[Today’s post is part 3 of an article by Brian Young with the Creation Instruction Association. Additional parts will be posted on following days. To order copies of Darwin’s Demise, Darwin’s Enigma or Darwin’s Plantation, visit New Leaf Publishing Group at http://nlpg.com and search “Darwin.”
In Darwin’s day, the popular belief was that God created the animals and the species were fixed, meaning the created kind would not change. This teaching had originated in the Greek philosophy that things are unchanging and, by the 1700s, this was believed to be fact when related to species. Darwin clearly saw species changing, just as we do today, therefore, he was correct in challenging this Greek philosophy, but was incorrect in leaving the Bible out of its replacement explanation. The Bible tells us that animals reproduce “after their kind” which is why “fish have guppies, dogs have puppies and people have yuppies.” Though there are a variety of shapes, sizes and colors in each of these kinds, never do we see a dog producing a kitten or even cat features. What we observe in science today is exactly what the Bible stated would happen.
Another misunderstanding today is that Darwin came up with the idea of natural selection. The fact is, Darwin never once mentioned this in his journals from the Beagle years. It wasn’t until 1838 after he wrote, The Voyage of the Beagle, that he read, Essay on the Principle of Population, by Reverend Thomas Malthus. Here Malthus explained that there was such misery on earth because humans reproduce faster than the food supply can keep up with them. His solution was to get rid of welfare and let the poor starve to death. If you just let the poor reproduce, they would only continue to put a strain on the resources meant for others. Darwin wrote, “Yearly more are bred than can survive; the smallest grain in the balance, in the long run, must tell on which death shall fall, and which shall survive. Let this work of selection, on the one hand, and death on the other, go on for a thousand generations; who would pretend to affirm that it would produce no effect?” (Foundation of the Origin of the Species, pg. 70)
First, it should be mentioned that this was not an original idea to Darwin. Charles Lyell, one of Darwin’s mentors, spoke of it in Principles of Geology in 1830. Edward Blyth, a creationist of those days even coined the term, “struggle for existence,” and said, “How beautifully do we thus perceive…the balance of nature preserved…the slightest deviation from the natural hue must generally prove fatal.” Blyth believed, as I do today, that natural selection simply kept the species strong by keeping weak genes out of the pool of life. This sounds almost exactly like what Darwin wrote simply because Darwin was taking earlier ideas and expanding upon them. Many didn’t conform to the idea of natural selection because they did not think it could lead to a new species. Some argued that if an animal gained a beneficial trait, it would lose it when mating with an animal that didn’t have that trait. Others argued that natural selection couldn’t explain how complicated structures like the eye could come about since they wouldn’t work unless fully formed.
I agree with these men of old, however, by the 1930s and 1940s, scientists began accepting natural selection under a new model called neo-Darwinian synthesis. Gregor Mendel had crossed pea plants by taking a tall one with a short one, getting all tall plants. Surprisingly, when the offspring were crossed, one-quarter of them were small. This showed that these “dwarf” traits were were passed through a generation of tall pea plants and could reappear later. This caused people to not worry so much about the origin of species, but rather the origin of traits. Basically, by the 1930s they had combined Mendel’s idea on genetics with Darwin’s views on beneficial traits to come up with the neo-Darwinian synthesis that is believed today by many evolutionists. However, as you will see, this idea falls short of an explanation. Once again, truth will never be found without going to the authority of the Bible.
How can Christians explain what we see in science today? Simply by admitting that God created “kinds” of animals and that those animals can reproduce with one another. Just as GM makes cars that have air conditioners and heaters, not knowing where the cars will go, God created animals with a variety of information that could be used in different circumstances or environments. If the car goes to Alaska, it has the ability to produce heat and will never access the A/C. It could also go to California and never need the heater, but will use the information built in to produce air conditioning.
Likewise, a dog might go to a colder environment and will use information for the long hair trait programmed into its DNA at the time of creation about 6000 years ago. In other words, God has put information into each kind of animal to allow for it to have a variety within its own kind. This is why we get big dogs, little dogs, cute dogs and ugly dogs, but they are still dogs. We never get a half dog and half frog called a “watch frog,” do we? Therefore, speciation is simply pre-programmed information from within a kind.
[Editor’s note: For more information about Charles Darwin and creation science, visit http://masterbooks.net and search “Darwin.”