Difficulties with Darwinism
1.
Natural selection
explains variation, not the origin of species
The Galapagos finches "are
a classic model of adaptation: generations of textbooks have used their celebrated
tool kit of thirteen beaks to illustrate the process," wrote Jonathan Weiner
in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, The Beak of the Finch. They -
"are also a classic
model of speciation: again, they figure in virtually all of the textbooks,
very often as the central illustration. That is why these birds have become
such a universal symbol of Darwinism process, so that their beaks now represent
evolution the way Newton's apple represents gravity."[10]
The beak is the key. Is
it large, medium or small? Is it the beak of a ground finch, tree finch, cactus
finch or lava finch?
Compare the beaks in the
pictures below. The first two show a Large and a Medium Ground Finch. The first
two pictures in the second row show a Small Lava Finch and a Cactus Finch with
a beak better adapted to pecking into the cactus. The third picture shows a
Yellow Warbler, not a finch. But its beak resembles that of the Warbler Finch.
Jonathan Weiner and other
evolutionists have viewed the finch population as a "classic model of speciation."
But the question bears repeating: do adaptations and variations actually support
the evolution of new species? Might John Gould, Darwin and his passionate promoter,
Thomas Huxley, have been overly zealous in their attempt to provide a "scientific"
basis for their social philosophy?
Many thought so. Even Darwin
saw the weaknesses of his theory. That's why he didn't even mention his finches
when he finally finished The Origin of the Species. But he was right on one
point. The variations in these elusive little birds do demonstrate natural selection.
Consider the evidence:
"A Galapagos finch has about
one hundred thousand genes," wrote Weiner, "roughly the same number as a human
being. The genes are spelled out in a total of about one billion letters, an
average of ten thousand letters to a gene."[11]
In other words, the huge
gene pool of the generic finch, which was spelled out in the DNA, contains a
vast assortment of options. Like humans, each little bird is unique. And just
as brown-eyed parents can give birth to children with blue, brown or green eyes
-- so finches, through history, have given birth to offspring with countless
variations in their beaks.
Statistically, these variations
change from year to year. When seeds are plentiful, as during the heavy
rains brought by the 1983 El Nino, all the variations thrive. In fact, that
year the birds mated again and again, and their population skyrocketed.
The next two years were
dry. Baked by the hot, equatorial sun, the plants withered and seeds became
scarce. With a finch population that far exceeded the food supply, many birds
died. But something strange happened. During former droughts, the population
of the Small Ground Finches had shrunk along with the supply of small, easy-to-eat
seeds, while finches with large, strong beaks survived. But now the tables had
turned.
"Natural
selection had swung around," wrote Jonathan Weiner. "Big birds with big beaks
were dying. Small birds with small beaks were flourishing. Selection had flipped."[12]
And the hybrids -- the finches
that found mates outside their own supposed species -- did best of all. "...the
misfits are not dying out; they seem to be thriving," wrote Weiner. "Strange
as it seems, these hybrids are the fittest finches on the island."[13]
Hybrids that breed and multiply? But doesn't the word
"species" imply boundaries to breeding patterns? Even Darwin believed that the
different species would be sterile if they interbred. And many dictionaries
back him up. For example, the Random House Dictionary defines species
as -
"the major subdivision
of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification,
composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed
among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another
species."[14]
Apparently, the word "species"
has been stretched and redefined by those who need a more flexible and inclusive
meaning. Could this be another example of adaptation -- a human modification
needed for the protection of a mass-marketed philosophy?
Jonathan Weiner, among others,
simply absorbs the ambiguous and open-ended new meaning into his arguments for
evolution. He writes,
"...the rise and fall
of the mixed breeds takes nothing away from the power of natural selection.
On the contrary. It shows more vividly than ever before that Darwin's finches
are new beings on this earth."[15]
Emphasis added.
"They're undoubtedly species,"
said Rosemary Grant who, with her husband, led most of the research on the Galapagos
finches. "They differ in song, size, and shape."[16]
So do dogs. From the small,
short-nosed Pekinese to the tall, long-nosed Collie, they all belong to one
species. The selective breeding of dogs brings results
that parallel the emerging varieties of Galapagos finches. Intentional human
selection, like natural selection can build up one variety and bring another
to extinction.
Adaptation in strains of
bacteria illustrates this process well. With the introduction of antibiotics,
the stronger "individuals" adapted to the changing conditions. While the less
resistant variations died out, a small number of more resistant varieties survived,
multiplied and thrived. Soon the new strain became dominant. Natural selection
brought survival of the fittest -- but only within the particular gene pool.
None of these variations
demonstrate speciation, the creation of a new species. They do not prove evolution
or a change in the gene pool. They merely show which combination of existing
genes are most likely to survive the challenges to survival. As Jonathan Weiner
admits,
"Natural selection by
itself is not evolution. It is only a mechanism that, according to Darwin,
can lead to evolution."[17]
But Darwin was never able
to validate his belief that selection could lead to evolution. "Even after half
a century, Darwin's point about variations was still being defended with imaginary
illustrations, and attacked for being imaginary. Darwin himself never tried
to produce experimental confirmation of this particular point. It is at once
extremely logical and extremely hard work to prove. Certainly he could not prove
his case with his finches."[18]
Emphasis added.
Nor would he or his disciples
"prove his case" with other illustrations. Year after year, new explanations
have replaced obsolete answers to the origin of life and species. And many of
today's most popular answers have survived only because the door has been shut
to those who bring contrary facts that challenge politically correct suppositions.
Genuine science means seeing
and measuring what really happens, then reproducing the same changes. Darwin
and his followers neither saw nor measured the earth's early changes and the
origin of life. In spite of the billions of tax dollars spent in search of credible
answers to questions that challenge the theory of evolution, they cannot reproduce
those envisioned processes nor verify their tenuous conclusions. And even when
their explanations prove to be faulty or falsified,[19]
leading evolutionists refuse to admit
the wrong -- that is, until they have found a new hypothesis to fill the gap.
"Darwin did not know how
heredity really works," wrote Dr. Carl Wieland in
101 Signs of Design: Timeless Truths from Science, "but people today
should know better. He did not know, for instance, that what is passed on in
reproduction is essentially a whole lot of parcels of information (genes) or
coded instructions." Dr. Wieland continues:
"It cannot be stressed
enough that what natural selection actually does is get rid of information.
It is not capable of creating anything new, by definition."
"The price paid for
adaptation, or specialization, is always the permanent loss of some of the
information in that group of organisms."
"Natural selection,
by itself, is powerless to create. It is a process of 'culling,' of
choosing
between several things which must first be in existence."
"Perhaps if evolution's
'true believers' really had convincing evidence of a creative process, they
would not feel obliged to muddy the waters so often by presenting this 'downhill'
process (natural selection) as if it demonstrated their belief in the ultimate
'uphill' climb--molecules-to-man evolution."[20]
Emphasis added.
In other words, natural
selection can only select options from the pool of information already available.
Only God could create this world from nothing and design its amazing creatures
-- each with its own set of instructions or DNA. He alone has watched our beginnings
and measured our changes through the millennia.
Though our arrogant claim
to creative wisdom never surprises our omniscient Lord, we would do well to
hear and heed His response to our human pride as documented in
Job 38-42. The following words
are merely a few highlights from a vital message that fits our times:
"Where were you when
I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.
Who determined its measurements? Surely you know!"
"Does the hawk fly by your wisdom, and spread its wings toward the south?
Does the eagle mount up at your command, and make its nest on high?
On the rocks it dwells and resides, on the crag of the rock and the stronghold.
From there it spies out the prey...."
"Shall the one who contends with the Almighty correct Him?
He who rebukes God, let him answer it.”
"Have you an arm like
God? Or can you thunder with a voice like His?
Then adorn yourself with majesty and splendor, and array yourself with glory
and beauty.
Disperse the rage of your wrath;
Look on everyone who is proud, and humble him."
"Then Job answered the Lord and said:
'I know that You can do everything, and that no purpose of Yours can be
withheld from You.
You asked, ‘Who is this who hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
Things too wonderful
for me, which I did not know.'"
arctic
than an equatorial Flora."
some ante-diluvian animals." "I frequently got on their backs... but I found
it very difficult to keep my balance."
More
recently, Andy and I stepped back in history and explored these islands that
first planted the word "evolution" into the public consciousness. Like our predecessors,
we swam in the Pacific ocean with giant sea turtles, reef sharks, sting rays
and penguins while playful young sea lions romped among us as if we were one
of their kind. And as we walked among the nesting cormorants, blue-footed boobies
and marine iguanas -- Darwin described the latter as sluggish "imps of darkness"
-- these fearless creatures barely seemed to notice. 
King killed one with his hat...."
