The 10 Things You Should Know About the Creation vs. Evolution Debate (13 page)

Another example of in-species natural selection involves some
small birds called finches in the Galapagos Islands. Apparently,
as a result of a drought in 1977, the finches found themselves
without the small seeds they were accustomed to eating. They had no choice but to eat larger seeds. Some of the smaller finches,
however, ended up dying because the seeds were too big for
them. Within a generation, the size of the finches-their beaks
included-increased to accommodate the environmental situation."

Though the peppered moth and finch examples are often
cited by evolutionists as proofs of general evolutionary theory,
the reality is that they only prove microevolution. Earlier in the
book I noted that microevolution refers to changes that occur
within the same species, while macroevolution refers to the transition or evolution of one species into another. In the above
examples (assuming the peppered moth story is legitimate, for
the sake of argumentation), notice that the peppered moth always
remained a peppered moth. While the peppered moth may have
experienced changes within the species (going from a light color
to a dark color), the peppered moth never evolved into another
species. Likewise, notice that the finch always remained a finch.
While the finch did experience changes within the species (growing larger), the finch never evolved into another species.21 Hence,
we can see that while natural selection does occur within species,
never does one species evolve into another. Mutations involve
changes in existing organisms; they do not produce new ones .22

Richard Milton points out that genetic mutations can
account for minor changes like blue eyes rather than brown,
or tall rather than short. But mutations can never account for
the emergence of a characteristic not already contained in the
gene pool of a species.23 Yet what is contained in the gene pool
is vast indeed. Creationist Lane Lester tells us that

an essential feature of the creation model is the placement of considerable genetic variety in each created
kind. Only thus can we explain the possible origin of
horse, donkeys, and zebras from the same kind; of lions,
tigers, and leopards from the same kind; of some 118 varieties of the domestic dog, as well as jackals, wolves,
and foxes from the same kind. As each kind obeyed
the Creator's command to be fruitful and multiply, the
chance processes of recombination and the more
purposeful process of natural selection caused each kind
to subdivide into the vast array we now see.24

Creationist Gary Parker tells us that so much genetic variety is built into human DNA that

the average human couple could have 10201 children
before they would have to have one child identical to
another! That number, a one followed by 2017 zeroes,
is greater than the number of sand grains by the sea,
the number of stars in the sky, or the atoms in the
known universe (a "mere" 1080)."

The point is that the gene pool of each species allows for
plenty of variation within that species.

We might argue that this ability for a species to develop new
and better characteristics is an indication of intelligent design.
After all, even human engineers design machines with a certain
built-in adaptability. For example, my computer system is
plugged into a mechanism that maintains a steady, unwavering
flow of electrical current into my computer. If the power surges
for some reason, this mechanism adapts and dampens the amount
of electricity that flows into my computer. If for some reason
the electrical power dips or even goes entirely off, this mechanism adapts to the situation and has a built-in battery that automatically flows that steady level of power into my computer so
it will not crash. This mechanism adapts to change in the (electrical) environment, as it were. If humans are capable of such
design, should we not assume that God would build a certain
amount of adaptation into each species that enables that species
to adapt to its environment?

Of course, as noted above, such changes have limits, for the
DNA in each member of the species will ensure that each member
of the species will remain a member of that species and not
develop into a new species. The "kinds" of Genesis 1 have never
crossed over and can never cross over. G.J. Mendel's experiments
in plant genetics proved that the range of variation possible within
a species was narrowly limited to the genetic parameters of that
species, and offered no possibility of development into a different species .21

Creationists grant that limited changes can occur in each
species due to natural selection, but the evolutionary view that
natural selection can bring about incredibly complex changes
over a long, long time is a different story. Even Charles Darwin
understood the seriousness of this issue, for he himself pondered
how natural selection could have possibly given rise to the eye.

To suppose the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for
admitting different amounts of light, and for the
correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could
have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely
confess, absurd in the highest degree.27

The problem is that mutations only bring about one small
change at a time, and the development of a complex organ like
an eye would require multiple positive mutations. How would
natural selection, at each minimal step along the way, know
whether to keep each small mutational change or breed that
small mutational change out of the species? How would natural selection recognize the worth of a single mutation during a
long process of multiple mutations, awaiting the eventual arrival
of a complex organ like an eye? How would natural selection know that a small flap of skin on the side of the body would
in many generations be a wing, and thus decide to keep that
flap of skin?" Since at every step along the way, the individual
small mutational changes have no obvious immediate benefit,
why wouldn't natural selection breed that change out of the
species? I do not believe evolutionists have any good answer for
this problem.

One must keep in mind that natural selection, according
to evolutionists, is not "intelligent." Rather it is said to be a
mindless process. Evolutionist Richard Dawkins declared:

Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we
know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in
mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not
plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no
sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.29

Likewise, evolutionist Ernst Mayr writes that "selection is
not teleological (goal-directed).... Selection does not have a longterm goal." He argues that "there is no known genetic mechanism that could produce goal-directed evolutionary processes. "31
Evolution has no intelligent deterministic element.

Because natural selection is a mindless, blind, unconscious,
purposeless process, it is not capable of making and fulfilling
long-range goals. And if it cannot make and fulfill long-range
goals, how could natural selection bring about the development
of an eye, step-by-step, generation by generation, over a long
period of time? Such a concept stretches the limits of credulity.

To compound the problem, the eye is only one among many
complex organs in a human being. What about the ear? What
about the brain? What about the heart? The liver? The kidney? The nervous system? The nose, with its sense of smell? Are we
to believe that again and again, natural selection blindly and
mindlessly brought about complex organs via a step-by-step,
generation-by-generation process over a long period of time?
No wonder Darwin expressed doubts about how this could
work. To imagine that natural selection could blindly and mindlessly construct a complex organ like an eye or ear makes about
as much sense as imagining that dropping my television would
result in an improved version.

So far I have argued that evolutionism depends on virtually trillions of positive mutations in order for simple life-forms
to evolve into complex life-forms. The big problem for this
theory, however, is that most mutations-over 99 percent31-
are harmful, destructive, and disadvantageous to the organism."
One textbook notes:

Experiments have conclusively shown that most
mutations are harmful (about 99.9%), and some are
even deadly. Mutations seem to result from "accidents"
which occur in the genes, and the chance that such
an accident could be helpful rather than harmful is very
small indeed. Two-headed snakes and albino squirrels
are considered to be genetic disasters instead of the
beginnings of new and more advanced creatures."

Most mutations cause deterioration and breakdown in the
organism. Such changes tend to make the organism less suited
for its environment, thereby threatening its survival. One does
not have to be a rocket scientist to know that if most mutations are destructive to an organism, then a series of multiple
mutations will be much more likely to harm that organism. This fact greatly undermines evolutionary theory. As creationist Hugh
Ross put it:

While it is beyond dispute that life forms have
changed very significantly over the course of the
history of planet Earth, only micro-evolutionary
changes have been determined to occur by strictly
natural processes.... Natural selection can move a
species only a limited distance from the species' norm,
and the greater the distance, the lower the probability for surviva134

Evolutionists hope, however, that given enough time (millions of years), positive mutations might bring about new species.
This is wishful thinking. More time will not change the
outcome. Even in a million years, a television will never become
a better television by dropping it on the floor. It will always
remain the television that it is-except that it will probably break
when it hits the floor.

If mutations were to bring about new species, they would
have to add tremendous amounts of new information to the
DNA (which carries genetic information). However, numerous
studies and experiments have demonstrated that not only do
mutations fail to produce new information, they actually delete
information and harm the organism.35 Mutations generally
involve some kind of copying error in the DNA-genetic
typos36-and are incapable of increasing information. This shows
the absurdity of thinking that over a long period of time, enough
information was added to cause a single-celled organism to eventually evolve into a complex human being with a brain, eyes,
ears, a nose, a heart, kidneys, a liver, and all the other complex
organs. For any of the above individual complex organs to
develop through mutations is inconceivable, and the idea that
these multiple complex organs evolved in a single species so as to function with each other as an interrelated whole through positive mutations is beyond all comprehension. How could these
"parts" evolve in unison with the other parts?37 We must remember that natural selection is mindless and blind. Macroevolution
would thus seem to be impossible.

Related to all this, as we examine the fossil record, we find
animals with fully developed eyes or wings, but we find no intermediate animals in the process of developing eyes or wings. We
find no animals, for example, with a small flap of skin on the
side that would in many generations evolve into a wing. This
is not what we'd expect to see if evolutionary theory were true.

In this chapter we have seen that

• Natural selection does occur in our world, but it always
occurs within species. Never does natural selection cause
one species to transform into another.

• The evidence supports limited variation within fixed
boundaries (microevolution).

• Because natural selection is a mindless, blind, unconscious, purposeless process, it is not capable of making
and fulfilling long-range goals. Natural selection cannot
bring about the development of complex organs like the
eye through a process that works mutation by mutation,
step-by-step, generation by generation, over a long period
of time.

• Over 99 percent of all mutations are harmful, destructive, and disadvantageous to the organism.

• The impossibility of positive mutations bringing about
new species is rooted in the fact that this would require
tremendous amounts of new information being added to DNA (which carries genetic information). Typically,
mutations delete information in the DNA.

In view of all this, we may conclude that the evidence argues
strongly against evolution through positive mutations as guided
by natural selection. William Dembski, in his book Intelligent
Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, sums it up best
by noting numerous problems for the mutation-selection mechanism of Darwinism, including (but not limited to) the emergence of life from nonlife, the origin of the genetic code in DNA
(along with its vast information), the origin of multicellular life,
the lack of intermediates in the fossil record, the explosion of
life during the Cambrian period, and the development of what
Dembski calls "irreducibly complex molecular machines."38
Evolution is clearly fighting an uphill battle.