Top 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Evolution Bias References
EVIDENCE #7
Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical
inconsistencies.
Socially, natural 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.
Practically, 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.
1. 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." ([4], p.350)
2. 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." ([4], p.350)
3. 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.
4. 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'.
5. 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. ([11], p.30)
6. 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." ([11], p.?)
7. 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." ([22], p.11)
8. 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 interdependence.
9. 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." ([17], p.51) Order, as from DNA, is
essential for the survival of living things.
10. 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." ([11], p.10) A.G. Cairns-Smith,
pro-natural selection.
11. 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." ([19], p.48)
12. Creation, as we find it, must have been made complete and functional
from the beginning.
13. 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?
Top 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Evolution Bias References
-------------
Last revised: Dec 29, 1995
Go to Creation Science home page