| Natural Processes-Natural Selection by Darrel Kautz (September-October, 2004) |
In the evolutionary scheme of things, the power to generate new types of organisms resides in natural
processes, particularly in natural selection and mutations. These so-called mechanisms of macroevolution
function as a kind of “god.” Both the atheistic evolutionist and the Bible-believing creationist attribute the origin
of organisms to a power source of some kind. To the evolutionist that source is an impersonal force; to the
creationist it is a personal Being.
Natural Processes
A process is a series of coordinated actions or functions which produces a certain result. Among the many
different kinds of processes in nature are these: 1. Chemical reactions in which a substance decomposes,
combines with other substances, or interchanges constituents with other substances, 2. Physiological processes
such as occur in the digestive, nervous, and cardiovascular systems, 3. The carbon and nitrogen cycles, and 4.
Reproduction in plants and animals.
processes, particularly in natural selection and mutations. These so-called mechanisms of macroevolution
function as a kind of “god.” Both the atheistic evolutionist and the Bible-believing creationist attribute the origin
of organisms to a power source of some kind. To the evolutionist that source is an impersonal force; to the
creationist it is a personal Being.
Natural Processes
A process is a series of coordinated actions or functions which produces a certain result. Among the many
different kinds of processes in nature are these: 1. Chemical reactions in which a substance decomposes,
combines with other substances, or interchanges constituents with other substances, 2. Physiological processes
such as occur in the digestive, nervous, and cardiovascular systems, 3. The carbon and nitrogen cycles, and 4.
Reproduction in plants and animals.
Processes such as these are highly complex operations. They involve
an immense number of interdependent components all of which must
function correctly, with utmost precision, and at the right moment in
time. In addition, the operation of one process in nature is integrated
with the operation of other processes, so that the whole of nature is
one huge machine-like mechanism.
The very existence of natural processes leads a person to ask: How
did nature come to have so many processes in the first place? How did
they all become so integrated and coordinated? Do evolutionists have
credible explanations for the origin of natural processes?
an immense number of interdependent components all of which must
function correctly, with utmost precision, and at the right moment in
time. In addition, the operation of one process in nature is integrated
with the operation of other processes, so that the whole of nature is
one huge machine-like mechanism.
The very existence of natural processes leads a person to ask: How
did nature come to have so many processes in the first place? How did
they all become so integrated and coordinated? Do evolutionists have
credible explanations for the origin of natural processes?
In evolutionary thinking all of the marvelously integrated processes observed by man are the products of chance
(the blind watchmaker), or else a combination of chance, mutations, and natural selection. In the absence of
some intelligence outside of matter, matter itself is viewed as being inherently intelligent. Yet matter is not known
to possess intelligence inherently. The only rational explanation, therefore, for the existence of the kinds of
processes enumerated above is that there had to be a supernatural Being Who conceived the world’s many
complex operational systems, and Who had the power to translate His concepts into reality. In the last analysis
the universe is ordered matter/ energy, a thought expressed in matter, intelligence rendered in material form.
In this connection it is important to understand that there is a vast difference between a creation process
(bringing the universe and life into existence initially) and an operation process (maintaining that original
creation). A description of how something functions is not an explanation of how that “something’ came into
existence. Description does not explain origin! The operation of an automobile, for instance, is something
altogether different from the manufacturing of its parts and the assembling of those parts into a functional
vehicle.
Natural Selection
Natural selection, as Charles Darwin understood it, can be summarized briefly as follows: Within every species
(the blind watchmaker), or else a combination of chance, mutations, and natural selection. In the absence of
some intelligence outside of matter, matter itself is viewed as being inherently intelligent. Yet matter is not known
to possess intelligence inherently. The only rational explanation, therefore, for the existence of the kinds of
processes enumerated above is that there had to be a supernatural Being Who conceived the world’s many
complex operational systems, and Who had the power to translate His concepts into reality. In the last analysis
the universe is ordered matter/ energy, a thought expressed in matter, intelligence rendered in material form.
In this connection it is important to understand that there is a vast difference between a creation process
(bringing the universe and life into existence initially) and an operation process (maintaining that original
creation). A description of how something functions is not an explanation of how that “something’ came into
existence. Description does not explain origin! The operation of an automobile, for instance, is something
altogether different from the manufacturing of its parts and the assembling of those parts into a functional
vehicle.
Natural Selection
Natural selection, as Charles Darwin understood it, can be summarized briefly as follows: Within every species
there are more individuals born than can possibly survive. Due to the
presence of disease, predation, limited food supply, etc., there is a constant
struggle for existence; the weak die, the fit survive. “Fitness” arises from small
variations from the average. Particular combinations of variations give some
individuals an advantage over others, allowing them to survive and form the
next generation. Favored variations are well represented among the offspring
of survivors, but unfavorable ones remain at a low level, decrease or die out.
Variations are emergent species; and over the course of geological time new
species arise from old ones.1
presence of disease, predation, limited food supply, etc., there is a constant
struggle for existence; the weak die, the fit survive. “Fitness” arises from small
variations from the average. Particular combinations of variations give some
individuals an advantage over others, allowing them to survive and form the
next generation. Favored variations are well represented among the offspring
of survivors, but unfavorable ones remain at a low level, decrease or die out.
Variations are emergent species; and over the course of geological time new
species arise from old ones.1
Darwin’s special theory of evolution is “relatively conservative and restricted in scope and merely proposes that
new races and species arise in nature by the agency of natural selection.”2 “What he in fact meticulously and
correctly documented in his work was what modern evolutionists call ‘microevolution.’ This occurs all the time. It
is what creationists call ‘variation’ and is not support for evolution in the grand sense of the word.”3
Darwin’s general theory of evolution is far more radical than his special theory. “It makes the claim that the
‘special theory’ applies universally; and hence that the appearance of’ all the manifold diversity of life on Earth
can be explained by a simple extrapolation of the processes which bring about relatively trivial changes such as
those seen on the Galapagos Islands. This ‘general theory’ is what most people think of when they refer to
evolution theory.”4
“For Darwin, all evolution was merely an extension of microevolutionary processes. Yet, despite the success of
his special theory, despite the reality of microevolution, not all biologists have shared Darwin’s confidence and
accepted that the major divisions in nature could have been crossed by the same simple sorts of processes.
Sceptism as to the validity of the extrapolation has been generally more marked on the European continent
than in the English speaking world. The German zoologist, Bernhard Rensch, was able to provide a long list of
leading authorities who have been inclined to the view that macroevolution cannot be explained in terms of
microevolutionary processes, or any other currently known mechanisms. These dissenters cannot be
dismissed as cranks, creationists, or vitalists, for among their ranks are many first rate biologists.”5
new races and species arise in nature by the agency of natural selection.”2 “What he in fact meticulously and
correctly documented in his work was what modern evolutionists call ‘microevolution.’ This occurs all the time. It
is what creationists call ‘variation’ and is not support for evolution in the grand sense of the word.”3
Darwin’s general theory of evolution is far more radical than his special theory. “It makes the claim that the
‘special theory’ applies universally; and hence that the appearance of’ all the manifold diversity of life on Earth
can be explained by a simple extrapolation of the processes which bring about relatively trivial changes such as
those seen on the Galapagos Islands. This ‘general theory’ is what most people think of when they refer to
evolution theory.”4
“For Darwin, all evolution was merely an extension of microevolutionary processes. Yet, despite the success of
his special theory, despite the reality of microevolution, not all biologists have shared Darwin’s confidence and
accepted that the major divisions in nature could have been crossed by the same simple sorts of processes.
Sceptism as to the validity of the extrapolation has been generally more marked on the European continent
than in the English speaking world. The German zoologist, Bernhard Rensch, was able to provide a long list of
leading authorities who have been inclined to the view that macroevolution cannot be explained in terms of
microevolutionary processes, or any other currently known mechanisms. These dissenters cannot be
dismissed as cranks, creationists, or vitalists, for among their ranks are many first rate biologists.”5
It is nothing less than astonishing that in the great amount of time since
1859, macroevolutionists are still without a scientifically credible expla
nation of how macroevolution occurred. This is even more amazing when
one notices that this army of scholarly evolutionists has been working in
universities and laboratories worldwide and operating on fantastic
budgets financed, in part, by taxes and gifts from corporations and
foundations.6 The failure of evolutionists to validate macroevolution
scientifically tends to support the conclusion that macroevolution is a
myth—something foreign to genuine science and not worthy of further
pursuit.
1859, macroevolutionists are still without a scientifically credible expla
nation of how macroevolution occurred. This is even more amazing when
one notices that this army of scholarly evolutionists has been working in
universities and laboratories worldwide and operating on fantastic
budgets financed, in part, by taxes and gifts from corporations and
foundations.6 The failure of evolutionists to validate macroevolution
scientifically tends to support the conclusion that macroevolution is a
myth—something foreign to genuine science and not worthy of further
pursuit.
In reality natural selection is a conserving mechanism, not a creating one; it is a passive process, not an active
one. In natural selection there is no intelligence at work in the selecting process. Furthermore, mutations
degrade an organism; they do not produce new genetic information which leads to the production of more
complex organisms. In natural selection existing genes are recombined to form variations within the originally
created kinds. Recall the variety of colors of roses and the many breeds of dogs. Species possess a
compulsion to reproduce their own kind.
one. In natural selection there is no intelligence at work in the selecting process. Furthermore, mutations
degrade an organism; they do not produce new genetic information which leads to the production of more
complex organisms. In natural selection existing genes are recombined to form variations within the originally
created kinds. Recall the variety of colors of roses and the many breeds of dogs. Species possess a
compulsion to reproduce their own kind.
In England the melanic or dark form of a certain moth (Biston betularia) is prevalent in areas in which the trees
are devoid of lichens because of industrial pollution. The peppered or light form persists in areas where the
lichens remain. “Each group of organisms possesses a unique set of capabilities that allows it to live
harmoniously within its particular environment. These capabilities are called adaptations.”7 Adaptations are
relatively trivial changes; they fall into the category of what earlier was spoken of as “microevolution.”
Natural selection is supposed to be a kind of “try it and see” mechanism for progress in which each chance
reaction and mutation compete for survival. The method is wasteful of material, immensely time consuming, and
very cruel to the majority of organisms. In addition, it is recognized in biology that natural selection works on the
end products produced by the genetic code. That being the case, how can natural selection reach “the germinal
code mechanisms” to effect a genetic change leading to more complex organs and organisms?8
The British evolutionist, Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, pointed
out that, “No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever gotten
near it and most of the current argument in neoDarwinism is about this question.”9
Norman Macbeth (a lawyer), author of Darwin Retried, says that the expression “natural selection” is “utterly
empty. It doesn’t describe anything.”10 Michael Pitman of Cambridge University writes that “natural selection
can only reduce rather than increase genetic variability. It operates in nature solely as a conservative
mechanism, a sieve to weed out the weak, malformed or sick and maintain a healthy stock. It is indeed a force
counteracting the tendency for mutation to cause a degeneration in the quality of living organisms—but it
cannot be creative.”11 “Natural selection working on chance (nonteleonomy) is the modern magic wand!” says
Prof. Wilder-Smith.12
At a meeting of the world’s leading evolutionists in Chicago in October of 1980, the central question, according
to Science (Nov. 21, 1980), “was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to
explain the phenomena of macro-evolution.” The response of a reporter in his article is, “At the risk of doing
violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.”13
Natural selection, then, is acknowledged even by certain well-known scientists to be useless as a mechanism for
macroevolution. Its scientific validity for explaining macroevolution is zero. In point of fact, natural selection is
one of the Creator’s processes for maintaining the stability and the quality of the categories of life He created.
LSI
References
1. Pitman, Michael, Adam and Evolution (Rider, 1984), pp. 16-17.
2. Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler & Adler, 1985), p. 44.
3. Pitman, M., Op. cit., p. 17
4. Denton, M., Op. cit., p. 44.
5. Ibid., p. 86.
6. Pitman, M., Op. cit., p. 50.
7. Lester, L. and Bohlin, R. The Natural Limits to Biological Change (Zondervan, 1984), pp. 21, 74-75.
8. Wilder-Smith, A. E., God: To Be Or Not To Be? (Telos-International, Stuttgart, 1975), p. 51.
9. Morris, Henry, Evolution in Turmoil (Creation-Life, 1982), p. 39.
10. Sunderland, Luther, Darwin’s Enigma (Master Books, 1984), p. 25.
11. Pitman, M., Op. cit., p. 76.
12. Wilder-Smith, A. The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (Master Books, 1981), p. 61.
13. Morris, H. and Parker, G. What is Creation Science? (Creation-Life, 1982), p. 74-75;
