The Origin of Species isn’t about that
I’ve mentioned an article by Paul R. Gross in the New York Sun several months ago in which Gross with supreme confidence proclaimed the absolute truth of Darwinian evolution, but then, in the second half of the article, matter-of-factly admitted that, by the way, evolutionists have not yet established certain aspects of evolution, such as, oh, how new species came about. It is changes at the molecular level they have demonstrated, he explained, not changes leading to new bodily organs and new life forms. Gross acted as if this revelation were of no importance; since the truth of evolution is already known, he said, naturally we will fill in those little remaining blanks soon enough.
In fact, it has been this way from the start of the Darwin project 147 years ago. Ernst Mayr, one of the leading evolutionist of the twentieth century, said of Darwin that he “failed to solve the problem indicated by the title to his work. Although he demonstrated the modification of species in the time dimension, he never seriously attempted a rigorous analysis of the problem of the multiplication of species.” Similarly, George Simpson, another eminent evolutionist, wrote in 1964 that “the book called The Origin of Species is not really on that subject.” (Mayr and Simpson are quoted by Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, p. 105.)
Statements like this reveal Darwin, his exponents, and the entire evolutionary establishment as a giant version of the Wizard of Oz. They’re all theory, no cattle.