Note to readers: The refinement and completion of the arguments begun on this page in 1997 has now been published, and is to be found at another location. It is a more detailed refutation of Darwin's theory than is found here. The terms "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" are further analyzed and shown to be erroneous as an explanation for evolution. You may go there at any time by clicking on the following link: CLICK HERE 

For the latest and most illuminating look at the term "Natural Selection", see how it works when applied to an economy ("Economic Darwinism"):CLICK HERE 

To get back here, click on the "Back" button of your browser.)

Note that this page uses the "down/back" reference system: to get to the reference simply "click" on the superscript ^{( )}; to get back to the original place, click "back".

As noted on the Index page, for the last 150 years, the most popular explanation for the diversity of living things in the universe (except for Biblical creation) was Darwin's theory of evolution, often explained as "survival of the fittest". Darwin's theory has been taught beginning with grade school, so that a 6 year old knows, or should, that the giraffe neck is long allowing it to feed above the other animals and thus survive when others cannot get food (in reality an idea of Lamarck's). Evidence has been accumulating for years that problems exist not only in this claim, but in other aspects of Darwin's theory including the growing belief that it is only a clever tautology, which explains nothing that we do not already know. This page examines that aspect of Darwin's theory, and finding it lacking in scientific basis, suggests that belief in Darwin's theory of evolution must be largely a matter of faith.

ANALYSIS OF DARWIN'S THEORY

In all fairness to Darwin, he did not use the phrase "survival of the fittest" (really Herbert Spencer's term, but adopted in later editions of "Origins" due to objections from his contemporaries). The mechanism he referred to was "natural selection". Darwin states:

"----I have called this principle, by which each slight variation^(a), if useful, is preserved, by the term of natural selection-----". (emphasis added)

The answer is much too simple and also much too revealing: the fittest are those who survive (Period). Why are they the fittest? Because they survived. But why did they survive? Because they are the fittest. That's all we know about them. The same answer applies to the more obscure phrase, (survival or "preservation") by "natural selection": the types that have been selected by nature are those who have survived. Both arguments are tautological. Nothing is learned about the real scientific cause of evolution or the origin of species by learning that the population consists of survivors.

It also explains nothing that we don't already know about the world around us. Yes, elephants have "survived". Yes, so have fleas, oak trees, bacteria, etc.. In Darwin's terms, these species have been selected. Quite obvious. They are here. What is the cause of their differences? It is certainly not the fact that they have survived.

A TAUTOLOGY IS A TAUTOLOGY: THE TAUTOLOGY OF DARWIN

A tautology is defined as a series of statements that comprise an argument, which statements are constructed in such a way that the truth of the proposition is guaranteed. Consequently the statement conveys no useful information regardless of it's length or complexity. Thus, for a simple example, the statement "if you can't find something (that you lost), you are not looking in the right place" is tautological. It is also true, but conveys no useful information.
As a physical example, to play a game of darts where the dart board was full of bullseyes, could be called a "tautological" game. You can't lose. Any argument containing a tautological statement is thus flawed logically and must be considered erroneous.

A tautological argument is not an argument; a tautological game is not a game. (As an aside, a great many of the later, "more advanced" books on evolution attempt to explain away this tautology by some beautiful, highly complex, arguments; e.g. Mayr and or, Gould. Upon close examination of these arguments it will be found that the conclusion is usually obtained by a metaphysical "division by zero", like the well known mathematical proof that 1 = 0. You will note that the bottom line of all of these complex arguments is always the same, namely that "natural selection is the cause of evolution".)

It should also be noted that some apologists for Darwinian logic claim that mathematical equations such as f = ma, or e = mc² could also be termed tautologies. This is a faulted attempt to vindicate Darwinism which could be termed "innocence by association"; in either case, [and in every case of a mathematical expression] the terms on both sides of the equation are defined elsewhere independently, and thus the equal sign does not mean "is defined by" but rather {hate to say it} but is equal to, thus establishing an equivalence. This equivalence may establish a new "law", hitherto unknown. "Survival = fittest" defines one term by the other: a tautology pure and simple. It must be kept in mind that the requirement for evolution to occur, by definition, is not a single function, rather two functions: (1.) is development of a novel genome (phenotype), and (2.) is survival of the phenotype. For evolution to occur, BOTH must happen. Strange as it may seem, a six legged "horse", which might be an excellent animal, does not represent evolution unless it can reproduce its lineage. This would be similar to the production of a mule, which is considered a "cross", not evolution. So survival, being an integral part of evolution, is necessary for existence; what is new about this? How does this factor become the "cause" of evolution?

But the greatest fallacy in the term "survival of the fittest" is the fact that the word "fittest" has no precise meaning whatsoever. The "survival" of an organism is dependent upon a vast permutation and combination of conditions not understood by anyone; thus the word cannot be defined and leaves the entire term devoid of the ability of meaning and thus prediction.

"Survival" in nature starts with a different genome (phenotype) each time and thus "survival" itself is different every time. No two phenotypes have ever developed under exactly identical circumstances; even eggs in the same nest have different positions, have been laid at different times, are exposed to different amounts of heat, light and other conditions. While it is true that the "new" genome would have new characteristics, the conditions that it is subjected to may differ substantially from the survival conditions of the first genome. It either survives or doesn't, under a different, continually varying, set of conditions. As is stated elsewhere on this site, the outcome of the survival of an organism is unknown until the event occurs. (See, e.g., the page referenced by "click here" at the top of this page.) Again, how is this fact the "cause" of evolution?

A CLOSER LOOK AT NATURAL SELECTION

But let us assume, as a further test of the logic in Darwin's theory, those who believe in creation are right. God created all the species, perhaps all at once, or by some other method, "Theistic evolution" perhaps. (Or, equally as effective for the purpose of argument, the species came here as seeds from another planet = Panspermia works).

Now, virtually all scientists agree that about 1% of the total species that have ever existed on the planet currently remain in existence. Let us accept this figure for the purpose of argument. The question then comes up, "why are only one percent of the species in existence today"? A proper evolutionist answer is that those species that exist today were picked by "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest", using Darwin's own definition.

Therefore, Darwin's process of "natural selection" is not unique to his theory, but operates under any and all circumstances that involve an "origin" of a species, whether it be creation, Panspermia, or some other process. Thus "survival by natural selection" or by selection of the "fittest" once again has no effect on the "origin" of species, and adds nothing by way of explanation to Darwin's theory. This objection is valid whether it is applied to Darwin's original work (1859) or any one of the myriad of variations of his theory, right up to the present day.

But if the question is "what is responsible for the differences between the separate species", we must discover what caused a viable (as opposed to random) change to the cell or group of cells (genotype) which gave rise to these new species, as well as why these changes persisted. High school mathematics can prove that the time from the assumed beginning of the universe (currently estimated at ~ 12 billion years) is insufficient to produce even one viable new gene because of the complexity of the process. Yet this process appears to have occurred, and cannot be explained by science, using either "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest" as a mechanism.^(e) The only current explanation of this process is a teleological one, and thus outside the realm of science.

[To backup for a moment, it is instructive to compare the Creationist explanation regarding "evolution". It is very simple and straightforward: God created all the species. He is the cause of the ordered variation which exists in the universe. "Natural selection", or "survival of the fittest" can be considered to have determined which of these species have survived to this day. There is no question as to their origin. While no scientific proof is contained in this statement, (or in Darwin's theory either) it is not a tautology.]

On the other hand,  Darwin's theory offers as the "complete explanation" for the order so apparent in evolution, the mechanism of "natural selection" which is only an effect:< ^(b)

Natural selection (or survival of the fittest) must be recognized for the true character of its mechanism: it is a completely random, infinitely changing, "filtering/culture media" process where the end result is the genome that survives (or prospers). Just as a filter/culture media in a laboratory does not create anything, so it is with Darwin's filter/culture, natural selection. Thus it is incapable of being the cause of anything. The characteristics of organisms which have existed on this planet are of course shaped by the "conditions of life" (gravity, heat, etc.) that are found here; but to interpret this obvious fact so as to consider it to be the "cause" of the "origin" of that organism is erroneous; it is a classic example of "circular reasoning". Thus it is a tautology.

{But the thread of logic used to arrive at this conclusion should not be foreign to anyone associated in any way with Academia. Many historians for example, treat history as, or at least imply, that history is, a force. Just for the record, History is not a Force. History is an explanation of a result or effect of some past occurrence, but not a cause or force of anything. Alfred Russel Wallace explains this all-too-common logic error in the quotation below.}

CAUSE AND EFFECT - A BRIEF DISCUSSION

"We are like children [who are] looking at a complicated machine of the reasons of whose construction they are ignorant, and like them we constantly impute as causes what is really effect in our vain attempts to explain what we will not confess that we cannot understand." (em., [brackets], added).
Alfred Russel Wallace, Species Notebook, circa 1855.

Note that this entry was made prior to Wallace's earthshaking "Ternate Paper" sent to Darwin in 1858. Wallace, racked by malarial fever, concluded, in a state of delirium, that the process of "natural selection" (not using this term) was the cause of evolution. After emerging from it, he hastily wrote the paper and thus violated his own admonition, above, having "found" the key explanation he had been looking for, for so long . After reaching this decision, he never looked back. Nothing, however, disputes the crystal clear thinking which produced the above explanation which was made about 3 years prior to writing the paper. Wallace is describing an all-to-common human ability to engage in a logic error termed "logical reversal" which will inevitably produce a cause/effect "reversal". As mentioned elsewhere on this site, this is the basis for Darwinian error.

The "myriad of effects" faced by the genome, which must be adapted to in order for any of this to occur, is what Darwin calls "natural selection". Is it logical to say that natural selection (or anything) is acting in these situations? On the other hand, if several species (as defined by biologists) are capable of surviving on Earth, is it proper to say that anything is acting on these species? Does rain act on the corn to "cause" it to grow, or is the corn (the genome) merely responding to one of many effects such as abundant phosphorous, nitrogen, heat, light, or any other factor of the environment which is necessary for it to survive. Darwin and Darwinists would have you believe that the rain specifically occurs for the purpose of selecting the corn; if this is so, what of the vast majority of the water which runs away to the ocean? Under normal use of language and logic, we are speaking of cause and effect. What is the cause of the survival?

The cause of survival is the fact that the genome, which is the only thing capable of acting, either does or does not have the potential, or capability to survive, under the conditions. (Please note no claim that this is an earth-shaking conclusion: it is self-evident). One of Darwin's fallacies is in giving natural selection a capability for acting and thus treating it as a cause^(c), rather than an effect which is all that it can be. This is the most sophomoric of mistakes, a cause/effect reversal. Wallace's quote, above, is correct and to the point. Darwin  has placed the cart before the horse. It must be concluded that "evolution" if it exists at all, is caused and directed by a biological characteristic of which we are currently ignorant. Mankind does not know a cause of evolution. The conclusion that evolution has occurred is an assumption. 

Of course it follows from this understanding of the logic involved in the process, as above, that natural selection can not be the cause of evolution, as even  eminent Darwinists such as  Professor Ernst Mayr,  believe. In like manner, natural selection cannot be the cause of the origin of species. Just as those who are interested in the cause of the existence of the universe should  be studying Physics/Astronomy, those who wish to study the scientific cause (the origin) of species would do well to spend their time studying microbiology/genes rather than natural selection. A further reading of Alfred Russel Wallace (Darwin's compatriot in his theory of evolution) would be also useful, as Wallace believed the true "cause" of evolution was unknown and was, in effect, created.⁽¹⁾

It must be concluded that the real "cause" of evolution, would be the mechanism which provides the change in the genome from which the "selection" is made. Darwin's theory assumes that infinite variability is present in the genome, and further that an "effect" (natural selection, or survival of the fittest) can somehow enhance and develop a wholly new characteristic. And while great strides have been made in biological science since "Origins" was published there is still no theory which explains, much less proves, the phenomenon of what is called evolution.

CONCLUSION

Darwin's theory of Evolution contains 2 defects, either of which is fatal to the theme:

• A claim that the "origin of species" is caused by "natural selection" is a tautology.
• The cause of variation in a species cannot be determined, or initiated, by an effect.

As might be expected, a fatally flawed theory does not work.⁽⁴⁾

Numbers ^{( )} refer to items on the Index Page

^(a)Darwin's consideration of variation, in chapter 4 of his book "Origins" as quoted above, is glossed over as a premise or a "given" (an unstated assumption), and while the term "variation" is used elsewhere in his "Origins" book, his heavy-handed emphasis on the power of "natural selection" (which term is used some 350 times) throughout the book is really what he uses in an attempt to prove the theory. This technique is successful in that the inference of the power of natural selection is so strong that the majority of books and discussions which have been written on the subject of evolution term his theory as "evolution by Natural Selection" or some equivalent description.
It should be noted that the knowledge of genes, or the laws of heredity, in his day were unknown and Darwin concluded, without any real proof, that the possible variability of species was essentially infinite. This is of course, simply a  belief; thus, the conclusion drawn from this belief, Evolution, is itself only a belief. back (a)

^(b) This statement has been verified by a most unlikely source composed mostly of pro-evolutionists, no less than the Talk.Origins Archive. To my knowledge, this statement has been in the T. O. FAQ for at least 1 year, and perhaps much longer. It is in a way comforting to know that there is some agreement between those who are dedicated evolutionists, and those who like the DT, are unconvinced of the "fact" or methodology of evolution.

from the T. O. FAQ on Natural Selection: 

"When selection is spoken of as a force, it often seems that it is has a mind of its own; or as if it was nature personified. This most often occurs when biologists are waxing poetic about selection. This has no place in scientific discussions of evolution. Selection is not a guided or cognizant entity; it is simply an effect."  (all em. added. Agreement by the DT is whole-hearted.)

from: "http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html#natsel", from the paragraph "Common Misconceptions about Selection" (copied 10/4/99)

Note that once this interpretation is made, the entire "power" of Natural Selection disappears in a cloud of smoke, and those who have depended on it as an explanation for the complexity and direction of development of all living organisms are left with the same explanation which has existed at least since 100 years prior to the Darwin/Wallace theory, none at all.

While we are at it, note that evolutionists are merely "waxing poetic" when skewing facts toward evolutionary theory; any contradictions of it however, are "creationist" and are not allowed.
back (b)

^(d) As an insight into the supposed powers of natural selection, one might naturally ask at this point, is NS operating, right this very instant, on the Moon? How about Mars, Uranus, Pluto, planets of Alpha Centauri, and so forth. If the answer is "yes", why does not NS cause species to be in existence at these places, as it has supposedly done on this planet. Suppose your answer is "no", NS is not operating in these places, and subsequently some obscure bacteria is discovered (like ice, recently discovered on the Moon); does that mean that NS really is operating there and has caused the evolution of that species? What, then, is the real nature of NS? Those who are believers in the phenomenon are quick to point out the effects of NS, but are unable to explain exactly what NS is, or how it works or is the cause of anything. Perhaps someone will kindly email the DT an explanation.
[Note to the reader]: this question was posed upon publication of this page in May, 1997; after some three years, and over 10,000 accesses to this site, not a single email has even suggested an explanation for the mechanism of Natural Selection.
The DT is not the least bit surprised. There is no rational basis for an action such as Natural Selection. It might have been no less profitable to ask for the explanation of the existence of ghosts. back (d)

^(e) For example, during the relatively short time that humans (or primates) have existed on this planet, it appears that three (3) different types of Sickle Cell Anemia may have developed in the human genome. (Keep in mind that while the fact that these three types exist, there is no evidence that they have occurred during this brief period; note however, that if you are an Evolutionist, you have little choice but to believe otherwise.) The likelihood of this occurrence is, under current scientific knowledge, ¹/_infinity, i.e., for even theoretical purposes, impossible.  back (e)

^T Dogmatic Evolutionist: one who is as devout a believer in, and defender of, the Theory of Evolution as is a Creationist with the Bible. This distinction is made to separate the bona fide scientist (who may believe in evolution in some form) from the dedicated proselytizer of Darwinism. It turns out after an analysis such as the above (and hundreds of similar arguments never refuted by the Darwinists), that they are both using the same basis for their beliefs: Faith. back (T)
 

New email address: Page created by: dbtngtms@tdtone.org
Recent email sent to the previous address may not have been delivered.

GO TO THE INDEX PAGE

This page has been viewed over 15,000 times since May, 1997.

Published Jan. 23, 2004
Revised Apr. 16, 2004

Darwin's theory of "Natural Selection" has been hailed by most biologists as well as many other scientists and lay persons alike, as one of the most significant theories of all time.  Subsequently, almost before the ink was dry on the last edition of Darwin's work, the same "selection" principle used by Darwin in the field of biology was being applied to other sections of human endeavor in an effort to explain a host of other puzzling problems.  Seemingly, any complex sequence of events which cannot be readily explained otherwise, can be analyzed and made simple by an application of the basic principle of Darwin's theory, as outlined in his book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection", 1859.  Thus, such facets of life as the makeup of the social system, economic system, and many other imponderables can be explained by application of the theory of "Natural Selection" or in Herbert Spencer's words (later adopted by Darwin in lieu of the term "Natural Selection") "Survival of the Fittest".

Of course, the principle need for the theory arises from the desire for man to understand his own origins, and ultimately, the origin of life itself. In the belief of the majority of both the scientific minded and laymen alike, this the theory does, apparently, at least. Using this theory, one can supposedly explain how living organisms of even the simplest of sorts, once modified even in the slightest, can, through this process of "selection", reach the complexity of even the most intricate of organisms, including man himself.  And best of all, this change is seemingly accomplished without any need for intelligence to have acted in the process, since random choice by the selection (or survival) process does it all. Thus the origin of mankind has been explained and made so simple that it can be "understood" by all, from grade school on up to the most educated of persons.  The reasoning is so simple that even Thomas Huxley himself (a self educated scientist of the times and called "Darwin's Bulldog") was quoted as saying "How extremely stupid of me not to have thought of that" after reading Darwin's publication.

Huxley was by no means stupid but he, like so many other scientists including Darwin and the extremely capable Wallace, was fooled into an erroneous conclusion by accepting an exchange of "cause" for "effect" and believing he had solved the problem of the origin of species. Thus the effect of the ecology (and many other factors) acting to advance (or destroy) the life of an organism is believed to be the "cause" of the origin of that organism, rather than simply "encouraging" it to exist. This belief would have been very dear to Huxley, as he was an avid athiest and had no other basis except Darwinism to explain his personal philosophy for the origin of life.* (see below for additional coomments on "Natural Selection").

This article is the latest in a series of articles which point out a number of discontinuities in "Darwinian thought" which supposedly explain elements of our biological system; these discontinuities are almost completely ignored by the scientific community, in an attitude that supports Darwinism and protects its own system of beliefs. In an attempt to better understand the operation of the Darwinian principle involved, this particular article analyzes a small segment of our society - the automobile manufacturing industry - and considers whether Darwin's great engine of "Natural Selection" operates to produce an understanding of the "evolution" , "diversity", and "order" so evident in this industry.  It will be applied in the very same way "Natural Selection" is supposed to work in the biological system and will be used as an analogy for the process which exists in the biological world.

Proof by analogy requires the comparison of two similar situations which have characteristics in common, one situation of which is explainable, the other situation being confusing in some degree and not readily explainable. Here we have (ostensibly) an explainable situation of variability in the case of biological production, and another situation, variability in the auto industry, which is perplexing, at least in some of the same aspects.

Basically, to review, in the case of organic life, incremental change in any organism (or not even necessarily a "living" organism but perhaps also a "proto" organism - a precursor of life) which prevails in existence and is able to somehow reproduce, will come into "being" with the results that are so evident to all, the magnificent viable organic life evident all around us. This is the "bottom line" of Darwinian thought and essentially attempts to explain the origin of all life (even though this may not have been Darwin's original intention). The mechanism in the process is called "Natural Selection" and outlined in Darwin's book, as above. Again, the idea is very fulfilling to all biologists, and also to many others who require an explanation for the phenomena.

Searching for an analogy with which to compare the above process we find that there are many "Darwinian" processes which are, in important ways, similar to the development of the organic world. One of them is constantly before our eyes, thoroughly familiar to virtually all adults, and thus understandable at least in its broad outlines, to all. A Ph.D. is not at all necessary to understand it, and indeed, a grade school diploma will do just fine.  Detailed knowledge of biology is likewise not required.  This analogy arises as a result of a study of the evolution and development of the automobile manufacturing industry , in any or all countries of the world.

Variation in the output of this industry compares with and even greatly exceeds variation found in the biological world, at least if considering viable (non extinct) organisms. This figure is an estimate currently put as high as 15,000,000 species. However the number of distinct autos currently in service throughout the world greatly exceeds this number (the USA currently produces this amount of autos in the US alone, per year, and while many of these products are similar, very few of them, considering such refinements as colors, trim styles etc. are identical).

"Extinction" in the auto industry since its beginning, has been enormous (perhaps as high as 90%) and the output and direction of the industry virtually unpredictable, both as in the biological world.  The question that also arises is "what is the mechanism which is responsible for these aspects of this industry and the enormous variation in the types of output" without there being any evidence of intelligence which directs this output.

This question is essentially identical to the same questions which persisted in the field of biology prior to the "discovery" and explanation of the process of Natural Selection in Darwin's book, the "Origin of Species".

In the biological world, Creationists (virtually the only voices then in the fray), maintained that the variation, characteristics, and order of species in the biological world were a direct product of Intelligence, (a Creator). What few atheists, agnostics, and other unbelievers which existed at that time had virtually no viable belief to explain any of these conditions.

In our current society, did one single genius sit down 100 years ago and plan out the various steps which have occurred over the last century creating some sort of a "master plan" which is responsible for the industry as it is today? Obviously not. Was Divine guidance involved, in some way similar to the claims Creationists make of the organic world? There is not even an inkling of evidence of this.  Is it possible that there are inherent features of either humanity or this planet, or both, which have driven the direction of this industry?

Unraveling the mystery of this development would have many advantages for those in this industry and in particular those who purchase from this industry, so the question is not trivial. For but one instance, suppose that all the "mistakes" that have been made, such as the development of obsolete models, could have been prevented; billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars could have been saved.  This money and effort could have been well spent in other fields of endeavor such as in medicine or food production.

So one might rightly ask, is the same process which produced the order, diversity and superiority in the organic world at work in the automotive industry to produce the same conditions there?  Since there is no clear answer to this question, it is simply logical to look at Darwin's process of "Natural Selection" to see if it is applicable.  (Note that the application of "intelligence" to the variation of auto output has essentially been a dismal failure - billions of dollars have been lost as a result of basing output on "logic".  A major, but by no means isolated "gaffe", was the introduction of an automobile named the "Edsel" by the Ford Motor Co. in 1957, and was "extinct" about 3 years later; many millions of dollars were lost on the project.)

Existence of species:

• Organic world: Those species that have been "Naturally Selected" are the only organisms existing.
• Automotive world: Those vehicle types (i.e. species) that have been "Naturally Selected" (by purchase) are the only products existing.

• Organic world: Those species having characteristics compatible with their surroundings are the only organisms existing.
• Automotive world: Those vehicle types most adaptable to the needs of the buying public are the only ones existing - there is little or no evidence of "planning".

• Organic world: The immense interdependence of species has all the appearance of planning.
• Automotive world: The wide spectrum of available vehicles and similarity of features has the appearance of planning.

Using just these three examples of (natural) "selection" (there are many more - but these will suffice) which exist both in the organic and vehicular world it can be seen that in each instance a form of "Natural Selection" is the cause of the existence of any particular organic or vehicular type.

Of course this is a very general comparison both as to description and function, leaving much open to argument and question; in fact, there are thousands of characteristics both in the organic and vehicular world which must be selected in each case such that "viability" persists. A little speculation on the part of the reader however, will produce the overall picture of the fact that the existence of any type, in either world, is dependent on one thing, and one thing alone: "Natural Selection". Nothing, in either case, is predictable. So there is a good analogous agreement between the two processes. Neither is explainable by logic alone, but rather the existence of any "species" is strictly dependent on what is in fact "unknown" parameters. In the case of the organic world it is the thousands of variable possibilities made by environmental and other factors such as gene combinations; in the automotive world it is the thousands of essentially random choices made by the buying public. Again, neither are predictable.

Thus the Darwinian process of  "Natural selection" is shown to be the determining factor in this and many other processes extant in not only the organic world, but also the functioning world in which we live. But again, nothing is new about this conclusion. There is one more factor however which is crucial to the reason behind this article.

That factor is the question relating to the true scientific "origin" of species when discussing the subject of biology and Darwin's theory,: What is the "Origin" of each of these two types of "species"?

• Organic World: The "Origin" (cause) of all species is a product of an unknown action of the DNA molecule. (Exactly how does it produce "life"?) Nothing is even known about the origin of this molecule yet it appears to have existed for at least 2 Billion years unchanged; there is no evidence of any evolution in its development.

  Thus the true "Origin of Species" is unknown . The "Natural Selection" of these various species is the cause of (or is the reason) only for their type existence.

• Automotive world: The true "Origin" or cause of all species is clearly known: it is a product of the action of the automotive industry, which has been developed by humans through the process of trial and error over the past 100 years. People make their choice, by "Natural Selection" (purchase) which is the cause only of type existence.

Darwin's theory is a simplistic tautology which does not explain the true "Origin" of anything. All it explains is the survival of certain organic types which have been "selected" because of their compatibility with the environment (and other factors, as above, including the laws of chance) in which they exist.

If the only effect of this error in logic was a the necessity to revise a belief in something such as the age of the earth, characteristics of makeup of a planet such as Mars, or a new view of the characteristics of matter such as "string theory", the subject would hardly be worth discussing. Such however is not the case.

Darwin's Theory has influence far beyond these matters and any knowledgeable person whether a believer in it or not, has unwittingly been affected by its position of belief in (chiefly) Western civilization. The Theory is nothing but a very insidious tautology, that purports to provide information about a subject when in fact it only misleads one into thinking that it carries useful information when it does not. The simplest of all tautologies, "either it is going to rain tomorrow or it is not", is no less a tautology and no more informative than the idea that Natural Selection is the "cause" of the "origin" of species.

It is insidious, because of its seductive nature, (see Huxley above) in that it supposedly supplies, as above, an answer to a fundamental Human question, when in fact it only advances a fallacious method of thinking which has pervaded Western civilization. This has been going on in increasing vigor, for essentially 6 generations ~ (about 150 years).

It can be seen from the analogy above, that Natural Selection, while it shapes the characteristics of "survivors", it is completely divorced from the true scientific "origin" of them. Whether the subject is organic species, autos, economic characteristics, or any of a myriad of social, economic or scientific questions which perplex the human race, Natural Selection is not the explanation for any of them any more than the above tautology provides useful information on tomorrow's weather. (However, if the above tautology inspires one to carry an umbrella, it may [or may not] be useful.)

The pervasiveness of this type of thought can best be displayed by looking at a few common "tautological" beliefs which are routinely accepted in our society:

Both of these sayings are based on tautologies which are not evident to the one who believes in them. The basis of both of them is found in a "reversal" of "cause" for "effect".

This is precisely the basis of the Darwinian Tautology: it switches "cause" for "effect" and thus explains the "Origin" of species, when all it really explains is the "type existence" of species which are of unknown origin.

But is this a new idea? Hardly. It was said best prior to the "discovery" of Darwin's theory by none other than Darwin's compatriot, Alfred Russel Wallace. His conclusion:

"We are like children [who are] looking at a complicated machine of the reasons of whose construction they are ignorant, and like them we constantly impute as causes what is really effect in our vain attempts to explain what we will not confess that we cannot understand."
(em., [brackets], added). (unidentified "Species Notebook", P 43.) Probably 1854-55. From H. Lewis McKinney's Book "Wallace and Natural Selection"

This "bombshell" of an idea was recognized prior to Wallace's 1855 "Sarawak Law" paper which outlined 10 basic ideas on the existence of species which some say later became the basis of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Wallace, several years later, in a fit of delirium from malaria, ironically adopted the exact opposite of this notion as the basis for Darwin's theory. Note also, that Wallace's view of evolution was considerably different from Darwin's and that this fact has been most carefully hidden, in their publications, by those who are Believers (sic) in Darwin's theory. For example, Wallace continually argued that mankind could not have been produced by the process of Natural Selection, as Natural Selection, in any case, could have no effect on those who possess conceptual thought. Note that this idea, held throughout Wallace's life, did not make it into print either. Strange, to say the least.

As above, 6 generations of the Western world have been introduced to the idea of tautological thinking being the correct process of thought with conclusions such as the following:

"You are an animal and share a common heritage with earthworms......." Biology, Visualizing Life, Johnson, Holt Rinehart Winston, 1994,

Thus the fallacy of a tautology touches the very fundamental aspect of our life. It doesn't take much thought to realize that this one concept is a major pollutant in the engine of creative thought. In my opinion, this one idea is the scam of the 2nd millennium, and with the exception of the concept of Astrology, would be the scam of all time. Anyone considering barring the teaching of Darwinism because of its religious connotations is simply emphasizing the wrong objection: Darwinism is not only bad science, it is an atrocious thought process which pollutes our entire society.

*The term "Natural Selection", prior to Darwin's time, was essentially non-existent; (there were several uses of the term "selection" regarding evolution, prior to his publication of the book "Origins"). But Darwin's use of the term [some 350 times - the phrase always spelled out in full when type was laboriously set by hand] makes him the true "originator" of the term. In Darwin's time, the term was singularly used as the explanation of the process involved ("the cause of") in evolution, but today it is used as an explanation of a number of complex phenomena, as above. A true definition of the term almost depends on the source of the reference since there are hundreds of interpretations of what it means, some substantially different from others.

However, the bottom line of its meaning is that it is the "cause of evolution". Any thinking person should immediately be suspect when finding a myriad of meanings for a term which has such an important position in the field of biology. In reality of course, neither nature nor any part of it can "select" (except in Shakespearean terms); in every case, any "selection" made is made by a living organism from a choice of needs that may or may not be available. In that respect the term "Natural Selection" is a completely bogus term since it implies an action of which it is not capable. (Just how does it select?) Again, "Natural Selection" can "do" nothing - it is completely passive. Thus it can not be a "cause" of anything. (Does a sponge "select" the water, [or the water "select" the sponge]? According to Darwin's use of the word, it does; this may be good poetry, but it is not good science). However, if one simply mistakes "cause" for "effect" as above, the term takes on the meaning of which it is always used. This process of "reversal" has a real meaning in the field of logic: it is called a "logical fallacy".

It should be carefully noted that the principle of the theory - selection - operates with great accuracy "after the fact" - that is, it apparently explains how things "got where they are" but is unable to make any predictions as to what will occur in the future.  This is a failing acknowledged by even the staunchest of believers in Darwinism. When applied to the situation under consideration, this failing displays the fatal nature of the Darwinian process.

Email address: dbtngtms@tdtone.org
(You must have an email provider to use this feature)>

Page created by: The Doubting Thomas

Published June, 1997
Rev. Dec, 2001

PROLOGUE
Darwin has been credited with the discovery of the cause of evolution by virtually one and all, scientists and layman, within and without the field of biology, for most of the time since the publication of his book "Origins", almost to the present day. It seems that only recently has it been noticed that the first publication of the complete explanation of what is called "Darwin's" theory was by another scientist named Alfred Russel Wallace, a contemporary and friend of Darwin's.

It can truthfully be said that Wallace has obtained as equal a position in obscurity as Darwin has obtained in prominence. Lately however, it is becoming common to see the theory referred to as "the Darwin/Wallace theory. A very interesting scenario is involved in the development of the theory by the two men that is beyond the ability to present here; suffice it to say that Wallace was every bit, if not more, involved in formulating the theory, and that several differences remain between his version and Darwin's that are virtually unknown and are important.

After a brief discussion of several aspects of Darwin's theory, some of the differences between the two theories, not the least bit trivial, are presented here.

SUMMARY
Of the three theories discussed on the Index page, Darwinism, Marxism, and Freudianism, most consider Darwin's theory the more important, at least from the standpoint of the effect it has had on society in the philosophical sense. What will be considered in this discussion, is some of the aspects of Darwin's theory which are fallacious, and easily proven so, but more importantly the fact that the general perception of his theory is not even remotely comparable to the facts of history which produced this "legend", which is what it has really come to be.

Let us concede, that Darwin's book "Origins" proves beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the organisms which are, or have been, alive on this planet are strictly limited to those whose characteristics are compatible with the vagaries of this planet. (Don't look for this revelation on the Evening News or in Science, for that matter). Let us also concede that the fact of survival (or his "survival of the fittest") unquestionably displays this proof. But how is it that survival can also be the "cause" of the origin of these characteristics? Where did the characteristics come from?

Alfred Russel Wallace's position on the true cause of evolution is radically different as will be seen below, involving the possible introduction of an unknown (spiritual) force in the entire matter. He raises questions about the entire issue which have not been refuted, are almost diametrically opposed to those of Darwin, and are seldom discussed, to this day; what in effect he is saying, is that the true scientific "origin" of species was unknown at his time.

In as much as the entire educational system seems to be pretty much captivated with the idea that the Darwinian thesis of Natural Selection is the "cause" of evolution, the question of whether evolution, as it is currently believed, should be taught in schools is also discussed.

THE TASK AT HAND
You may think that a person in an attempt to challenge Darwin's theory has a formidable task, but in that respect you would be wrong. Creationists, evolutionists, and other scientists have been shooting holes in the theory for a long time and most recently, cell biologists have all but completed the job: it doesn't work.^{(4) *} But proving a theory wrong is one thing, the convincing of true believers, or the Media, is quite another.

Witness for one, the results of the theory of Karl Marx, popularly called Communism. Marx's idea and philosophy was so intriguing and acceptable, that the Communists nearly conquered the entire world. Marx certainly had a fair chance at the ability to prove his theory, but it has been shown in actual practice that the theory is fallacious simply because it also doesn't work. (One easy explanation for this is that Marx failed to understand and harness a most important human force, i.e. "greed", which some believe is the basis for Capitalism. The Doubting Thomas (DT) does not completely agree with this analysis). At any rate, despite the miserable failure of the theory, Communism is still alive and well in Academia in this country (USA), and the mere fact that it doesn't work has probably had little effect on the True Believers in Marxism. Thus it is with Darwinism. So it will not be difficult to produce (another) essay on the fatality of the theory, but convincing even a small proportion of those with an interest in the theory that such is the case, is recognized as a formidable task.

SOME ASPECTS OF DARWIN AND HIS THEORY
There are far too many books, many of them textbooks, that proclaim Darwin's discovery of "natural selection" to be the most important discovery of the last two centuries, and some fervent believers claim it to be the most important discovery of all time. "Natural selection" was claimed by Darwin virtually to be the cause of evolution, and in his use of the term in the book "Origins", he gives it the power of the Creator. He steadfastly treats "natural selection" as a cause when it is really only an effect, and worse, a completely random, even "fickle" effect. (Interestingly, Darwin's "Origins" never uses the word random but uses the term natural selection some 350 times. Yes, there is a story here.) It is the belief presented here and elsewhere on this site that Natural selection completely lacks the ability to create or select anything, like all other effects (i.e. briefly, like gravity), hence it is ubiquitous. A most cursory look at "natural selection" will show that it has little or no similarity to "artificial selection", which Darwin considered to be virtually analogous. His theory has been recognized as a tautology^(2)* by many, including believers in the theory, but this aspect is not considered fatal by them, as it should be. Circular Reasoning,** also a fatal defect, is evident in his theory. Further, he is considered to be a brilliant man by almost all, yet he could not conceive or understand that man was different "in kind" from any other creature on this earth, a fact understood virtually by one and all.⁽³⁾

IS DARWIN'S THEORY ATHEISTIC?
One of the most misunderstood aspects of Darwin's theory is that it is atheistic in intent. Not so. But the perception of his theory as being atheistic, by virtually everyone, is surely understandable. Seldom does one see an explanation of it either in the Media, or in a book or text, where the fact of it being atheistic is not either openly or implicitly expressed. Certainly no one has ever claimed that it is religious in nature. In fact, the term "evolution", in and of itself, because of the method by which it is presented, is currently considered by many to depict an atheistic view of the origin of life, while a strict definition of the term does not refer to the origin of change. (It could have been included in Creation as Wallace {see below} believes). But factually, Darwin's original stated claim was only to disprove the previously held religious notion that a Creator was continually intervening in the affairs of the planet, and in kind of a "tinker-toy" fashion, keeping a suitable spectrum of species available for the use of mankind. (This concept cannot be wholly separated from a similar notion, that God had created the Earth as the center of the universe, which theory was dominant up until the time of Galileo when it was disproved, with much consternation to go around).

However, Darwin's later use of the concept of the development of all life from that "warm little pond", without any intelligent design of any kind from any source, is an idea that has very little leeway in it for any interpretation other than an atheistic one. So the conclusion is at least understandable. And most importantly those who are advocates of beliefs in naturalism, secular humanism, atheism and agnosticism such as Thomas Huxley, ("Darwin's bulldog") wasted no time in grasping this atheistic aspect of Darwin's theory and exploiting it to the limit; and when you throw into the mix those who are always looking for a new way to explain something, like many scientists and those who have a special need for a non-theistic explanation for the cause of things, and also add a willing, like-minded Media, that understanding is almost inevitable. Thus, as noted elsewhere, presentation of "Darwin's theory", or "evolution" has virtually become a stalking-horse for atheism. This aspect of the theory is the chief objection to it being taught in school (see below). The views of Wallace as shown below, if presented accurately, would negate this possibility to a great extent. There is no reason why they have not been, other than the bias toward naturalistic explanation which exists throughout the secular Media. While a full range of Darwin's opinions and beliefs are routinely presented in biological teaching, Wall ace's views have been all but forgotten.

ANOTHER, RADICALLY DIFFERENT, VIEW OF THINGS
Wallace's outline of the theory of evolution, naively sent to Darwin for his comments and those of Sir Charles Lyell, was covered in about 3% of the space of Darwin's and is very logical, clear and easy to read. In comparison, Darwin's work is most difficult to read and even his two closest associates, Hooker and Lyell, acknowledged this. Wallace and Darwin were friends and as an example, Wallace later wrote a book entitled "Darwinism" where he elaborates on Darwin's theory, in an effort to explain speciation.

The "so-called" Darwin/Wallace theory was hurriedly presented at one session by the Linnaean Society of England within a month of Darwin's receipt of Wallace's paper. Wallace's paper was read verbatim and was an outline of the major points of his beliefs in evolution. Darwin's contribution was a reading of several letters by his friends which established "priority" for the findings outlined in Wallace's work. Neither man was present, Wallace being some 8000 miles distant in the Maylay Archepelago and unaware of the proceedings. The date was July 1, 1858. A little over one year later in November, 1859 Darwin published his book "Origins" as above, and by this act has become accepted as the "father" of the theory of evolution.

But the most amazing aspect of the entire story as it later developed is a fact virtually unknown even among many biologists to this day: Wallace was clearly not an atheist. He never raised the issue with Darwin, but this must be one of the greatest divisions of thought that could occur between such two like-minded men with such otherwise similar beliefs. And of course, the fact has been all but lost on the biological community - about to the same degree as Wallace himself has been ignored.

Hard as it may be to believe in the light of past writing, Wallace's attempt with his theory was to show that evolution can occur without the "continual interference" (his phrase) of a creator, which idea was paramount at that time. His belief was essentially that God (or some Spiritual Force) created evolution itself, and thus there was no need to tinker with things along the way, and in fact Wallace maintains that this belief - he calls it a "hypothesis" -  (in the "continual interference" with nature) demeans the intelligence of the Creator.

Writers on the subject sometimes mention that a "Wallace" also discovered evolution, but hardly ever state that his fundamental beliefs were presented in a way completely opposite to those attributed to Darwin. In fact most writing implies that Wallace was atheistic in his view of evolution as was Darwin; in reality, Wallace would today (2000) be considered a "Creationist", although not attached to any specific religion (a Spiritualist).

As an illustration of Wallace's opposite set of fundamental beliefs, the following poem is quoted from the end of the last essay in his book " Essays on the Theory of Natural Selection " (1870). He attributes the poem to an unnamed "American poetess", and while discussing the fact that much is unknown in the sciences, describes it as what may be called "the highest fact of science, the noblest truth of philosophy": (Wallace's words)

These are not the ideas of an atheist. Thus it can be seen that Wallace's view of some fundamental ideas differs substantively from those of Darwin's. You would never know it from reading any of the vast amount of literature commonly available on the subject.

WALLACE'S POSITION ON MAN
Wallace also had some ideas on the origin of mankind, and differs with Darwin in these views also. Wallace presents pressing arguments that man's capabilities such as mathematics, arts, and humor, could not have been caused by "natural selection". Wallace states, after developing his argument:

"The special facilities we have been discussing clearly point to the existence in man of something which he has not derived from his animal progenitors------". He calls this a "spiritual nature". (Darwinism, p. 474)

Without naming it as such, he is discussing some of the facets of the conceptual ability of man. Virtually all humans who have considered man's abilities understand this proposition. Darwin and many scientists, along with those who are firm believers in Darwin, most often do not.

SOME CONSEQUENCES
"Ideas have consequences". The saying is ancient in origin and surely acknowledged by all. One may rightfully ask, what are the consequences of a theory such as the popular beliefs about Darwin's theory as described above? What is the effect on those who read in virtually all scientific and popular literature the statement repeated, almost universally, parrot-like, that "natural selection" is the cause of evolution? That evolution is a "fact"? How does one react to the suggestion, made by one of the leading biologists in the U. S., (Mayr) that "natural selection" somehow has the power to prevent the extinction of species?

Or worse, the explanation of Stephen J. Gould (the Harvard biologist and dedicated evolutionist) who in a Scientific American article, presents ideas such as::

"..... Humans arose, rather, as a fortuitous and contingent outcome of thousands of linked events,....."(em. added.) In other words, a scientific explanation of evolution depends on simple "luck" - (a DT interpretation). Since when is luck taught in science?

The answer to this question will largely have to go unanswered here because of the myriad of possibilities, for one, and an admitted lack of complete understanding for another. Several suggestions will be presented for consideration. One of the first concerns, and one often discussed, would be that of parents who find essentially that de facto atheism is being taught to their children in the form of a simple biological theory. One of the cures for this is of course, to be sure that the theory is correctly presented with all the objections and faults, including the much misunderstood fact that it is not atheistic and indeed is not concerned with real "first causes". A little dose of "Wallace-ism" would certainly be in order, although it probably should not extend so far as the memorization of his lovely quoted poem (as above). His ideas on the nature of man are directly contradictory to Darwin's and should be presented as such. But certainly the thoughts and ideas of Wallace should not be ignored, as they are currently.

However, there is another aspect of the perpetuation of Darwin's theory that should also be considered. To back up a little, it is a theory that has been essentially proven scientifically, mostly by the cell biologists, to be seriously faulted, in that it does not adequately explain known biological facts about life as we now know it. If it does not work properly ⁽³⁾, then it must contain some errors of logic, fact, or perhaps both. Surely it is tautological.

What is the effect on those who are learning the delicate process of the ability of reason to be taught a flawed theory? Will it establish a template which to apply to other situations that will result in erroneous conclusions? The question can not be answered with certainty. On the other hand, again, a proper presentation of the theory as well as the history of the theory would generate a healthy skepticism, which can surely do no harm.

Conclusion
It can thus be seen that the teaching of Darwin's theory is well biased toward the "naturalistic" philosophy so well displayed in the usual presentations of biologists, biological texts and throughout the Media. It's very hard to believe that if the history of the subject had been presented in a fair and unbiased manner including the role played by Alfred Russel Wallace in the founding and presentation of the theory, that the beliefs of Western Society would be so biased toward the Darwin aspect as is currently the case. Those parents and educators who have attempted to undo or at least re-orient the teaching away from the "naturalist" view currently presented would do well to include Wallace's ideas alongside those of Darwin's, which are commonly accepted to be part of science.

* Numbers refer to links found on the Index Page.

** Circular Reasoning: an assumption made in an argument that contains the acceptance as fact, of an element, or premise, which needs to be proved for the argument to be correct. Thus, Darwin has assumed that a species (or variety) possesses sufficient variability such that it either has within itself or can develop, the characteristics of a new species. He spends one whole chapter in discussion of problems with his theory yet glosses over this assumption as if it were fact; since it must be fact for his theory to be viable, and instead has been assumed, it is circular reasoning.

Darwin is asking you to believe that this assumption is correct, simply because it is evident that species are different. (Also called "Begging the Question"). (Note however that the "new synthesis", the latest version of his theory, proposes other processes such as "mutation" for the variability he assumed). No proof exists that such is the case, and yet no qualifying terminology appears in modern texts to explain the difference. Of course, in any case, whether evolution occurs in the Wallace sense (often called Theistic evolution) or by any other means, or not at all, Darwin's belief that "natural selection"/(survival of the fittest) is the "cause" of it, is strictly erroneous and in fact completely backwards, as elaborated on elsewhere; natural selection can only be (if anything) the cause of survival , not evolution. This concept in itself can be described as a form of circular reasoning.

While circular reasoning in the above instance is fatal to his theory, there are other instances where it is used, such as his description of the abilities of Natural Selection. Thus Natural Selection can "choose, act, select, select the fittest, select for the good of the being, cause ("rigidly destroy") extinction of the unfit, always chooses for the perfection of a species," and so on. After assuming these abilities exist, if anything needs to be done to validate his theory, Natural Selection will take care of it. Again, current teaching texts ignore these gross errors of reason, as the only proof offered for any of this capability is the fact that the results are there for all to see! Thus Natural Selection must be true, because of the fact that the fittest have survived, the "unfit" are extinct, the species have become more diverse, and so on; this is also a subtle combination of a tautology with circular reasoning.

But as an example, using terminology more likely to be found in a biology text with a dose of obfuscation:

"Evolution of the lines of species as different as horse and cow was ultimately caused by the guidance through natural selection of a Monte Carlo distribution of the allele frequencies in a population, in such a manner that over a long period of time the anatomical differences so easily noted today have evolved. (=Evolution produced the difference between the horse and cow.)
Thus the striking differences which need not be enumerated here are evidence of the powerful effects of evolution which have produced the myriad of species of plant and animal life in existence today."
( =The differences in the horse and the cow are evidence of the fact that evolution exists).

And similarly, as evolutionists are fond of saying, Evolution is a fact. They believe that proof of this is evident to anyone who can tell the difference between a horse and a cow. They are different! Evolution has occurred!

Page created by: dbtngtms@tdtone.org (email address)

"One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school'."

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London.
Keynote address: American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November, 1981

Certainly one of the most beautiful, and surely the simplest, of all understanding that exists in the world of Science, is that Darwin's "Natural Selection" is the explanation for the most complex phenomenon, by far, ever known to mankind: the evolution of organic life.
Could there be something wrong here? 

The Doubting Thomas, 2001

published JUL 23, 1999
last rev. SEP 27, 2004
SEP 27, 2004

A detailed look at Natural Selection
The terms "Natural Selection" and "Survival of the Fittest" are examined in detail and shown to be erroneous as a scientific explanation for evolution.
If you don't read anything else about Darwinism, read the above. CLICK HERE

16 Theses which refute Darwinian Evolution
Note: This is an "electronic" version of the above page which explicitly sets out the arguments presented, and allows acess to the arguments and back by use of the mouse. It is easier to follow and is particularly useful when confronting dogmatic Darwinists: CLICK HERE

Natural Selection: examination by Analogy
Darwinian "Natural Selection" is examined by use of an analogy: a look at "Natural Selection" acting in the automotive industry.
This is an easy-to-read essay proving that "Natural Selection" has nothing to do with the true "Origin of Species"; it is all you need to refute Darwinian theory. CLICK HERE 

Coming Soon:
"Sexual Selection" (SS) will be analyzed in the same sense that "Natural selection" (NS) has, and it can easily be shown that the very same erroneous Darwinian logic and pattern of thought applies to this very important facet of "evolution", as is used in the understanding of NS. It is another bogus idea used to explain a feature of organic life which does not independently exist.

In reality, Sexual Selection is completely nonexistent since (again) there is no selection made, as "evolution" by SS does not have an outside influence which "selects" new species: all the actions of living organisms are an integral result of the DNA molecule and thus pre-ordained when that molecule is formed and before it begins life. Thus the Sexual Selection is not at all "random" or "intelligent", and therefore not explanatory in the sense that Darwin used it (heavily) to explain new features of evolution.

Thus, if Evolution exists in any form, (note that the DT takes no position on this possibility) it is a completely "closed" system, in the sense that all the information which is required to form a "new" species is completely contained in the DNA molecule. This molecule has (apparently) existed in its current form since the beginning of organic life. Therefore, organic life as we know it requires explanation outside of the explanation of current evolutionary theory. Truly "new" species require "new" (external) information. So-called "SS" cannot fulfil this requirement.

For example, if one looks at the building of a bird nest, or the construction of a spider web, both extremely complex actions (which have never before been seen by the organisms which construct them) one can see how intricate and complex is the DNA molecule. To assume that this complexity does not operate in all facets of SS is, simply, more Darwinian wishful thinking of the same type that produces the concept of NS. It is tautological in the sense that the choice made by, say, a female in the selection of a mate, has been pre-ordained in the genome of that female and thus is not explanatory in the formation of new life: [it is either going to rain tomorrow or it is not, and this statement (made here) will have no effect on the weather]. Likewise the "choice" made by an organism will have no effect on the "evolution" of that organism which does not already exist.

The idea is a nearly perfect example of a logical fallacy called "circular reasoning". A look at the "brilliant" minds that have adopted it (Mayr, Gould, Simpson, Dobhzansky to name a few) should give one a fair view of the (in)accuracy of much of the understanding of the entire Darwinian legacy. These individuals are classic portrayals of brilliance run amok: they are bonded to Darwin's beliefs as a mother is to her child. No amount of argument (such as that presented on this and many books or other sites on the web) will dislodge them or their followers from the beliefs of the past.

PREAMBLE:
For the last 150 years, the most popular "scientific" explanation for the origin and diversity of the living matter of the universe (except for creation) has been Darwin's theory of evolution. This theory has been taught beginning with grade school, so that a 6 year old has likely been taught that the giraffe's neck is long because of evolution through "natural selection", so that it can feed above the other animals and thus survive when others cannot get food. (Never mind that the male neck is a foot or so longer than the female neck, a sure scenario for extinction of the females and the young).

Evidence has been accumulating for years that problems exist not only in this claim, but more importantly, in regard to other aspects of Darwin's theory, not the least of which is the high improbability of the "formation" of the first living cell. ("Abiogenesis", or self formation of the cell, which is considered by most texts as a "Darwinian" evolutionary process).

It is the contention of these pages and pages to follow that virtually all commonly believed (and taught) aspects of Darwin's theory are erroneous. These beliefs are all built around the fundamental concept of Darwinian evolution by "Natural Selection", as presented in his original book "Origins" and still used today, albeit having been modified by a myriad of conflicting definitions and new understanding.

After detailed study, presented here, this popular aspect of Darwin's theory, natural selection, (aka "Survival of the Fittest") is shown to be an unexplained, non-scientific phenomena, in reality a logical non sequitur, which is considered by most evolutionists to be the primal "cause" of evolution. In practical fact, the concept as it is taught, is virtually a "stalking horse" for atheism.

If you have questions or comments, please click on the email address below to send a message. All email is answered unless requested otherwise.

Page created by: dbtngtms@tdtone.org

>

"One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school'."

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London.
Keynote address: American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November, 1981

Certainly one of the most beautiful, and surely the simplest, of all understanding that exists in the world of Science, is that Darwin's "Natural Selection" is the explanation for the most complex phenomenon, by far, ever known to mankind: the evolution of organic life.
Could there be something wrong here? 

The Doubting Thomas, 2001

published JUL 23, 1999
last rev. SEP 27, 2004
SEP 27, 2004

A detailed look at Natural Selection
The terms "Natural Selection" and "Survival of the Fittest" are examined in detail and shown to be erroneous as a scientific explanation for evolution.
If you don't read anything else about Darwinism, read the above. CLICK HERE

16 Theses which refute Darwinian Evolution
Note: This is an "electronic" version of the above page which explicitly sets out the arguments presented, and allows acess to the arguments and back by use of the mouse. It is easier to follow and is particularly useful when confronting dogmatic Darwinists: CLICK HERE

Natural Selection: examination by Analogy
Darwinian "Natural Selection" is examined by use of an analogy: a look at "Natural Selection" acting in the automotive industry.
This is an easy-to-read essay proving that "Natural Selection" has nothing to do with the true "Origin of Species"; it is all you need to refute Darwinian theory. CLICK HERE 

Coming Soon:
"Sexual Selection" (SS) will be analyzed in the same sense that "Natural selection" (NS) has, and it can easily be shown that the very same erroneous Darwinian logic and pattern of thought applies to this very important facet of "evolution", as is used in the understanding of NS. It is another bogus idea used to explain a feature of organic life which does not independently exist.

In reality, Sexual Selection is completely nonexistent since (again) there is no selection made, as "evolution" by SS does not have an outside influence which "selects" new species: all the actions of living organisms are an integral result of the DNA molecule and thus pre-ordained when that molecule is formed and before it begins life. Thus the Sexual Selection is not at all "random" or "intelligent", and therefore not explanatory in the sense that Darwin used it (heavily) to explain new features of evolution.

Thus, if Evolution exists in any form, (note that the DT takes no position on this possibility) it is a completely "closed" system, in the sense that all the information which is required to form a "new" species is completely contained in the DNA molecule. This molecule has (apparently) existed in its current form since the beginning of organic life. Therefore, organic life as we know it requires explanation outside of the explanation of current evolutionary theory. Truly "new" species require "new" (external) information. So-called "SS" cannot fulfil this requirement.

For example, if one looks at the building of a bird nest, or the construction of a spider web, both extremely complex actions (which have never before been seen by the organisms which construct them) one can see how intricate and complex is the DNA molecule. To assume that this complexity does not operate in all facets of SS is, simply, more Darwinian wishful thinking of the same type that produces the concept of NS. It is tautological in the sense that the choice made by, say, a female in the selection of a mate, has been pre-ordained in the genome of that female and thus is not explanatory in the formation of new life: [it is either going to rain tomorrow or it is not, and this statement (made here) will have no effect on the weather]. Likewise the "choice" made by an organism will have no effect on the "evolution" of that organism which does not already exist.

The idea is a nearly perfect example of a logical fallacy called "circular reasoning". A look at the "brilliant" minds that have adopted it (Mayr, Gould, Simpson, Dobhzansky to name a few) should give one a fair view of the (in)accuracy of much of the understanding of the entire Darwinian legacy. These individuals are classic portrayals of brilliance run amok: they are bonded to Darwin's beliefs as a mother is to her child. No amount of argument (such as that presented on this and many books or other sites on the web) will dislodge them or their followers from the beliefs of the past.

PREAMBLE:
For the last 150 years, the most popular "scientific" explanation for the origin and diversity of the living matter of the universe (except for creation) has been Darwin's theory of evolution. This theory has been taught beginning with grade school, so that a 6 year old has likely been taught that the giraffe's neck is long because of evolution through "natural selection", so that it can feed above the other animals and thus survive when others cannot get food. (Never mind that the male neck is a foot or so longer than the female neck, a sure scenario for extinction of the females and the young).

Evidence has been accumulating for years that problems exist not only in this claim, but more importantly, in regard to other aspects of Darwin's theory, not the least of which is the high improbability of the "formation" of the first living cell. ("Abiogenesis", or self formation of the cell, which is considered by most texts as a "Darwinian" evolutionary process).

It is the contention of these pages and pages to follow that virtually all commonly believed (and taught) aspects of Darwin's theory are erroneous. These beliefs are all built around the fundamental concept of Darwinian evolution by "Natural Selection", as presented in his original book "Origins" and still used today, albeit having been modified by a myriad of conflicting definitions and new understanding.

After detailed study, presented here, this popular aspect of Darwin's theory, natural selection, (aka "Survival of the Fittest") is shown to be an unexplained, non-scientific phenomena, in reality a logical non sequitur, which is considered by most evolutionists to be the primal "cause" of evolution. In practical fact, the concept as it is taught, is virtually a "stalking horse" for atheism.

If you have questions or comments, please click on the email address below to send a message. All email is answered unless requested otherwise.

Page created by: dbtngtms@tdtone.org

>

"One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school'."

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London.
Keynote address: American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November, 1981

Certainly one of the most beautiful, and surely the simplest, of all understanding that exists in the world of Science, is that Darwin's "Natural Selection" is the explanation for the most complex phenomenon, by far, ever known to mankind: the evolution of organic life.
Could there be something wrong here? 

The Doubting Thomas, 2001

published JUL 23, 1999
last rev. SEP 27, 2004
SEP 27, 2004

A detailed look at Natural Selection
The terms "Natural Selection" and "Survival of the Fittest" are examined in detail and shown to be erroneous as a scientific explanation for evolution.
If you don't read anything else about Darwinism, read the above. CLICK HERE

16 Theses which refute Darwinian Evolution
Note: This is an "electronic" version of the above page which explicitly sets out the arguments presented, and allows acess to the arguments and back by use of the mouse. It is easier to follow and is particularly useful when confronting dogmatic Darwinists: CLICK HERE

Natural Selection: examination by Analogy
Darwinian "Natural Selection" is examined by use of an analogy: a look at "Natural Selection" acting in the automotive industry.
This is an easy-to-read essay proving that "Natural Selection" has nothing to do with the true "Origin of Species"; it is all you need to refute Darwinian theory. CLICK HERE 

Coming Soon:
"Sexual Selection" (SS) will be analyzed in the same sense that "Natural selection" (NS) has, and it can easily be shown that the very same erroneous Darwinian logic and pattern of thought applies to this very important facet of "evolution", as is used in the understanding of NS. It is another bogus idea used to explain a feature of organic life which does not independently exist.

In reality, Sexual Selection is completely nonexistent since (again) there is no selection made, as "evolution" by SS does not have an outside influence which "selects" new species: all the actions of living organisms are an integral result of the DNA molecule and thus pre-ordained when that molecule is formed and before it begins life. Thus the Sexual Selection is not at all "random" or "intelligent", and therefore not explanatory in the sense that Darwin used it (heavily) to explain new features of evolution.

Thus, if Evolution exists in any form, (note that the DT takes no position on this possibility) it is a completely "closed" system, in the sense that all the information which is required to form a "new" species is completely contained in the DNA molecule. This molecule has (apparently) existed in its current form since the beginning of organic life. Therefore, organic life as we know it requires explanation outside of the explanation of current evolutionary theory. Truly "new" species require "new" (external) information. So-called "SS" cannot fulfil this requirement.

For example, if one looks at the building of a bird nest, or the construction of a spider web, both extremely complex actions (which have never before been seen by the organisms which construct them) one can see how intricate and complex is the DNA molecule. To assume that this complexity does not operate in all facets of SS is, simply, more Darwinian wishful thinking of the same type that produces the concept of NS. It is tautological in the sense that the choice made by, say, a female in the selection of a mate, has been pre-ordained in the genome of that female and thus is not explanatory in the formation of new life: [it is either going to rain tomorrow or it is not, and this statement (made here) will have no effect on the weather]. Likewise the "choice" made by an organism will have no effect on the "evolution" of that organism which does not already exist.

The idea is a nearly perfect example of a logical fallacy called "circular reasoning". A look at the "brilliant" minds that have adopted it (Mayr, Gould, Simpson, Dobhzansky to name a few) should give one a fair view of the (in)accuracy of much of the understanding of the entire Darwinian legacy. These individuals are classic portrayals of brilliance run amok: they are bonded to Darwin's beliefs as a mother is to her child. No amount of argument (such as that presented on this and many books or other sites on the web) will dislodge them or their followers from the beliefs of the past.

PREAMBLE:
For the last 150 years, the most popular "scientific" explanation for the origin and diversity of the living matter of the universe (except for creation) has been Darwin's theory of evolution. This theory has been taught beginning with grade school, so that a 6 year old has likely been taught that the giraffe's neck is long because of evolution through "natural selection", so that it can feed above the other animals and thus survive when others cannot get food. (Never mind that the male neck is a foot or so longer than the female neck, a sure scenario for extinction of the females and the young).

Evidence has been accumulating for years that problems exist not only in this claim, but more importantly, in regard to other aspects of Darwin's theory, not the least of which is the high improbability of the "formation" of the first living cell. ("Abiogenesis", or self formation of the cell, which is considered by most texts as a "Darwinian" evolutionary process).

It is the contention of these pages and pages to follow that virtually all commonly believed (and taught) aspects of Darwin's theory are erroneous. These beliefs are all built around the fundamental concept of Darwinian evolution by "Natural Selection", as presented in his original book "Origins" and still used today, albeit having been modified by a myriad of conflicting definitions and new understanding.

After detailed study, presented here, this popular aspect of Darwin's theory, natural selection, (aka "Survival of the Fittest") is shown to be an unexplained, non-scientific phenomena, in reality a logical non sequitur, which is considered by most evolutionists to be the primal "cause" of evolution. In practical fact, the concept as it is taught, is virtually a "stalking horse" for atheism.

If you have questions or comments, please click on the email address below to send a message. All email is answered unless requested otherwise.

Page created by: dbtngtms@tdtone.org

~~~~ THE DOUBTING THOMAS LOOKS AT EVOLUTION ~~~~

Pub. Apr. 7, 1998
rev. Dec. 5, 2001
last rev. Apr. 2, 2004

PREFACE
In recent years there has been increasing interest in the relationship of our closest "relatives" - the other primates - to man. A number of articles and books have been written on the subject. Cell biologists have "discovered" that there is only a 2% difference** between chimp and human DNA, often implying a similarity such as perhaps, a 2% difference between automobiles. Some, scientists and lay alike, believe that animals can "think". Most ideas of this type have their basis in Darwin's writings on the theory of evolution. Darwin's book "Origins" * attempts to show the mechanism by which development of all living things occurred through a mechanism which he terms "natural selection". His later book "Descent of Man" * extrapolates this process to the development of Homo sapiens from the primates.

This page looks at that latter conclusion plus some other ideas of Darwin's and points out that he ignored some very evident phenomena in the process, often using vague assumptions, circular reasoning and other logical errors, no less significant than those which were the basis for his book "Origins". It is suggested that the nearly universal credence given to this idea, just as to his concept of "natural selection", must be due to the nature of his conclusions, rather than to the methodology of reaching such conclusions..
* see references below

SYNOPSIS
Darwin's theory of evolution, as expressed in his "Origins" book, has been faulted for many shortcomings, not the least of which is the well recognized fact it is tautological. But it is his failure to recognize the capability of conceptual thought as being distinct and unique to mankind, which is chiefly discussed here. Because the idea is part of the aura of the Darwinian mystique it is rarely questioned. The ideas of Alfred Russel Wallace^(a), a friend of Darwin, who published the theory of evolution jointly with Darwin, are also discussed.

Wallace disagreed with Darwin throughout his life on the issue of man's nature, and clearly believed man to be unique in possessing a conceptual ability, yet this fact is never mentioned in writings on the subject in biology, as one might expect from the fact that Wallace was the "cofounder" of the theory. A portion of Wallace's rarely seen arguments are presented in a quotation.

Because there seems to be increasing belief that chimps and other primates have some ability of conceptual thought, a pathetically simple but irrefutable argument, well within the grasp of grade school mentality, is presented which shows the contrary. That Darwin did not understand this concept is shown by his conclusions. Speculation is also made about Darwin's failure to understand this concept.

MAN THE ANIMAL The paradigm according to Darwin.
Darwin's theory, as well as a multitude of other theories which discuss various aspects of life makes no essential distinction between man and any other type of animal. In this scenario, humans differ from animals such as dogs, cats, and chimps in features such as size, shape, physical characteristics and "intelligence", the latter difference which is usually explained by the larger brain of the human. Virtually all who do not believe in a unique conceptual ability of man express this belief. (Needless to say there is never any dissension from this line of thought in the thousands of animal shows on TV or at the theater, much less has any biology book or text known to this writer ever expressed a contrary view of the paradigm according to Darwin; note that the writings of both Marx and Freud, whose concepts have been discarded, were of the same belief, as mentioned on the Index page).

For example, in an analysis of primate fossils, brain case size is the major factor used to distinguish human from non-human species. Darwin made much of brain case size in an effort to back his theory. In his book, Descent, he quotes Dr. J. Barnard Davis' careful measurements which show that the mean internal capacity of the skull in Europeans is 92.3 cubic inches, in Americans 87.5, and in Australians only 81.9 cubic inches. He further states that the mean capacity of the skull of the ancient troglodytes of Lozere (cavemen) is greater than that of "modern" Frenchmen. But then Darwin was British, and nobility at that.

However, it should be pointed out that this conclusion is typical of a Darwinian "scientific" conclusion. Throughout his book, The Descent of Man, he discusses mainly the various physical similarities and dissimilarities between man and the other animals, virtually omitting reference to the intellectual side of man. An absolutely astounding statement, also contained in his book, was made by Darwin when comparing the brain of man and the brain of an orang. He acknowledged that they don't agree (in certain characteristics), but states:

".....nor could perfect agreement be expected, for otherwise their mental powers would have been the same". (emphasis added)

So typically Darwinian, this assumption, stated as fact without supporting argument, should get the medal as the most rash statement in all of his writings. In as much as even today, a century and a half away from his time, there is very little understanding and agreement about how the brain really "works", it may one of the most rash statements in science. In my opinion, the statement makes an absolute mockery of intelligence of any sort and to have it go unchallenged, by scientists and those in Academia is (or should be) cause for great alarm. But the statement proves conclusively, if more proof is needed, that Darwin understands no fundamental difference between the mind of the human and the "mind" of the remainder of the animal kingdom.

There is such a remarkable clue in the above statement, which clearly points to Darwin's pattern of thought, that it should not be overlooked and simply disregarded. If this statement were true, then the remainder of the argument presented by his Descent book is absolutely unnecessary. The facts which should point to the truth of that statement would carry the day. All that is needed is the set of premises together with some proof for them, and a logical conclusion which flows from those premises and it provides conclusive evidence, that man has descended from the line of primates and further, that evolution is a fact. All other arguments he uses would be, by comparison, superfluous. In typical Darwinian fashion, he furnishes none. Don't look for it, or even a criticism of his thought process, in your local biology book.

Also in typical Darwinian fashion, THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT HE IS TRYING TO PROVE in the book. Thus the statement is circular reasoning ^(b), which is fatal to his argument, as it essentially assumes the conclusion. It is not a new tactic, because for example, he likewise "assumes" infinite variability in species in his "Origins" book, as below, which assumption guarantees that there will be "evolution".

Many arguments both by Darwin and others, are used to prove similarity between man and the animals, one of the more important being that animals use tools. Animals use tools of course, but more importantly, and to the point being discussed here, it is generally agreed they have no understanding of tools. Simple experiments have proven over and over again, that animals develop the use of tools through trial and error or by mimicry and example, and not by the cognitive process as does man. It seems highly irregular that evolutionists can easily understand that trial and error will produce an incredibly complex object such as a living cell, and yet be unable to understand that during (an assumed) 20 M year period in the wild, chimps would not learn to use some simple "tools" by that very same trial and error process. At best this belief in tool use is wishful thinking; and the paucity of evidence supporting the idea creates the inference that it is, at worst, an article of "scientific" Faith.

But probably the best of Darwin's many arguments to show similarity between man and the animals is the fact that animals (mainly dogs) quiver, grimace, and move their feet and limbs while they sleep. He interprets this as being the result of "imagination" at work, in dreaming. (This appallingly simplistic conclusion is once again not worthy of the consideration of being "science", and it is easy to see how even a 5th grade essay containing this conclusion, might be returned to the pupil with a note to that effect). Yet many similar statements are accepted by scientists as valid proof of the ability to "think". It makes one wonder whether Darwin, with his supposed grasp of animal characteristics, had ever even seen a decapitated chicken run around the barnyard.

MAN THE HUMAN - A completely different vision
In fact one has, for all practical purposes, to leave the field of biology, anthropology, evolution, etc. (science) altogether, to find references which indicate a belief in an essential difference between humans and the remainder of the animal kingdom. Virtually all religions, and many governments (now) recognize that man is fundamentally different from all other animals. (It should be noted that the system of government known as "Communism", now almost defunct, did not recognize this feature of mankind).

This recognition takes the form of an acknowledgement that man's mental abilities are not only different in quantity but also in kind from the rest of the animals. The evidence of this recognition is a document such as the U.S. Constitution, which clearly sets out this proposition and enumerates the reasons why various rights thereby accrue to man. Animals are not even mentioned in these documents, and thus the inference is made that they are different " in kind ". (To say that "government" makes this determination, of course, is to use a figure of speech. In a democratic republic, such as the U.S., citizen acceptance determines the existence of such a document and it is obviously this will and understanding which produces this recognition).

With this understanding in mind, a more proper conclusion about "Our closest relative" is that the chimp (and of course all the other primates) are really and truly more kindred with their fleas than with any human being. And while this statement may cause apoplexy among evolutionists, a very simple argument will be presented which illustrates that animals completely lack a conceptual ability, so characteristic of homo sapiens . While the evolutionists are saying, as above, that the chimpanzee's genetic makeup is only 2% different from that of a human, implying in this as meaning the sole difference between humans and the chimps, they are speaking of a similarity only in the physical characteristics between the two, ignoring the conceptual ability of man.

WHAT DARWIN MISSED: THE DUALITY OF MAN
Because man is required to engage in animal behavior as a simple matter of existence, his animal nature is evident. In many respects this behavior is little different than that of "our closest relatives", the other primates. If an argument is made that man behaves, in this mode, with something like 98% similarly to the other primates, it would not be worth anyone's time to refute the claim.

But what of the actions of man when he is behaving in a manner unique to his species? Here we find an altogether different set of characteristics not possessed by any other living thing. Man has the unique ability of conceptual thought, whereby he can understand his surroundings, and create methods to control many of the influences in the world to which animals can only react. Thus, he can build a house to suit his individual liking, plant food, capture, and tame animals. He can investigate and understand various relationships in the world around him and put to work various effects which he discovers such as heat, electricity, physical properties etc. Man can invent a specific method of communication both in writing, and speech which will allow the transfer of conceptual thought from one being to another, from one generation to the next.

Likewise he can create things for his own amusement such as games,