Channel Five, 7.30 pm, Wednesday 7 th January 2004
A commentary by Paul Garner
The third programme in the series featured Richard Dawkins of Oxford University tackling the question, ‘Why Are We Here?' In his inimitable style, Dawkins informed us that the answer given by previous generations was unsatisfying because it was “made up – rather than properly investigated”. The true answer, according to Dawkins, was provided by a Victorian naturalist called Charles Darwin. Darwin's theory of evolution “shook the spiritual foundations of his age”, Dawkins opined, “but we've got over it now” and most of us are happy to accept that we are apes.
There are about ten million species on Earth and each seems “exquisitely tailored” to its environment. For centuries it seemed obvious that this variety and complexity was attributable to God. As William Paley argued in 1802, the evident design of living things implied a Grand Designer – in the same way that the intricate mechanism of a pocket watch pointed to a watchmaker. But then along came Charles Darwin, whose observations of the finches on the Galápagos Islands led him to develop his concept of natural selection.
There are thirteen species of finches on the Galápagos Islands. The ground finches live near the coast; their beaks are large and robust to crack the shells of fruits and seeds. The warbler finches have a diet of insects; their beaks are slender and typical of other insect-eaters. The tree finches live in the forests, feeding on a mixture of insects and plants; in appearance, their beaks are somewhere between those of the ground and warbler finches. Darwin speculated that all these varieties were descended from a common ancestor that had migrated to the islands from the mainland sometime in the past. Small changes, such as those in the shape of the beak, might help a bird to survive and pass on its genes to the next generation. Small changes might accumulate until a large change had resulted. This, argued Dawkins, provided the solution to the mystery of where species come from.
What many people find surprising is that informed creationists agree with the concept of natural selection! In fact, natural selection was first proposed in 1835 by a creationist, Edward Blyth, and Darwin may even have ‘borrowed' the idea from him. So why did Darwin, and not Blyth, receive the credit? The reason is that Blyth did not go beyond the evidence in the way that Darwin did. Darwin speculated that small variations might add up over time to produce completely new types of creature. In his mind, natural selection was essentially unlimited: fish could become land animals, reptiles could become birds, and apes could become people. Blyth, on the other hand, saw natural selection as a means of preserving species, not explaining how they originated. For Blyth, natural selection was merely a way of filtering out unhelpful variations.
“Many Christians recoil from the term ‘natural selection' because evolutionists use it to explain evolution. However, natural selection does occur and in fact it may be a provision of the Lord to enable a population to adapt and hence survive in a constantly changing environment, brought about by the Fall. But natural selection does have its limitations in that it reduces the genetic variability within the population and therefore could not ever give rise to a new kind – which would necessitate more information and not less.” 1
Ironically, this was demonstrated during Dawkins' programme – by an experiment showing how natural selection works. A tray of woodland leaf litter was prepared containing a variety of insects – some easy to see, some harder to see. A group of schoolchildren was invited to play the role of predator and remove the insects they could see. The only insects left were the ones that were most well camouflaged. Although this was supposed to show how insects might become more camouflaged over time, what it actually demonstrates is that unbridled natural selection reduces the original variability of a population! The basic problem with Darwin's idea of limitless change is easy to understand: natural selection is not creative. It can only work on characteristics already present in the population – by definition, it is not capable of creating anything new.
For me, the most striking thing about this programme was Dawkins' schizophrenic attitude to the view of life he was championing. On the one hand we saw Dawkins the Crusader, full of zeal for godless evolution as the all-encompassing answer to the diversity of life. This Dawkins regarded natural selection as “optimistic”, “inspiring”, and “uplifting”. But on the other hand, we saw Dawkins the Rebel, shaking his fist at natural selection and longing to escape from its ruthless grip. This Dawkins described evolution as “harsh”, “bloodthirsty”, callous”, and “wasteful”. It was strange hearing Dawkins express his “delight” at the way in which human beings spend much of their time doing things that have nothing to do with passing on their selfish genes. He positively exulted in the freedom we have to enjoy fun, beauty, and aesthetics. An undiluted world of natural selection is certainly not the kind of world he wants to live in.
But has he ever stopped to ask himself why he feels this way about things? Why does he rage inside against the evolutionary process? What tells him that natural selection is brutal and ugly? What is it that makes him want to leave it behind? It couldn't be – could it? – that even a hardened atheist like Professor Dawkins knows deep down inside that life isn't meant to be like this? That there is something rather unnatural about natural selection? Perish the thought!
“He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.” Ecclesiastes 3:11 (NIV).
Susan Coleman, ‘Darwin's finches', Biblical Creation, Volume 8, Number 22, p.20, 1986.
