Christians Believed in Natural Selection Before Darwin was a Single-Cell Life Form

This whole article is a response to Bill Nye’s meddling, and the fact that, as a student of the philosophy of science with my degree in the field, I get really annoyed with how much anti-Christian “science” bullying goes on all the time. I especially can’t stand preclusive and arbitrary definitions about what is and isn’t science. So. Here goes.

Before Darwin was a single-cell life form (you know… a zygote), Christians believed in natural selection. Let me tell you a little story you’ve probably never heard.

Directly previous to Darwin’s theory of evolution, one of the main “scientific” explanations for the origin of the species was a theory called “Polygenism.” It posited that breeding alone couldn’t account for the diversity of species. So, according to polygenists, each variant species of humans and animals had been specially and distinctly created for its particular environment. Orthodox Christians challenged this scientific theory. Why? Because the Bible clearly says that Adam and Eve (just two people) were the father and mother of all mankind and that only two of every kind on the Ark repopulated the earth.

Therefore, according to the Bible, species variation was not polygenic, but monogenic—meaning all available genetic material had a single (mono-) pair origin (e.g., Adam and Eve), not a multiple (poly-) pair origin. People of the Bible for thousands of years have believed that breeding and migration accounted for all the different variations of species within kinds. “Scientists” during the ascendancy of the polygenic fad laughed at the ignorant Christians who were so out of touch with modern scholarship. How could all of this diversity come from just one pair? Ridiculous!

And some Christians, especially in the scientific and scholarly communities, caved into the theological and scientific fads of their day. They compromised their position on the literal interpretation of biblical history in order to integrate polygenism. The most notable of these compromisers was a man named Louis Agassiz, a Christian paleontologist who adopted, and even contributed to, the polygenic model. He also became one of the most public opponents of Darwinism after 1859. In an ironic twist, when Aggasiz’ prized polygenism was rejected because of its lack of scientific support, the public was led to believe that the discredited theory was the product of typically unscientific Christian dogmatism (since, after all, Agassiz was a famous Christian scientist). But, in fact, it was the really ignorant Christians that were right all along. You know, the ones who held fast to biblical monogenism even when huge piles of “evidence” accumulated supporting polygenism. They never had to change their interpretation of the Bible to fit the real evidence. And neither do we.

But we’re still being called ignorant; that hasn’t changed. The Science Guy himself begged us not to teach our kids creationism. But creationists have always taught the only part of Darwin’s theory that has any basis in science or fact: that a given environment will shape the populations within that environment by killing organisms that cannot survive in it, thus “favoring” traits that provide a survival advantage. So two people, Adam and Eve, can have children whose populations develop different traits (including skin color) as their populations adapt to the different environments to which they migrate.  It’s not complicated. In fact, biblical creationists have been teaching natural and artificial selection since the beginning (even the patriarch Jacob knew enough about the transmission of selective traits through breeding that he was able to expertly “fleece” Laban. See Genesis 30:25–31:16.).

What biblical creationists refuse to believe, and what we won’t teach our children, is the other part of evolutionary theory—the part that has absolutely no place in a strictly scientific discussion since it fails every test of experimental science (i.e., It’s not observable, not repeatable, and not in the present)—the theory that natural selection within a species has generated and is still generating genetic material that wasn’t there before, thus creating new kinds of organisms. This has never been substantiated in even one organism, alive or dead; the fossil record has failed to provide even one uncontested “missing link” (when Darwinian theory predicted that there should have been billions of them). In fact, the fossil record was such a disappointment to evolutionist hard-hitter Stephen Jay Gould that he just reinvented Darwinian theory to account for the “missing” evidence: punctuated equilibrium. Look it up. It’s about as desperate as it sounds. Further, modern genetic and cellular research continues to poke more holes in the theory of macro-evolution.

Remember when geocentric cosmology was on the way out (thanks to the Roman Catholic Cardinal Copernicus’s heliocentric theories later championed by Galileo)? What did desperate geocentrists do? They created epicycles, a pathetic patch that complicated astronomical theory and illustrated that geocentric cosmology couldn’t support the evidence. Evolutionists have a similar difficulty trying to cough up evidence of macro-evolution, so they have tried patching it up with a few different copouts (planetary evolution being one of them… Dick Dawkins loves that idea).  Macro-evolutionary mythology is failing in every scientific field. The only place it is succeeding is in the philosophical, political, and religious realms. Proof that it was never all that scientific to begin with.

And since evolutionists have no evidence for macro-evolution, they co-opt all of the evidence for natural selection as if that proves something. Notice that evolutionary scientists make no distinction between macro- and micro-evolution. They think the whole thing is just one big evolutionary process that starts on the species level and grows outward. So natural selction is proof of Evolution (with a capital E, mind you). They just love pointing out evidence of micro-evolution (natural selection) in order to mock the Christian belief in creationism. I saw a Doonesbury comic recently that mocked a Christian creationist for not believing in the “evolution” of strains of disease.

Yeah, let’s talk about that. Shouldn’t we have seen a bacteria produce a new kind of bacteria with previously nonexistent genetics by now? I mean, they reproduce by the millions every hour. Surely at least one of them has produced a sliver of evidence for macro-evolution. Nope. Not a single one. Every bacteria is operating within the already established limitations of the genetic hand it was dealt. The environment might select out a trait necessary for that strain’s survival. But, as of yet, every virus has always produced other viruses after its own kind, no matter how much radiation they pump them with in the labs. And since the bedrock of science is the predictability of natural phenomena, I think we can safely assume, if we are going to be “scientific” about it, that things will continue to operate that way. Almost like God was right or something.

Sorry, though. Evolutionists can’t even take credit for natural selection. Christians believed that theory first. We didn’t know that the mechanism was genetics, but neither did Darwin when he wrote Origin of the Species. And when did genetics come into play? Oh, after Augustinian friar Gregor Mendel developed the field. That couldn’t be right, though. Since Christianity is so at odds with science. Yeah, no.

So… Those of us that hold fast to the biblical account are not going to bend over backwards just because a throng of yesmen for the most recent scientific fad think we’re ignorant. We’ll just wait for the truth to out. And it will. It always does.