What Led Darwin Astray? Part II

“Why is the Origin of Species such a great book? First of all, because it convincingly demonstrates the fact of evolution: it provides a vast and well-chosen body of evidence showing that existing animals and plants cannot have been separately created in their present forms, but must have evolved from earlier life forms by slow transformation. And secondly, because the theory of natural selection, which the Origin so fully and so lucidly expounds, provides a mechanism by which such transformation could and would automatically be produced…” Julian Huxley, Introduction to Origin pg 10

In his introduction to Darwin’s groundbreaking work The Origin of Species, Julian Huxley—grandson of “Darwin’s Bulldog” Thomas Huxley—praises Darwin’s contributions to evolutionary theory, and the way he knowingly contradicted the prevailing views of the 19th century church. As you read the quote above, notice how Huxley characterizes the creationism of the day (and dismisses it as a myth). First of all he correctly notes that the church was teaching a doctrine known as “the fixity of species,” an idea inherited from Greek thought, which claimed that the natural world cannot and does not change over time.

“…showing that existing animals and plants cannot have been separately created in their present forms…”

And secondly, Huxley points out that “natural selection” provides a purely materialistic mechanism for transformation. Both of these concepts (change over time, and natural selection as a mechanism for that change) ran counter to the philosophy of the English church at that time.

“Until recently the great majority of naturalists [many of whom were clergy] believed that species were immutable [unchanging] productions, and had been separately created.” Charles Darwin, Origin of Species pg. 17

After all, if species adapt and change in response to changes in their environment, wouldn’t that imply that God’s creation was somehow “imperfect?” Wouldn’t it undermine God’s sovereign governorship of His creatures, if nature were in some way responsible for sustaining the viability of a species?

The answer is both yes and no.

Before we address these questions in depth, we need to quickly dispel a common myth about modern Creationism. I’ll make this really plain and simple.

Creationists recognize that species do change and adapt.

Historically this was not the case. The 19th century church espoused the erroneous doctrine of the fixity of species. We DO NOT. It is an unbiblical idea, and no longer has any scientific credibility. There are numerous real-world examples of species’ characteristics changing in response to weather patterns, food supply, predation and other environmental pressures. But most importantly, we understand that the Biblical account—when properly interpreted—allows for such adaptation, without in any way compromising the truth of the Genesis account.

Nonetheless, many evolutionists continue to misrepresent our views. Douglas Futuyma defines “special creation” as “the doctrine that each species, living and extinct, was created independently by God, essentially in its present form” (Todd C. Wood’s “Species Variability and Creationism,” Origins 62 (2008))

In future posts we will deal with natural selection and adaptation, examining the Genesis account to properly understand meaning of the word “kind.” We will take the popular evidences of evolution and point out how they instead point directly to the Creator and affirm the truth of the Biblical account.

Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” - Genesis 1:20-22