It is useless. In retrospect, it seems as though Darwinists have been less concerned with the scientific question of accurately explaining the empirical data of natural history, and more concerned with the religious or philosophical question of explaining the design found in nature without a designer. Darwin's general theory of evolution may, in the final analysis, be little more than an unwarranted extrapolation from microevolution based more upon philosophy than fact. The problem is that Darwinism continues to distort natural science. Whatever evidence can be assembled for evolution is both limited and circumstantial in nature.
Data are just as often molded to fit preferred conclusions.
We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable. I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial. There has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the 20th century. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without.