Richard, you have made several good points. First, about sticking to what we're good at; perhaps you are right, but we should remember that Darwin was trained in bachelor regular degree as precursor to being a parson, not as a scientist. And then, the claim of Ian Juby, robotics engineer, Dr. Carl Baugh, Dr. Austin, Dr. Jerry Bergman(two science PHDs and several master degrees), and other scientists, is that evolutionists are not practicing good science when they extrapolate or theorize about evolution. So that makes sticking to what you are good at a bit of a conundrum.
I think you are right that apologetics is rarely an effective means of evangelism. But that doesn't mean it can't be useful, particularly in removing barriers to evangelism. Just like offering cookies and conversation to someone who needs a relationship with a Christian, so apologetics can assist in reducing intellectual barriers to receiving and understanding who God is, particularly for scientists.
There is also a great deal of difficulty in convincing people that they are sinners in need of the grace of God, if (a) god is random, or randomness is god, (b) if sin is merely evolutionary principles at work (c) if what we see is all there is (d) if there is a god, then he created death, competition, survival and all the associated behaviours so how could any of it be sin. (e) if we are merely more sophisticated animals than the simple amoeba.
As far as the math of amino acids is concerned, of course you are right, there is much room for many amino acids both in the sea and on land, and in fact there are billions and trillions of amino acids present there today, contained of course in dna and proteins and living organisms. The fact that there is room anywhere, such as in space, say on Mars, or Jupiter or between the planets and stars is not really the issue. After all, they do not exist there, even though there is lots of space. The issue is for them to form first, and then combine randomly by chance under random conditions, into useable amino acids which also have to combine randomly into proteins, which then have to randomly combine and form into organisms. The stated odds of this happening were just for one simply protein. Developing all the required proteins for simple life would have been vastly even less likely.
Then these organisms had to have an environment that didn't kill them, which is different than the environment that they would have spontaneously developed in. And it would have had to happen in a lot less than 13 billion years, since all the further evolution would have had to happen subsequently.
And in spite of the great difficulty of randomly arriving at even a simple amino acid, or a simple protein, this still pales in comparison to arriving at an actual organism with all its many requirements for DNA replication and repair mechanisms, as well as all the concommitant necessary parts of even the simple single cell, and having that organism change into another organism in sequences to develop into the huge variety of species we have today, and having that happen randomly. In addition, there are all the biological mechanisms present today for preventing that from happening, which would also have to be overcome, reducing the possibility even further.
The point is not only about the high improbability, but that basing science on such high improbabilities is not really science, but blind faith. Any normal science that looked at something with such a high improbability, would normally postulate and conclude that it would not happen in that way.
This video is just arguing a bit from credibility, from authority, along with some supporting evidence. Ian Juby has another 24 free videos on you-tube dealing with issues such as radiometric dating of rocks and fossils, biogenesis requirements, various fossil combinations, hydroplate theory, sedimentary and igneous rock, Mount St. Helen's, flume sedimentation experiments showing cross bedding, etc., etc. The point is he is doing this from a science perspective. This is more relevant to those who use their five senses to look at nature and observe and make conclusions about what they see. For someone involved in science, it is like offering them cookies and coffee, or inviting them for dinner.
Doug, good comments. Just to expand a bit more on it: As Christians, we all confess that justice (God's justice) demands that we are all unworthy, undeserving. We deserve punishment for our disobedience to God. This punishment Christ took on himself, on our behalf. It is God's mercy that put this punishment, this justice, on to Himself, on to His Son. When we insist on justice only, then we condemn ourselves. It is when we appreciate God's mercy to us, that we are able to grant mercy to others. Indirectly, this concentration on justice alone, seems to remove God's grace from us, or remove us from God's grace.
Justice means paying a worker an adequate wage to buy his food and shelter and not defrauding the employer or his worker. Mercy means giving someone unable to work, or unable to find work, enough to prevent starvation and freezing to death, just as God gave us life, even though we did not deserve it and had lost our real right to it.
Sorry to put in three posts here in a row.... but I came across an excellent expose of evolutionary paleotology, put together by Street Church Adelaide. Youtube - "Evolution - A Crumbling Theory ( StreetChurch Adelaide )
Facts are not always facts, even when it comes to empirical science. Evil and falsehood not only wants to pervert scriptural truths, but it perverts scientific and "natural" evidence as well, if the motivation is there.
Norman, I appreciate most of your comments, even when I disagree. But I would prefer if you didn't start to get personal about my supposed arrogance, or defensiveness or being hard of hearing. All of those things may be true, as I am indeed an imperfect human being. But they are quite irrelevant to the points we are discussing. The reason I gave you a failing mark on your one statement is simply because you asserted something which was obviously not true. This would be obvious to anyone, that you had not "shown" (demonstrated) something when you claimed you had. This has nothing to do with your personality or mine, nor with my arrogance or lack of it. However, I apologize for "giving you a mark" at all; it was not something that I needed to mention.
In terms of creationist propaganda, it might be a good idea if we had a lot more of it. For a couple reasons. Evolutionary propoganda is promoted by most school textbooks without critical analysis. One example, Haeckels pictures of embryos of different species used to prove or show evolution was proven to be a fraud back in 1874 or so, or 120 years ago, and yet evolutionary propoganda kept these pictures in school textbooks for decades after to influence and indoctrinate young helpless school children. For decades! This is not the only example. Pictures of "lucy", the piltdown man, human evolution are all fraudulent and unproven, and yet put into textbooks to influence junior high children. Compared to this, the mild "propoganda" of the creationists amounts to absolutely nothing; it's comparatively insignificant and does not even register in terms of any quantitative comparison.
Norm, two short points. Creation is often used for our present world or universe, as in "Creation Care", or caring for creation.
That Jesus became human, and said he didn't know when the end of the world would come, is not evidence that he "forgot" or didn't understand how he participated in how it began.
Steve, evangelism for God's church is important. The RomC church has been very evangelical, especially in the 16th to 19th century. But don't you wonder a bit? The first statement I read on the news that the new pope made included this: " ...I will pray to the Madonna, that she will save Rome...." Really?
I appreciate your point, Richard. Absolutely. I guess however, like you might suggest someone go to see a doctor if they think they have cancer, or check out a carpenter if they need their roof fixed, it might be good to suggest some of these creation scientists if people have questions about evolution, and especially if evolution is challenging their faith. I guess the other point is that not all scientists agree that macro-evolution is fact, and this would be important to know for someone who is struggling to reconcile a random universe with their understanding of God, sin, and salvation. Dr. Jerry Bergman published a book which contains a list of 3000 scientists who do not accept macro-evolution, or are creationists. And this does not contain those who did not want their name published because they did not yet have tenure at their university, and were afraid of their career implications.
I don't think everyone has to know everything in scientific detail about the problems with the evolutionary theory. Even Ian Juby is explaining things in a very simple, down-to-earth, understandable way, that can be understood by scientists, but also by many non-scientists. An actual scientific discussion would go much deeper. However, having witnessed some of these "deeper" discussions, it turns out that the precepts behind evolution are actually very very shallow.
In most cases, you get arguments like, "there is genetic diversity, and dna is made from similar amino acids, and there are similar pieces of dna in most organisms, and we find different fossils in different layers, therefore there must have been evolutionary decent." As a philosophy major who has studied logic, you will quickly see the fallacy in that. It is important for people to have a cursory understanding of the assumptions behind radiometric dating, because it sounds so precise, so "medical", so "scientific", ; how could it be inaccurate? The word itself sounds authoritative, and so people simply swallow the whole thing. Even scientists claim that you can test one method against another, without realizing that if assumptions for both methods are wrong, then the results will not be valid regardless.
It is important for people generally to know these shortcomings and shallow reasoning, since evolution is such an accepted, predominant assumed theory, called fact, by many. Many people get very upset when it is called a theory, since they feel that it is absolute undeniable and uncontestable fact. So in essence, in spite of all the problems with the theory, there is little if any serious debate and discussion. And christians get caught up in the after effects.
Anyway, layers that were actually inverted do not disprove evolution. However, the methods used to prove the layers are actually inverted, are often based on the assumptions that prove the theory. Many of these layers are called inverted simply because of the fossils they contain, in addition to containing certain types of minerals. Maybe they are not inverted layers after all, just laid down in a different order in different places. Then that yes would cast great doubt on the claims of evolutionists.
It is interesting that some of the most well-known scientists of the past were actually incredibly well-trained in theology. I'm told that Newton, Francis Bacon, and Galileo are some good examples of that. Darwin, who was self-taught in science, and not trained in science (since he neglected his medical studies and didn't finish that program), and likely gained an audience mostly because his father had lots of money, was trained in theology and the liberal arts, at a time when science was often termed, "natural theology".
Some earlier pastors were good at carpentry, fishing, and tent-making; in many cases it enhanced their service.
I believe it is a pastoral thing to direct questioners to the websites and books of these creationists, even while acknowledging that these creationists are fallible too, but at least are questioning and challenging, and doing so from a perspective of glorifying God, rather than putting God on the shelf.
"Neither praise thyself in what is good in thee, nor accuse God in what is evil in thee. For this is wrong judgment, and so, not judgment at all. This thou didst, being evil; reverse it, and it will be right. Praise God in what is good in thee; accuse thyself in what is evil. So shalt thou anticipate the judgment of God, as He saith, "If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged of the Lord" 1 Corinthians 11:31. He addeth, love mercy; being merciful, out of love, "not of necessity, for God loveth a cheerful giver" 2 Corinthians 9:7. These acts together contain the whole duty to man, corresponding with and formed upon the mercy and justice of God Psalm 101:1; Psalm 61:7. All which is due, anyhow or in any way, is of judgment; all which is free toward man, although not free toward God, is of mercy." "(Barne's (B
Rinse and hang: yes I am aware of group think, and fully aware of it in many different contexts. For that reason I tend to be as hard on those I "group" with, as on others.
I didn't ask my questions about what you believe or don't believe in scripture in order to be "fear mongering". I asked it to understand how you differentiate between what you believe or accept, compared to what you do not accept. If "science" says that there is no way that the flood could have happened, do you then accept the science and reject the story as mere fable? If science says there is no way that Moses could have parted the red sea, then do you accept that conclusion? If science says there is no way someone could be raised from the dead, do you then accept science and reject the resurrection? The Bahai's take everything about the resurrection symbolically, and deny Jesus physical resurrection just as they accept evolution; how are you different from that?
The fear mongering is just in your own mind. These are real questions, not rhetorical accusations.
Friend Norman, I appreciate your elucidation of your perception of Helder's misrepresentation, in other words highlighting that she did not mention natural selection when yes it is an essential part of the evolutionary theory. However, I hope you are not suggesting that she was not aware of this component of the theory. I believe that while it is a part of the theory, so is genetics itself, and so are basic principles of biology(mating or cell division) and physics and chemistry. Yet Helder did not mention these either. The reason I believe is because natural selection is too often overplayed as being evolution, while it is not.
Evolutionary ideas were not new at the time of Darwin or Wallace. Anaximander of Miletus (c.610–546 BC) proposed that animals of different species derived from other species. Lamark proposed transmutation of species well before Darwin did. James Hutton, Charles Wells, and Patrick Matthew have mentioned natural selection, or at least described it, well before Darwin did. Selection itself was practiced by people for many centuries in terms of breeding dogs, poultry, horses, bovines, and it is unreasonable to assume that people were unaware of selection also within the natural environment. It is a common concept also accepted by creationists. However, creationists limit natural selection to operating within the existing variability within a species or kind, and in fact even evolutionists must limit the ability of natural selection to act only on existing genomic information. Natural selection by itself cannot create new genes, nor create mutations, nor create new morphologies. It is not natural selection by itself that causes evolution; rather it is the random mutations working over long periods of time that allows natural selection to work to create new species (by evolutionary theory). Thus while natural selection is necessary for evolutionary theory, it is not as essentially separate from non-evolutionary theory compared to the need for random mutations and long periods of time, which evolutionary theory requires in contrast to other theories.
In creationist paradigm, natural selection works to keep "kinds" or species reproducing after their own kind. In the creationist paradigm, natural selection is recognized to generally work against the random mutations, and does not promote them. Natural selection tends to reduce diversity and variability instead of increasing it, and thus does not favor evolution of species more than stability of species.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Richard, you have made several good points. First, about sticking to what we're good at; perhaps you are right, but we should remember that Darwin was trained in bachelor regular degree as precursor to being a parson, not as a scientist. And then, the claim of Ian Juby, robotics engineer, Dr. Carl Baugh, Dr. Austin, Dr. Jerry Bergman(two science PHDs and several master degrees), and other scientists, is that evolutionists are not practicing good science when they extrapolate or theorize about evolution. So that makes sticking to what you are good at a bit of a conundrum.
I think you are right that apologetics is rarely an effective means of evangelism. But that doesn't mean it can't be useful, particularly in removing barriers to evangelism. Just like offering cookies and conversation to someone who needs a relationship with a Christian, so apologetics can assist in reducing intellectual barriers to receiving and understanding who God is, particularly for scientists.
There is also a great deal of difficulty in convincing people that they are sinners in need of the grace of God, if (a) god is random, or randomness is god, (b) if sin is merely evolutionary principles at work (c) if what we see is all there is (d) if there is a god, then he created death, competition, survival and all the associated behaviours so how could any of it be sin. (e) if we are merely more sophisticated animals than the simple amoeba.
As far as the math of amino acids is concerned, of course you are right, there is much room for many amino acids both in the sea and on land, and in fact there are billions and trillions of amino acids present there today, contained of course in dna and proteins and living organisms. The fact that there is room anywhere, such as in space, say on Mars, or Jupiter or between the planets and stars is not really the issue. After all, they do not exist there, even though there is lots of space. The issue is for them to form first, and then combine randomly by chance under random conditions, into useable amino acids which also have to combine randomly into proteins, which then have to randomly combine and form into organisms. The stated odds of this happening were just for one simply protein. Developing all the required proteins for simple life would have been vastly even less likely.
Then these organisms had to have an environment that didn't kill them, which is different than the environment that they would have spontaneously developed in. And it would have had to happen in a lot less than 13 billion years, since all the further evolution would have had to happen subsequently.
And in spite of the great difficulty of randomly arriving at even a simple amino acid, or a simple protein, this still pales in comparison to arriving at an actual organism with all its many requirements for DNA replication and repair mechanisms, as well as all the concommitant necessary parts of even the simple single cell, and having that organism change into another organism in sequences to develop into the huge variety of species we have today, and having that happen randomly. In addition, there are all the biological mechanisms present today for preventing that from happening, which would also have to be overcome, reducing the possibility even further.
The point is not only about the high improbability, but that basing science on such high improbabilities is not really science, but blind faith. Any normal science that looked at something with such a high improbability, would normally postulate and conclude that it would not happen in that way.
This video is just arguing a bit from credibility, from authority, along with some supporting evidence. Ian Juby has another 24 free videos on you-tube dealing with issues such as radiometric dating of rocks and fossils, biogenesis requirements, various fossil combinations, hydroplate theory, sedimentary and igneous rock, Mount St. Helen's, flume sedimentation experiments showing cross bedding, etc., etc. The point is he is doing this from a science perspective. This is more relevant to those who use their five senses to look at nature and observe and make conclusions about what they see. For someone involved in science, it is like offering them cookies and coffee, or inviting them for dinner.
Posted in: Political Diversity
Doug, good comments. Just to expand a bit more on it: As Christians, we all confess that justice (God's justice) demands that we are all unworthy, undeserving. We deserve punishment for our disobedience to God. This punishment Christ took on himself, on our behalf. It is God's mercy that put this punishment, this justice, on to Himself, on to His Son. When we insist on justice only, then we condemn ourselves. It is when we appreciate God's mercy to us, that we are able to grant mercy to others. Indirectly, this concentration on justice alone, seems to remove God's grace from us, or remove us from God's grace.
Justice means paying a worker an adequate wage to buy his food and shelter and not defrauding the employer or his worker. Mercy means giving someone unable to work, or unable to find work, enough to prevent starvation and freezing to death, just as God gave us life, even though we did not deserve it and had lost our real right to it.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Sorry to put in three posts here in a row.... but I came across an excellent expose of evolutionary paleotology, put together by Street Church Adelaide. Youtube - "Evolution - A Crumbling Theory ( StreetChurch Adelaide )
Facts are not always facts, even when it comes to empirical science. Evil and falsehood not only wants to pervert scriptural truths, but it perverts scientific and "natural" evidence as well, if the motivation is there.
" ""
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
sorry, youtube.com/watch?v=bGB-PfFSV2w&feature=relmfu
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Norman, I appreciate most of your comments, even when I disagree. But I would prefer if you didn't start to get personal about my supposed arrogance, or defensiveness or being hard of hearing. All of those things may be true, as I am indeed an imperfect human being. But they are quite irrelevant to the points we are discussing. The reason I gave you a failing mark on your one statement is simply because you asserted something which was obviously not true. This would be obvious to anyone, that you had not "shown" (demonstrated) something when you claimed you had. This has nothing to do with your personality or mine, nor with my arrogance or lack of it. However, I apologize for "giving you a mark" at all; it was not something that I needed to mention.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
In terms of creationist propaganda, it might be a good idea if we had a lot more of it. For a couple reasons. Evolutionary propoganda is promoted by most school textbooks without critical analysis. One example, Haeckels pictures of embryos of different species used to prove or show evolution was proven to be a fraud back in 1874 or so, or 120 years ago, and yet evolutionary propoganda kept these pictures in school textbooks for decades after to influence and indoctrinate young helpless school children. For decades! This is not the only example. Pictures of "lucy", the piltdown man, human evolution are all fraudulent and unproven, and yet put into textbooks to influence junior high children. Compared to this, the mild "propoganda" of the creationists amounts to absolutely nothing; it's comparatively insignificant and does not even register in terms of any quantitative comparison.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Norm, two short points. Creation is often used for our present world or universe, as in "Creation Care", or caring for creation.
That Jesus became human, and said he didn't know when the end of the world would come, is not evidence that he "forgot" or didn't understand how he participated in how it began.
Posted in: The Pope as Evangelist
Steve, evangelism for God's church is important. The RomC church has been very evangelical, especially in the 16th to 19th century. But don't you wonder a bit? The first statement I read on the news that the new pope made included this: " ...I will pray to the Madonna, that she will save Rome...." Really?
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
I appreciate your point, Richard. Absolutely. I guess however, like you might suggest someone go to see a doctor if they think they have cancer, or check out a carpenter if they need their roof fixed, it might be good to suggest some of these creation scientists if people have questions about evolution, and especially if evolution is challenging their faith. I guess the other point is that not all scientists agree that macro-evolution is fact, and this would be important to know for someone who is struggling to reconcile a random universe with their understanding of God, sin, and salvation. Dr. Jerry Bergman published a book which contains a list of 3000 scientists who do not accept macro-evolution, or are creationists. And this does not contain those who did not want their name published because they did not yet have tenure at their university, and were afraid of their career implications.
I don't think everyone has to know everything in scientific detail about the problems with the evolutionary theory. Even Ian Juby is explaining things in a very simple, down-to-earth, understandable way, that can be understood by scientists, but also by many non-scientists. An actual scientific discussion would go much deeper. However, having witnessed some of these "deeper" discussions, it turns out that the precepts behind evolution are actually very very shallow.
In most cases, you get arguments like, "there is genetic diversity, and dna is made from similar amino acids, and there are similar pieces of dna in most organisms, and we find different fossils in different layers, therefore there must have been evolutionary decent." As a philosophy major who has studied logic, you will quickly see the fallacy in that. It is important for people to have a cursory understanding of the assumptions behind radiometric dating, because it sounds so precise, so "medical", so "scientific", ; how could it be inaccurate? The word itself sounds authoritative, and so people simply swallow the whole thing. Even scientists claim that you can test one method against another, without realizing that if assumptions for both methods are wrong, then the results will not be valid regardless.
It is important for people generally to know these shortcomings and shallow reasoning, since evolution is such an accepted, predominant assumed theory, called fact, by many. Many people get very upset when it is called a theory, since they feel that it is absolute undeniable and uncontestable fact. So in essence, in spite of all the problems with the theory, there is little if any serious debate and discussion. And christians get caught up in the after effects.
Anyway, layers that were actually inverted do not disprove evolution. However, the methods used to prove the layers are actually inverted, are often based on the assumptions that prove the theory. Many of these layers are called inverted simply because of the fossils they contain, in addition to containing certain types of minerals. Maybe they are not inverted layers after all, just laid down in a different order in different places. Then that yes would cast great doubt on the claims of evolutionists.
It is interesting that some of the most well-known scientists of the past were actually incredibly well-trained in theology. I'm told that Newton, Francis Bacon, and Galileo are some good examples of that. Darwin, who was self-taught in science, and not trained in science (since he neglected his medical studies and didn't finish that program), and likely gained an audience mostly because his father had lots of money, was trained in theology and the liberal arts, at a time when science was often termed, "natural theology".
Some earlier pastors were good at carpentry, fishing, and tent-making; in many cases it enhanced their service.
I believe it is a pastoral thing to direct questioners to the websites and books of these creationists, even while acknowledging that these creationists are fallible too, but at least are questioning and challenging, and doing so from a perspective of glorifying God, rather than putting God on the shelf.
Posted in: Political Diversity
"Neither praise thyself in what is good in thee, nor accuse God in what is evil in thee. For this is wrong judgment, and so, not judgment at all. This thou didst, being evil; reverse it, and it will be right. Praise God in what is good in thee; accuse thyself in what is evil. So shalt thou anticipate the judgment of God, as He saith, "If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged of the Lord" 1 Corinthians 11:31. He addeth, love mercy; being merciful, out of love, "not of necessity, for God loveth a cheerful giver" 2 Corinthians 9:7. These acts together contain the whole duty to man, corresponding with and formed upon the mercy and justice of God Psalm 101:1; Psalm 61:7. All which is due, anyhow or in any way, is of judgment; all which is free toward man, although not free toward God, is of mercy." "(Barne's (B
(Barnes Notes)
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Rinse and hang: yes I am aware of group think, and fully aware of it in many different contexts. For that reason I tend to be as hard on those I "group" with, as on others.
I didn't ask my questions about what you believe or don't believe in scripture in order to be "fear mongering". I asked it to understand how you differentiate between what you believe or accept, compared to what you do not accept. If "science" says that there is no way that the flood could have happened, do you then accept the science and reject the story as mere fable? If science says there is no way that Moses could have parted the red sea, then do you accept that conclusion? If science says there is no way someone could be raised from the dead, do you then accept science and reject the resurrection? The Bahai's take everything about the resurrection symbolically, and deny Jesus physical resurrection just as they accept evolution; how are you different from that?
The fear mongering is just in your own mind. These are real questions, not rhetorical accusations.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Friend Norman, I appreciate your elucidation of your perception of Helder's misrepresentation, in other words highlighting that she did not mention natural selection when yes it is an essential part of the evolutionary theory. However, I hope you are not suggesting that she was not aware of this component of the theory. I believe that while it is a part of the theory, so is genetics itself, and so are basic principles of biology(mating or cell division) and physics and chemistry. Yet Helder did not mention these either. The reason I believe is because natural selection is too often overplayed as being evolution, while it is not.
Evolutionary ideas were not new at the time of Darwin or Wallace. Anaximander of Miletus (c.610–546 BC) proposed that animals of different species derived from other species. Lamark proposed transmutation of species well before Darwin did. James Hutton, Charles Wells, and Patrick Matthew have mentioned natural selection, or at least described it, well before Darwin did. Selection itself was practiced by people for many centuries in terms of breeding dogs, poultry, horses, bovines, and it is unreasonable to assume that people were unaware of selection also within the natural environment. It is a common concept also accepted by creationists. However, creationists limit natural selection to operating within the existing variability within a species or kind, and in fact even evolutionists must limit the ability of natural selection to act only on existing genomic information. Natural selection by itself cannot create new genes, nor create mutations, nor create new morphologies. It is not natural selection by itself that causes evolution; rather it is the random mutations working over long periods of time that allows natural selection to work to create new species (by evolutionary theory). Thus while natural selection is necessary for evolutionary theory, it is not as essentially separate from non-evolutionary theory compared to the need for random mutations and long periods of time, which evolutionary theory requires in contrast to other theories.
In creationist paradigm, natural selection works to keep "kinds" or species reproducing after their own kind. In the creationist paradigm, natural selection is recognized to generally work against the random mutations, and does not promote them. Natural selection tends to reduce diversity and variability instead of increasing it, and thus does not favor evolution of species more than stability of species.
John