The Underlying Issue: Who Are You Going to Believe—God or Men?

I had a question about your article on helpful animals. One of the holes in your argument against evolution is that you fail to mention the fact that the core of Darwin’s argument for natural selection as an explanation was really that nature itself selects traits that enable the reproduction and survival of a species. That doesn’t inherently imply any sort of singularity amongst animals within a species or cross-species. It’s merely stating that animals that can find an environment in which they can survive and reproduce are naturally selected for. Is it not also logical to think that animals that benefit from a symbiotic relationship or species that send warning signals or have sentries have had that trait naturally selected for? If a meerkat staying at home to watch the kids helps in the reproduction of the species, isn’t that a clear example of natural selection as Darwin himself actually described?

Also, since when have things in nature that we may not be able to explain at the moment become futile in understanding? Your last paragraph in many ways scares me, to think you are encouraging anti-science and the constriction of human thought instead of the proliferation of ideas. Was Newton disrupting God’s “perfectly constructed universe” when he solved the motions of the planets? Why can some work that flew in the face of fundamentalist views become acceptable and others cannot?

Also, if your argument is going to be that Darwinism is a “theory,” and not grounded in fact, don’t waste my time responding. Theories are created in science so that scientists can revise and modify what is known into what is being learned, instead of being constricted to one idea for thousands of years (example: The Bible).

Ben Wirth
USA

I had a question about your article on helpful animals. One of the holes in your argument against evolution is that you fail to mention the fact that the core of Darwin’s argument for natural selection as an explanation was really that nature itself selects traits that enable the reproduction and survival of a species.

Actually, Darwin didn’t need a core argument for natural selection, which was already developed and established by a creationist named Ed Blyth about 25 years before that. Blyth published several papers on the subject and this was good, observable science.

If Darwin’s only real contribution was to say that natural selection was true, no one would have ever taken notice of him and he would have gone down in history without much fame.

Biblical creationists have no problem with natural selection, which has been in effect since the Fall of man, although it really became a driving force for rapid speciation after the Flood. This concept explains the variation within the creation kind or “baramin.” The relatively new study of baraminology is the study of the original created kinds.

That doesn’t inherently imply any sort of singularity amongst animals within a species or cross-species.

Natural selection doesn’t imply this because it merely explains variation within the created kinds, but Darwin indeed did mention a singularity of life, i.e., that all life ultimately came from a single source organism. In chapter 15 of Origin of Species, Darwin comments:

For, as I have recently remarked in regard to the members of each great kingdom, such as Vertibrata, Articulata, &c., we have distinct evidence in their embryological homologous and rudimentary structures that within each kingdom all the members are descended from a single progenitor.1

Darwin indeed believed that all life came from a single organism. I also suggest reading The Descent of Man written by Darwin several years later, where he makes his position very clear.

It’s merely stating that animals that can find an environment in which they can survive and reproduce are naturally selected for.

A common misunderstanding about evolution and natural selection is that they are the same process; this is misleading at best. Many evolutionists confuse the issue by using these two words interchangeably. They are not the same; rather, these processes operate in opposite ways. Natural selection acts on genetic information that is already present within a population, and the information is either static or lost. And usually what evolutionists mean by evolution is “molecules-to-man” evolution. This is not the same as natural selection, as particles-to-people evolution requires a gain of new genetic information that was not previously there.

Is it not also logical to think that animals that benefit from a symbiotic relationship or species that send warning signals or have sentries have had that trait naturally selected for?

This is possible; however, a symbiotic relationship cannot be explained adequately by “molecules-to-man” evolution. How would the genetic information for such a relationship have risen in the first place? It is more logical to believe that such relationships formed due to the creative acts of the Creator, the ultimate source for information.

If a meerkat staying at home to watch the kids helps in the reproduction of the species, isn’t that a clear example of natural selection as Darwin himself actually described?

Again, it was actually Ed Blyth, a creationist, who first described natural selection. Darwin used natural selection to describe how new species came about from what he observed (remember there is a loss or rearrangement of genetic information in speciation not a net gain of new information). But this does not explain how you can turn a single-celled organism like an ameba into a human.

This is why most evolutionists have abandoned traditional Darwinist teachings—that it was natural selection alone that accounted for molecules-to-man evolution—and now adhere to a neo-Darwinist belief. To Darwin’s credit though, he didn’t tell everyone to believe that it was natural selection alone. In fact, he left open other possible mechanisms:

But as my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to remark that in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuously position—namely, at the close of the Introduction—the following words: ‘I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification.’2

Also, since when have things in nature that we may not be able to explain at the moment become futile in understanding? Your last paragraph in many ways scares me, to think you are encouraging anti-science and the constriction of human thought instead of the proliferation of ideas.

How have we encouraged anti-science? It seems you have been caught up in believing evolution is science, when it is indeed a religion—an anti-Christian religion. And since “molecules-to-man” evolution is origins science, it is not observable, testable or repeatable unlike operational science, which is how we get space shuttles, computers, antibiotics and mapped genomes! Even popular evolutionist Ernst Mayr is aware of this fact:

Evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same arguments and methods by which purely physical or functional phenomena can be documented.3

In other words, if anything is anti-science, it is the belief in undocumented, unrepeatable, unobservable molecules-to-man evolution.

Was Newton disrupting God’s “perfectly constructed universe” when he solved the motions of the planets? Why can some work that flew in the face of fundamentalist views become acceptable and others cannot?

It was actually Newton’s assumption of the universe being created that enabled him to discover the motion of the planets. Besides, what Newton discovered has to do with operational science and is observable; molecules-to-man evolution is not.

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called “Lord God” παντοκρατωρ [pantokratòr], or “Universal Ruler”. … The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect.4

Also, if your argument is going to be that Darwinism is a “theory,” and not grounded in fact, don’t waste my time responding.

We agree with you in one sense, Darwinism is not a theory; at best it’s a hypothesis (and we also suggest other creationists not use this argument: see “Arguments to Avoid”). Sorry, but we’re not going to give you the answer you want to hear. If it is a fact, then repeat it.

Theories are created in science so that scientists can revise and modify what is known into what is being learned, instead of being constricted to one idea for thousands of years (example: The Bible).

Ben Wirth
USA

So why is it that evolutionists are unwilling to allow for competing models, i.e., creation or even intelligent design? The hypothesis of evolution changes every year; if one theory is said to be fact, but then a year later is shown to be wrong, then how can it be fact in the first place? It is illogical to think that something is a fact and then not a fact. The reason the Bible never changes is because it is God’s Word and is absolute truth. A true fact is something that never changes.

Ben, the underlying issue is whether you want to believe imperfect man’s ideas about the past or believe a perfect God’s Word. Why would you want to believe men, who were not there in the past to witness what happened, over God who was there to witness His own creation? That’s illogical. You have a lot more faith in men than we do. We would rather put our faith in a perfect God and His Word rather than imperfect man’s ideas.

David Wright and Bodie Hodge, AiG–USA