Nothing exposes the failure of a dogma more than the propaganda it hides behind. Pathetic ideas cannot stand the light of day. They run from open inquiry and call everyone a liar. Evolution is pathetic--not because it is a religiously motivated idea with little scientific support, but because of its deceitful cover up. It makes religious proclamations and then points the finger at others. It is scientifically absurd yet it claims to be a fact. And when probed, watch out.

Like the man behind the curtain in The Wizard of Oz, evolution is vulnerable to the least bit of exposure. And like the man behind the curtain, evolution puts up a pathetic false front of self-righteous indignation and assumed authority. Even the normally dry pages of scientific journals now routinely run "editorials" attacking skeptics.

Witness the unauthorized films Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and The Voyage That Shook the World. These documentaries are tugging at the curtain and evolutionists are lashing out. And their fury is exceeded only by their absurdity (see examples here, here and here). Incredibly, they complain that they didn't know the films would have the temerity to raise questions, apparently unaware their umbrage reveals far more about themselves than about the documentaries.

When I was contacted by the producers of these films the thought crossed my mind that my interview could be used against me. I didn't know these people or what their respective projects were about. But I reminded myself that it would be awfully difficult for the producers to manipulate my interview for their film. You see, I have nothing to hide. The only way my words could be twisted would be with highly selective editing. What if they interviewed me for two hours, and picked out a 3 second sound bite out of context? Well then I would have a right to complain.

Nothing like this happened to the otherwise furious evolutionists. Their views were fairly and accurately represented. There was no message manipulation. There was no clever editing of the interviews to produce a false image of evolution; rather, the problem is that the interviews accurately show the real image of evolution.

You see, evolutionists have something to hide. Their message needs to be carefully managed and tailored. Otherwise, it looks pathetic.

If I had a nickel for every time evolutionists insisted that they are merely following the evidence, immediately after (or before) making religious arguments, I think I would be a zillionaire. You can read about Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers insisting on their innocence here and here, but this self contradiction is not limited to the big shots. From laboratories to sanctuaries, and dorm rooms to chat rooms, the constant refrain of evolutionists is that the raw data make their idea a fact, but then the supporting arguments are religious. Evolutionists are the proverbial fish that doesn’t know it’s in water, the lampshade partier who doesn’t know he is drunk.

Recently an evolutionist informed me that this idea that evolution is religious is all wrong. Oh really? Indeed, yes, utter nonsense. The evidence behind evolution is compelling and obvious. How embarrassing for anyone to question it. Like it or not, evolution is a fact.

Oh boy, here we go again. So what sort of evidence is so powerful that it can make such an unlikely idea into a fact? We’re supposed to think that the most complex designs known arose on their own, and indeed we must accept this as fact or we are ignorant. This must be very persuasive, powerful evidence. So what are some examples?

As usual, the evolutionist provided evidences that are indeed very powerful. But their power comes not from a scientific interpretation, but from a religious or metaphysical interpretation. For example, the evolutionist cited pseudogenes.

Pseudogenes are disabled genes and similar pseudogenes, with similar disabling mutations, are found in cousin species. Surely, as the argument goes, this is proof positive of common descent. There’s only one problem, the premise of the proof is not scientific.

This pseudogene example is a good one because it mirrors so many others that have come before. The evidence, from a scientific perspective, is circumstantial and mixed. Yes, some pseudogenes have similar disabling mutations in different species, the so-called shared errors. But there is evidence that mutations are not always random to begin with, and hot spots have been observed in pseudogenes. Furthermore, there are disabling mutation patterns in some pseudogenes that cannot be explained by common descent. So here even evolutionists agree that repeated mutations must have occurred independently.

We can certainly chalk up some instances of the pseudogene evidence as successful predictions of evolution, but on the whole it is not that simple.

So at best, from a scientific perspective, we have a successful prediction. But there are many failed predictions as well. In science we do not select the evidences the help our case and claim victory. We need to look at all the evidence.

Such details, however, are not a problem for evolutionists for there is another side to the pseudogene argument. As with so many other evidences that have been enlisted by evolutionists, the pseudogenes, they say, would never have been designed or created.

As Elliott Sober explained recently (though it has been obvious for centuries), the strength of the evolutionary argument is not in its driving up the probability of evolution, but in its driving down the probability of creation or design.

At its core evolutionary thinking is contrastive. It’s evolution versus creation—us versus them. In this zero sum game, either they’re right and we’re wrong, or they’re wrong and we’re right. And since the evidence shows that they’re wrong, then we must be right. There you have it, evolution is a fact. But the argument is not scientific. It relies on private, subjective premises about design or creation.

The logic is rarely spelled out as plainly as in Sober’s paper. A rhetorical question or snide comment will usually do to make the point. “We’ll leave others to figure out why god would create such junk,” is a typical taunt.

And so isn’t it obvious that in all of this evolution is just science? When probed about his metaphysics, the evolutionist has a variety of canards at the ready to separate himself from the religion he has planted. “Why, we’re just testing your theory of creationism,” is the usual first stop.

But that’s not my theory of creationism. And even if it was, your rebuke would then allow only for the conclusion that my particular theory of creationism is false—not that evolution is compelling.

In fact, most of the strong evolutionary arguments entail religious premises which are not found in creationism or design—instead they arose in various traditions within the web of evolutionary thought. As with so many other origin tales, evolution entails strong religious feelings about god and the world. If I only had a nickel.

Just as Charles Darwin dealt with difficulties with his theory of evolution in Chapter 6 of Origins, so too Denis Alexander deals with objections in Chapter 6 of his book Creation or Evolution. And just as Darwin’s logic was often questionable, so too is Alexander’s. The chief problem is Alexander’s rather selective presentation. For an author of a book about the origins controversy, Alexander seems to be remarkably unaware of the actual debate.

Alexander begins with the objection that evolution is a protected theory, and so not subject to objective criticism. Not at all, explains Alexander:

It is every biologist’s dream to make discoveries that would upset some cherished theory. If you do that then your career is made for life. If you found rabbit fossils in the pre-Cambrian era, or indubitable evidence for human dna dinosaur fossils in the same sedimentary layer, or evidence for new forms of life from the bottom of some deep ocean that displayed a different genetic code, or solid evidence for the inheritance of acquired characteristics, then your first author paper in Nature or Science is assured and you can live happily ever after.

Alexander goes on to exhort skeptics to become “a member of the scientific research community” and publish “results in peer-reviewed journals.”

This is a two-dimensional view of science. It reminds me of that seventh grade unit on how science works, which portrayed scientists as objective truth-seekers, toiling away in their white lab coats.

To be sure, scientists do toil away, and some even wear white lab coats. But this is only part of the story. Alexander seems ignorant of the realities of science that occur between the snapshots. Yes, some scientists do want to upset cherished theories, but many have no such dream. In fact science can be quite a conservative discipline. There is substantial risk in going against the accepted wisdom. More typically scientists seek new and better explanations, but within unspoken boundaries. Stray off of the playing field and you place your reputation (and funding) at risk.

One can find no better illustration of this than in one of Alexander’s own examples: the inheritance of acquired characteristics. “Solid evidence” for this phenomenon has been known for years, but evolutionists made it the third rail of the life sciences. The few scientists who dared touch it paid the price.

Alexander’s portrayal of science as easily accepting new findings—all that is needed is the evidence and a scientist to explain it—is again simplistic. The theory of evolution for example, developed by Darwin and Alfred Wallace, was not a revolutionary new idea that arose from the evidence, as evolutionists are fond of thinking. It built upon centuries of theological and philosophical thought that was increasingly influencing science. This Enlightenment influence was by no means dominant in Darwin’s day, but it was rapidly gaining among the elites in politics, culture and science. It is hardly a surprise that Darwin and Wallace concluded for transformationism even without knowing how such change could occur.

Alexander also seems to be ignorant of the many mechanisms in the culture of science that enforce conformity. He exhorts skeptics to become “a member of the scientific research community” and publish “results in peer-reviewed journals.” But there are myriad barriers that ensure skeptics are filtered out at every stage. Everything from passing grades and letters of recommendation to tenure and funding are strongly contingent on conformity. Dissenters are blacklisted so they never have a chance to raise objections.

None of this is to say science is not successful or that scientists should not receive credit for their contributions. Scientists work hard and usually do a good job. But they do not transcend politics or culture and, in fact, they have real bodies.