Darwinian evolution is a theory held in high esteem by some scientists. It is believed by some scientists, that the theory of evolution has been demonstrated sufficiently to accept it as more than "theory." It therefore, in some circles at least, is treated more like a "proven fact."

Upon examination, however, the whole argument rests upon "supposition," unsupported by evidence, let alone fact. For example: One aspect of Darwinian Evolution purports the idea that all animal life relies upon something called "survival of the fittest," demonstrated in the animal kingdom by the battles for mating privelege, between the males of the different species. Now if this were true, When Alpha Male mates with Alpha Female, they two being the "fittest," according to the Combat-established "pecking order, Why would the next generation have to resort to the "battle" all over again. Obviously, the "best" have mated. But just as obviously, when their little "junior" gives way in combat to a stronger than he, Junior must not have been the "fittest."

If Junior IS the fittest, then the battle must be for something other than survival appertaining thereunto. For, as was stated, Junior lost the war. If science has established, as it claims, that these combat rivalries are in order to pass on to the next generation, some perceived "superior" genes, then why is it not also true that the pecking-order is established once for all time, and the battles cease?

Instead, the battles continue, generation after generation, and the victor is determined by the combat, not the pedigree. So much for the "scientifically established" fact of "survival of the fittest."