have to read one scientific article to realize this. Instead those who want to discredit the theory of evolution selective pick example to support their argument. Even though the overwhelming evidence proves them wrong. This is akin to starting a person's argument is wrong because they spelt color, colour. (Yes, Spelt is the British/Canadian spelling as with colour).

August 19, 2009