The Darwinian theory of evolution is proof positive that modern-day scientists may be excellent theorists, clever researchers and brilliant engineers; but on the whole, they’re pathetic philosophers. The fact that evolutionary theory has survived for so long, despite being so obviously flawed as a logical argument is rather astounding.
No critical observer of life on earth would dispute the sense-perceptible fact that life-forms change, develop, modify, transform and alter over time. Life-forms have also progressed from simple to complex; they have unquestionably “evolved.” The fact that life-forms have evolved is not the issue; but rather “how” and “why” did they evolve?
According to Darwinian theory, the “how” is explained by random genetic mutation; and the “why” is explained by natural selection. Random genetic mutation basically means that the evolutionary changes in life-forms are entirely due to blind, chance chemical changes that occur in the complex DNA molecule that is passed on to the hereditary descendants. Random DNA changes that promote or ensure the continued survivability of the life-form species are retained, while DNA changes that decrease survivability naturally die off. This evolutionary process of blind genetic preference is termed, “natural selection.”
Unfortunately, a number of thorny, unanswered questions arise from the concept of natural selection. For one, if life-forms (according to natural science) are only complex arrangements of chemicals (atoms and molecules), why would a blind, insensate and purposeless pile of chemicals strive to perpetuate itself―to survive? Or more specifically, how is it that a DNA molecule is impelled to perpetuate itself, to continue existing? Why is it that other complex organic molecules, such as proteins, aren’t similarly impelled to survive? Where does this evolutionary drive to survive come from since it’s obviously not a recognized chemical force inherent in atomic particles?
Moreover, the term “natural selection” is a scientifically awkward term. Taken literally, it is a bit of an oxymoron. What is implied by the term is that “Nature” is somehow involved in a “selection” or decision-making process regarding life-forms; that Nature decides which life-forms (DNA) will survive and which ones will die off. But if Nature (that is, the natural universe) is simply blind matter and energy, then Nature has no ability, intelligence or reason to select or decide.
The real, philosophical death-blow to Darwinian evolution, however, comes from a statement made by evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins (b.1941): “propagating DNA … is every living object’s sole reason for living.” (Christmas Lecture Guide; Growing up in the universe; 1991) If there is an evolutionary “reason for living” (albeit a crude, reductionist one), then evolution has a goal, a purpose. Life-forms, then, have order and complexity that have been purposefully established; they aren’t random or chance arrangements. Moreover, since purposeful order and complexity require intelligent activity, the evolutionary changes exhibited by the various life-forms are therefore the results of intelligent causation.
Expressed as a philosophical syllogism:
1. Purpose can only be established by an intelligent cause
2. According to Darwinian evolutionary theory, all life-forms have a
singular purpose―to survive and to replicate
3. Therefore, all life-forms have been established by an intelligent
cause
As long as evolutionary scientists postulate that the purpose of all living-forms is simply to survive and to replicate, then evolutionary change is not random, accidental or purposeless and Darwinian evolutionary theory will remain fatally flawed (illogical).
Furthermore, how can proponents of Darwinian evolution theory realistically believe that the only purpose to their lives is to survive and to propagate their DNA? What a horrid reductionism of the wonders of life and the glories of human civilization. When evolutionary scientists get out of bed in the morning, is it their sole purpose to propagate their DNA? Do they truly believe that this is the sole purpose to their lives and their reason for living? Somehow I doubt it.
In summary, then, Darwinian evolutionary theory is a fatally flawed, illogical concept and in real life, evolutionary supporters are ideological hypocrites. At least in Richard Dawkins’ case, he openly admits to this hypocrisy: “I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world; but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics.” (The Science Show; ABC Radio; 2000)