Rolling the Evolutionary Dice

True confession time:  I believe in Natural Selection.

Put down the pitchforks.  Let me explain.

Natural Selection quite simply means that certain variety will happen within a species and sometimes one type of variety presents a survival advantage over another type of variety.  Over time, the traits that made up the advantageous variety get passed on more readily because those with a survival advantage survive more than those without it.  Eventually, that particular advantaged variety becomes the norm for the species.  For example, suppose a population of wolves live in the arctic where there is always snow.  Hunters hunt the wolves.  Some of the wolves are born with white fur, and some are born with black fur.  Hunters shoot more of the black wolves than the white wolves because they are easier to see in the snow.  Eventually, more white wolves reproduce and make white wolf babies.  Eventually, the higher death rate of black wolves and the higher birthrate of white wolves renders the black wolf almost non existent.  Where there was once a blend of white and black furred wolves there is now almost exclusively white wolves.  The white wolves were “naturally selected”.  

It just makes sense, you know?  And there isn’t a single step in the process that ought to raise red flags theologically.  We all see variety among a species (tall, short, hairy, hairless, etc).  The logic of a (for example) white wolf being harder to hunt in the snow makes sense.  The logic of less black wolves reproducing makes sense too.  We can follow the logic, see that it is reasonable, and accept it as true.  Moreover we can observe and understand that the observations are undeniable.

Nonetheless, I am a 6 day, young earth, creationist.  Yes.  You read that right.  No, I’m not being inconsistent.  How?  Well, it’s just as important to observe what I didn’t say as much as what I said.

-I DIDN’T say that the earth was million and billions of years old.  Why would the earth have to be old for white wolves to be harder to hunt?  One has nothing to do with the other.

-I DIDN’T say that I believe that simply because white wolves survive better in a snowy environment that eventually they’d develop into something that wasn’t a wolf.  Different colors?  Sure.  Better shape of the ears?  Fine.  But they aren’t gradually going to be walking on two legs and building cities.  They’ll always be wolves.

-I also DIDN’T say that the Bible is just a myth when it comes to Genesis 1-3.  No, there’s no reason to deny that God created the wolf on day 6, and there’s no reason to deny that the dog has always been a dog.  Simply because the white ones we call wolves do better in the snow than the black ones says nothing about their Creator.

Why didn’t I say those things?  Quite simply:  I don’t have to.  One of the things that will always boggle my mind is the Christian who thinks that because natural selection is undeniably true that we must abandon the first 3 chapters of Genesis and substitute the latest evolutionary finds in its place; or that we must reinterpret the words to fit the evolutionary mindset.  As if the word for “day” really doesn’t mean “24 hours”, or as if the words “God said {x} and then there was {x}” must mean something other than, well, God saying “{x}” and, well, {x} happening.  I mean, He’s God, what exactly do you think is going to happen?  It’s this type of Christian that simply doesn’t think the Bible is really true.  He might think it’s helpful, or beautiful, or even good; but it’s not true.  Not REALLY true, not FULLY true, at least (which, in reality, doesn’t make it true at all).

But, by far, the thing that boggles my mind the most isn’t the Christian that thinks because Natural Selection is true that we must abandon Genesis; but rather the atheist/agnostic who thinks that because Natural Selection is true, evolution must be the way every species came into existence from a single common form of life.  It’s one thing to say that in a bunch of wolves the white ones will survive the best in snowy conditions.  It’s quite another to say that those wolves, those dogs, used to be minnows (or whatever).

To my eyes, the case for this kind of evolution doesn’t even stand to the slightest scrutiny.  A simple illustration will show what I mean.

Suppose we’re playing a simple game involving dice.  The goal of this game is to beat out 16 other competitors by rolling two dice, one at a time, to equal “4”.  The player who randomly rolls the most 4s would be the winner.  He was naturally selected.  The random rolls of 4 were the right “trait” to have in this game (much like the white fur in our example above), and the condition of needing a “4” was the right “environment” (much like the snow in our example above).  Everyone understands this and arguing that this is wrong is futile.

But let’s suppose the we said that if you rolled the dice enough times you’d eventually come up with a letter and not a number.  Then let’s say if you rolled them enough, you’d not only come up with a letter but a specific letter, “F”.  And after rolling them enough after that, you’d eventually spell “F-O-U-R”.  Does this make sense?  Of course not.  Why?  Because no matter how many times you roll those dice, they’ll always answer in some form of a number.  They simply don’t have the information on them to come up as a letter.  They can randomly change which number, those random changes can sometimes be very beneficial to win your game or survive your tournament, but those random changes will never change the NATURE of those numbered dice.  At the end of the day, no matter how random they may be, they’re still random NUMBERS.

And so it is with evolution.  Sometimes the specific animal or plant changes in a way that helps it to survive, but it will always survive as that same animal or plant.  It may have pointier ears, heavier fur, or a different color, but a meat eating, air breathing dog is never going to become a algae eating, water breathing fish.  It doesn’t work like that.  Natural selection can make a dog a better dog, but it can’t make a dog a better human.

Some will protest that multiple little changes over time can change one kind into another kind.  Shorter ears here, longer legs there, thicker fur in this change, and before you know it you’ve made enough little changes to be something entirely different.  Let’s examine that idea.  Suppose a type of fish mutated randomly to develop some aspect of breathing air.  Then, that fish mutated again to further the process along.  Then again.  Then again and so on until the fish is fully capable of breathing air.

Do these mutations happen in one individual or in a population?  Evolutionists admit that it would have to happen in a population, much like our fur example above, or else the mutation would not last beyond the first generation.  Well, it’s one thing for a dog to display variety in fur color, but it’s quite another for a water breathing fish to display a variety in breathing air.  Why would it do that except if it were a pure mutation?  It wouldn’t.  If it was a mutation, why would it happen in a great number at the same time and in the same way?  This is where the idea falls apart.  The statistical probability of a wide variety of individuals randomly developing the same trait are beyond astronomical.  If it’s not random, as some evolutionists claim, then who is driving the changes?  Do the species themselves choose how to mutate?  Is there a third party?

See how it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny?

Evolutionary scientists have done much huffing and puffing about how settled this Science supposedly is.  I think it’s time to pop that bubble.  As Christians, we can admit to the realities of scientific discovery without relenting in a Biblical worldview.  God did, after all, create science.  Why not explore it, why not make the most of it; using it to glorify Him?  But God did not endow the scientist with the right to be illogical, irrational, and inconsistent.  We must prepare our minds, think through these issues, and demonstrate these matters as they are, and for what they are: the vain rebellions of those who refuse to acknowledge God as Lord and cling to irrationality with both rebellious hands.

Follow us on Twitter  |  Like us on Facebook  |  Subscribe to the Blog  |  Listen to the Podcast

Tagged , .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *