EVOLUTION
Darwinian evolution is a theory held in high esteem by some scientists.
It is believed by some scientists, that the theory of evolution has
been demonstrated sufficiently to accept it as more than "theory." It
therefore, in some circles at least, is treated more like a "proven
fact."
Upon examination, however, the whole argument rests upon "supposition,"
unsupported by evidence, let alone fact. For example: One aspect of
Darwinian Evolution purports the idea that all animal life relies upon
something called "survival of the fittest," demonstrated in the animal
kingdom by the battles for mating privelege, between the males of the
different species. Now if this were true, When Alpha Male mates with
Alpha Female, they two being the "fittest," according to the
Combat-established "pecking order, Why would the next generation have
to resort to the "battle" all over again. Obviously, the "best" have
mated. But just as obviously, when their little "junior" gives way in
combat to a stronger than he, Junior must not have been the "fittest."
If Junior IS the fittest, then the battle must be for something other
than survival appertaining thereunto. For, as was stated, Junior lost
the war. If science has established, as it claims, that these combat
rivalries are in order to pass on to the next generation, some
perceived "superior" genes, then why is it not also true that the
pecking-order is established once for all time, and the battles cease?
Instead, the battles continue, generation after generation, and the
victor is determined by the combat, not the pedigree. So much for the
"scientifically established" fact of "survival of the fittest."
© 1997 by Theophilus Book
For Discussion Contact me at[email protected]
Return to HOME PAGE