Evolutionism is now in its death-throes. The primary or central feature of its theory-complex concerns an unfalsifiable dogma known as “the survival of the fittest.”
- Survival of the Fittest
This moldy potato flops on several counts.
A. its lack any formal, objective definition or standard. What counts as “most fit” in one environment may either contribute nothing in another, or else even prove counterproductive. The dynamic nature of varying environs show that different stressors acting on any given environment require different “advantaging features.”
B. Counter-challenge: survival of the luckiest only, not the fittest. Without any objective standard, the evolutionist cannot refute my countervailing (rival) proposition.
C. Survival of the Fittest Seems False. The weakest members of any society at any given time are its young. It is impossible to explain the survival of the young without refuting the survival of the fittest, since the young are not such members and yet they survive. Then there are hospitals, which prove that the fittest, or least fit, can change as when one heals.
D. The Random factor versus survival of the fittest. The more time that passes gives more time for natural disasters to destroy all life (the “Velikovskian Problem”) refuting the doctrine of survival of fittest — since comets do not care how fast one can run or what they are immune to — neither do tsunamis or earthquakes. The more time given, the more likely some seismic event or natural calamity could wipe out all life. The geologists assure us that plenty of such episodic events dot the landscape of the geological past.
E. Genetic Interdependence versus Survial of the Fittest. Both “pleiotropy” and “pleiogeny” (two kinds of genetic interdependence) show that saving any “outward trait” (phenotype) will not necessarily preserve any particular gene sequence (genotype). The one-to-one correspondence naively assumed by evolutionists — between genotype and phenotype — in the doctrine under consideration has long ago been rebutted by molecular biology.
F. The Unscientific Character of the doctrine of the Survival of the Fittest. The doctrine of “survival of the fittest” is not observable, (empirically) testable, (empirically) falsifiable, repeatable, measurable, quantifiable, nor is it subject to any other standard criterion for what usually counts as “science.” It is a dogma and nothing more, showing the religious (unscientific but dogmatic) nature of evolutionary thought.
It was only the preaching of a lawyer (Thomas Henry Huxley) that rescued evolutionary thought from oblivion in the 19th century, after Richard Owen and the other scientists on his team refuted it systematically from the scientific evidence available at the time.
A. It is a form of a theory already discredited as bad science. The Evolutionary trajectory cannot even get started. It has to make an appeal to spontaneous generation, a discredited view of (unscientific) beginnings.
B. Abiogenesis versus Scientific Criteria. Abiogenesis suffers from the same lack of criterological affirmation as the doctrine of the survival of the fittest — it meets no standard criterion for what usually counts as science among philosophers of science (e.g. observable, testable, falsifiable, etc). This shows the religious (unscientific, but dogmatic) character of this feeble doctrine.
C. Nothing in the Fossil Record either Suggests or Confirms this doctrine. The Cambrian Explosion of life shows the entry point for fossils as one that are quite mature (advanced in structural and functional complexity, not primitive with transitional forms leading up to them).
D. It is probable that this doctrine easily amounts to a miracle, given the unique character of this supposed event, and its complete lack of scientific criteriology. It amounts to an impersonal (inanimate) miracle — miraculous event with a super-historical cause unknown to science. This is just their complaint with an appeal to the Creatoras first Cause, which they do not mind here.
3. Natural Selection
According to evolutionary thinking, nature selects the best specimens over time by applying pressures to different members, sorting out the best ones from the lesser specimens. But all of this depends upon a mechanism that can PRESERVE and pass on what is selected (survival of the fittest), which is falsified above, rendering natural selection irrelevant, even if true.
Even if both doctrines were true, they would still face a real problem: Time does not work in favor of the evolutionary hypothesis, but against it, since only one global catastrophe (or many small ones) could erase a billion years of evolutionary work in ten years or fewer. Darwin has to be right every time. Immanuel Velikovsky only has to be right once to win.
This is the problem of the open system, where the system is open to, let us say, volcanoes, earthquakes floods and space-junk from hell — volkswagon buses or very large rocks from outer space. So adding more time to the evolutionary scale does not help. It just gives Velikovsky more volkswagons to launch at Darwin. Conversely, the fact that we actually ARE STILL HERE implies that Velikovsky has not had many opportunities to cancel the evolutionary labors; that is, the earth is more likely to be younger, rather than older, given our present existence (on the evolutionary “open system” scheme).
4. The Fossil Record Actually Works Against Evolutionary Doctrine, Or else Nothing Could.
A. “Cambrian Explosion of Life” Is Still An Insurmountable Problem for Evolutionists
But someone will say, an entry point in the fossil record is mandatory at some point, and this will seem to be an “explosion of life.”
B. Protesting Too Much Shows the Religious Character of Evolutionary Doctrine
Rejoinder: If the Cambrian explosion of life does not count against evolutionism, and the lack of millions upon millions of transitional fossil forms (Darwin’s own falsification standard for his theory) does not count against it, and (as punctuationists point out) the fossil record contains systemic gaps all through the fossil record, and yet this does not count against evolutionism, how is it not protected from all possible counter-instances (held immune from revision just the way a fundamentalist denies all challenges to his Bible)???
C. This Shows that Evolutionary Doctrine Lacks A Critical Virtue — Explanatory Power. The reply of the evolutionist does nothing to explain WHY the Cambrian explosion shows up EXACTLY WHERE it does, and why it does not begin somewhere else. It is the job of science to explain empricial circumstances, and of apologetics to “explain away” — which one is this? Remember, the creationist outlook EXPECTS the Cambrian Explosion of Life — showing predictive power.
5. Abiogenesis is not a scientific claim at all, but a dogma and system demand of evolutionary mythology. Since it is not measurable, testable, repeatable, quantifiable, observable, verifiable or falsifiable (meets no standard criterion for what ordinarily counts as science), and since evolutionists exclude Creationism from the classroom on exactly this basis, it would also eliminate abiogenesis, and the doctrine of the survival of the fittest from the science classroom.
Since all forms of evolutionism depend upon these mythological dogmata, evolutionism should be regarded as of like kind.
Any attempt to obviate creationism in this manner does so also to the doctrine of abiogenesis; and any attempt to rescue abiogenesis “re-includes” creationism on the same grounds.
6. “Science” does not allow Creationism, since that is religion.” This claim is actually false in many instances. Aristotle and the 18th century deists were both creationists, but Aristotle is not taught as religion (but philosophy) despite his commitment to creationism. The deists were more “Irreligious” (e.g. Voltaire) than religious — in many instances.
Moreover, since it is either the case that humans arrived on the historical scene by some form of design (creationism) or else it is not the case that we got here by design (some form of evolution obtains). Since this is a legitimate disjunction, it follows that the elimination of the Creation theory on the ground that it represents religion (or any other philosophy reason so eliminating it as an option), leaves only one possibility — evolution would have to be considered true NECESSARILY in the science classroom — even before all evidentiary considerations.
Here, evolutionism is to be considered true with no evidence. That cannot be science (since empirical evidence has no material bearing on the conclusion), and yet this view (according to the Overton decision) defines science. It both defines and defies science. Empirical considerations
are ordinarily thought in philosophy to render a claim true (when they do this) in a manner said to be “contingent,” (dependent upon circumstances that could have been other than what they are) not “necessary.” The elimination of one of the terms of a disjunctive syllogism’s major premiss requires the other to follow from the force of logical necessity, apart from contingencies like the facts of the fossil record. Either A or else B. NOT B, therefore necessarily A. Either Evolutionism describes the truth or else Creationism does. It is not the case that Creationism does, therefore, some form of evolutionary theory necessarily represents the truth.
This shows that the removal of Creationism from the classroom on the grounds that it “necessarily” represents religion (which is false), leaves evolutionary views in precisely the same position as the one just excluded — namely, it is thought to be true APART from empirical considerations.
7. Darwin wrote that he would regard his own theory as having been shown false if the fossil record did not yield “millions upon millions” of transitional fossil forms. It never did, and this falsifies Darwin’s views. Darwin was dead wrong and yet continues to be upheld as a hero in many (if not most textbooks), unlike Lamarck and Lysenko.
But one could wonder why the Neo-Darwinians and Punctuationists both reject this criterion for their own theories. Surely, if there had been such fossil finds, it would have proved Darwin correct — the power of predictive power, yes? Scientists have not replaced Darwin’s falsification criterion with one of their own.
This renders both Neo-Darwinism and Punctuationism unfalsifiable, and therefore (Popper, 1961) non-scientific (Which brings us back to the Overton challenge to creationism as “nonscience” in reverse, and aimed at Darwin’s legacy instead. What empirical situation or countervailing instance could refute gradualism or punctuationism? Given their dogmatic and hasty rejection of creationism per se (probably from a somewhat warranted fear of biblicists on the rampage), if evolutionism failed, they would be left with nihilism, or nothing to say on the topic, amounting to a crass and wholesale agnosticism.
This is, I believe, just the problem arising from a knee-jerk reaction against creationism. While philosophical deism led the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution (not hallowed atheism)] Jehovah’s Witnesses gave us the end of the world and moderately wacky apocalyptic movements. The Overton view does not seem to distinguish between these widely variant forms of creationism, each having material consequences quite at odds one with another. Namely, the one is culturally engaged and transformative (very optimistic and, as it were, “pro-science”), while the other seeks a kind of gnostic escape from the world.
8. Evolutionists Misapply the 2d Law of Thermodynamics to Both Open and Closed Systems
The “Scientific Creationists” have challenged, leaning to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that what we observe (entropic increase over time = stuff breaks down and SH&T falls apart) universally seems to contradict the upward swing in “Complexification” (Chardin’s phrase) required by evolutionary theory over time. Evolutionists rejoin that the rule cited applies to “real, closed systems,” not necessarily open ones.
But then the heat death stipulated by evolutionists, scheduled for millions of years down the road, however, cleverly repents and recants just in time to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, applying (as did the Scientific Creationist moments earlier) entropic diffusion to the whole cosmos. Who — should we say — got crucified now? Ouch.
9. Evolutionary theory absolutely fails the test of explanatory power when it comes to the origin of the first human language. Noam Chomsky first pointed out that an empirically adductive approach to the development of the first language was simply not possible. Languages are complex systems, with interdependent parts and prior rules of syntax, grammar and morphology to which one cannot point and offer a name for each while seated about a campfire with the other tribal elders.
Here, one simply cannot index his way to systemic victory — pointing into the air and mumbling “principle of linguistic substitution,” with the other grey-heads nodding and repeating the phrase in unison. Evolutionism does nothing to account for the rise of the first language.
10. The Observability Criterion Constantly Works Against Evolutionary Theory
a. Evolutionists seem not to notice that at every point where one might invoke observation as a criterion for judging the question of soundness of their pet theory, they have to dodge its conlcusions, or explain them away.
The process of evolution is said to transpire so slowly that it cannot be observed. But this claim would have a ready explanation if creationism were true — evolution transpires so slowly that its rate is best described as absolute zer0 (It is even slower than the evolutionist thinks). Survival of the Fittest describes a doctrine whose truth cannot be observed. Abiogenesis cannot be observed, and have left no visible trace in the fossil record. At every point, we are asked to believe by faith, without sight — just as with religious claims (though for various reasons). We are even told to go against excellent observable evidence sometimes.
The 2d Law of Thermodynamics does in fact seem to show UNIVERSAL visible evidence against the idea of an increase in structural, functional complexity by natural processes. Here, we are told we MUST IGNORE ALL OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE and GO AGAINST IT, since it only applies to closed systems. But the point remains, we are to IGNORE ALL OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE!!!
11. Mutations Seem a Dismal Choice for the Mechanism to Cause the Improvement of a Species Over Time
A. This has less hope than challenge that the recycling efforts of severe car accidents have in fact created the auto industry.
B. Somewhere someone has estimated that about only 1 in 10 thousand mutations turn out to be beneficial. But this fact is blunted by several other considerations —
- Beneficial in one environment is not necessarily beneficial in another. Environments can change over time, rendering what was earlier helpful now counterproductive.
- Genetic Drift. A mutation gained in one generation can be lost in the next, since no mechanism exists to preserve the beneficial mutation.
- Complex Stressors Can Defeat “Good Mutations.” If a deer is both immune to some disease, and is the fastest member of its group, but cannot outrun a predator that happens upon it just when it has to fight off a disease (rendering it sluggish and less mobile than usual), then it would be doomed even if it has both good traits, since it cannot manage both stressors simultaneously, but could manage each one independently of the other. Naive evolutionary theory does not take into account the complex nature of real-life situations. The textbook cases of “beneficial mutations” only tackle stressors one at a time.
In summary then, the doctrines of the evolutionists:
- Often Contradict Themselves
- Turn out to be Unscientific and Quite Religious
- Go Directly Against Good Evidence — like the Cambrian Explosion or the Universal Character of the Influence of the 2d Law of Thermodynamics
- Are based on No Evidence (Abiogenesis; Survival of the Fittest)
- Have Significant Conceptual Problems (What is “the Fittest”??)
- Seem Discredited (Abiogenesis looks just like Spontaneous Geneneration by another Name)
- Do not admit defeat even when other evolutionists point it out (Stephen J. Gould and other have repeatedly pointed out that the Fossil record is utterly incapable of sustaining any form of gradualistic evolutionary theory. This would include the dominant paradigm dubbed “Neo-darwinism. Gould is simply correct, but N-d’s will not concede the point.).
Either some form of creationism is true (We are here by design), or else some form of evolutionism is true (it is not the case that we are here by design); it is not the case that some form of evolutionism is true; therefore some form of Creationism must be true.
I regard it such that I have already proven that it is not the biblical kind of Creationism.