Haeckel_embryosAs I have claimed previously, Darwinism contributes nearly nothing to medical science (and most practical science in general), except maybe an errant world view and scientific philosophy.

There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose. Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God. . . . There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility. . . that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can’t accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution.
– Nobel Prize winner George Wald (1906-1997)

George Wald, of course, is reiterating the bad example of Ernst Haeckel, Darwinian promoter infamous for falsifying his embryo drawings to support Darwinism.

After Italian biologist Francesco Redi (1626-1697) successfully challenged the dogmatism of spontaneous generation which had been for so long based on Greek “science,” some scientists still clung to elements of the outmoded theory. Even when additional experiments by Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) showed that “microscopic beings must come into the world from parents similar to themselves, skepticism remained.” Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), a chief proponent of Darwinism, stated in 1876, 25 years after Pasteur’s famous experiment, “If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, then at this one point in the history of evolution we must have recourse to the miracle of a supernatural creation.” Haeckel chose spontaneous generation even though there was no empirical evidence to support it because he did not like the alternative – belief in God.

As I stated in Mass Delusion – 10 Reasons Why the Majority of Scientists Believe in Evolution, one of the main contributing factors to the secularist’s inability to critically examine evolution is that the alternatives are distasteful to them – either live without a viable theory of origins, or embrace the existence of a creator.

evolutionists often depend on evolution as a core component of their world view, and for emotional rather than intellectual reasons, can not bring themselves to upset their worldview because it is too frightening and disorienting.