Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.
Natural selection has these and many other
logical inconsistencies: (a.) Although evolutionists say that organisms are
suited for their environment because they evolved into it, being suited for
the environment is much better explained by the fact that they were created
for the environment rather than that they evolved into it. (b.) The fact
that living things have similar patterns and design points to a common
designer better than to a common ancestor. In fact, such variety in the
world could not have been produced if we all come from the same ancestor.
(c.) If we all come from the same ancestor, we would all be murderers and
cannibals by the simple act of killing a cow. (d.) While small and
undeveloped things do become grown and developed (a baby to an adult, a
seed to a tree) it is also true that the small and undeveloped first come
from the developed (a baby from its parents, a seed from a tree). The
pattern of growth is circular not simply from the crude to the developed as
natural selection proposes. (e.) Our needs exceed those of survival. Needs
for love and friendship, for example, cannot be explained if all that we do
is for survival. (f.) Order and interdependence in the world argues for a
designer and against chance.
- That living things are suited for their
environment better explains the fact that they were created for it not
that they evolved into it. (, p.)
- Similarity among living things points to a common design by a
designer who used similar patterns.
- Similarity among living things does not point to evolution. "There is no
more reason to believe that man descended from some inferior animal as
there is to believe that a stately mansion has descended from a cottage."
- It only makes sense that there would be similarities among
living things since they all share the same environment. For example, since
we all share air, it makes sense that many would have lungs.
- It only
makes sense to create things similar since similarity allows people to
identify and work with other living things more easily.
- In fact, if the
environment controls natural selection and we are all from the same
ancestor (some single cell or whatever), why is there such variety in the
world? With the same ancestor and precipitator, would all not have been
brought to at least close to the same end? Instead some living things are
cells and plants, others are horses and people.
- In fact, since the
environment is constant, it must be asked, `Why did some species evolve and
not others?' and `Why did lesser forms survive and more developed ones die
- In response, statements such as "...the apes ...blew it through
indolence. No pain, no gain." (, p.70) and
"...the gorilla and chimpanzee
gave up the struggle for mental supremacy because they were satisfied with
their circumstances." (, p.35)
- "It is true that we do see all around us
things growing up to perfection from small and rude beginnings but then it
is equally true that the small and rude beginnings themselves always come
from some full grown and developed thing. All adults were once babies, true:
but then all babies were begotten and born by adults. Corn does come from
seed: but then seed comes from corn." "The first crude engine, the Rocket,
came, not from still a cruder engine, but from something much more perfect
than itself and much more complex, the mind of man..." (, p.388) Famous philosopher C.S. Lewis.
- "In the world I know, the perfect produces the
imperfect, which again becomes perfect -- egg leads to bird and bird to egg -- in
endless succession. If there ever was a life which sprang of its own accord
out of a purely inorganic universe, or a civilization which raised itself
by its own shoulder straps out of pure savagery, then this event was
totally unlike the beginnings of every subsequent life and every subsequent
civilization." C.S. Lewis (, p.389)
- "You have to go outside the sequence
of engines, into the world of men, to find the real originator of the
Rocket. Is it not equally reasonable to look outside Nature for the real
Originator of the natural order?" C.S. Lewis (, p.389)
- We find that
natural selection would have had to create not only better survival
abilities but also such needs as love, companionship, and other things not
bound to personal survival such as reproduction. There is so much more to
people than just survival abilities. How could natural selection have
- We find that the world was obviously made for humankind
and this demands more than change for survival but order,
interdependence, and design.
- In addition, how is it that we do things
harmful to ourselves if the environment has created all that we are for
our personal good and survival?
- If there are not fundamental
distinctions in the living world, we must be considered murderers when we
kill even a cow and also cannibals when we eat it.
- Do we look at an
airplane and say that the order and interdependence could have come about
by chance? How can we look at something infinitely more complex (a person,
for example) and say it?