argument top image

Is the theory of evolution by natural selection correct? Show more Show less
Back to question

In the nineteenth century, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace advanced a new theory to explain the origins of life on earth and the evolution of different lifeforms. They called it the theory of evolution by natural selection. Natural selection is the key mechanism by which all organisms have evolved. Today, many call the theory 'the theory of evolution' or 'Darwin's theory of evolution' (since Wallace is not as well-known).

No, the theory of evolution is flawed on many levels Show more Show less

The theory is full of holes and up against serious challenges it cannot overcome. For many learned scientists and philosophers, it is defunct. Darwin's theory cannot account for human intelligence and speech. The human mind is far too complex and so is human speech. Blind, random, directionless processes—the phenomenon of natural selection—can never produce the mind, human speech, the cell, or DNA. The mathematical, philosophical, and scientific flaws in Darwin's theory have already been elucidated.
< (2 of 2)

Evolutionary thinking is flawed

Biologists are quick to fall into circular reasoning. To explain how an organism survived, they refer to its fitness, and to explain its fitness, they refer to how it survived. The explanations that evolutionary biologists provide create more questions and problems than answers.

The Argument

Evolutionary biologists observe creatures thriving in their natural habitats. Knowing that a creature has survived for millions of years leads them to think that said creature has frequently adapted to the changes of its environment. But to evince their claim that the creature frequently adapted to environmental changes, evolutionary biologists point to the fact that the creature survived for millions of years. So, to account for an organism's survival, evolutionary biologists refer to its fitness, and to account for an organism's fitness, they refer to its survival.[1] Tim Berra writes in "Evolution and the Myth of Creationism" that "“[f]itness in the Darwinian sense means reproductive fitness—leaving at least enough offspring to spread or sustain the species in nature."[1] This sort of thinking follows the rule of "whatever will be, will be" and is not as explanatorily meaningful as many would like it to be. On the whole, evolutionary thought is quite unsophisticated and the evolutionary picture is very unintuitive. The intelligent person can spot holes in evolutionary explanations. In his famous book titled "The Blind Watchmaker" Richard Dawkins argues that the appearance of design in nature is only an illusion, so we should not fall for nature's trick. But many have rightfully asked questions like the following: Why is nature and biology so devoted to creating illusions and tricking rational minds?[2] What would nature gain from making itself appear designed? What even is "nature"? Is "nature" just creating and uncreating itself? Does nature have a will? Why is it spoken of as if it has a will—as if it is a force with a mind? The questions go on.

Counter arguments

Proponents

Premises

Rejecting the premises

Further Reading

Support: https://evolutionnews.org/2019/11/majestic-ascent-darwin-on-trial/ https://stephencmeyer.org/2019/11/05/your-witness-mr-johnson/

References

  1. https://www.discovery.org/a/130/
  2. https://evolutionnews.org/2019/11/majestic-ascent-darwin-on-trial/
This page was last edited on Monday, 9 Nov 2020 at 22:59 UTC

Explore related arguments