Natural Selection is not, in fact, evolution
...despite what the evolutionist would
have you believe
by Terry Novich
To understand if natural selection is evolution, we first need to know what is meant by the term 'evolution'. The 'Theory of Evolution' - you know, Darwin's theory - is fundamentally about one cell, over long eons of time, becoming you, me and every other thing that has life. This miraculous feat requires that the original - non-living - chemicals somehow organized themselves into an organism that was not only alive but also able to create a copy or copies of itself.
Then, the copies made copies and because this copying was not always completely accurate, errors or mutations occurred. The mutated organism produced offspring, passing that mutation and many others on through the generations until complex organisms like man resulted. In short, evolutionists believe that the source of all new genetic information is mutations, sorted by 'differential reproduction'. Differential reproduction is said - by evolutionists - to be 'natural selection'.
Now, learning the above information may surprise you, as the 'natural selection' that you and I have been taught by the modern world does not produce any of the required GAINS in information that are needed for evolutionary growth, that is; one cell becoming many more cells, ultimately leading to mankind. In fact, the natural selection we were taught is more accurately about the LOSS of information.
Many evolutionists will then say that mutations and antibiotic resistance in bacteria are some kind of prediction of evolution. However, the science that predicts outcomes through testing mutations and antibiotic resistance in bacteria is called operational (or experimental) science, however the science involved in Darwinian evolution is called origins (or historical) science. One cannot go back in time and use experimental science in history - we have no time machines - so that model provided by the evolutionists isn't all that useful.
But, you may say, if so many scientists believe in the evolutionary explanation of natural selection - the 'gaining' of information - they must have found many examples. I agree with you, there should be many examples. However, the resulting examples aren't as many as you may expect...wait for it....yes; you guessed it, there is, in fact, not one example! That's right, there are NO firm examples at all. Yet, surprisingly, amazingly, evolution remains the dominant belief system of today! For more confirmation of this see below as Richard Dawkins is dumbfounded after being asked to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome".
How, you may ask, despite the glaring failures, is this belief still permitted to be called a 'scientific theory'? Perhaps that is because Darwinian theory isn't what it used to be. Since Darwin's time it has been adapted so much that it can now accommodate almost any imaginable observation. In fact, I really doubt whether Darwin would even recognize it as his own. Perhaps a more apt description would be Neo-darwinian or Neo-evolutionary belief.
In his autobiography 'Unended Quest', philosopher of science and evolutionist Karl Popper1 (regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science in the 20th century) states, "I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme — a possible framework for testable scientific theories."
Obviously, the neo-evolutionary belief of today's world isn’t at all about natural selection, and it isn’t at all about a scientific theory. It is instead about a metaphysical belief, a worldview, and unprovable assumption that will not allow a 'divine foot' in the door. Or, to put it another way, neo-evolution is not a science but it is a worldview, and it is therefore no more scientifically testable than any other worldview.
1. Sir Karl Raimund Popper, CH FRS FBA (1902–1994) Austro-British. Philosopher. Professor at the London School of Economics.
- Variation and natural selection versus evolution
- Argument: Natural selection leads to speciation
- Can mutations create new information?
Stumped by creationists' question
Militant neo-evolutionist Richard Dawkins is dumbfounded after being asked to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome". If evolution is true there should be many examples of information increase, but Dawkins is unable to cite one. He then responds but dodges the question. Why? Because information comes only from intelligence, not random processes.