Remember my preference

About the Book

Table of Contents

Part I

Part II

Part III

Part IV

Part V


Part I: The Preparation of the Earth For Man

Chapter 8

Creation and Divergence

     NATURAL SELECTION acting upon random mutations is still the only viable option for most evolutionists at the present time. This is current orthodoxy. But it is widely admitted, nevertheless, that the concept is of doubtful validity. Sir Julian Huxley in 1943 said frankly, "the direct and complete proof of the utilization of mutations in evolution under natural conditions has not yet been provided.'' (126) And Theodosius Dobzhansky said in 1962, "No satisfactory theory of mutations has yet emerged.'' (127) One year later, Ernst Mayr, perhaps the greatest authority on speciation, admitted candidly: "Mutations merely increase the heterozygosity of a population but do not lead to the production of new species. . . . Mutations cannot produce new species in sexually reproducing species.'' (128)
Artificial selection is admittedly a different matter, for the operation of human planning and conscious purpose make things possible which pure chance has little if any likelihood of achieving, as Leo Berg put it: (129)

     Artificial and Natural Selection are two very different things. In the first, the intelligent will of man operates; in the second, blind chance. Man engaged in the improvement of his breed in a rational manner, crosses only what is useful, selecting from the offspring only the useful, removing all else [his emphasis throughout]. Nature can do nothing of the kind.

     Nature may eliminate what is not immediately useful but it cannot by itself foresee what might be useful in the future unless one attributes to it some kind of purposeful planning, and this is precisely what the evolutionist is most anxious to avoid. Yet by capitalizing the word Nature and personifying it by referring to it as her or she,

126. Huxley, Sir Julian, The Modern Synthesis, Harper, New York, 1942, p.116.
127. Dobzhansky, Theodosius, Mankind Evolving, Yale University Press, 1962, p.46.
128. Mayr, Ernst, Animal Species and Evolution, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1963, p.432.
129. Berg, Leo, Nomogenesis: Or Evolution Determined by Law, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, reprint 1969, p.65.

     pg 1 of 5      

evolutionists do really deify Nature while dethroning Nature's Creator.
Man is in the position of being able to see ahead and can therefore take advantage of chance mutations that are recognized to be of possible use sometime in the future. As a rule, Nature would merely eliminate them, for Nature's way is to discourage the exceptional and favour only the normal. Populations of animals do not encourage the persistence of the extremes of their range because they are constantly crossed with the normals which therefore overwhelm them and thus place natural limits on variability, once the form is established for any particular habitat. This is a kind of negative selection process and is everywhere to be observed both in the field and in the laboratory. Attempts to extend the range of variability are usually unsuccessful, or if the extremes are favoured by controlled breeding, they almost always turn out to be less fit in the field -- though they may have some particular value to man if he maintains the breed under unnatural conditions. Certainly the rule in Nature is to favour the mean, not the extremes.
Furthermore, mutant varieties of a particular species that have been produced in the laboratory by artificial controls differ in a very significant way from those mutant varieties observed in Nature, to which the artificial varieties are assumed to be analogous. C. P. Martin of McGill University, (130) has pointed out that in Nature varieties of certain supposedly closely related species are observed to anticipate the differences of the adult form quite late in embryological developmental. Up to a point, the embryos of sub-phyla, for example, are indistinguishable. Later, the characteristics that set apart the different orders make their appearance in the embryo, followed later still by generic differences, and finally by specific differences. Only in the last stages of prenatal development do specific differences, which will be observable in the adult, become apparent. In marked contrast, laboratory mutant forms which will be clearly distinguishable as adults, display their well-defined differences in the very early stages of embryological development.
Clearly, then, artificially induced mutant varieties tell us little or nothing of how the different varieties of animals arose under natural conditions. In short, the embryos of very different adult forms, such as a chicken and a man, follow a parallel course of development that is remarkably similar for a remarkably long time, considering the differences in adult forms. By contrast, adult forms

130. Martin, C. P., "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," American Scientist, January, 1953, pp.100-106.

     pg.2 of 5     

which have been "engineered" in the laboratory by deliberately induced mutations, while they too as adults may diverge quite radically, are actually observed to begin this process of differentiation far earlier in embryonic development.
To put it very simplistically, divergent forms in Nature do not suggest by their embryonic development that they are divergent because they are mutant forms. Thus, artificially induced mutant varieties shed little or no light on how the different varieties of animals arose under natural conditions. It is not even sufficient to say that the Creator used some method for their production which was not unlike that which man may use. Superficially, about the only common element that one can point to with certainty at the moment is that Artificial and Supernatural Selection both involve forethought and planning. In this, at least, they are clearly to be distinguished from Natural Selection which, in the present state of our knowledge, seems almost to be a fantasy. It is doubtful if Natural Selection has in reality played any part whatever in the formation of species, and in so far as Darwin depended upon it as the prime agency in speciation, the title of his famous work, The Origin of Species, was a complete misnomer.
It is apparent from the discussion up to this point that in the past, in the geological period before the appearance of man, the stage was being prepared by the deliberate intervention of God who created, as occasion demanded, entirely new types and forms of life and, to use J. J. D. de Wit's apt terminology, invested them with "enormous genetic recombinational potency." (131) All that was needed for these potentials to be realized was that the newly introduced forms be set in appropriate niches, in which their capacities for variation would be most useful. We know from observation in Nature that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the evidence. Ernst Mayr freely acknowledges the principle involved here, (132) and Sir Julian Huxley illustrates it thus: "It is indicated clearly in many island forms, which have diverged in isolation while their counterparts on the mainland have remained constant over wide areas in spite of a great diversity of environments." (133) Darwin's Galapagos finches are an excellent case in point. On the various islands where the birds introduced themselves, each community formed a distinguishable variety, while the original stock from which

131. De Wit, J. J. D., "A New Critique of the Transformist Principle in Evolutionary Biology," Philosophia Reformata, vol.29, 1964, p.55.
132. Mayr, Ernst, Animal Species and Evolution, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1963, p.538.

     pg.3 of 5     

these local populations were derived, continued the original form with none of these divergences. Jens Clausen and W. M. Hiesey, in a paper entitled "Balance Between Coherence and Variation in Evolution," noted that shifts in the environment -- which is, of course, an alternative to shifting the particular species to a new environment -- tend to alter the balance between forces favouring persistence of the type and departure from the typical form. And such an alteration leads to change in the genetic constitution of the particular race and of the species itself. (134)
     It is obvious, therefore, that if we can only supply some means of accounting for the introduction of an entirely new type of animal into a given habitat, the subsequent expansion and differentiation of that type into variant forms is not merely easily accounted for, it is virtually inevitable. The problem for the non-Christian naturalist is that he cannot account for the appearance of the new type. The Christian can allow creation as a reasonable explanation and can point out that it is, in fact, the only explanation, since all these new types appear to have been introduced without genetic antecedents. Yet because they were introduced by the same Creator, they often share many features which suggest an economy of planning. This parallelism of design in details is what has confused the evolutionist, because he is persuaded that the only way to account for it is to assume descent. Walter Lammerts and John Sinclair have suggested that groups of genes may have been designed as groups to carry the responsibility of looking after certain specific needs of the organism and that these can be re-arranged to produce, for example, an eye suited to a particular animal. They put it this way:

     Thus on the basis of economy of effort, a wise Creator would certainly use the same genes in all organisms wherever possible, i.e., wherever the same function was to be achieved.

     A little over 200 years ago, such a concept had already been proposed by the perceptive Comte Buffon (1707-1788). (136) In his work Of the Nature of Animals he expressed the view that the Creator seemed to have employed but one idea, varying it ad infinitum, from plants to worms to reptiles to man, "to give men an opportunity of admiring equally the magnificance of the execution and the simplicity of the design." He viewed the design as really a mode of operation or a

134. Clausen, Jens, and Hiesey, W. M., "Balance Between Coherence and Variation in Evolution," Science, vol.130, 1959, p.1413.
135. Lammerts, Walter, and John Sinclair, "Creation in Terms of Modern Concepts of Genetics and Physics," Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, vol.5, no.3, 1953, p.8.
136. Buffon: quoted by J. C. Greene, The Death of Adam, Iowa State University Press, 1959, p.141.

     pg.4 of 5     

system of processes rather than simply a pattern of structures. And he believed that the true aim of Natural History was to discover and understand these processes, and not merely to classify their end results.
It all makes perfectly good sense to see the whole panorama in this light, granted the single premise that behind it stands a Creator with a purpose. One candid evolutionist, G. A. Kerkut, has written: (137)

     If living material had developed on several different occasions, one would expect to have a large number of distinct groups of animals whose relationships and affinities are difficult to discern. . . . This is the present situation.

     Fair enough, as far as it goes: only it is surely a gross understatement to speak of "several different occasions" when in reality these gaps are a universal phenomenon, and such "occasions" must therefore run into the thousands. Moreover, their interrelationships are not only difficult to determine, they are in fact impossible to determine, except by ultimate reference in the mind of God.
    So then, we can see this whole process as a series of creative acts which account for the introduction of new forms of life as soon as the setting is appropriate for them, followed by diversification due to the spread of these created forms with their high potential for variation into new habitats. Their introduction into the total economy of Nature will in turn change the system, tending it toward the formation of a habitat finally to be ideally suited for the introduction of man along with animal forms and plant forms of particular importance to the welfare of the human race. And all the while, the changes in the total environment involve a series of physical events which were laying in store for man's future use, the enormous reservoirs of energy in the form of fossil fuels (coal, gas, and oil) which were going to make possible his final dominion over the earth.

137. Kerkut, G. A., The Implications of Evolution, Pergamon Press, New York, 1960, pp.14, 17.

     pg.5 of 5     

Copyright © 1988 Evelyn White. All rights reserved

Previous Chapter                                                                      Next Chapter

Home | Biography | The Books | Search | Order Books | Contact Us