Creation: Question Evolution Campaign — 4 of 15

Posted by Gregg on Jan 29, 2012 in apologetics, Christian Faith, Creation, homeschooling |
Our 9th Anniversary

Our 9th Anniversary

A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.

Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by taking over the homemaker duties here. His primary topic, the Biblical Truth of Creation vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications and is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical and defensible fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.

Survival of the Fittest

Survival of the Fittest

Is Natural Selection Really  Darwinian Evolution?

Question number 4 in Creation.Com’s Question Evolution Campaign is, “Why is natural selection, a contradictory and subjective principle that is nevertheless recognized by believers in the Biblical account of creation, taught as ‘evolution’, as if natural selection explains the origin and the diversity of life?”

By definition, natural selection is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so it’s automatically not a creative process. While it might in very specific cases under narrowly and subjectively defined parameters explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), natural selection is not any kind of explanation for the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place).

Natural Selection -- Speciation Events

Natural Selection -- Speciation Events

What is Natural Selection?

Natural Selection is generally defined as the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. Darwinists arbitrarily apply the term to both peripatric and allopatric speciation events.

Suppose a bunch of monkeys were isoloated from the main group and they continued to bring forth within their kinds seperately.  Eventually, they might look different and Darwinists would claim they were seperate species.  Somehow, they rationalize equivocating this very obvious and perfectly normal process with natural selection.  I suppose because this is actually observable and quantifiable in the field of operational science.

Anyway, natural selection is often referred to as the principle of the survival of the fittest. The iconic demonstration of this principle in action is when the ram mountain goats fight each other for the right to breed with nanny goats.  But is this principle of the survival of the fittest really even the case in all circumstances?

After all, how do you know which organisms are the fittest? Well, that’s easy. The fittest are the survivors. Right?

Or is that too circular and absent logic even for the most ardent Darwinist?

Consider the following scenarios and ask how well this principle applies.  Should we rename it to something more appropriate and descriptive?

Survival of the Fastest

Survival of the Fastest

Could he have been really “fit” — much fitter than the others here — just, you know, unfortunate?
Survival of the Biggest

Survival of the Biggest

Does having a really big mouth make you the fittest in a given environment?  Is being smaller really a disadvantage?  If so, why aren’t all predators gigantic?  Why do these smaller carnivores continue to arrogantly survive?
Survival of the Sickest

Survival of the Sickest

Drug resistant bacteria are actually quite weak and mutated. Basically, they are sick. Because they are sick, they can’t matabolize antibiotics so antibiotics don’t kill them. Sort of like people without feet will never get athletes foot. Does that mean that people with no feet are the fittest? Does that mean that sick bacteria are the fittest?
Survival of the Richest

Survival of the Richest

Wealth, privelege, and material possessions can certainly afford an advantage over the poor and lower classes with little in the way of wealth or possessions.  Yet there are still poor after allegedly millions of years of human history.
Survival of the Most Well Armed

Survival of the Most Well Armed

In a fight to the death, she is certainly better equiped than I to survie at the moment.  One wonders if she is more fit than I am.
Who really determines the criteria for “fittness” anyway?  Should we all be blond haired and blue eyed as was the Aryan ideal of the most fit master race?  What confers the label of “fit” and who decides?
Survival of the Best Tree Climber

Survival of the Best Tree Climber

It’s pretty easy to see that the concept of natural selection, while generally recognized as valid, brings some very real logical problems with it.  Ultimately, nature is not something that has a mind or a will and has no actual ability to select.  To confer such an ability upon nature is to commit the fallacy of reification by lending nature such misplaced contretism.
All that aside, natural selection within strictly defined parameters is a fact of life.  Not only that, the principles defined by natural selection were recognized by believers in the Biiblical account of creation long before Darwin ever got kicked out of his father’s house and sent on his 3 year voyage of exile.  It was recognized by believers back then and it is recognized by believers today.Specifically, it is recognized that natural selection often favors certain already-existing genetic traits within populations by culling less favorable genes out of the gene pool.  It is known to be a valid reductive phenomenon.  Thus natural selection helps adaptation of a population to its environment. Even though sometimes the new population that results is given a new species name, the phenomenon of both adaptation and speciation are not now, nor have they ever been, in dispute.  Monkey A and Monkey B are still some kind of monkeys though their genes vary.  Dog A and Wolf B and Fox C are still some kind of dogs though their genes vary.
What is in dispute is that natural selection by itself generates absolutely no new genetic information. It cannot be said to be a causefor the type of macro-evolution Darwinists claim commonly occurs that would require the infusion of massive amounts of highly specific and specifically complex information into the genes. Natural selection does not do that.  It only ever successfully reduces the amount of information present in  the genes.Any adaptations that are purely the result of natural selection acting on pre-existinggenetic information are not changes in the right direction to drive primordial ooze to become astronomers.  Therefore — and this is the very easy part for folks who either possess common sense or are not afflicted with Darwinism or both– natural selection is not the same thing as “evolution” in the way Darwinists would like that much more grand process defined.


One major problem, of course, is that while some Darwinists privately admit that natural selection cannot account for large scale evolution ala pond scum to people, most lapse into equivocation.  They use the terms evolution and natural selection interchangably, as if one equals the other.

In theory, Darwinists look to mutations as being responsible for generating the new genetic information required, which new information is then sorted by natural selection.

In reality, does that ever even really happen?  And the answer, of course, is no.

Whenever asked to provide specific evidence or even theoretical examples of any mutations that increase the information in the genome, Dawkins and similar atheist/secular humanist cohorts of his ilk cannot provide even a single coherent answer or point to a single documented case.  By now, Darwinists ought to be able to point to hundreds of examples of such mutations. But they can’t. There is a tiny handful —- one or two at best -— which could even possibly represent a modicum of information increase, and the lead candidate, the ability of a single strain of laboratory grown bacterium to digest the man-made substance nylon, involves considerable doubt.

There is, in effect, no smoking gun.  There isn’t even a burnt out matchstick. 

For more information about question number four, visit

The Truth

The truth is that to believe in the Darwinist myth, there is only one thing a person must accept as patently impossible.  It isn’t impossible, believes the Darwinist, that the universe was a bunch of nothing that decided to create everything one day.  It isn’t impossible, believes the Darwinist, that “proto-stars” can explode over and over until they become actual stars.   It isn’t impossible, believes the Darwinist, that they can explode so often and so hot that they can fuse past mass gap 3 or 8.   It isn’t impossible, believes the Darwinist, that the laws of nature can be utterly ignored with respect to the orbits of planets and stars and the placement of moons and galaxies.   It isn’t impossible, believes the Darwinist, that dirt and rocks can decide to create a living cell.   It isn’t impossible, believes the Darwinist, that mutation and other assorted malignant and reductive processes can infuse unbelievable amounts of specific and complex information into living things.

In fact, the only thing a Darwinist ardently claims is impossible is that God might actually exist.

But He does.  God exists as surely as other non-material things such as thought, consciousness, information, love, and hope.  It is not a gigantic leap of faith to understand that God created the universe and it belongs to Him along with everything and everyone in it.  It takes considerably more faith to believe in the patent impossibilities that Darwinism requires. 

I commit to you that I will publish every single comment that meets this blog’s commenting criteria. You may want to review that criteria before adding your opinion here.

God Bless you and yours.


Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism

Related Posts with ThumbnailsPin It

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Copyright © 2009-2017 Hallee the Homemaker All rights reserved.
Desk Mess Tripled v1.0 theme from

Copyright © 2009 - 2017 Hallee the Homemaker All Rights Reserved.