Clarifying The Confusion

Natural selection is often referred to as “survival of the fittest” or as I’ve heard the newer version of that phrase as “reproduction of the fittest”. Many people are confused about it, thinking that the evidence for natural selection is evidence for the theory that molecules in mud brought about the miracle of man. Most teachers of evolution add to the confusion by conveniently failing to point out that even according to evolutionary theory, this cannot be true – natural selection by itself makes no new things.

Natural selection is the holy grail of evolution. All evolutionists believe it and proclaim it. And yet this theory is not the answer to our existence on this planet.

So what is natural selection? In its simplest definition:

Its a greater chance of survival. Whether it is a plant, bird, or fish, its nature’s way of becoming more fit to survive its environment. It does not necessarily refer to physical fitness, but how God has created DNA in everything that exits on this planet. So as Darwin recorded the beaks in finches changing over time, that simply meant that the finches were adapting to their environment to live longer. Here’s the key – the finches did not evolve into a new species, they were still finches with changed beaks. This does not prove evolution!

Consider a group of plants that has a mix of genes for the length of its roots. Expose those plants over generations to ongoing dry weather, and the plants most likely to survive are the ones which have longer roots to get down to deeper water. Thus, the genes for shorter roots are less likely to get passed on. In time, none of these plants will have genes for short roots. Over years the plant is still a plant with a different root system – it's not a new species.

It's a greater chance of finding a mate. It is documented that the females of certain fish species consistently prefer fish with longer tails, so then male fish with genes for longer tails will have more chance of reproducing. So that their genes for long tails have more chance of getting reproduced.

The sad part to this is the fact that Charles Darwin believed that this fine-tuning process worked without limits. Evolutionists continue to lie to us saying that if new varieties could arise in a short time to suit their environment, then given enough time, any number of new characteristics, to the extent of totally new creatures, could appear.

This was how Darwin came to the dangerous conclusion that lungs originally arose in a lungless world, and feathers came about in a featherless world. Darwin, a hundred and fifty years ago, did not know how heredity works, but today scientists know better. He did not know, for instance, what is passed on in reproduction is essentially a whole lot of very complex coded instructions.

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. In the above example, the plants became better able to survive dry weather because of the elimination of certain genes. The information for the longer roots was already in the parent population; natural selection caused nothing new to arise in, or be added to, the group of fish.

Never forget, as geneticists now know, the price paid for adaptation is always the permanent loss of information in that group of organisms. If the environment were changed back so that shorter roots were the only way for plants to survive, the information for these would not magically reappear, the population would no longer be able to adapt in this direction.

It's time to put evolution on trial! People, especially Christians, need to get wise to the greatest, most dangerous lie promoted in the last 150 years.

I leave you with this illustration. In 1872, an attempt was made to elect Charles Darwin to the prestigious Zoological Section of the French Institute, but this failed because he received only 15 out of 48 votes. A prominent member of the Academy gave this reason: “What has closed the doors of the Academy to Mr. Darwin is that the science of those of his books which have made his chief title to fame—the ‘Origin of Species,’ and still more the ‘Descent of Man,’ is not science, but a mass of assertions and absolutely gratuitous hypotheses, often evidently fallacious. This kind of publication and these theories are a bad example, which a body that respects itself cannot encourage.”

God bless you,

Pastor Dave

No Comments




no categories


no tags