- If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.
But is that still true? No. As soon as you point out that something could not have evolved (i.e., the flagellum), the argument is "Give us more time. Science will discover it!"
Thus, an observation: on what basis can Darwinism be falsified? Answer: none. Darwinism is a theory that seeks to explain how nature can do something. If you argue that it can't, the response to to give them more time, and then they will eventually figure it out. There, then, can be no refutation. It is unfalsifiable, and therefore, not science.
What is it then? Answer: philosophy. Observe.
1. Life either always existed or it did not. It did not; thus;
2. Life was either created or not. Science refuses the first, and thus says it was not. Thus;
3. The present form of life either came into existence fully, at one time, or it did not. Clearly, it did not. Thus;
4. The present form of life did not come into existence fully at one time; that is, it must have developed. This is evolution.
Thus, evolution is the end--the necessary and unavoidable consequence--of a philosophical position established in (2). As a philosophical consequence, it is not science. It is philosophy and no more.