Today we live in a world dominated by secular thought, education, and science. As a result, public education is saturating its students with the idea of evolution – a naturalistic and atheist explanation for the origins of life. Naturalism states that the life we see today has been produced as a result of genetic mutations that have become permanent by the process of natural selection. While often blindly accepted as fact, this theory, in truth, possesses many flaws, which discredit its claims.
First, Naturalism depends on randomly occurring genetic mutations as “the raw material needed for evolution.” Ironically, genetic mutations are rarely helpful to a species. Rather, they are usually detrimental. In fact, genetic mutations in humans often manifest themselves in handicaps. Therefore, even if evolution were to occur based on survival of the fittest, natural selection would not favor species born with genetic mutations, being that they rarely prove advantageous for survival.
Second, the theory of Naturalism relies on the idea macroevolution to support its claim that “fundamentally new organisms and plants” have been produced as a result of evolution. This means that Naturalists believe that the varieties of species we see on earth today have all resulted (evolved) from common ancestors. One problem with the idea of macroevolution is that Naturalist often argues its validity with evidence of microevolution. For instance, many Naturalists have stated that the Galapagos finches may be the best example of natural selection at work in nature. They claim that varying beak sizes amongst the birds on the islands are evidence of evolutionary adaptation to varying habitats and food sources. While this may be true to an extent, Naturalists overlook the fact that these changes are small, temporary, and changing (“oscillate back and forth”). In this way, the variation of beak shapes and sizes amongst the Galapagos finches is simply an example of adaptation or microevolution. Either way, this cannot be used as a valid argument for macroevolution, thus discrediting the Naturalist argument.
Lastly, Naturalism’s main flaw is its denial of any intelligent design as the source behind life. In doing so, Naturalists are forced to take the stance that all life and the structure of life are random. However, when looking at the complexities of life, such as the cell, they have a difficult time defending their argument due to its precise operations and specific functions, all of which have both a purposeful and essential existence. Naturalists have even admitted their inability to explain the existence of DNA. Interestingly enough, their argument for natural selection is dependent on its existence.
Overall, Naturalisms dependence on gene mutations as a basis for evolution, its attempts to prove macroevolution with evidence of microevolution, and its attempts to deny all evidences of design in life, debase this argument and render in invalid.
No comments:
Post a Comment