Creationism and Natural Selection

AGAIN, dear reader, your Curmudgeon brings you the view from Answers in Genesis (AIG), one of the major sources of creationist wisdom. They have posted an article that does a surprisingly decent job of explaining Darwin’s concept of natural selection, and then they give the creationist position. The article is: Natural Selection—Theory or Reality? Excerpts, with bold added by us:

Darwin looked at life a little differently than his contemporaries. Natural theologians emphasized the balance and perfection of nature, but Darwin saw creatures at war with one another, struggling for limited resources. Those animals that were faster and stronger would prevail in this struggle over the slower, weaker animals.

The article then mentions others who had the same general idea about life’s struggle, but they regarded the death of the unfit as serving to preserve the “perfect balance” of nature. They don’t mention Thomas Malthus, whom Darwin credited with giving him his intellectual breakthrough.

Let’s continue, as they describe Darwin’s unique insight:

In contrast, Darwin imagined a world where variations could be bad or good, and new generations of creatures could be markedly better than their parents. As creatures with good variations preferentially survived and produced offspring more than creatures with not-so-good variations, the more “fit” creatures became the majority of the next generation.

Yes, that’s the general idea. In fact, they go on to say:

There is little wrong with the logic of natural selection. Given that organisms produce offspring with slight variations in a relatively hostile environment where only the best equipped survive, natural selection is inevitable. The question is the long-term result of natural selection.

And with that question, they open the door for the creationist position. Here we must interrupt the narrative to deal with their question now, before it slips by unchallenged.

What in the world could possibly be the long-term result of natural selection? If variations (we’d say mutations) always occur, and each new generation is produced only by those variants that are best equipped to survive, and if this continues for thousands of generations, is there anyone this side of brain death who doesn’t immediately see where this must lead? Although the changes are tiny from one generation to the next, the cumulative effect of this constant genetic sifting out of bad variations and preservation of good ones will be a generation that can’t be the same as its distant ancestors. The conclusion is inescapable. You go upstairs one step at a time; but if you keep going — unless something blocks your progress — the long-term result is that you’ll eventually climb the stairs all the way up to the next level. This isn’t difficult to understand.

But let’s return to the article. Having explained Darwin’s natural selection, they then discuss the history of the acceptance of Darwin’s theory — and in doing so they emphasize those who voiced objections. They even mention that great blowhard, William Jennings Bryan. All of this, we assume, is to give the impression that there was always an immense and continuing controversy over Darwin’s work. Among scientists, however, within a generation after Darwin published Origin of Species, acceptance was all but universal.

To enhance the illusion of scientific controversy, they also mention such people as Frank Marsh, a fringe character who coined the term Baraminology, the study of biblical “kinds” (non-evolved categories of specially-created creatures), and also Harold Clark , a creationist biologist who was a big fan of Noah’s Ark.

Contrary to the impression the article attempts to convey, the opinions of such marginal people had no impact on the scientific community, among whom Darwin’s theory hasn’t been in doubt for more than a century.

Then the article says:

Modern creationists disagree about the role of natural selection. Some think that natural selection might have played a role in developing species within kinds after the Flood. Others see natural selection as a maintenance device that destroys deviants …. Still others believe that natural selection doesn’t do much of anything. There really isn’t any such thing as the creationist position on the long-term effects of natural selection.

Such discord among creationists is entirely understandable. When you choose to ignore well-settled science, your options for foolishness are then wide open. The article does, however, make one concession to reality, in connection with well-documented observation of Galápagos finches:

Most creationists, however, do acknowledge that natural selection can work as a kind of fine-tuning agent within a kind.

Yes, but …

The Galápagos finches started out as finches, and after thirty years of natural selection, they were still the same species of finches.

Right. No finch produced an egg that hatched a kangaroo. So the jury is still out on Darwin’s theory. Then they conclude:

Though creationists don’t entirely agree on the long-term effects of natural selection, we all agree that all the animal and plant kinds had their origin during the Creation Week, when God called them into existence. We all agree that natural selection had no place in God’s original design, since natural selection works by killing. As creationists continue to research this fascinating topic, a better understanding of natural selection will undoubtedly emerge.

We have no idea what “will undoubtedly emerge” from continued creationist research. They don’t do any research, so in all likelihood nothing will emerge except more of the same.

Copyright © 2008. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

. . Permalink for this article