Darwinism and academic culture: Why so many scientists no longer believe Darwinism

British physicist David Tyler notes some reasons for thinking "survival of the fittest" is not good science:

Darwin regarded the fossil evidence as potentially providing a valid test of his theory. He predicted gradual transformation. Since he did not observe it, he invoked "extreme imperfection" to preserve the theory. This explanation is no longer credible. The fossil record must now stand as evidence that refutes Darwinian gradualism. Those examples of gradual morphological change represent, at best, 5% of observed trends, but it is possible they are simply extreme cases of random walk trajectories. In a eureka moment of clear thinking, Stephen Jay Gould declared that Neodarwinism "as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy". Those who represent analyses like this as religiously motivated and out of bounds for consideration in school science lessons are doing a great disservice to education and to the students they claim to be defending.

Also, people do eventually figure out when they are being snookered.

See also:

Newly discovered life forms raise old question?: 600 Antarctic deep-sea animals

The new mutation theory

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy: