Clarifying The Confusion On Natural Selection
On July 7, 2016, the Ark Encounter welcomed its first guests. What many do not realize is how much work and research goes on behind the scenes to produce the exhibits. One of the frequent questions we are asked is, “How do we get all the animals today from the animal kinds that were on the Ark?” One of the ways is natural selection. Charles Darwin believed that natural selection was the main mechanism behind molecules-to-man evolution. However, as is clear from observational science, natural selection (along with other mechanisms) only leads to variation within a kind and not the evolution of one kind of animal into a completely different kind of animal. Because I highly regard their integrity, commitment to biblical authority, and scientific practice, I asked Dr. Georgia Purdom (PhD, Molecular Genetics, The Ohio State University) and Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson (PhD, Cell and Developmental Biology, Harvard University) to write an article discussing the reality and role of natural selection. I endorse their conclusions and hope this will help answer, in part, the question of how the many species of animals we have today descended from those kinds that were on the Ark.
Ken Ham, president and CEO, Answers in Genesis
On the grassy plains of East Africa, a herd of Grant’s gazelles meanders slowly in the afternoon sun. Suddenly, the herd dashes off in unison—with a streak of spotted fur in hot pursuit. The healthy gazelles easily escape the hungry cheetah, but a sickly and weak gazelle at the back of the herd pitifully succumbs to the carnivore’s devices. Has “natural selection” struck again? And why does it matter to the creation/evolution debate?
The term natural selection has been defined clearly for over 150 years. Charles Darwin put the term in the title to his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, and he articulated what he meant in the text of his seminal work:
But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterised. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection.1
Evolutionists to this day define it much the same way (but without the Victorian verbosity):
The differential survival of and/or reproduction of classes of entities that differ in one or more characteristics.2
Thus, “survival of the fittest”3 or “survival of the fittest to reproduce” is the standard definition of the process termed natural selection, and it finds no conflict with the text of Scripture.4 Ever since the Fall (Genesis 3), living things have been dying and killing each other, and the self-evident fact of natural selection is perfectly consistent with the Bible. Natural selection has happened, and it continues to happen every day. In fact, the concept of natural selection was first articulated not by an evolutionist but by a creationist nearly a quarter century before Darwin published his most significant work.5
Furthermore, as biblical creationists, we must affirm that the term natural has been used from the earliest days of formal scientific inquiry to describe God’s upholding of the universe through the laws of nature. For the Christian, nature is simply shorthand for God’s providential operation of the creatures and creation we see around us.6 In our example above, the culling of the sickly gazelle removes its unique genetic contribution from the overall genetic pool of the gazelle population, potentially preventing propagation of its genetic mutations from spreading.
In addition, repetition of this predation cycle over time could alter the ratios of genetic varieties in the gazelle species, potentially leading to the formation of a new species. Thus, natural selection is an observable fact that can participate in the process of variation and speciation within the original kinds of animals that God created.
Unfortunately, evolutionists have taken a straightforward truth and co-opted it for their anti-biblical purposes:
[Natural selection] provided an entirely natural, mechanistic explanation for adaptive design that had been attributed to a divine intelligence.7
In the evolutionary worldview, natural selection and mutations are the primary driving forces resulting in the evolution of all living things from a single-celled common ancestor over billions of years—without any divine intervention. In essence, atheistic evolutionists substitute natural selection for God Himself!
The misuse of this term shouldn’t intimidate biblical creationists. After all, people have been co-opting terms for anti-biblical purposes for millennia. Even today, unbelievers justify gay “marriage,”8 abortion,9 and all sorts of other sins in the name of “Christianity.” Yet no Bible-believer would logically conclude that, because sinners wrap the cloak of “Christianity” around their vices, the entire Christian religion should be thrown out. Instead, we would all agree that the abusers of the term should be exposed, and the correct definition should be restored and emphasized to prevent error from spreading.
The same principle holds true in the realm of natural selection. Just because unbelievers co-opt the term for their anti-Christian purposes doesn’t mean that natural selection isn’t real or that the term should be thrown out. Instead, biblical creationists should point out the ability of natural selection to remove the sickliest individuals from a population and to preserve the least degenerate and most well-adapted organisms,10 and we should also emphasize the scientific inability of natural selection to evolve the diversity of life from a common ancestor.11
We should also expose the logical fallacies that evolutionists employ with natural selection in an attempt to buttress their case. For example, when pressed for evidence for molecules-to-man evolution, evolutionists often cite examples of natural selection. This is an equivocation fallacy since natural selection has been deftly substituted for evolution mid-argument. These two terms have very different definitions.
Furthermore, natural selection—the survival of the fittest to reproduce—actually works in the opposite direction of molecules-to-man evolution. Natural selection eliminates variety, and goo-to-you evolution requires an ever-increasing growth in variety.12 Thus, natural selection is a fact, but Darwinian evolution from a universal common ancestor is not—despite the evolutionists’ best attempts to use the former to prove the latter.
by Dr. Georgia Purdom and Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson on February 16, 2016 ; last featured October 10, 2026
More on this subject next week.
Ken Ham, president and CEO, Answers in Genesis
On the grassy plains of East Africa, a herd of Grant’s gazelles meanders slowly in the afternoon sun. Suddenly, the herd dashes off in unison—with a streak of spotted fur in hot pursuit. The healthy gazelles easily escape the hungry cheetah, but a sickly and weak gazelle at the back of the herd pitifully succumbs to the carnivore’s devices. Has “natural selection” struck again? And why does it matter to the creation/evolution debate?
The term natural selection has been defined clearly for over 150 years. Charles Darwin put the term in the title to his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, and he articulated what he meant in the text of his seminal work:
But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterised. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection.1
Evolutionists to this day define it much the same way (but without the Victorian verbosity):
The differential survival of and/or reproduction of classes of entities that differ in one or more characteristics.2
Thus, “survival of the fittest”3 or “survival of the fittest to reproduce” is the standard definition of the process termed natural selection, and it finds no conflict with the text of Scripture.4 Ever since the Fall (Genesis 3), living things have been dying and killing each other, and the self-evident fact of natural selection is perfectly consistent with the Bible. Natural selection has happened, and it continues to happen every day. In fact, the concept of natural selection was first articulated not by an evolutionist but by a creationist nearly a quarter century before Darwin published his most significant work.5
Furthermore, as biblical creationists, we must affirm that the term natural has been used from the earliest days of formal scientific inquiry to describe God’s upholding of the universe through the laws of nature. For the Christian, nature is simply shorthand for God’s providential operation of the creatures and creation we see around us.6 In our example above, the culling of the sickly gazelle removes its unique genetic contribution from the overall genetic pool of the gazelle population, potentially preventing propagation of its genetic mutations from spreading.
In addition, repetition of this predation cycle over time could alter the ratios of genetic varieties in the gazelle species, potentially leading to the formation of a new species. Thus, natural selection is an observable fact that can participate in the process of variation and speciation within the original kinds of animals that God created.
Unfortunately, evolutionists have taken a straightforward truth and co-opted it for their anti-biblical purposes:
[Natural selection] provided an entirely natural, mechanistic explanation for adaptive design that had been attributed to a divine intelligence.7
In the evolutionary worldview, natural selection and mutations are the primary driving forces resulting in the evolution of all living things from a single-celled common ancestor over billions of years—without any divine intervention. In essence, atheistic evolutionists substitute natural selection for God Himself!
The misuse of this term shouldn’t intimidate biblical creationists. After all, people have been co-opting terms for anti-biblical purposes for millennia. Even today, unbelievers justify gay “marriage,”8 abortion,9 and all sorts of other sins in the name of “Christianity.” Yet no Bible-believer would logically conclude that, because sinners wrap the cloak of “Christianity” around their vices, the entire Christian religion should be thrown out. Instead, we would all agree that the abusers of the term should be exposed, and the correct definition should be restored and emphasized to prevent error from spreading.
The same principle holds true in the realm of natural selection. Just because unbelievers co-opt the term for their anti-Christian purposes doesn’t mean that natural selection isn’t real or that the term should be thrown out. Instead, biblical creationists should point out the ability of natural selection to remove the sickliest individuals from a population and to preserve the least degenerate and most well-adapted organisms,10 and we should also emphasize the scientific inability of natural selection to evolve the diversity of life from a common ancestor.11
We should also expose the logical fallacies that evolutionists employ with natural selection in an attempt to buttress their case. For example, when pressed for evidence for molecules-to-man evolution, evolutionists often cite examples of natural selection. This is an equivocation fallacy since natural selection has been deftly substituted for evolution mid-argument. These two terms have very different definitions.
Furthermore, natural selection—the survival of the fittest to reproduce—actually works in the opposite direction of molecules-to-man evolution. Natural selection eliminates variety, and goo-to-you evolution requires an ever-increasing growth in variety.12 Thus, natural selection is a fact, but Darwinian evolution from a universal common ancestor is not—despite the evolutionists’ best attempts to use the former to prove the latter.
by Dr. Georgia Purdom and Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson on February 16, 2016 ; last featured October 10, 2026
More on this subject next week.
70-79, M
