Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.

Socially, natural selection argues that the best and fittest society would be one where its' individuals look out only for themselves and would advance themselves, if possible, at the expense of others. It would even destroy others if possible. Thus barbarianism is demanded by natural selection with the destruction of the weak and the free domain of the powerful. It demands total annihilation of anything weaker than necessary and the ruling of anyone more powerful than others. People exhibit mercy, pity, and morality, all of which inhibit natural selection.

Practically, natural selection has the following and many other inconsistencies: (a.) The natural selection process could not have the forethought to allow an organism to become worse temporarily in order to ultimately form an eye, for example. (b.) Natural selection requires that organisms began as crude, yet an organism could not have survived without basic intricate functions such as respiration and reproduction. These had to exist from the beginning of the organism. (c.) Our bodies depend on systems that run according to intricate order such as from DNA. A system dependent on order cannot be created by disorder.

1. Socially, natural selection requires barbarianism. One famous author, favorable to natural selection, admits, "Barbarism is the only process by which man has organically progressed and civilization is the only process by which he has declined. Civilization is the most dangerous enterprise on which man has ever set." ([4], p.350)
2. It lacks mercy and pity and anything else that might make us moral or even social and not harmful. "No more cruel doctrine was ever promulgated. Those who believe it are robbed of the pity and mercy that comes of civilization." ([4], p.350)
3. Natural Selection commends savages who eliminate the weak. It commended the ruthless takeover of the Native Indian of North America, the destruction of Jews in the Holocaust, and all other acts where the powerful ruthlessly have their way. It names all who kill as better. It would name a country that destroys all others as best.
4. Natural Selection argues against such things as vaccinations that help the weak. It demands that the weaker not reproduce so that society not be `dragged down'.
5. Even animals, however, exhibit altruism. Walruses sacrifice their lives for their young. Some heard animals provide warning signals for the herd which put themselves at personal risk. Bees and ants function together and not merely in competition. And, of course, so do people do all these things. Yet Darwin stated, "If it could be proved that any species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory for such could not have been produced through natural selection. ([11], p.30)
6. Natural selection, practically speaking, is impossible. "How can such things be built up by infinitesimally small inherited variations each profitable to the preserved being? The first step towards a new function such as vision or the ability to fly would not necessarily provide any advantage unless the other parts required for the function appeared at the same time." ([11], p.?)
7. Natural selection demands progress at every step of change. It cannot have forethought and planning and thus bear up with say a half formed eye in order to form the eye. How then was the eye produced since natural selection demands it to have been partly formed at some point. "It seems that evolutionists, whether consciously or unconsciously, have regarded the blind and inanimate forces of the environment, or nature, as having the ability to create and think." ([22], p.11)
8. The world is full of interdependence and it makes natural selection unthinkable. How did lungs form if lungs are necessary for our lives from the start? How did we reproduce if it took millions of years for our reproduction systems to evolve? Reproduction was necessary for survival but how could natural selection create this? One sex had to exist before natural selection would bring another sex into existence. How did the first sex get there and how did reproduction take place while the other sex was forming? Or, are we to believe that they just both formed independently perfectly suited for one another? An infinite amount of other such examples can be stated since the world is full of interdependence.
9. The world is also made up of order. For example, we find that the process by which life sustains itself is a very highly ordered one. "... DNA and protein formation must be described by making quite literal use of the linguistic terms code, transcribe, and translate. We speak of a genetic code, of DNA being transcribed into RNA, and RNA being translated into protein. The genetic code is composed of letters (nucleotide), words (codons or triplets), sentences (genes), and paragraphs (operons), chapters (chromosomes), and books (living organisms). Such talk is not anthropomorphic, it is literal. Living organisms do not contain only order but information as well. By contrast to the simple repetition of ME, the genetic code is like the Encyclopedia Britannica." ([17], p.51) Order, as from DNA, is essential for the survival of living things.
10. Regarding the parts that make us up, it is obvious that nothing works until everything works as is noted, "...the real trouble arises because too much of the complexity seems to be necessary to the whole way in which organisms work." ([11], p.10) A.G. Cairns-Smith, pro-natural selection.
11. Indeed, we find as James Crow, a modern leader for the theory of evolution admits, "...the details (of how it could have taken place) are difficult and obscure." ([19], p.48)
12. Creation, as we find it, must have been made complete and functional from the beginning.
13. In addition, we find that there simply is not nearly enough time for change as is given by pro-theory people. If no change has occurred in the last 4,000, it is unreasonable to suppose so much change (or any for that matter) could have occurred in 25,000,000 years. This figure is only about 6,000 times 4,000. Therefore, if we take the amount of change over the last 4,000 years and multiply it by 6,000 we do not nearly get the change evolutionists propose. In fact, we get no change or no evolution. Evolutionists themselves say that species remain unchanged in fossil records for an average of 10,000,000 years. Therefore, how could 60,000,000 years, or even many more, make a creature change in any noticeable way?