Evolution is a Delusion

The definition of evolution that Con has given: the assertion that heritable changes occur is not the type of evoluition I am a against but i am going to be arguing over the broader definition of the theory of evolution which claims that unconscious, unreasoning, inanimate atoms such as phosphorus and carbon assembled themselves together by chance. As a result of such natural phenomena as lightning, volcanic eruptions, ultraviolet rays and radiation, these atoms organized themselves in such a flawless way as to give rise to proteins, cells" "and thereafter, fish, rabbits, lions, birds, human beings and all manner of life forms. That is the basic claim made by the theory of evolution by natural selection, which regards chance as a creative deity. However, belief in any such claim is a violation of reason, logic and science. First Argument The theory of evolution maintains that those living organisms that best adapt to their environment have more opportunities to survive and multiply, and therefore, they can pass on their advantageous characteristics to subsequent generations, and species evolve by way of this mechanism. But the fact is that the mechanism in question"known as natural selection""cannot cause living things to evolve, nor endow them with any new features. It can only reinforce existing characteristics belonging to a particular species. In any given region, for example, those rabbits able to run fastest will survive, while others die. After a few generations, all the rabbits in this region will consist of fast-running individuals. However, these rabbits can never evolve into another species "greyhounds or foxes, for instance. There is nothing that natural selection contributes to the theory of evolution, because this mechanism can never increase or improve the genetic information of a species. Neither can it transform one species into another: a starfish into a fish, a fish into a frog, a frog into a crocodile, or a crocodile into a bird. The biggest defender of punctuated equilibrium, Gould, refers to this deadlock of natural selection as follows; The essence of Darwism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well. Another of the misleading methods that evolutionists employ on the issue of natural selection is their effort to present this mechanism as a conscious designer. However, natural selection has no consciousness. It does not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad for living beings. As a result, natural selection cannot explain biological systems and organs that have the feature of "irreducible complexity". These systems and organs are composed of the co-operation of a great number of parts and they are of no use if even one of these parts is missing or defective. (For example, human eye does not function unless it exists with all its details). Therefore, the will that brings all these parts together should be able to figure the future in advance and aim directly for the benefit that is to be acquired at the last stage. Since natural mechanism has no consciousness or will, it can do no such thing. This fact which also demolishes the foundations of the theory of evolution, also worried Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Natural selection only selects out the disfigured, weak, or unfit individuals of a species. It cannot produce new species, new genetic information, or new organs. That is, it cannot make anything evolve. Darwin accepted this reality by saying: "Natural selection can do nothing until favourable variations chance to occur"