Problems With The Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection
Inherent in Darwin's theory of evolution is the notion that natural selection must inevitably bring about the "improvement" of organisms. It must be fully understood what is meant by "improvement". To Darwin, and most modern thinkers, any and all species adapt (i.e. mutate) to environmental forces in various ways, some useful and some not useful. Only the species which are better equipped to handle or win the battle for survival in their unique environments will remain, while other species less well-fitted to succeed in the same environment, will disappear (i.e. die out).
The index used to determine "improvement" is linked directly to raw biological survival of the species. Whichever species continues the longest, is there with the most members, and which has the greatest diversity in mutations within the same species, is considered "successful". The criteria is solely the existence of a biological organism, it's quantity of members, and longevity over time.
Modern biologists, humanists, psychologists and social engineers possess an almost religious reverence for the concept of "evolution", "nature" and the "unified organic process of the organism and environment". They have assumed Man can be brought to his highest and best possibilities by establishing the environments within which Man finds himself, thereby controlling Man's "natural adaptations" and "evolution" to higher and higher states.
Modern believers in Darwin's theories worship this theory just as any past religious believer worshipped the concepts of Salvation, Godliness or Purity. In fact, they both worship "purity" - the religious person worshipping "purity of motive or morality" and the modern scientist worshipping "purity of race or genetic line".
First, this would be fine and well if the theory of evolution and natural selection were true in any universal sense - which it isn't. Second, at some point, somebody has to decide what "higher" and "better" exactly means, so the behaviorist manipulators can decide what type environments are necessary to bring out the new and desirable human traits. This decision is not based on any science and is largely based in opinion, bias and educational indoctrination.
The theory of evolution would have us believe that some long past creature developed wings so it could fly, escape enemies, and capture food. That horses developed long legs so they could run fast, and graze. That lizards lost their legs and became snakes so as to move faster in certain terrains. Or that wasps developed stingers to protect them from enemies. The list could go on and on. What underlying force or intelligence explains this? How would a wingless bird know how to grow wings? How would a short-legged horse know to grow larger legs to enable better mobility? How would any species "know" how to perfectly mutate the exact addition or alteration in body form which would give it the new capability? The staunch "scientific" view states that all genetic mutations were accidental, minor, and occurring over very long periods of time, and that things such as physical organs, entire bodily systems (circulation, nervous, etc.) and organic mechanisms (i.e. bee stingers, bat's sonar, human eye, etc.) developed as the result of extremely long series of genetic accidents (i.e. mutations) - one after another in an endless sequence of convenient mistakes. I find this more absurd than any notion that some external force created the various species and simply placed them here - whether that external entity be God, earlier advanced human civilizations with genetic capability, or some well advanced alien race.
Also, if the theory of evolution were true, it would be necessary to find remnants of all the unsuccessful mutations and adaptations which failed to compete successfully and eventually died out. But fossil records have not detected evidence of all or even any of these many failed species and biological versions which would have to be there if the theory of natural selection were true. Fossil records do find evidence of large global catastrophes such as the Ice Age, which wiped out entire species, but this is not the same thing discussed in the incredibly drawn out processes of evolution and natural selection. The evidence is just not there. In the end, people believe these theories just as they believe any thing else which has no real basis in fact - and in this way it takes on the color of a "religion" more than "science". "Faith" is defined as "belief in things unseen or unproven by sense evidence". There is much more of this faith sort of thing in the believers of evolution and Darwinism than anything approaching valid "scientific evidence" - although they would like to think and will vehemently claim otherwise.
Where are all the missing links? The stages of evolution such as from a bird without wings to a bird with wings? Where is the bird with a small stub of a wing? Or a half-developed wing? They don't exist. This is true for every species and sub-species. The absence of these life forms puts the entire theory into severe question. So how can the ideas be accurate? They can't. This isn't an argument for Creationism. I have no proof for that either. But let's be honest. There is no proof for either. In the end it's a matter of personal belief and opinion. But the modern scientist too often demands his views as legitimate and valid, just as did any Priest of the Spanish Inquisition demanded his views as being legitimate and valid - much to the distress of any poor soul who chose to disagree. They both enforce their views on everyone else with a passion. In the end the Darwinist or materialist believes and states that the evidence of the missing links will eventually be found. Their total acceptance and belief in the theory makes that a logical necessity. Their unwavering belief in the theory of evolution is as absurd as any religious belief in God. There is absolutely no evidence yet they both believe anyway. Idiots!
Man has a mind. This mind is aware, self-aware, and conscious, and possesses many capabilities unknown to any other species in existence, such as the ability to control and place attention, will, intention, conceptual thought, imagination, planning, admiration, honor, integrity, responsibility, morality, establish meaning and significance, and recall. It is meaningless whether this awareness is self-existing (as a soul), a by-product of chemical reactions in the brain, or is simply the result of the same "natural" processes of evolution and natural selection. What is meaningful is that this capability of Man throws a very large wrench into the conceptual machinery of Darwin's notions.
First, any examination of Man can show numerous instances where Man's mind has helped him survive better than he would have otherwise, but also, many instances where the use of Man's mind has had the opposite effect. Man has built houses from trees to protect himself from natural forces. Man has developed agriculture to satisfy food requirements. Man developed antibiotics to kill infections. But he commits suicide, annihilates his own species in wars, and even murders his own race for an ideological theory (i.e. Russian or Chinese communism) - none of which seem to guarantee any future survival of the species. How is this "evolved" mutation of "human thought" beneficial. From a viewpoint of natural selection, possibly man's mind should "naturally" deteriorate and disappear because it is too often not beneficial nor contributive to human individual and group survival.
Second, the theory of natural selection applies only to biological organisms at their basic level of survival, including such things as birth, growth, feeding, procreation, disease resistance, and death. The theory involves no concept of "quality of life", but only raw numbers of the members of any species as the only index of success. When the biologist looks out over the variety of organic life, he is looking at the preponderance of physical bodies and forms. Man is not content to exist only as a primary organic species. Man has concern for value, meaning, morality, decency and creativity. The theory of evolution completely omits consideration of these things, and is happy to consider Man "successful" as long as he is there in biological quantity and continues to be so. This is not an index of success to me or to most anyone else. The sole goal to "survive" as a biological organism is absurd for Man from the viewpoint of any intelligent human being. Man wants to survive with his hobbies, interests, family, friends, groups, job and religion. He intends and works to create and assist in the survival of these things. The survival of these things are, in fact, the only things of importance to most people. Existing as a biological organism is an assumed prerequisite, upon which all else follows. To consider existence as a biological organism as an end in itself is sheer madness. But that is where modern "scientific" theories have landed us.
Third, the mind of Man aids Man's survival primarily when it reaches out, controls, changes, and adjusts the environment to his own wishes, and it needs to be pointed out that this activity is not at all analogous to any application of "adaptation to the environment", "biological mutation" or anything else understood by the theory of evolution and natural selection. Possibly Man's ability to be conscious and think "evolved" as Darwin conceives all other things to have evolved, but now that Man has this ability, he can obviously act to greatly alter his environment to his own wishes. This has tremendous implications to the theory of evolution. No other organism has ever had this ability.
In the past, all biological forms may have adapted and adjusted to conform to environmental forces, but now, with consciousness, Man is in the unique position where his survival depends on the opposite - his ability to make the environment adapt to his own wishes and intentions. His future successes a species will depend much more on this than on any eventual gradual adaptation of Man's physical biology to external environmental factors or forces.
Generally, this means that the nature of the environmental forces acting upon the human organism have changed. I purport that any and all future advancement of Man will come from his intelligent use of his own mind to handle and control the environment so as to aid his survival. This is radically different from the views inherent in traditional evolutionary theories. The real attention should be on examining, researching, and codifying the capabilities of the human mind with the intention to improve and expand it. Whether evolution has bestowed consciousness upon Man or not, and this will never be known outside of opinion and claims, it will only be from Man's intelligent expansion of this mental capability which will lead him to "higher" and "better" forms of existence.
Future enhancements will not come from biological adaptation to external forces. In other words, now that Man has consciousness, it is necessary to dispense with the concept of biological evolution if we as a species are to move forward. To keep and enforce upon Man the notion of him as a purely biological organism can only serve to limit and degrade him. But the current theories and practices of science as applied to Man, such as behavioral psychology and psychiatry, do exactly that. There is no guarantee Man's mind will "naturally" evolve to "higher" and more "effective" forms. Some who truly believe Darwin's ideas may like to believe so, but as has been pointed out in other essays, the belief in something implies absolutely no necessary truth of the something believed in. And enforcing what are actually only opinions and conceptual theories upon mankind has always had detrimental effects upon individuals and societies. Religions, abusive kings and despots are usually pointed out as past culprits in this regard, but modern "science" is now committing the same crimes.
It should be noted, first, that the theory of evolution is only a theory. It is assumed and believed. It is also enforced upon Man through the modern social sciences. There is a very good chance that the biological kingdoms did not "evolve" as envisioned in Darwin's theory and asserted by most extant members of the "scientific" community. Until someone can go back in time and watch it all unfold, I must say that all theorizing and arguments can only remain an exercise in intellectual game-playing. To call this "science" is ludicrous. It's opinion parading as science.
Second, Man has consistently had a tendency to develop conceptual frameworks of what Man, the universe, and his relationship to the universe is, and has enforced these concepts upon other individuals and society. Past religious ideas and political systems graphically display this.
Communism took the idea that the "state organism", natural evolution of economic forms, and the class struggle were tangible and valid concepts, and forced everyone to conform to these ideas. Millions were killed. Millions more were oppressed. A social "concept" took precedence over living, breathing, conscious entities. Communism was a further outgrowth of Darwinism and the German philosophy of Hegel. It was assumed that since Man adapts to force of the environment, that Man will "learn" to happily and successfully live within the Communist system of enforced social awareness. But it didn't happen. It won't ever happen. You can't treat a human being as a biological entity, force him to accept beliefs and attitudes, and have everything work out fine. The only larger social awareness Man will ever develop will be due to honest and free communication, legitimate education and understanding. This requires appealing to Man's individual mind, and not to enforcing whatever noisy "social scientist" paints as the new "truth of Man and society".
It makes sense that natural selection may eradicate forms of life which cannot cope with the environment, allowing those forms to continue and expand which can better cope. But the environment of nature has done very little over the past 100 years to eradicate "weak" or "unviable" human life forms. With advances in medicine, food, and shelter, it is doubtful that the environment will exert any future forces capable of "evolving" Man. The human organism is very much protected from the forces which previously acted to demand adaptation, if any such adaptation ever actually occurred. What has tended to recently destroy segments of Mankind has been Man himself, using his mind destructively. Wars are one example. Political oppression is another. AIDS, possibly a manmade biological warfare experiment gone bad, yet another. Again, while the concepts birthed in the mind of Man have been the primary source of destruction to the species of Man, it is the positive use of Man's mind which can only lead to future improved survival as a species.
Additionally, the protective nature of modern civilization enables human life forms to exist which would have died out in an otherwise "raw" or "natural" environment. Factually, the mentally retarded, physically handicapped, and elderly (to name only a few) would have been "eaten alive" by predators. This probably drives the strict Darwinian and geneticist mad. How it must irk them that the "wonderful" and universal laws of natural selection are being violated by Man's activities to protect these "weaker" organisms who "should" have died out. Psychiatric eugenics theories do encourage sterilization, infanticide, and genocide to "make up for" what nature is being prohibited from doing. Nazi practices, which were largely based upon psychiatric eugenics theorists, are a perfect example of the logical conclusion of the application of modern Darwinian methods to Man by "modern science". This is where the theories and methods lead to.
Under the Darwinian approach, man's mind evolved, and the action of the social group to lend support to the less able members was an aspect of this evolution. But they don't look at it that way. It's all biology and survival of the basic biological organism. Compassion, love, and choice, as a product of the human mind, are ignored and discarded within the framework of strict Darwinism and modern social theories. It comes down to the survival of the fittest, and many believe it is the job of "science" to function "intelligently" as the agent of natural selection by programs of sterilization, marriage restrictions, reproductive laws, infanticide, genocide and euthanasia.
A study of Man and his societies over the past 10,000 years, such as provided in the subject of cultural anthropology, shows that Man's societies have largely been the result of the application of some current world view which the majority of the people held. For a small tribe in the desert Sahara 3,000 years ago, there may have been notions about gods and forces, shamans to propagate these ideas, and a host of other notions about everything including people, the group, and their relationship with everything else. These ideas and beliefs dictated their actions in life. The same is true for the atrocities of the Spanish Inquisition. Certain ideas and concepts were held to be true about God, the devil, demons, possession, heresy, salvation, and heaven, and these ideas were controlled and enforced upon the people through the Church and priesthood. The priesthood of ancient Egypt operated in a similar manner. It is necessary to grasp the importance of the concepts and ideas which the people hold about themselves, the world about them, and the relationships between themselves and all the various things of experience. These concepts, or total world view, dictate the form and activities of any society. These ideas and concepts are usually initiated and enforced from "the top down" - either from a religious or political class. This can be found to always be true at any point in history. Russian and Chinese communism, and extremist Moslem fundamentalism are other examples. In almost all cases, some conceptual framework is accepted as truth (which it never is), people are forced to accept it, and many people suffer and die. For an idea; for a concept; for an theory - which all almost never have anything to do with any verifiable reality outside of the minds of certain human beings who create, propagate, assert and enforce these ideas, concepts and theories.
Today, the modern world view is based upon supposed "scientific" theories and beliefs about Man, the universe, and his relationship to the universe around him. Darwinism, along with its heirs, behavioral psychology and psychiatry, have placed genetics and the environment in an ideological position of superiority and importance over Man and his mind. This world view is just as much an arbitrary set of opinions and beliefs as any preceding set of opinions and beliefs. Most people fall for it because it is presented as "scientific". This modern world view is largely enforced from the "top down", and today this originates from "science", "universities" and "educated professionals", all funded by wealthy individuals, corporations and foundations. There is no difference in the make up or functioning of this process. There is also no difference in the overall absurdity and harm the enforcement of these ideas has upon the general public.
As long as the conceptual framework of Man and what Man is excludes his mind and it's abilities as the primary factor, Man as a species will founder and deteriorate. For Man to "evolve" any further will require an acknowledgment and complete concern for Man's mind as the determining factor in his future advancement. This needs to be enacted on a widespread basis, and not limited to a few "professionals", "intellectuals", or "elitists". Man's mind needs to be placed in a position of seniority, but especially, Man's mind needs to be examined, researched, solved and improved upon. This information needs to be widely dispensed, and applied with the result that Man becomes a different entity entirely. Any actual future "evolution" will need to occur within this framework.
The modern view considers "society" to be the vital key to bringing about bettered conditions. It is thought that if society can be controlled, it will act upon the individual in a stimulus-response and Darwinian way, to "bring out" the latent capabilities of Man. This is hogwash. It's more conceptualizing and forcing these notions upon the general public. The individual is and always will be the foundation upon which any group or society is built. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. A building is strong only to the degree each individual brick or stone is strong. These analogies apply in this case. Modern views discard the idea that the individual needs to be first developed and strengthened. They somehow imagine, wrongly, that enforcing some social or political "system" upon Man will bring about positive results. It never has and it won't in the future. This is a basic reason why current social programs are always doomed to failure. They are often simply more examples of trying to fix the "society" while never addressing or changing the individual members which make up the society.
It is Man's ability to think which has enabled him to succeed as the predominant species on this planet. It is nothing else. If man didn't possess awareness and thought, he would be as so many monkeys eating bananas in trees. The species of Man is not extinct only because of the human mind - the ability of Man to control and adapt the environment to his own wishes. Further abilities of mind will not naturally "evolve" and it is up to Man himself now to take the bull by the horns and determine his own future. But not by more application of "science" as it is currently conceived. Man's mind and it's ability to conceptualize has largely acted to oppress the peoples of the world through political, social, religious and now "scientific" notions, conceptual frameworks, and institutions. This needs to change, or the results will be disastrous. They are already disastrous and a cursory look at rising crime, violence, and immorality easily prove this. Things are not getting any better. The advances of the modern physical sciences creates the illusion of improvement, because the overall quality of life has bettered on a purely physical level. Man's understanding and control of the physical sciences has enabled better general raw physical survival. But Man's knowledge and current application in the social sciences is leading nowhere. It's not that the modern "social sciences" need more time and money to "figure it all out". The modern "social sciences" need to make a drastic change in viewpoint and application. They are inherently flawed because they ignore the importance of Man's consciousness, ability to think, and the human mind's activity of modifying the environment to it's own wishes.
Modern "scientific" theories conceive Man to be no more than a biological organism, an integral part of nature, subject only to internal genetic and external environmental forces as the key determining factors. This is the ideological basis of modern behavioral psychology, educational psychology and psychiatry. Man's current concepts have put Man into a position where he is not considered to be a creative, thinking and aware entity capable of responsible, self-determined actions to control his own environment and thereby bring about a new and better world. Man is viewed solely as a biological organism, subject to strict genetics, and reactions to environmental forces, and the best modern "science" offers is to "intelligently" manipulate Man's genetics and environment so as to control what he becomes as a social organism.
These modern views deny Man's awareness and consciousness, the only thing which separates him from every other life form. Man's mind is the source of every decent thing which has ever been made or built into any civilization. It is also true that much evil has come out of the ideas and concepts of various individual minds. The point is that anything, anywhere, in any human society or civilization originated in the mind of a single individual. Ideas may have spread, been accepted by others, and agreed upon, but there is no idea which didn't first originate in some individual mind of a human being. The modern "organic" view, which is a direct descendent of Darwinism, places "social entities" in a higher position than individual people, again reducing the value of any individual thinking mind. So we have had communism, socialism, and modern educational theories which aim to "socialize" the child instead of developing individual talents and thinking ability.
Evolution, survival of the fittest, and natural selection are concepts (notions, ideas, theories) about how certain people view and believe the universe to act. It doesn't necessarily act this way, and if it does on a purely biological basis, this implies nothing about the manner in which consciousness and the mind can or will further develop. The theories mentioned apply only to purely biological factors. Assuming they also apply similarly to consciousness and the realm of the mind is a great leap of faith. There is no basis for this assumption outside of acting out of adherence to some strict materialistic ideology.
These concepts have received major agreement and support, and are enforced upon society through the modern "sciences" of Man. As in the past, human beings are forced to conform to someone else's concepts of how they imagine Man and reality to be. Modern "science", in the form of psychology, sociology and psychiatry, are belief systems, just as anything called a "religion", and are in the same way largely incomplete, biased, and incorrect, yet are enforced upon the masses just as were religions of the past. There is no difference.
Modern "science" must advance past this archaic notion of Man as only a biological entity, an integral part of nature, destined to "naturally evolve" to better states of existence. Man's mind must be recognized and empowered. Men must, as individuals, be taught about, learn to control and develop their own minds, and then it is up to them as a group to decide themselves what world they want to create. This view is diametrically opposed to all modern views. Every group, whether religious, political or scientific has its own theories and concepts about how they imagine the world should be. Really empowering individuals to use their minds threatens them all because the flaws in their theories and belief systems would then become visible.
Man and his societies will not advance any further until giant strides are taken in this direction. It will take a great deal of grass roots activity to bring this about because the modern "scientific" views of Man are entrenched in modern civilization, taught at every college and university, supported by almost all governments, and funded by the largest financial powers on the planet. It won't be easy, but this is the only chance the human species has. Otherwise, while Man may exist into the future as the predominate species, he will be a controlled, robotic, and largely mindless entity devoid of creativity, originality, self-determinism, and personal responsibility. His ideas, values and beliefs will be determined by others. He will have no understanding of his own mind, how it works, and his own inherent power. The society will most likely be largely drugged. At some point brain microchips will be implanted from birth to ensure "happiness", "energy", "social awareness", "lack of violence" and "decency". Society will be "harmonious", "well ordered" and "unified". The concept of the society as an integrated, fine-tuned organic process will finally be realized. The individual human organism will take his "proper" place within the larger organic whole, and it will all function so very smoothly. It will be just what the social and psychological planners seem to want. Man and his societies will be controlled as finely and exactly as any electronic circuit, chemical reaction of experiment in physics. The "scientific understanding and control" of Man will be achieved!
If that's the end of Man's evolution, I think it would better if, as a species, Man dies out. This is the direction it's heading. But it need not be this way.
source
