Darwin’s Magic Potion


When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, he brought scientific credibility to the concept that man developed slowly from previous life forms. Most people do not realize that the concept of evolution did not actually originate with Darwin but predates him by thousands of years. Even the mechanisms proposed by Darwin can be attributed, in a large part, to others.1 What sets Darwin apart is the timing of his work. The intellectual community of Northern Europe was ripe for a naturalistic explanation of life. The distortion of Biblical Christianity was bringing faith in the supernatural under increasing ridicule, and humanism (man making himself the center of all things) was rapidly replacing the Christian belief in absolute truth.

Thus when an alternative to creation seemed to have been found, it was rapidly accepted as fact. In actuality, Darwin proved neither where life came from nor how it developed. He merely proposed a method whereby this transformation from beast to man seemed possible. With the exception of mutations, what Darwin believed about evolution has changed little in the last 140 years. Darwin’s concepts have been taught with the fervor of religious dogma ever since.

Darwin suggested several things concerning the origin of our current biological diversity. The first was that “the species are not immutable.” In common language, this means that the present forms of animal and plant life have developed by changes from ancestral forms over great periods of time. Evolutionists still believe that given enough time, there is essentially no limit to biological variation. Darwin proposed that micro-evolution could be extended to account for nearly all of the diversity of life and that all life has a few original ancestors. Darwin also postulated that a force called “natural selection” (commonly known as “survival of the fittest”) is responsible for guiding this upward development of all life. Can this magical force transform an ameba into a man?

Almost every biology textbook has the following example of how natural selection works. In England, before the industrial revolution, it was common to find the peppered moth in proportions of 95 per cent light-colored to 5 per cent dark-colored. This was primarily because the majority of the trees at that time were light and the light-colored moths were better camouflaged. Thus fewer light-colored moths were eaten by predators. After the industrial revolution, the trees became primarily dark-colored (due to pollution) and the light-colored moths were now at a dis-advantage to the predators. Thus, the peppered moth population shifted to 95 per cent dark-colored peppered moths. This is a classic example of the powerful ability of natural selection to adapt an organism to its environment. But how does this explain the development of completely different types of animals? We started with light and dark moths and we ended up with … light and dark moths. Nothing new developed; the population merely shifted. Furthermore, is has recently been disclosed that the evidence for the shift in moth population was doctored by gluing moths to trees for illustration purposes.2

There does not exist even one example of natural selection producing a new animal, a new organ, or even a major permanent change in an existing organism. This is because “natural selection” is just that – selection. It can create nothing new. It can only select the most advantageous information which is already present in the molecular blueprint of the organism. Natural selection can not cause new information to be added to the DNA of an animal.

1. Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men, TFE Publishing, 1987.
2. Creation 21(3); 56, 199.