Page 49 - The Errors the American National Academy of Sciences

The NAS's Error on Natural Selection

gans of the body be also proportionally modified. In other words, an
organism must change en bloc or not at all. Only saltatory modifica-
tion could occur, and this idea was to Cuvier, as it is to most modern
zoologists, but for very different reasons, unverified and basically
absurd. Transmutation by the accumulation of alterations, great or
small, would thus be impossible. 14
Evolutionists also accept that natural selection is an unconscious,
blind process. Richard Dawkins, for example, one of the most pas-
sionate proponents of the theory of evolution, defines natural selec-

tion in these terms in his book The Blind Watchmaker:
Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which
Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for
the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no pur-
pose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for
the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be
said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watch-
maker. 15
It is impossible for an uncon-
scious, blind mechanism to have
created the complex information
and design in living things.

Evolutionists, who seek to portray
natural selection as a divine creator
of all living things, are no different
from worshippers of idols and
totems—pagans who ascribe di-
vinity to natural events such as
thunder and lightning. They are

merely the twenty-first century
version of such pagans.
Richard Dawkins and his book The
Blind Watchmaker

47