The Contradictory Nature of Natural Selection

The philosophy of naturalism and natural selection essentially assert the survival of a species depends on the successful reproduction of organisms that are best suited to their environment. Throughout their academic careers students of science have had this definition drilled into their heads. Rarely, however, do people pause and consider the implications of natural selection. Why? Because, I believe, analytical reasoning is not formerly taught in most degree programs unless one is a philosophy major.

For example, consider natural selection. If true, then our cognitive faculties are the product of evolutionary processes that produce beliefs that help us survive. In other words, our cognitive abilities are selected for their survival value NOT for their truth detecting value.

Therefore, the beliefs we as a species possess have been selected for survival - not for truth!

Here’s the problem: if our cognitive faculties are selected for their survival value, rather than their truth value, then our beliefs about naturalism and natural selection are undermined because they are not the product of truth detecting mechanisms.

Therefore, naturalism, and by extension, natural selection are impossible to affirm. Moreover, our conclusions and assumptions about science and detecting reality must also be suspect since they too were formed using minds selected for survival and not for truth. Thus, the naturalist finds himself in a self-defeating vicious circle.

Even Darwin struggled with this conundrum. “With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" (Life and Letters 1:315-16).

For the intellectual honest, the bottom line is that naturalism and natural selection, as they are promoted today, are not confirmable. For intellectual integrity, naturalists must doubt the truth value of their own system and admit something other than natural selection made us what we are – beings with minds capable of detecting truth.

Otherwise, naturalists are no different from the religious zealot types they like to characterize as low-brow neanderthals who maintain beliefs unsupported by anything other than the strength of their own will.