From a Facebook group...
Top Ten List of Evolution’s Most Glaring Contradictions
A list of evolution’s most glaring contradictions.
Every so often, an evolutionist visits this group to ask, out of curiosity or malice, “If you oppose evolution, what are your scientific and logical grounds to do so?” Instead of scoffing at them we should have clear answers to prove that evolution really is a delusion – a contradictory, nihilistic faith, a historical product of human pride and limited knowledge.
1. Denial of life: Evolution both rejects life’s unique nature in the universe and advocates its unique nature.
Rejection: Life is a carbon-based extension of chemistry. It is one of many chemical structures with the capacity to replicate itself.
Advocacy: Though produced by chance, life is an extraordinary and unique process of two chemical systems where the needs of one (a living organism) are met by another (habitat) in a rare match rewarded by survival that spawns a struggle for existence (desire to continue) and an extended development through adaptation.
Contradiction: Is life a material, inanimate, static chemical compound or a dynamic process of dialogue between two chemical systems, rooted in a subjective desire to survive? It cannot be both.
2. Denial of intelligence: Evolution both rejects the existence of a sentient mind participating in the process and advocates its necessity.
Rejection: Living organisms cannot affect evolution by willing to adapt as it only happens due to random mutations. Therefore, our minds can be considered either a delusion, or non-existent aspect of life.
Advocacy: Living organisms transcend their present by working relentlessly to propagate their kinds, struggling to exist and compete in an environment of limited resources through careful sexual selection, parenting, marking off their territory, and storing the resources for future consumption.
Contradiction: If a living organism is an inanimate chemical compound existing in the present, and the mind is just an illusion of identity, how can an illusion of identity act on remembering the past and planning the future? An information system transcending time is necessary for such operations. Even a ‘selfish gene’ implies the existence of a subjective mind with future objectives.
3. Denial of causality: Evolution both rejects causality as an illusion of logical connections and purpose while only random chance is responsible for change, and advocates causality’s necessity.
Rejection: Random mutations produce change in organisms. After many unconnected mutations, one of them produces and illusion of cause-and-effect, and progress.
Advocacy: When lions attack a herd of antelopes, they only kill the slow, sick, or weak. Thus, natural selection (cause) benefits both the lions and the antelopes through survival of the fittest (effect) that keeps both populations healthy and genetically fit.
Contradiction: If the cause-and effect of survival of the fittest is only an illusion of causality, where none exists, then the entire theory is based on an illusion, i.e., it is delusional.
4. Denial of purpose: Evolution claims that while Nature has no overriding purpose, the force that keeps it going is survival, a desire to continue living achieved through struggle for existence, sexual selection, and adaptations, all of these carefully monitored by the overriding mechanism of natural selection.
Rejection: All evolution stems from a mindless chemical process of replication – repeating the same outcome with no final objective, which is not only purposeless, but dangerous because it exhausts the resources of the environment.
Advocacy: Natural selection produces the grandeur and majesty of life by allowing for variety of forms and gradual improvement, as it keeps different species fit and healthy within limited resources through survival of the fittest.
Contradiction: If survival of the fittest and natural selection are only metaphors used by Darwin to explain purposeless evolution for the human mind that seeks purpose, then the entire theory is only a metaphoric illusion – a delusion of purpose.
5. Denial of Design: Evolution rejects the concept of design as a purposeful structure of an organism’s body, and is fundamentally based on the concept as a gradual complementary improvement increasing an organism’s chances of survival.
Rejection: A living organism is a product of chance. No structure is better or worse – it is a delusion to think so. Some structures just continue to exist.
Advocacy: By eliminating poor variations and favouring successful ones, evolution produces improved complexity, a complementary match between an organism and its habitat that produces better chances of survival.
Contradiction: An evolutionary improvement of design either exists or it does not. If improvement is only a delusion of the human mind, then the whole theory is an illusion of the human mind – which had to be proven.
6. Denial of Free Will: Evolution argues that living organisms lack free will as drones of a chemical game of reproduction, and also maintains that life is based on choosing to live as opposed to dying.
Denial: Nature does not really choose to reward one organism with survival over another – this is only a metaphor for living conditions impacting survival with no intentional connection;
Advocacy: The most powerful drive of life is to survive, while death is a possibility; hence, in sexual selection, females choose the best mate for survival and males choose to fight for the best female.
Contradiction: If a theory, in all of its aspects, depends on ‘selection” either by Nature, species, or individual organisms, there must be an element of choice, or the theory is invalid. Evolution does not exist without choices, and if choices are only “metaphorical” then the whole theory is a metaphor, an illusion.
7. Denial of Morality: Evolution rejects morality in Nature as a ruthless war of competition, and evolution accepts Nature’s own morality of favouring the species capable of adaptation, thus selecting the fittest.
Rejection: Evolution is a blind ruthless war were life feeds on life with no regard for another;
Advocacy: Evolution works for the improvement of a species and life overall. By eliminating the sick and the poorly adapted, it produces the most harmonious model of Nature.
Contradiction: Evolution is either beneficial to life, or it does not care. If improvement and survival of the fittest are only illusions, then the whole theory is only an illusion of the human mind.
8. Denial of Beauty: Evolution both denies the existence of beauty in a value-free Nature and depends on it in such concepts as Sexual Selection.
Denial: Evolution claims that nature is in a constant state of war, a ruthless competition between living organisms with no regard for the other – this is called Struggle for Existence, or Survival of the Fittest.
Advocacy: Evolution also claims the need for the other – though based on relative standards of beauty – is the main mechanism of survival through Sexual Selection.
Contradiction: We are either completely selfish or attracted to someone else. Even relative beauty is still beauty, and it persists through Nature, unless we claim that beauty is an illusion of the mind, making evolution a delusion of the mind.
9. Denial of Co-operation: Evolution claims that life is based on fierce competition which becomes most fierce among individuals of the same species, but it also claims that living organisms form communities of the same species, symbiosis exists in nature, and Nature overall works for the benefit of all species through Natural Selection.
Rejection: Because life is a competition for resources, individuals of the same species hate other members of the same kind.
Advocacy: in many insect societies, some members (drones) give up their right to reproduction to advance the good of the community; Herds and packs benefit individuals of the same kind to ward off attackers.
Contradiction: If living organisms hate their own kind, why do they form societies of co-operation? Symbiosis is a common model to be found in nature, even between different species and even in cellular structure.
10. Denial of the Joy of Living: Evolution claims that life is a constant painful struggle, but that all living forms try to survive. Is pain the objective of life?
Rejection: Darwin never fully explains the payoff of struggling to exist and modern evolution sees it as a strange tendency hidden in our genes, with no room to enjoy life – it is a chemical drive of our DNA.
Advocacy: Living organisms are driven by a positive desire to secure all resources for themselves and to enjoy the abundance.
Contradiction: Life does not continue to perpetuate the pain of the struggle; it exists for the positive goal of enjoying the habitat. We cannot confuse the existence of conflict with the desire for peace in all life.
Conclusion: Because the theory of evolution is based on concepts of life’s distinctness, sentience, causality, purpose, design, free will, mutual dependency, selection, fitness and beauty while rejecting each of these concepts as illusory inventions of the human mind not to be found in Nature, the entire theory, by its own admission, is only a delusion of the human mind misrepresenting the true state of Nature.