Darwin’s Theory Will Be Replaced by 2040: Goodbye Evolution, Hello Simulation

This article is a follow-up to my earlier piece, “The Missing Transition Overlooked by Science.” There I explained that, though the focus is often on macro-organisms, no gradual progression exists from single-celled organisms to organisms with thousands of cells. Life does not pass through 2, 10, 50, or 500-cell organisms. We observe single-celled organisms, and then we observe animals with thousands of cells. Nothing in between exists in the record.

In this article I will go further into the problems of moving from a single cell, but before addressing that, I want to make a clear prediction:

By the year 2040, Darwin’s theory will be fully replaced. It is now clearly unfounded, but it will not vanish overnight, because theories this entrenched never do. Too many careers, institutions, funding streams, and reputations are tied to it. But by 2040, it will be undeniable that the theory of speciation by natural selection is obsolete. In fact, Materialism as we know it will vanish.

Today, much of the public—and even so-called ‘evolutionary’ biologists, a misnomer since most avoid the molecular engineering required for such changes—are still arguing as Darwin did, before anything was known about the complexity of the cell. They point to surface similarities of structures — wings, fins, limbs — or to the ability of organisms to adapt within limits, and assume this explains how broccoli, peacocks, whales, worms, grass, jellyfish, and humans all share a single ancestor. But the more we learn about the cell, the more implausible this becomes.

By 2040, the irony will be quite pathetic. Darwin’s theory will be replaced not by a more “materialist” explanation, but by one that is openly metaphysical: the simulation theory. When the engineering in life is largely known among the general public and too obvious to deny, many will shift to believing our world was programmed. They will defend that view in the same dogmatic way Darwin’s theory was once defended, branding any scientist who dissents as a pseudoscientist. Yet the simulation hypothesis is simply design theory under another name.

This pattern has played out before. Darwin’s theory itself germinated from the school of Charles Lyell, who argued that the universe had no beginning. That view collapsed once it was shown the universe did have a beginning. Yet for decades, while Lyell’s claim was treated as the more “scientific” position, those who believed in a beginning were dismissed as unscientific. Many now try to claim that Lyell never denied a beginning, but I document the opposite in the chapter “Geologism” of War of Cosmogonies, with full sources. Lyell’s entire argument relied on pushing beginnings indefinitely back into deep time, removing the need for a true origin. The book also documents, with verifiable sources, many overlooked details about how Darwin’s theory first got off the ground — details I’ve yet to hear anyone else point out. And again, I point readers to accessible primary sources, where the first-hand words can be read for themselves.

Even when the Big Bang began to be taught in schools, teachers often spoke, and still do, of it as an “expansion” without really grasping that it meant a true beginning. And this reveals the larger problem we will return to: researchers allow fragmentary information to circulate when the evidence is against materialism.

While cosmologists such as Alexander Vilenkin have made it clear that the universe had an absolute beginning, many materialists still break out in hives at the thought of acknowledging this. They embrace the Big Bang as a model of expansion, but avoid spelling out its unavoidable implication: time, space, and matter itself had a beginning.

I suspect that just as much of the public today argues from outdated assumptions about evolution, much of the public in the 1990s were still claiming the idea of a beginning was ridiculous — all the while unaware that leading materialist scientists had already accepted it.

Next it was said that the universe began by accident. When the “horizon problem” undermined the Big Bang, Alan Guth coined the euphemism “inflation” — creation given another label. The universe supposedly expanded faster than light, by 10^-36 seconds. That’s 0.000000000000000000000000000000000001 of a second, but call it an “inflationary epoch,” and the miracle suddenly sounds scientific. Why did Guth use the English term “inflation” but used math that describes sudden appearance?

Guth wrote: “Working within the general framework of accepted laws of physics, the inflationary theory can explain how the universe might have evolved from an initial seed as small as Tryon’s vacuum fluctuations. Inflation provides a natural mechanism for tapping the unlimited reservoir of energy that can be extracted from the gravitational field…”

But notice what happens here. Guth claims his model works “within the accepted laws of physics,” and then immediately does the opposite — introducing a hypothetical inflaton field and a universe-sized expansion in 10^-36 seconds, none of which are part of tested physics. What is “unlimited energy?” It’s science fiction that Guth imagined. It was a theoretical trick made to come true. It is as real as kryptonite: no one has ever observed such a thing.

This is what the general public rarely realize: any scenario is allowed to count as science, no matter how pseudoscientific it is in reality, as long as the scientist remains loyal to materialism. Yet they will surely argue, ‘Science says!’ — unaware that science itself says nothing. What is really happening is that a materialist voice declares the opposite of what the evidence would allow. In fact, nearly all mainstream origin theories run directly against observable reality in order to accommodate Materialism, rather than simply following the evidence.

Later the universe revealed far more fine-tuning. It was discovered to depend on countless parameters, not just one or two but thousands, each of which makes our existence improbable if treated as arbitrary. For example, Martin Rees in Just Six Numbers showed how even a few constants must be exactly right.

Instead of facing that, the multiverse was invented: ‘because there are an infinite amount of universes,’ they say, ‘anything that can happen must happen, an infinite number of times.’

Somewhere out there, supposedly, another S. A. Cooper is writing this exact sentence. In fact, according to the multiverse theory, there are an infinite number of S. A. Coopers writing this same article, and an infinite number of you reading it. Anything possible must occur in the multiverse. No wonder so much of today’s science fiction media embraces it. The creativity is endless when logic has no boundaries.

The same evasions appear in biology. Darwin’s gradual change was contradicted by the fossil record itself. Later, a leading 20th-century paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould affirmed it. Gould and Eldredge were simply two of thousands of materialist scientists who understood this, but they were among the few brave enough to acknowledge that the record shows sudden appearances of life in “big bang” episodes, not slow transitions. Yet, though they accepted there was no evidence of a gradual evolving of organisms, they called that no evidence evidence, inventing another type of inflationary theory, but unlike Guth’s, this one operated through a biological inflaton field they called punctuated equilibrium.

Under a scenario just as physically implausible as Guth’s, cosmologists insist that stars are born from the explosions of other stars — yet under the real conditions we know, such a process cannot even get started. Yet while it is implausible for even one, we are expected to believe it happened billions of times over. And the problem is pushed back endlessly: if stars come from dead stars, then where did the first star come from? The same with elements: the heavier elements required for life supposedly arose in star explosions, but that only raises its own layer of improbability.

I could go on and on, but I already wrote it all in my books: Natural Technology and War of Cosmogonies.

This is why by 2040, Darwin’s theory — and with it, the broader materialist story — will be seen as an embarrassment. The simulation theory will be hailed as brilliant.

If you want a fuller account of why materialism is undoubtedly wrong, read my book Natural Technology: The Theory of Everything. For the politics behind why the public is kept in the dark, see War of Cosmogonies: Genesis, Science, and the Battle for Reality.

Get your copy of Natural Technology today, and see what’s been hidden from you.

Evolving from Single-Celled to Multicellular: What’s Needed?

Now, back to the follow-up. The story is often told as if it were simple: once upon a time, life was single-celled, and through gradual steps it became multicellular. Colonies are said to have gathered, then specialized, then evolved into the first animals. But when we ask the harder question — what does it actually take for an organism to get from one to thousands? — the gap becomes much more than a matter of cell numbers. The requirements pile up.

In single-celled life, one cell does everything. It eats, moves, senses, and reproduces. Add a few more of the same cells, and you don’t get an animal — you get a bigger clump. Really think about the logic of this: you are a complete body, you move, you eat, you convert fuel and maintain homeostasis. What sense would it make to say that a group of synchronized swimmers is a pathway to another organism? Yet that is essentially the claim when colonies are presented as steps toward animals. This speaks to how lacking the evidence really is, and to the desperation to bridge the chasm between single-cell bodies and multicellular organisms with thousands of cells. The sad part is not only the desperation to present a scenario, but that so much of the general public repeats it as if it were gospel truth, even while the very sources they rely on are clearly kicking cans labeled “sparkling perhaps,” and it works every time.

For true multicellularity, cells must divide roles. Some become structural, others digestive, others reproductive. This requires a genetic and regulatory toolkit that tells each cell not only what it is, but also what it is not. Without that division of labor, a cluster of cells cannot become an organism.

Specialized cells must coordinate with one another. This demands systems of cell-to-cell communication: signaling molecules, receptor proteins, adhesion structures, and feedback loops. In animals, chemical messengers constantly relay information — nerve-like signals, hormonal controls, surface tags that allow immune recognition.

Without communication, specialization falls apart. A digestive cell cannot coordinate with a structural cell if there is no language between them.

Communication alone is not enough. Signals must be orchestrated into a larger plan. That requires developmental programming: when to divide, where to move, how to form tissue layers, when to stop.

This is the defining leap: a colony like Volvox or a cluster of choanoflagellates can disperse and survive as single cells. But in a sponge, placozoan, or jelly, cells are locked into roles that make sense only in the context of the organism. That kind of integration requires information and control far beyond any known cluster.

These three real problems among countless: none of these requirements can stand alone.

• Specialization without communication is useless.

• Communication without coordination is chaos.

• Coordination without integration is incomplete.

Darwin believed gradual change was the only way his theory could work. Without a gradual slope, he admitted, his theory would absolutely fall apart. But the fossil record never showed such a slope, and it still doesn’t.

Some try to escape this by saying, “Perhaps it doesn’t have to be gradual.” Gould first suggested that because he knew too well what cell biology was beginning to reveal. The sudden appearance of animals in the fossil record without a precursor could not be explained by “slight” gradual changes. Gould passed away before the depth of knowledge exploded, but even in his time he could see the slope wasn’t there.

The reality is that these systems can’t occur in bursts, and no scenario could ever be gradual enough to explain what we see. It would be like Zuckerberg’s proposed multi-gigawatt data center, Prometheus, popping into existence by chance and being fully up and running within 24 hours. That’s how unrealistic the idea is.

This makes the question more than biological. It is informational. DNA for a single cell is not enough. To form an organism, instructions must be added: what cells become, when they divide, where they migrate, how they connect, when they die. That level of control does not appear by accident. It is not found in colonies. It is only present in animals — fully formed from the start.

I empathize with scientists who hesitate to admit how deep this problem runs. I fully understand the gravity of having to acknowledge that for more than 150 years the consensus has been that all life forms trace back to a single common ancestor. This is not just a theory. It has become an institution. It is, in many ways, too big to fail.

Decade after decade, entire academic careers have been built around this idea. Institutions have received enormous amounts of funding under its banner. Professors have taught students this view as settled fact for generations. It has fed families, shaped reputations, and secured survival in the academic world. To walk away from that is unthinkable for most. I feel for them.

And yet, the cracks are clearly showing. The true problem is not whether individual scientists are dishonest. It is that the worldview itself demands that reality must only consist of physical stuff. Though they claim to be champions of a material-only universe, another backtrack was made when it was realized that galaxies were moving in ways that didn’t fit the equations. Materialism is the evidence; the observations must conform. Now, these same physical-only proponents now say that 97 percent of the matter and energy in the universe is invisible. They named it dark material because they had to, yet no material has ever been detected. And still, they carry on as though consciousness, the innumerable fine-tuned laws of physics, and the astonishing engineering evident in biology do not exist — all dismissed because they don’t fit the script.

When the unthinkable alternative is design, the theory is defended at all costs. But as I’ve predicted, the design will eventually be admitted — only it won’t be called design. It will be called a simulation. That way, the obvious engineering can be acknowledged without ever confessing what everyone already knows: complex systems require intelligence.

Though my aim is to reach the general public through social media, I don’t write from ignorance or emotion. For more than fifteen years I have been reading and analyzing scientific literature, diving into primary papers and reviews, and sifting through what are supposed to be the best explanations available. What many don’t realize is that I did not begin this journey assuming evolution was false. I accepted it. It was the evidence that convinced me otherwise. So when someone insists the issue is “settled,” they are blowing smoke.

I am well aware of all the Google and AI responses. I read them all long before writing my book. They come from the same recycled papers, treated as gospel, when in reality they are only selling perhapses and maybes built on implausibilities. By default, they are drawn from the same materialist papers that dominate academia. The information that they provide is what they were trained with. One must understand the argument for themselves before repeating the perhapses of a paper.

As for the overlooked jump from one cell to animals, the problem is not that no one has tried to explain the leap from single-celled to multicellular life. The problem is that the explanations remain speculative, often contradictory, and at times even acknowledged by researchers themselves as insufficient. And when scientists say multicellularity ‘emerged,’ that’s a fancy way of admitting they don’t know. One must carefully separate what facts are actually being stated from what scenarios are merely being suggested, because careers often depend on having something — anything — to put forward. Following more than 150 years of this, someone should ask tougher questions.

For example, a review in Current Biology explains that there is still no consensus on how multicellularity arose, and that several competing scenarios have been proposed without a clear pathway being observed (Brunet & King, 2017). A perspective in Nature Ecology & Evolution acknowledges that our current frameworks are too narrow and need to be expanded in order to make sense of the origin of complex multicellularity (Lenton & Daines, 2017). Even sympathetic scholars admit that existing models are no longer sufficient as a full explanation — the field itself continues to call for new directions, broader models, and fresh approaches.

These are not my words alone. They are the words of the materialist-dominated scientific community itself, struggling to account for a leap that the evidence does not support. After more than a century and a half of Darwinian storytelling, the slope from one cell to many remains missing. What is needed is not more “perhaps” and “possibly,” but a genuine accounting for how specialization, communication, coordination, and integration could ever arrive together. Until then, multicellularity remains not an achievement of blind evolution, but an unsolved problem Darwinists.

Again, this is not just my conclusion. I also empathize with many who are allowed to carry on without ever being let in on the reality — the transparent ‘Houston, we have a problem’ call that should have been made long ago. Leading evolutionary biologists admit the problem. Eugene Koonin has written that the “edifice of the Modern Synthesis has crumbled, apparently beyond repair’“(Trends in Genetics, 2009). Erwin and Valentine concede that evolutionary theory“needs to be expanded to include a more diverse set of macroevolutionary processes’“(The Cambrian Explosion, 2013). Such language is a tacit admission: what exists is no longer viable. They may feign continuity by saying ‘expansion,’ but the reality is that the framework cannot explain the leaps.

If you want to dig deeper into the problems Darwin’s theory cannot answer and the politics behind why these cracks are kept from the public, get your copy today: See what is hidden in plain sight. Reading these books puts you far ahead of most people — even those inside the field who are simply told to “shut up and write.”

📖 Natural Technology: The Theory of Everything: a comprehensive look at the evidence for design in the structure of reality.
📖 War of Cosmogonies: uncovering the hidden history and the ideological battles that shaped the “consensus.”

Both are available now. Don’t wait — get your copies today and see the evidence for yourself.

For suggestions on future articles, or for questions and clarifications, feel free to contact me here.

If you like this content and want to be updated when new articles come out, follow me here on Facebook. And don’t forget to like and share so others can see it too.