Evolutionary thinking is flawed

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.