Fake Science in Natural Selection Claims

Way back in the thrilling days of yesteryear, I was convinced that knowledgeable evolutionary scientists and informed laypeople had discarded the concept of natural selection as relevant to evolution. After all, it looked like materialists had moved on to new and improved mythologies. The hands at the Darwin Ranch never got the telegram. Or mayhaps they prefer to keep it going, with some even going as far as saying, "Natural selection is evolution!"

Credit: RGBstock / Wendy Cox

Edward Blyth, a Christian who originally postulated the concept of natural selection was bushwhacked by Papa Darwin, who gave it his own special meaning. Today, Darwinoids still use that meaning. What is worse is that they see natural selection even where it does not exist, which makes for bad science. They also make natural selection as a kind of pagan entity — a substitute for the real Creator. Here are links to three articles for your consideration.

Can anyone name any real, true thing that Darwin’s phrase “natural selection” has done to further understanding of nature?

Brace yourself. We’re going to say that natural selection is useless for science. Secular scientists will scream. Even some creationists will harrumph. But you need look no further than scientific journals and science news sites to see that it is true. Natural selection is a storytelling plot that contributes nothing to real, useful knowledge about nature. It’s like colorful frosting, but not the cake.  It’s like graffiti on a wall that does nothing to hold the building up. It’s like a gaudy pattern on a hot-air balloon, but not the heat engine that lifts it.

If scientists ditched the phrase natural selection entirely, science would go on just fine. In fact, it would go on better without all the distractions offered by this empty, useless phrase that Darwin invented. Here’s our challenge: can you name any one, true, real thing that “natural selection” has added to our understanding of the world? While we wait for a response, it’s time to back up our audacious claim with specific examples from the science news.

To finish reading this first one, click on "Natural Selection Is Useless in Science".

You may be reeling from the last one, but cowboy up for the next article.

Continuing our discussion of whether natural selection has any value in science, we present more cases in the media.

Natural selection is useless in science, we alleged last week (4 Jan 2019). Because many will consider this an outlandish claim that can arouse accusations that it is anti-science and against common sense, some clarifications are in order before we provide more evidence. The biological literature is full of natural selection (hereafter NS) lingo and its derivatives. Evolutionists speak of positive selection, negative selection, purifying selection, group selection, kin selection, selective pressure, selective bottlenecks, and a host of other concepts. Surely the abundance of words cannot be about nothing, can it? Even many creationists bow before NS theory as a fact of nature. Some creationist speakers adorn their lectures with intuitively-obvious examples of NS in dogs, horses, and even human racial traits. Some even arrogantly attack other creationists who deny NS. How can we possibly contradict the obvious? Well, prepare to think. Prepare to see.

To read the second of the three articles, click on "Natural Selection Is Useless, II: More Evidence".

Our final entry is a bit startling: real science can be done without any consideration of natural selection or evolution. Biblical creationists have been saying for a mighty long time that not only is evolutionary thinking irrelevant, but it actually impedes scientific progress — which is clearly seen in medical science. Take a look at reports of Darwin-free scientific research.

Excellent biological research that produces understanding and application can ignore natural selection completely.

If natural selection is useless in science, as we have argued recently [links provided above], then the flip side should also be true: scientists should be able to do useful work by ignoring natural selection entirely. They should be able to discover, analyze, explain, and apply biological discoveries without it. This contradicts Dobzhansky’s frequently quoted mythoid, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Here are some examples in the news.

To finish reading, click on "Good Biology Without Natural Selection". Also, the video below with Dr. Georgia Purdom explains why natural selection is different from evolution.