Most Common Evolutionary Pushback is a Fallacy

Here’s Why the Most Common Evolutionary Pushback is a Fallacy | Cornelius Hunter

According to evolution, teleology—the idea that nature is not merely driven by blind mechanical forces but is a consequence of final causes which are directed toward an end or purpose—is an anathema. As Darwin put it, “nothing can be more hopeless than to attempt to explain this similarity [the pentadactyl pattern] … by utility or by the doctrine of final causes.” Teleology, according to evolutionists, has been falsified and rebuked, and it must not be allowed into science. Teleology is both false and it is unscientific, they say. Instead, the world arose by contingent events combined with deterministic natural law, or as the great evolutionist Jacques Monod put it, Chance and Necessity. The contingent events are important.

Without them evolution would be deterministic. And if evolution is deterministic, then the end is known from the beginning, and that smacks too much of final causes and teleology. For the Epicureans it was swerving atoms.

For evolutionists it is everything from random thermal motion to DNA mutation, and even the possibility that natural laws may be subject to random factors. One way or another, it must be a chance-driven process.

But when you echo that back to evolutionists they doth protest too much. As with family, it seems that it is alright for them to say it, but not for you. How dare you say evolution is a chance process, for all those chance events are filtered through natural selection. In the end, chance has little to do with it.

The problem is that at the same time evolutionists insist mutations, and any other causes of biological variation, must be random with respect to what counts, evolutionary fitness. Yes I know, this has long since been falsified—populations respond rapidly with variation that meets the current need. But evolutionists nonetheless insist that such directed change is the result of mechanisms that evolution created. (And yes I know this is ludicrous, we’re dealing with one fallacy at a time).

The point is evolutionists insist that, ultimately, biological change is a chance event. And this explains why the world is full of so many designs evolutionists think make no sense, such as the pentadactyl pattern, which they say never would have been designed. Evolutionists can hypothesize whatever natural laws they like. They can believe natural selection, for instance, filtered those chance events, but that doesn’t change them from chance events.
When evolutionists say the brain, with more switches than the Internet, evolved from chance mutations, the absurdity is not remedied by their follow-up that most of the mutations were killed off by selection. They’re still saying the brain, and everything else, was created from chance events.
source: Darwin’s God