This article was originally written for Question Evolution Day 2020.
Natural selection, contrary to popular belief, is a nightmare for Evolution. Think back to your high school days and try to remember how you were taught about Evolution.
For me, the most memorable example was when the teacher showed us a presentation about a population of cartoon fish. Half of the fish were blue, half were green. The blue fish camouflaged against the water, but the green ones stuck out like a sore thumb. On the next slide, there were the same number of fish, only the blue fish were more numerous this time. The green fish had been spotted by predators and eaten, whereas the blue fish were able to remain relatively well hidden, allowing them to pass on their blue genes to the next generation. Survival of the fittest. Evolution in action! Right?
Except there's a glaring question that only a school student would lack the critical thinking skills to ask. Where did the fish come from? Green fish, blue fish, the presentation started with fish. It didn't show the origin of species, but the demise of species. It also showed why it is impossible for those fish to evolve.
Even Darwin recognised the threat natural selection posed to Evolution. In his own words in Origin of Species, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not have been formed by successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (1) Now, camouflage is not one of those things. It's not like the absence of camouflage kills a creature the moment it hatches or leaves the womb. But external coloration is not the only feature these fish have, is it? The fish, in order to survive, must be able to breathe in their environment. They must be able to eat. They must have brains capable of controlling these functions. Remove any of these and it's game over. The fish dies instantly, faster even than the green fish in the presentation.
The problem is, the organs that allow the fish to survive, not to mention the systems formed when those organs are correctly combined, are irreducibly complex. To alter them in any way would result in that system being inferior to the rest of the population, likely fatally so. And this does not apply only to fish. It applies to all organisms.
Think of just the human heart. The human heart is essential to human survival. But it is far more complex than just a blob of flesh that randomly moves once in a while. It is a complex machine that must both be formed and function in a specific way. If it is improperly formed, problems occur. If you have so much as a faulty valve, you start suffering major problems. The heart of a fish, from which we supposedly evolved, simply would not work in a human body, but any "transitional" heart would be useless in any organism.
And it gets far worse for the Evolutionist. It's not like all you need is for the heart to exist and you're all tickety boo. No, the heart works in tandem with other organs. Where would the blood go if not for the extremely complex system of blood vessels? What would the heart pump if the blood itself did not exist? Where would the heart get oxygen if not the lungs? If the blood cells were wrong, how would it even absorb and transport oxygen? And how would any of this work if not for the nervous system? So much needs to be in place for the human heart to function that it simply could not have gradually evolved, because any transitional form between us and our heartless ancestors, or even our ancestors with different hearts, would be naturally selected against.
And so you see that, even by Darwin's admission, Evolution simply cannot work. Natural selection would prevent it from doing so, because in truth, even the "simplest" living organisms are so irreducibly complex that not even they could evolve.
A far more likely explanation is that the creation account, as found in the book of Genesis, is in fact true. God created all living organisms according to their kinds, with both the ability and command to produce their own kinds. Is there variety within these kinds? Of course! That's actually a very good feature. When you create a thing that will encounter a variety of environments, it makes sense to give them the ability to adapt to those environments. When that adaptability runs out, as it often does, the organism goes extinct. But this is a culling process, not a creative one. You will never find an example of something new evolving. You will only find examples of old things disappearing.
Thus, we see that Creation and Evolution are opposites. Creationism begins with everything and, left to itself (which it won't be, Jesus will be back before then), would eventually end with nothing. Evolution, by contrast, begins with nothing and builds up to everything. But in nature, we do not see this. Therefore, because natural selection is true, Evolution can't be. Creationism, by contrast, just might be.
References
1. Darwin, Charles - On the Origin Of Species, 1859
Comments