SCT: Evolutionists Don’t Understand Natural Selection

Without the personifications, logical
fallacies and irrelevant examples,
natural selection reduces to magic

This article appeared first in Science & Culture.

Evolutionists Need a Refresher Course in Natural Selection
by David Coppedge
Science & Culture, 9 June 2026

Abuses of the concept of natural selection abound not only in science news articles but in research papers in major scientific journals as well. It’s time for a remedial course.

At best, natural selection allows the fortunate to continue existing. I say fortunate, because a mindless process could not care what exists or not, and there is no guarantee that survivors will represent an improvement over what existed before; the survivors might be lucky bums. At worst, natural selection (hereafter NS) commits the fallacy of personification, ascribing the power of choice to impersonal happenstance. This makes as much sense as speaking of “natural voting.” NS doesn’t care who wins. NS is not a person. Extinction is just as valid an outcome of “selection” as innovating a new organ, eye, or wing. Other blatant cases of personification can be found in descriptions of NS as a “blind watchmaker” or a “tinkerer” or a “driver” and in Dawkins’ concept of “selfish genes.”

Before continuing, clear your mind of any idea of foresight, plan, or purpose as we consider what natural selection means and does not mean. Notice I do not call NS a process. The word “process” carries with it the baggage of programming or an algorithm. NS has neither.

Useless vs Useful Selection

Let us first dispense with certain notions of selection that are of no use to evolutionists….

Click here to continue reading.