Changing the way we look at the world
The 12th of February has been designated International Darwin Day.

The mission of International Darwin Day is “to inspire people throughout the globe to reflect and act on the principles of intellectual bravery, perpetual curiosity, scientific thinking, and hunger for truth as embodied in Charles Darwin”.
This begs the question, does the work of Charles Darwin actually display these principles? 
In particular, does Darwin’s theory of evolution by the process of natural selection demonstrate intellectual bravery, perpetual curiosity, scientific thinking, and hunger for truth. 
I am inclined to agree that Darwin did demonstrate intellectual bravery, perpetual curiosity. He questioned and his thinking was often scientific but also very speculative. 

Did his work arrive at truth? 

Darwin’s seminal work: “The Origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life”, was in his own words, one long argument. He provided no hard evidence that his theory explained the origin of species. All his examples were in fact examples of variation of species. He provided no mechanism for the origin of a new species, only a mechanism for the preservation of favoured races (or species). Natural selection explains the survival of the fittest and, despite the difficulties providing a good definition of fitness, has some explanatory power, but it is not enough. 

Why was his theory so successful? One reason, I believe, was because his theory appeared to provide a scientific rationale for disbelief in a creator God. Natural selection was promoted as a designer substitute. It became a rhetorical device to promote atheism. It didn’t have to be true, it just had to be sufficiently believable. Ironically, many scientists did not find the theory to be convincing. For nearly a century it failed to convince many scientists and philosophers. It was not until it was rescued by advances in genetics which allowed the development of the neo-Darwinism or the synthetic theory of evolution, that it became mainstream.  

But even today there are many scientists who are calling for a better theory to explain the diversity and adaptability of living things. And it is not just creationists; many scientists familiar with the theory of evolution are saying that a better theory is needed. One problem is that Darwin’s theory and later developments do not explain the arrival of the fittest. Furthermore, random mutations are not an adequate source of new genetic information needed to form brains, limbs, eyes, hearts, lungs, bones etc.

Appeals to the fossil evidence are also unconvincing. The standard evolutionary argument is that the tree of life is not a ladder it is more of a bush and a very bushy bush. The fossils that we find, we are told, are the tips of the bush. There are very few if any examples of ancestor species and transitional forms.

Another major issue is that there is no real theory for the origin of the first living thing. So Darwin’s theory of evolution and later developments cannot even get started.
I believe that the theory of evolution has hindered the search for truth. The theory is defended because the alternative is unacceptable. That alternative is a creator God. The work of Charles Darwin is used to prevent the truth that the best explanation for life and the whole universe is the creator God, who made the heavens, the earth, the seas and all that is in them.