By Dr. G. Thomas Sharp
Most all evolutionary arguments regarding topics like speciation, adaptation, transition, homology, common ancestry, etc. (all of which are among the bottom line issues in all origin’s discussions today) are based in Darwin’s own notions about natural selection. Simply stated, natural selection proposes the possibility that individual organisms that are best suited for their environment will live longer and have more offspring. Therefore, they will more effectively spread their genes throughout the general population of their species, thus passing their survival factor to their offspring (though Darwin himself did not have knowledge of genetics because this field did not begin developing until two decades after his death, not-withstanding the work of Gregor Mendel).
Nevertheless, this idea asserts that the origin of modern giraffes, for example, was accomplished by a certain group of hoofed animals, whose necks being various lengths were all competing for the same environmental space. Those with the longest necks, it is believed, would naturally access more food, thus starving out the shorter-necked animals. Longer necks became a survival factor that lead to the development of modern giraffes is the modern belief of some evolutionists.
This all sounds rather foolish and that anyone would seriously believe this story seems totally preposterous. But on the contrary, many highly credentialed scientists do and at issue here are God’s Word and His absolute sovereignty. It is perfectly clear, it seems to me, either nature rules and brought about all the living forms found in today’s world, or God designed them and upholds what He has created with His word (Hebrews 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Nehemiah 9:6-KJV)!
This disparity is best seen in the remarks of one of America’s leading evolutionary geneticists, Dr. Francisco J. Ayala. He wrote in the American Scientist, Nov/Dec, 1974, page 692:
Before Darwin, the adaptations and the diversity of organisms were accepted as facts without an explanation, or more frequently, they were attributed to the omniscient design of the Creator. God had created birds and butterflies in the air, fish and coral reefs in the oceans, trees in the forest, and most of all, He had created man. God had provided man with eyes so that he might see and given gills to fish to breathe oxygen in water. Theologians frequently argued that the functional design of organisms evinces the existence of a wise Creator….Darwin…provided a natural explanation for these facts–the theory of natural selection…substituting a scientific teleology (design) for a theological one. (Emphasis added)
What has Ayala just said...that the theologian explains the design in nature from an obvious Biblical bias and Darwinian from a naturalistic bias. Neither of these models are discoveries from science, both are beliefs or preconceptions. Nevertheless, for many scientists of the last 100 years’ nature rules!
Darwin and his immediate colleagues convinced the world that nothing is absolute, maybe except materialism! Everything is in a state of flux. But has this idea stood the test of time? Not at all! In their own words, the overwhelming finding’s of evolutionary scientists denies nature her ability to select for new species. Consider the following:
(1) Gradual evolutionary change by natural selection operates so slowly within establish species that it cannot account for the features of evolution. (Professor Steven Stanley, Department of Earth and Planetary Science, John Hopkins University) 1
(2) The role assigned to natural selection in establishing adaptation, while speciously probable, is based on not a single datum [fact]. (Emphasis added - Dr. Pierre Grasse, University of Paris) 2
(3) In other words, natural selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species chance of survival but simply enables it to “track,” or keep up with the constantly changing environment. (Dr. Richard Lewontin, Zoology, University of Chicago) 3
What observations are producing these conclusions? Actually, these conclusions are the result of the failure to observe Darwinian predictions. Furthermore, there is the fact that God said created kinds would only “bring forth” or reproduce after their kind! If this is true, it predicts that God designed all reproducible creatures from the beginning and maintains the constancy of their kind with a highly complex chemical program we call genetics. There is a reason why cats can only reproduce cats and dogs reproduce dogs, etc.
Let’s think about the incredibly complex optical system of the trilobite, for example. Professor Levi Setti, an evolutionist, wrote that:
…trilobites were the first in developing highly organized visual organs, but some of the recently discovered properties of trilobites’ eye lenses represent an all-time feat of function optimization…Their optical apparatus raises very relevant questions as to why such perfection was needed.4
Drs. Stanley and Raup, also evolutionists, added:
…natural selection operating on chance variations–trilobites evolved a remarkably sophisticated optical system. For an optical engineer to develop such a system would require considerable knowledge of such things as Fermat’s principle, Abbe’s sine law, Shell’s laws of refraction and quite a bit of ingenuity.5
Now remember, evolutionary reasoning tells us that the trilobite is supposed to be an extremely simple animal because it appears so significantly frequent in Cambrian layers (in fact, it is considered an index fossil for the Cambrian geological system). According to evolutionary explanations, this is one of the first multicellular creatures to ever appear (they say between 500 to 550 million years ago). The complicating reality of this amazing animal is its own remarkable complexity coupled with the fact it has absolutely no fossil predecessors (intermediates). It just suddenly appears, fully formed–eyes and all–right from the start. Astonishing, isn’t it? Not really–not for Bible believers!
Darwin had this very same problem with the origin of the human eye. He wrote in his Origin of Species:
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the corrections of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. 6
It doesn’t just “seem absurd,” it is absurd! And to make matters much worse for the proponents that believe natural selection is the driving mechanism of evolution, this same problem continues for every unique organ and organ system of every organism whether plant, insect, animal, or man. For natural selection to work in an evolutionary fashion, it must do more than cull out the weak among the species, it must explain how transforming information can be imported into any species from the outside. It must explain how that information is inculcated into a species’ genome. It must explain how this process can explain “goo to you” evolutionary change.
To the evolutionist, natural selection is the mechanism that answers all questions about simple to complex progression. But there is a big problem because the opposite is actually observed in the real world. This is not to say that any aspect of God’s creation is “simple”! However, the so-called higher animals in the story of evolutionary progression are, by and large, more inclined to extinction. They actually seem less fit for survival.
This fact becomes extremely evident when you understand that by 1990 more than one million insects had been identified and only 21 species were on the US Department of Interior’s list of endangered species. Now compare this with the fact that 4400 mammals had been identified during this same period (mammals are supposedly higher in evolutionary complexity than insects) and 337 species were on the endangered list. This means mammals are 4000 times more likely to become extinct than insects?7 It seems from this bit of evidence the more “complex” an organism becomes the less fit for survival it is? It seems that what we observe is actually working at cross purposes with Darwinism.
It is highly possible that nature doesn’t select for the advancement of anything. Moreover, that the wonders of our universe are not due to the accidental selection of Mother Nature, but may very well be due to the design and superintendence of our Creator God–the Lord Jesus Christ!
Notes:
1 Proceeding of the National Academy of Science (USA), Vol. 72 (2), February 1975, p. 646
2 Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 170
3 Scientific American, Vol. 239 (3), September 1978, p.170
4 Trilobites, University of Chicago Press, 1975
5 Principles of Paleontology, 2nd Ed., 1978, p. 182
6 Origin of Species, Penguin Books, reprinted 1985, p. 217 (Emphasis added)
7 Creation Magazine, Vol. 14 (2), p.11
