The Oxymoronic Notion of Natural Selection

If evolution is true, then there must be true selection in nature which, of course, makes it no longer evolution, but creation.

Natural and selection are a contradiction in terms, like–to borrow a phrase from Malcolm Muggeridge–a chaste whore.

Natural, as used in natural selection, means unguided and purposeless, which of course is the opposite of every meaning generally attributed to the term selection.

Put the two words together and this is the linguistic triumph of evolution: language used to imply one thing so that readers will infer another.

Implied: its all natural, merely nature operating on its own with no guidance or purpose.

Inferred: its all natural, but there is a true selection process going on that is actively working to select certain things to survive and which guides evolution in an unguided way to produce new things in nature, or something like that.

But natural selection, despite the implications of its name, is merely a term given to the observed phenomena of nature working. Nature working includes a food chain and all organisms can either be food and die or need food and die in a struggle for existence. The living and dying in nature can also be due to environmental conditions, natural disasters, and other natural occurrences. But natural selection is not an outside force, an invisible power, or anything else that can “do” anything to insert itself into nature to actively prevent or facilitate the living and dying happening there.

A bit of reflection on what natural selection actually “does” or “did” for every existing life form may leave you surprised. Because what is attributed to natural selection by evolutionists only matters for already existing things. Natural selection, then, by definition has no bearing on the creation of every already existing thing from which to supposedly select.

Thus, you will find if you think about it, natural selection is the term popularized by Darwin to describe the otherwise unremarkable fact of natural processes affecting living things in nature to live or to die before they can reproduce. Certain already-existing things are preserved (to reproduce) while other already-existing things are not (and therefore cannot reproduce). As a result, the relative number of certain varieties of already-existing organisms in a population may fluctuate, and this natural phenomenon is of little interest when inquiring about the origin of already-existing organisms. The notion that the already-existing things existed with “favorable variations” or “injurious variations” and lived or died due to their respective variations fails to address the real question: how did they get their lucky or unlucky variations in the first place?

What in nature, according to evolution, has alone created from scratch any and every species alive today?

Think about that.

Leave a Reply