Rebuttals to The Natural Selection Paradox


As well as welcoming affirmations and serious reviews, Creation Reformation will accept e-mailed rebuttals to The Natural Selection Paradox. After review, and at the sole discretion of Creation Reformation, the best rebuttal conforming to the guidelines below will be published on this blog. Expected date of rebuttal publication: 4-4-22. (Well, that date came and went. To date, with 1000’s of views and downloads we have received exactly 0 rebuttals).

Rebuttals can be sent to info @ creation – reformation. com (no spaces). Include the word “Rebuttal” in the subject line.

Rules for Submission of Rebuttals:

The following statements–and similar or related arguments–will result in the rebuttal being immediately discarded:

  • Any ad hominem statements.
  • Any broad statement to the effect of “Evolution is a fact.”
  • Any broad statement to the effect of “You are denying science.”
  • Any broad statement that shows the reader never read and understood the Paradox.
  • Any rebuttal that is not clearly directed to rebutting the Paradox.
  • Any statement at all directed to the merits of believing the Bible, believing in God, or any other statement relating to the topic of religion. (Except, possibly, as limited to the topic of reconciling science and religion, addressed in the Implications section of the Paradox.)
  • Any other statement deemed by Creation Reformation as vulgar, obscene, offensive, or irrelevant.

Format and Content for Rebuttals:

To be considered for possible publishing on this blog, any rebuttal must be coherent, well written, respectful and conform to the following outline:

  • Counter Statement” Under this heading show a concise counter statement to The Natural Selection Paradox.
    • This counter statement should mirror The Natural Selection Paradox.
    • Example counter statement: Natural selection plays a critical role in creating a fully preserved, uninterrupted sequence of randomly changed genomes and without it evolutionary processes to create new life forms could not function.
  • Flaws in the Paradox” Under this heading show a concise statement of the logical or scientific flaw(s) in the Paradox.
    • This statement must identify the logical or scientific flaw(s) with specificity as well as the portion of the Paradox in which the flaw(s) is/are most clearly articulated.
    • This statement must identify if the flaw(s) is/are in any premise–scientific or logical–or in a definition as used in the Paradox.
    • This statement must provide reasons for a different premise(s)/definition(s) and how the different premise(s)/definitions render natural selection a meaningful process of evolution.
    • This statement should support the counter statement as stated under the first heading.
  • What Natural Selection Does” Under this heading provide a clear statement of what natural selection “does” in nature to or for organisms created with favorable variations. This statement should support the counter statement as stated under the first heading.
    • A statement that is merely a description of the results of natural selection will not be considered sufficient.
      • This statement should have the form:
        • “Natural selection <action verb form> <object(s)> in nature by <how> to achieve the result of <e.g., facilitate differential survival or increase reproductive success.>
        • Example: Natural selection adapts bears in nature by changing their fur color to achieve the result of blending in with their environment.
    • Provide a basis for the “how” of the statement. For example: “Natural selection changes the bear’s fur by . . . .”
  • After the above three headings, include any other statements that shed light on the arguments of the Rebuttal.
  • If any of the above requirements are not met the rebuttal will be ignored or discarded.