LAW OF NATURAL SELECTION REVISITED

I write the following in the context of my continual struggle to understand the argument put forth by the atheistic neo-Darwinist regarding his take on so-called natural selection.

It has been excerpted from my e-book called "The Nexus: The True Nature of Nature"

http://www.amazon.com/NEXUS-True-Nature-ebook/dp/B006WHGINI/ref=la_B006NTVAWY_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1354564142&sr=1-7

Richard Dawkins preaches that:

'The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.'

However, it is on this very issue that the neo-Darwinist scrapes his nails on the blackboard to the irritation and annoyance of all who believe in the logic of non-contradiction. The atheistic neo-Darwinist must live in a different ‘universe’ to the rest of us! For, as already stated, the neo-Darwinist lives in a universe that at bottom has no design.

Yes, design implies a designer. Therefore, for the neo-Darwinist ‘natural selection’ cannot possibly imply design – lest God get an Almighty foot in the door! So, by alleging that ‘natural selection’ is by nature not design the neo-Darwinist thinks he has safely sidestepped God. But semantics is a poor defence!

However, by Richard Dawkins’ own admission the nature of ‘natural selection’ is not without design or purpose, for elsewhere Dawkins agrees that ‘natural selection’ is indeed ‘non-random.’ Says Dawkins, the ‘components of evolution by natural selection: random mutation followed by non-random natural selection.’ Let’s see if we’ve got it: Whereas mutation is random, natural selection is non-random.

What does the neo-Darwinist mean by 'random' and ‘non-random’? Well, apparently not what my dictionary says it means! My dictionary has: random 1. made, done, etc., without method or conscious choice (random selection). Let’s put the brakes on here and put the car into reverse to see what we’ve just run over. We see “Random’ lying on the street. We tell the attending law-officer that it wasn’t by method or conscious choice that we hit him. It was purely by accident. We hit him at random. My dictionary defines ‘at random’ thus: 'without aim or purpose or principle.' We hope that 'Random’ will make a full recovery!

The atheistic neo-Darwinist agrees then that the ‘natural’ in ‘natural selection’ is by nature the opposite of ‘random.’ It is 'non-random.' Therefore according to the law of non-contradiction the atheistic neo-Darwinist believes in ‘non-random selection,’ which is to say that the selecting being done by the ‘natural’ in ‘natural selection’ is done with method, with conscious choice, with aim, with purpose, and with principle! The shorthand way of stating this is that the ‘selection’ in ‘natural selection’ is by nature according to design!

We believe in a sovereign God who consciously controls everything that comes to pass (including of course at the level of genes). However, we do not believe that any Atheist neo-Darwinist will be willing to admit to this - unless God first illuminates his mind while granting him repentance!