As you may remember, we’ve been doing a biology class with Dr. Parker… well, we just did our first test, including an essay. And I’ve been ordered by papa to post mine. 
So, if you like essays on Creation, you may want to read it. If not, don’t worry– I shan’t be offended. 
A little background on this essay… we were writing in response to this (hypothetical) statement: “We see evolution going on around us every day. There’s lots of variety among living things and a constant struggle for survival, so obviously the fittest survive. That makes living things get better, ‘pond scum to people,’ just like Darwin said. Evolution is a fact. Believing the Bible today just makes people laugh at you–and at Jesus.” We were instructed to respond by explaining and supporting the following points:
(a) “Fitness” is a circular argument, an error in logic.
(b) Darwinian fitness can’t explain the origin of new traits in anything–giraffe, moth, or even “Darwin’s Finches”.
(c) Adaptations with many parts (woodpecker’s drill or bombardier beetle’s canon) can’t “evolve” one step at a time.
(d) Darwinian “selection” works only “within kind”, so it can help Scientists explain how kinds “multiply and fill a fallen world” but not how they could change from one species to another.
(e) In summary, so-called “natural selection”, yes, but evolution, no– and Creation, Fall and Salvation, YES!
And now for the essay, finally… (The bold sentence is what Dr. Parker said to start with.)
Actually, scientific evidence contradicts evolutionists’ belief about the past and supports the Biblical record of earth’s history: God’s perfect Creation, corrupted by man’s sin, restored to new life in Christ. To help show you what I mean, I’ll explain a bit about a few parts of your statement, starting with the term “fittest” as is used in the statement “survival of the fittest”. “Fitness” is determined by reproductive success: whether they survived (And were healthy enough) to produce offspring. So, in essence, “survival of the fittest” boils down to “survival of the survivors”. It really doesn’t mean anything besides the obvious, “well, they’re still here, so they’re the fittest, and they are the fittest, so they survived.” Basically, you end up going in meaningless circles –which may be fun, but it isn’t very scientific. (a)
Another thing I’d like to point out is that this survival of the fittest really only means that the weaker animals/plants, etc. die– not that there were better ones than normal. It only explains how a species maintains a level of health–it does nothing at all to explain how they could have added completely new features with no genetic code for them. The features that help them survive–or lead to death–were already in place–thus making it possible for there to be natural selection at all. (b)
Another serious problem with the idea of very slowly adding different parts of new features is that most (all?) systems need every part–not only in place, but working properly. Otherwise, either it would flat out kill the poor creature, or the useless parts would be “selected out” by the very process supposed to produce new features. Take a Bombardier beetle, for instance. This astounding little beetle has a very complex system in which it is able to shoot boiling, toxic liquid at its hapless and unsuspecting attacker. There are three chemicals, two separate holding tanks, a tube for the chemicals to combine in, and a “canon”–which can even be aimed in all different directions–including in front of the beetle! Now, suppose it had all the chemicals–but no holding tanks to keep them separate. BOOM! Dead beetle: end of that “experiment”. What if we had holding tanks, but only two of the necessary chemicals? Fizzle– no explosion. Predator eats beetle–no more beetle, no baby beetles. And on it goes. In order for an explosion to occur outside the beetle, all the elements must be there–and all must be arranged properly. Thus it is for the Bombardier Beetle–and thus it is for the giraffe, the woodpecker, and every other creature living, really. (c)
Interestingly, Darwin’s “selection” only works within kinds–for instance, the slower zebra is eaten by the faster lion–so the slower zebra is “selected out”, while the faster zebra gets away and produces offspring: hence it is the “fittest” of the two zebras. It is not a competition between the lion and the zebra–but between zebras and zebras, lions and lions. And, as such, it does much to explain how the group spreads out and maintains health–but does nothing to explain how one animal could “evolve” into a completely distinct, “new” creature. (d)
From all of this, and from many other observations–both from science and from studying people and God’s word, the logical conclusion appears to be that there is, indeed, a natural selection process–however, there is no evidence at all that such a process “creates” an entirely new species.
In the world today, we see beauty, order, and design–pointing to an intelligent Creator. And yet, we also see this horrifying “war of nature”–struggles, death, disease–why is that? Well, the Bible sheds some light on the subject–it is a result of the curse that man’s sin brought on the world. It seems hopeless–we are doomed to die; a fitting and deserved punishment for our sin.
But then we read on in God’s word: and we see hope. Not only did God provide a way to be forgiven of our sins and reconciled to Him–He has also promised to make all of Creation new–no more struggle and death–only peace, beauty, and order… Exactly how He created it. (e)
(I have to put Dr. Parker’s comment on too, Papa says so. 
)
“One of the best essays–both style and science–I’ve ever read. (And I’ve read LOTS, almost all college and some graduate school.)”
(In which we feel a little bad for Dr. Parker, because I really didn’t put much effort into that essay (in typing it out here I keep finding things I could’ve improved.) and if that’s one of the best… yeah. )
