As well as welcoming affirmations and serious reviews, Creation Reformation will accept e-mailed rebuttals to The Natural Selection Paradox. After review, and at the sole discretion of Creation Reformation, rebuttals conforming to the guidelines below will be published on our blog and or our Facebook page.

Rebuttals can be sent to info @ creation – reformation. com (no spaces). Include the word “Rebuttal” in the subject line.

Rules for Submission of Rebuttals:

The following statements–and similar or related arguments–will result in the rebuttal being immediately discarded:

• Any ad hominem statements.
• Any broad statement to the effect of “Evolution is a fact.”
• Any broad statement to the effect of “You are denying science.”
• Any broad statement that shows the reader never read and understood the Paradox.
• Any rebuttal that is not clearly directed to rebutting the Paradox.
• Any statement at all directed to the merits of believing the Bible, believing in God, or any other statement relating to the topic of religion. (Except, possibly, as limited to the topic of reconciling science and religion, addressed in the Implications section of the Paradox.)
• Any other statement deemed by Creation Reformation as vulgar, obscene, offensive, or irrelevant.

Format and Content for Rebuttals:

To be considered for possible publishing on our blog or Facebook page, any rebuttal must be coherent, well written, respectful and conform to the following numbered outline:

1. “Counter Statement” Under this heading show a concise counter statement to The Natural Selection Paradox.
   • This counter statement should mirror The Natural Selection Paradox.
   • Example counter statement: Natural selection plays a critical role in explaining changes in all life forms, and without natural selection all current life forms would not exist.
2. “Flaws in the Paradox” Under this heading show a concise statement of the logical or scientific flaw(s) in the Paradox.
   • This statement must identify the logical or scientific flaw(s) with specificity as well as the portion of the Paradox in which the flaw(s) is/are most clearly articulated.
   • This statement must identify if the flaw(s) is/are in any premise–scientific or logical–or in a definition as used in the Paradox.
   • This statement must provide reasons for a different premise(s)/definition(s) and how the different premise(s)/definitions render natural selection a meaningful process of evolution.
   • This statement should support the counter statement as stated under the first heading.
3. “What Natural Selection Does” Under this heading provide a clear statement of what natural selection “does” in nature to or for organisms who enter this world with genetic variation providing traits or features making them adapted and fit to reproduce. (E.g., in the famous Peppered Moth example of natural selection, what did natural selection do for the darker colored moths?) This statement should support the counter statement as stated under the first heading.
   • A statement that is merely a description of the results of natural selection (as in most definitions of natural selection) will not be considered sufficient.
   • As statement to the effect that “natural selection is a process” or “natural selection is simply name for observations in nature,” and the like will not be considered as sufficient.
     • This statement should have the form:
       • “Natural selection <action verb form> <object(s)> in nature by <how> to achieve the result of <e.g., facilitate differential survival or increase reproductive success.>
       • Example: Natural selection adapts bears in nature by changing their fur color to achieve the result of blending in with their environment.
       • Example: Natural selection enhances an animal’s chances of survival by making them less like to be eaten.
   • Provide a basis for the “what” of the statement. For example: “Natural selection changes bears fur in the winter to … .”
   • Provide a basis for the “how” of the statement. For example: “Natural selection changes the bear’s fur by … .”
4. After the above three headings, include any other statements that shed light on the arguments of the Rebuttal.
5. If any of the above requirements are not met the rebuttal will be ignored or discarded.