“Natural selection from a critical (evolutionist) perspective”

This post is written against this page under the Biology tab on

This post concerns the “growing body of evidence within the scientific community” that opposes natural selection as the driving force for evolution. The main criticism of natural selection ties back to this website creator’s belief that the general public is brainwashed by the “evolutionist” way of thinking and worships Darwinist theories. The post does not deny that random mutations occur and that they affect evolution, but questions whether natural selection is explicitly the “driving force” of evolution. This evolutionist belief in natural selection, because it is taught in textbooks and because Darwin said so, is claimed to be built on false conclusions and belief in a man that did not have adequate evidence to support his theory.

There is a lot to criticize about this post, but first I should say that the theme of the post is perhaps one that should not be condemned. I think that there is value in critically examining conclusions so as to better understand the evidence that supports them and to ensure that they are worth believing. In this particular instance, though, I believe that the skepticism is not well-founded or supported by opposing evidence.  I am curious though–if natural selection is not the driving force of evolutionary change then what does this website claim is? There is no answer to that question within the post, though. The post refers to natural selection as if it is a conscious entity, a force that is constantly working and at play throughout history. I think that there is again a fundamental misunderstanding of what natural selection is–and the fact that it occurs naturally as the name implies.

Natural selection is the process of individuals with specific traits being better suited for their natural habitat and thus reproducing more effectively. An example of this would be a species of moths that have varying color schemes patterned on their wings. Moths with wing colors that provide better camouflage are more likely to survive and reproduce. This does not mean that well-camouflaged cannot be eaten, or vice-versa, merely that the population going forward is more likely to contain more moths with this trait who can reproduce and change the distribution within the gene pool. Criticism of Darwin should certainly exist throughout the scientific community, for Darwin did not even understand genetics during his lifetime. It is only reasonable to believe that there will be a multitude of flaws in his theories–though it is remarkable that a majority of the theory still holds up years later and upon further scientific discoveries.

“An Evolutionist’s Startling Admission”

This post is written against this page under the Biology tab on

This short post details one doctor’s struggle with the realization that he had spent twenty years of his life dedicated to researching evolution and that he, after all that time, still felt like he knew almost nothing about evolution as a whole.

First off, it sounds to me that this individual was having a crisis of sorts regarding them self and their chosen field of study. I find it hard to imagine that after twenty years of study and vocation that this person could not name one thing about evolution. Even further, they go on to claim that not a single one of their colleagues could name something they knew about evolution. I cannot help but doubt this claim. There are an exceptional amount of details that we don’t know, but there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that details the history of our planet and the history of human ancestors upon it. All of this evidence has its place in the story of humanity and the story of evolution–but it can be difficult to see how it is all put together. I do not think the posts conclusion–that because these people could not name one thing about it, it should not be taught in high schools–was a valid one. We know more about genetics and biology than likely ever seemed possible for scientists living during the era of Darwin. I have extreme doubts about the accuracy of the given account in this post and especially disagree with the claimed conclusion that follows. I think that this post exists purely to attempt to plant a seed of doubt in the reader without any credible evidence that supports a “non-evolutionary” framework.