As I alluded to before, the principles behind Natural Selection originated centuries before Darwin. They actually belong to an ancient Greek, Empedocles. Aristotle summarises the Greek’s views:
And in all these things only that which happened to be suitable for some utility as it were made for that utility, was preserved. For such things had a disposition which made them suitable for being preserved, not because of some agent’s intending an end but because of that which is per se purposeless, i.e., by chance. On the other hand whatever did not have such a disposition was destroyed, and is destroyed daily.4
Like Empedocles Darwin viewed that favourable variations of an organism would be preserved, by Natural Selection, while unfavourable variations would be destroyed.
Evolution and Time While Darwin uses time as a factor of evolution he does not rely solely upon it. He did not view it alone as of any value or detriment to Natural Selection. Its value was if it gave a ‘better chance of beneficial variations arising, and of their being selected, accumulated and fixed’.5
Darwin was so brilliant and cunning. He sought to throw the burden of proof on his ‘opponents to “demonstrate” that something could not possibly have happened – which is essentially impossible to do in science’.6 Why should not the burden of proof fall onto Darwin to prove that something has happened? Could it be that the evidence for macroevolution was scant for Darwin?
The theory of Natural Selection without a Creator (neoDarwinism) stretches beyond the logical. How can there only be favourable variations? Why can’t a species have both favourable and unfavourable variations which it passes on? If there are only favourable variations, then this constitutes an order beyond the principle of randomness and therefore points to an architect, a designer.
Such a theory involving only positive traits succeeding paves the way for Darwin’s ardent disciples to doctor computer programs to accept only positive variations/mutations. Dr Michael Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, and author of Darwin’s Black Box, says, ‘Generally a single mutation can, at best, make only a small change in a creature’.7 He illustrates that some changes seem incredible, such as legs growing out of the head of a lab fruit fly, in place of its antennas. But this change, though hideous, just moves the legs from one place to another. As you will read in the chapter, Clutching at Straws there are further experiments which emerge into the bizarre and absurd categories.
Michael Denton, an Australian molecular biologist and author, reveals the limits that further change or Natural Selection can reach. He recalls that in chapter two of the Origin of Species Darwin tried to dismiss what he found disturbing: that there were ‘distinct limits in nearly every case beyond which no further change could ever be produced’.8
The evidence severely contradicts Darwin’s claim of an almost infinite level of change; there are in fact limits to the degree of change that a species can undergo.
Evidence of Transitional Species Out of the millions of living species known to biology, only a handful are considered to be in any way intermediate between other species. Obviously the handful is insufficient evidence when Darwin claimed there should be numerous intermediary species. However, Denton uses the example of the lungfish to show that it does not fit into such a transitional category because its gills and intestinal spiral value are completely identical of ordinary fish, while its heart and transference of blood from the lungs is similar to most terrestrial vertebrates. Another way he explains it is that although the lungfish displays a puzzling mixture of fish and amphibian traits, the individual characteristics are not transitional between the two types.9
Harvard paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould views modern text books as misleading regarding macroevolution because of the ‘extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record’.10 He also sees evolutionary trees in such books as having data only at the tips and nodes of their branches while the rest is inference and not fossil evidence.
As a result of the theory of macroevolution we may ponder several questions: If we could travel back in time would we see animals slowly evolving into new species? How did life evolve from the inanimate? What about the sexual organs on species? Did they gradually appear or was it a sudden occurrence? Furthermore Darwin stipulates that Natural Selection occurs only slowly. Several animals within a species would have had to evolve these organs and within a relatively short period of time. How did animals first reproduce? If they couldn’t reproduce, then how could they survive as a species?
Other questions to ponder include: Why are male species different? For example, the male frigate bird inflates his bright red chest into a large balloon to attract the female, while the female lacks a red chest. Why do the majority of species have to reproduce in order to survive? There are very few hermaphrodite animals but they still need a mate to reproduce e.g. snails. If all species evolved from one organism why do specific species have to mate with their own species e.g. birds? Why can’t they mate with the animal they have evolved from? Now it is obviously repugnant to think humans would mate with an ape isn’t it? There are neoDarwinists who say that this is completely OK, and that we don’t need morals. But we know that morality alone overrules bestiality. This will become clearer after reading the chapter, Truth: Subjective or Objective?
Darwin Questions Natural Selection? Darwin was nonplussed about Natural Selection in relation to the continual existence of the multitude of lower forms and why some forms were more highly developed than others. In the Origin of Species Darwin asks: ‘Why have not the more highly developed forms everywhere supplanted and exterminated the lower?’11
Darwin’s cunning comes to the fore as he answers the reason for the continued existence of lowly organisms: ‘Natural Selection or the survival of the fittest does not necessarily include progressive development – it only takes advantage of such variations as arise and are beneficial to each creature.’12Reading this I am left scratching my head. Are not variations that are beneficial to each creature the same as progressive development?
The first thing many people question about macroevolution is that if it is true then why are there still apes running around? One explanation is that species live in their own environment or niche and if a species evolves it doesn’t necessarily suppress the niche it came from, but creates its own niche. Therefore there can be more than one niche at the same time as more species.
It is claimed that bacteria evolved into fish, the fish into amphibians, the amphibians into mammals, the mammals into apes, and the apes into humans. There are thousands of species of bacteria, fish, and animals. Not to mention the variety of cultures in the human species. Does the possibility of such variation merely reflect the random throw of the dice to get advantageous mutations or is it a law put in place by a designer?
Darwin didn’t believe that Natural Selection could ever produce in a being any structure more harmful than beneficial to that creature, with each part being advantageous. However regarding the changing conditions of life (microevolution) he believed that if any part became harmful it would be modified by Natural Selection or else the being would become extinct.13
Human Origins Twelve years after releasing The Origin of Species Darwin explored the concept of human origins in The Descent of Man (1871). He transposed his theory of Natural Selection onto humans as he sought to explain the origins of everything from morality to virtues and thus love. In fact he claimed that morality and mental faculties differ only in kind from the animals and humans. But why wasn’t this book acclaimed as much as his first? Could it be due to the fact that he calls native people savages and classifies them as a subspecies? Or could it be that he supported population control and stated that infanticide and abortion were not emphasised enough by Malthus’s essay, Principle of Population? In fact he believed these to be the most important checks on population control.
How can there be any such comparison between animals and humans? Can animals love in the same way that humans do? Does it make sense to speak of
animals having morals? I will cover this in more depth later.
Darwin’s Failed Theory Darwin is treated like a prophet by some or even worse, infallible. Though he was neither, there is some truth in his theories. However, first let us dwell on one of his theories that failed. Darwin included in his beliefs what French naturalist, Jean Baptiste Lamarck expounded; that the best explanation for fossils and for the diversity of life is that organisms evolve. However, Lamarck is also well known for proposing how species evolve; by using or not using its body parts an individual tends to develop certain characteristics which it passes onto successive generations. His example is one which some still profess: the giraffe acquired its long neck because its ancestors stretched higher and higher into the trees to reach the sparse leaves, and over time successive generations developed longer necks. Biology: Concepts and Connections, a pro-evolution resource book explains that the inheritance of acquired characteristics is erroneous.14
The same book provides an illustration of what they term ‘an imaginary ancestral iguana population’ to show how Natural Selection works. First it takes one group of such iguana on a small island as being varied with most individuals having nonwebbed feet with a rounded tail. Only two of the group has webbed feet and a flattened tail. Then over generations those with webbed feet and flattened tails leave proportionally more offspring. Therefore Natural Selection is attributed to eliminating most of the individuals with nonwebbed feet and rounded tails.
This is clearly only a proposal. It would have been more beneficial to use a clear example of fact as an illustration. It is strange that they only claim what could have happened and not used an example such as from the Galapagos Islands, if it really happened. Could it not swing around later on with the opposite happening, a disease affecting those with the webbed feet and then those with the nonwebbed feet becoming naturally selected?
The Origin of Life Following the publication of the Origin of Species many began to dwell on the problem that Darwin had failed to address; while he covered how life could have gradually grown more complex over time from one or a few simple forms he did not explain how life came to be in the first place; he didn’t cover how life could evolve from something non-living.
We can view evolution in several ways: it is a naturalistic process which by Natural Selection and mutation has produced all living things without a Creator; organisms have changed over time; or God could have created the laws that allow evolution to work. However focusing on naturalistic evolution excluding a Creator, for the first amino acid to have formed it would have done so merely by chance. But there is a problem with Natural Selection; it can only work on living things. Therefore there had to be something guiding the first materials needed for the formation of life, from something non-living, together with the natural processes and it couldn’t be Natural Selection in a neo-Darwinian perspective. Remember, Natural Selection can’t work on something non-living.
Darwin’s Dedication Darwin is to be admired for the incredible amount of time he dedicated to research; for twenty years he meticulously collected facts to support his theory. He manifested wonderful dedication and yet simultaneously it appeared to consume him as he testified to losing his love of music. He said, ‘My soul is too dried up to appreciate it as in the old days’. If we let something consume us as much, to the point of neglecting what is important, then other things fade into oblivion.
Darwin’s Belief in the Supernatural Professor Ian Barbour, an American physicist and theologian and winner of the 1999 Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion states that Darwin did not believe in the supernatural: ‘Darwin rejected miracles, revelation and special creation, and he objected on moral grounds to the idea of hell. He said that suffering in nature, which he had seen so frequently, was inconsistent with the notion of a beneficent God.’15
Furthermore Darwin believed that if there was a beneficent or loving God then design would have resulted in perfect adaptation, which lends one to think that everything should be perfect, including you. Perfect God and therefore perfect creation. But a Creator is always going to be more perfect than His creation.
Darwin’s Religious Beliefs Three years before Darwin died he testified to being agnostic. Agnosticism is the belief that either ‘knowledge or certitude about ultimates is impossible’16 or ‘one who cannot know whether there is anything beyond material phenomena’.17 Therefore agnostic is uncertain whether God exists. It’s as if they say, ‘I’d like to believe, but I can’t.’ Darwin says: ‘In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be the more correct description.’18
It is very revealing to delve into Darwin’s prior beliefs and thus see what central beliefs he discarded: At the present day the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward convictions and feelings which are experienced by most persons… Formerly I was led by such feelings…to the firm conviction of the existence of God and the immortality of the soul…19
Therefore he discarded a strong conviction of God and the immortality of the soul. But this wasn’t all that he rejected; he lost his openness to recognise God through nature:
I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of the body. But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such conviction and feelings to rise in my mind. Another source of conviction in the existence of God…follows from the extreme difficulty, or rather impossibility, of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man and his capacity for looking backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity…This conclusion…has gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker…I, for one, must be content to remain an Agnostic.20
Natural Selection and a Creator Does Natural Selection exclude a Creator? I see no reason why Natural Selection would nullify the existence of such a Being. It does explain how species adapt to a new environment and even in principle the possibility of transforming into another species. But this does not rule out a Creator; a Creator could put in place the mechanisms or laws for this to happen. So it is perfectly possible for the species to be programmed to have the ability to adapt to their environment. With climatic change or an attack from predators that species could adapt in order to survive. Therefore God could have devised such a law as Natural Selection.
Regarding macroevolution of concern is neo-Darwinism as it denies the existence of a Creator. Could God cause a species to evolve? Of course, if that was His desire. He would be perfectly capable of creating millions of species or a few with the ability to evolve. What concerns me mostly is that there is such a widespread secular notion of evolution which implies that there is no God, no designer, that is pushed in our schools; and the media portrays that there is only a choice between creation and atheistic evolution. What should the Christian attitude be towards an atheistic view of macroevolution? This is contrary to Christian revelation. Theistic evolution (involving God) is compatible with Christianity provided that it includes the notion that God creates an immortal soul in each person at their conception. But this is what we know through religion, supernatural revelation.
Christian Evolutionists It seems obvious that if there is no Creator, then all life has come into existence purely by chance or luck. But evolutionists tend to differ to whether there was chance involved. Theistic evolutionists attribute God to having created the principle of Natural Selection. For example Professor of Zoology, John Morton, a Christian author supports macroevolution. He attributes chance phenomena such as gene mutation and the firing of nerve cells which offer advantage as being selected:21
Summary There is a plethora of evidence of microevolution whereby a species adapts to its environment. Contrary to Darwin’s hope even though millions of fossils have been discovered there is insufficient evidence of macroevolution. We will explore some claims of such evolution later. The origin
s of evolutionary principles are ancient; they can be traced back to the ancient Greek, Empedocles. By selecting only positive mutations Natural Selection reveals mind-like qualities of purpose or intent. Therefore in principle it is possible to conclude that there is some mind at work behind the theory of Natural Selection. Additionally that mind has to be powerful to work upon positive mutations only. Could Darwin have been so close to rediscovering his Creator, but was held back by some distrust or pride?
From the evidence that we have explored so far, and particularly the variation within and transcending the species, what is revealed is the likelihood of a creative mind, hence a Creator, than it does pure luck. But does luck or chance hold any firmness within science? Do any scientists hold to luck being integral to the origin of the universe and the origin of life? The following chapter answers these questions.
Notes
1 . See Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Francis Darwin, ed. (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1887), i:83.
2. Ibid., i:68.
3. See The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin: A Variorum Text, ed. Morse Peckham (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959), pp. 747-48.
4. Aristotle, In Phys. II, #253.
5. Ibid., 85.
6. Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski and Stephen C. Meyer. Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2000), p. 25.
7. Michael J. Behe. Darwin’s Black Box (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996), p. 40.
8. Michael Denton, A Theory in Crisis, p. 64.
9. See ibid., p. 109.
10. Stephen Jay Gould. “Evolution’s Erratic Pace” in Natural History, May 1977, p. 14.
11. Charles Darwin. The Illustrated Origin of Species, pp. 91-92.
12. Ibid., p. 92.
13. See ibid., p. 120.
God: Fact or Fiction?: Exploring the Relationship Between Science Religion and the Origin of Life Page 3
