Natural selection can be seen to have
insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.
selection argues that the best and fittest society would be one where its'
individuals look out only for themselves and would advance themselves, if
possible, at the expense of others. It would even destroy others if
possible. Thus barbarianism is demanded by natural selection with the
destruction of the weak and the free domain of the powerful. It demands
total annihilation of anything weaker than necessary and the ruling of
anyone more powerful than others. People exhibit mercy, pity, and morality,
all of which inhibit natural selection.
natural selection has the following and many other inconsistencies: (a.) The
natural selection process could not have the forethought to allow an
organism to become worse temporarily in order to ultimately form an eye,
for example. (b.) Natural selection requires that organisms began as crude,
yet an organism could not have survived without basic intricate functions
such as respiration and reproduction. These had to exist from the beginning
of the organism. (c.) Our bodies depend on systems that run according to
intricate order such as from DNA. A system dependent on order cannot be
created by disorder.
- Socially, natural selection requires
barbarianism. One famous author, favorable to natural selection, admits,
"Barbarism is the only process by which man has organically progressed and
civilization is the only process by which he has declined. Civilization is
the most dangerous enterprise on which man has ever set." (, p.350)
- It lacks mercy and pity and anything else that might make us moral or even
social and not harmful. "No more cruel doctrine was ever promulgated. Those
who believe it are robbed of the pity and mercy that comes of
civilization." (, p.350)
- Natural Selection commends savages who eliminate
the weak. It commended the ruthless takeover of the Native Indian of North
America, the destruction of Jews in the Holocaust, and all other acts where
the powerful ruthlessly have their way. It names all who kill as better. It
would name a country that destroys all others as best.
- Natural Selection
argues against such things as vaccinations that help the weak. It demands
that the weaker not reproduce so that society not be `dragged down'.
- Even animals, however, exhibit altruism. Walruses sacrifice their lives for
their young. Some heard animals provide warning signals for the herd
which put themselves at personal risk. Bees and ants function together and
not merely in competition. And, of course, so do people do all these
things. Yet Darwin stated, "If it could be proved that any species had been
formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my
theory for such could not have been produced through natural selection.
- Natural selection, practically speaking, is impossible. "How can
such things be built up by infinitesimally small inherited variations
each profitable to the preserved being? The first step towards a new
function such as vision or the ability to fly would not necessarily provide
any advantage unless the other parts required for the function appeared at
the same time." (, p.?)
- Natural selection demands progress at every step
of change. It cannot have forethought and planning and thus bear up with
say a half formed eye in order to form the eye. How then was the eye
produced since natural selection demands it to have been partly formed at
some point. "It seems that evolutionists, whether consciously or
unconsciously, have regarded the blind and inanimate forces of the
environment, or nature, as having the ability to create and think."
- The world is full of interdependence and it makes natural
selection unthinkable. How did lungs form if lungs are necessary for
our lives from the start? How did we reproduce if it took millions of years
for our reproduction systems to evolve? Reproduction was necessary for
survival but how could natural selection create this? One sex had to exist
before natural selection would bring another sex into existence. How did
the first sex get there and how did reproduction take place while the other
sex was forming? Or, are we to believe that they just both formed
independently perfectly suited for one another? An infinite amount of other
such examples can be stated since the world is full of
- The world is also made up of order. For example, we
find that the process by which life sustains itself is a very highly
ordered one. "... DNA and protein formation must be described by making
quite literal use of the linguistic terms code, transcribe, and translate.
We speak of a genetic code, of DNA being transcribed into RNA, and RNA
being translated into protein. The genetic code is composed of letters
(nucleotide), words (codons or triplets), sentences (genes), and paragraphs
(operons), chapters (chromosomes), and books (living organisms). Such talk
is not anthropomorphic, it is literal. Living organisms do not contain only
order but information as well. By contrast to the simple repetition of ME,
the genetic code is like the Encyclopedia Britannica." (, p.51) Order, as
from DNA, is essential for the survival of living things.
- Regarding the
parts that make us up, it is obvious that nothing works until everything
works as is noted, "...the real trouble arises because too much of the
complexity seems to be necessary to the whole way in which organisms work."
(, p.10) A.G. Cairns-Smith, pro-natural selection.
- Indeed, we find as
James Crow, a modern leader for the theory of evolution
admits, "...the details (of how it could have taken place) are difficult
and obscure." (, p.48)
- Creation, as we find it, must have been made
complete and functional from the beginning.
- In addition, we find that
there simply is not nearly enough time for change as is given by pro-theory
people. If no change has occurred in the last 4,000, it is unreasonable to
suppose so much change (or any for that matter) could have occurred in
25,000,000 years. This figure is only about 6,000 times 4,000. Therefore,
if we take the amount of change over the last 4,000 years and multiply it
by 6,000 we do not nearly get the change evolutionists propose. In fact, we
get no change or no evolution. Evolutionists themselves say that species
remain unchanged in fossil records for an average of 10,000,000 years.
Therefore, how could 60,000,000 years, or even many more, make a creature
change in any noticeable way?