- Position‹2 of 2
- No, the theory of evolution is flawed on many levels
- Argument1 of 7›
Evolutionary thinking is flawed
Biologists are quick to fall into circular reasoning. To explain how an organism survived, they refer to its fitness, and to explain its fitness, they refer to how it survived. The explanations that evolutionary biologists provide create more questions and problems than answers.
The argument
Evolutionary biologists observe creatures thriving in their natural habitats. Knowing that a creature has survived for millions of years leads them to think that said creature has frequently adapted to the changes of its environment. But to evince their claim that the creature frequently adapted to environmental changes, evolutionary biologists point to the fact that the creature survived for millions of years. So, to account for an organism's survival, evolutionary biologists refer to its fitness, and to account for an organism's fitness, they refer to its survival. Tim Berra writes in "Evolution and the Myth of Creationism" that "“[f]itness in the Darwinian sense means reproductive fitness—leaving at least enough offspring to spread or sustain the species in nature." This sort of thinking follows the rule of "whatever will be, will be" and is not as explanatorily meaningful as many would like it to be. On the whole, evolutionary thought is quite unsophisticated and the evolutionary picture is very unintuitive. The intelligent person can spot holes in evolutionary explanations. In his famous book titled "The Blind Watchmaker" Richard Dawkins argues that the appearance of design in nature is only an illusion, so we should not fall for nature's trick. But many have rightfully asked questions like the following: Why is nature and biology so devoted to creating illusions and tricking rational minds? What would nature gain from making itself appear designed? What even is "nature"? Is "nature" just creating and uncreating itself? Does nature have a will? Why is it spoken of as if it has a will—as if it is a force with a mind? The questions go on.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Evolutionary biologists reply that the 'circularity' charge rests on a misunderstanding of fitness. Fitness is not defined as 'whatever survives'; it is expected reproductive success, and it can be estimated independently of the outcome — by measuring traits, running controlled selection experiments, and predicting in advance how allele frequencies should change. When those independent predictions are borne out, survival is being explained by fitness, not equated with it, so the reasoning is testable rather than tautological. The passage's remaining objections, critics note, are rhetorical questions about the word 'nature' and the 'appearance of design' rather than engagements with the evidence. Whether one finds design-talk puzzling has no bearing on the fossil sequence, the nested genetic hierarchy, shared pseudogenes or directly observed speciation, which are what actually support the theory. Asking 'what would nature gain from making itself appear designed' is a play on words, not a rebuttal of that evidence.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] Critics note fitness is defined as expected reproductive success and can be measured independently of survival — via traits and controlled experiments — so explaining survival by fitness is testable, not circular. [Rejecting P2] Berra's definition describes reproductive success, which yields checkable predictions such as changing allele frequencies, so it is explanatorily meaningful rather than merely 'whatever will be, will be.' [Rejecting P3] Puzzlement about the 'appearance of design' or the word 'nature' is a rhetorical point, not a challenge to the fossil, genetic and observational evidence on which the theory rests.
Further reading
Support: https://evolutionnews.org/2019/11/majestic-ascent-darwin-on-trial/ https://stephencmeyer.org/2019/11/05/your-witness-mr-johnson/