Strategic Book Marketing Official Blog

CREATIONISM AND DARWINISM PART II

Two Wrongs in Need of a Right

Today’s worldview and prevailing mind-set regarding the development of life is Charles Darwin’s notion of speciation by natural selection/adaptation.

One scholar has asserted that Darwin’s theory is supported by all the available relevant evidence, and that its truth is not doubted by any serious biologist. And it may be possible to show that, regardless of evidence, Darwinian natural selection is the only force we know that could explain the existence of organized and adaptive complexity.

“Regardless of evidence” is telling. Speciation by natural selection (Darwinism) cannot be refuted—because refutation is just not allowed. Evolutionary scientists Stephen J. Gould and Richard Lewontin confess that conventional “science” ignores evidence not in accord with its fundamental precepts. In their discussion of biological adaptation, they provide the following rules underlying Darwinist methodology:

(1)   If one adaptive argument fails, try another.

(2)   If one adaptive argument fails, assume that another, as yet undiscovered one, exists.

(3)   In the absence of a good adaptive argument in the first place, attribute failure to the imperfect understanding of where an organism lives and what it does.

The rejection of one adaptive story always leads to its replacement by another, rather than to a suspicion that a different kind of explanation might be required. Also, the criteria for acceptance of a story are so loose that many pass without proper confirmation. Evolutionists often use consistency with natural selection as the sole criterion and consider their work done when they concoct a plausible story. (G & L)

There is no evidence that supports the notion of speciation by natural selection (gradualism). Breeding experiments have produced no new species. An organism’s line can undergo just so much change and then it dies out. The fossil record demonstrates change through time, but to suggest that it reflects gradualist evolution is ludicrous. Furthermore, what gradualist path could lead to the metamorphosis process experienced by so many insects? And what does gradualism have to do with asexual species?

Speciation by natural selection is not supported by any evidence, and it fails a logical analysis as well. “Support” comes only from meaningless extrapolations. The only species change ever observed was sudden, from one generation to the next.  And that’s the way it has worked through time.

Darwinism and evolution are not the same thing. Darwinism acts to preserve species, not change them. Species can change gradually, adapting to a changing environment, but only within limits. They do not gradually become a different species.

For a detailed elaboration of these claims and an alternative viewpoint, see my book MAN AND HIS PLANET – An Unauthorized History. Go to www.letthereberight.com.