Evolution Is Just Another Word For Survival

Evolution is Just Another Word For Survival By P. Karl Benzforte (Written originally 7 July 2006 for www.scribblevillage.com)

We have a neighbor across the street that raises pigeons and falcons. He just got a new falcon (which he named “Duck”, for reasons beyond my comprehension), and was sitting outside with it chained to his leather glove. I went over to see his new bird. It’s a Harris Hawk, which is an unusual type of bird in that it hunts in packs. Most birds of prey are solitary, but these animals work together to flush out their prey. Apparently once they’re trained, a falconer can go out with his hawk, and they work together to hunt rabbits. We began talking about its scaly feet, and eventually the theory that many birds evolved from dinosaurs. I told him that I subscribed to that theory, and my neighbor stared at me in disbelief. He said, “How can you believe in evolution? You’re Mormon.” This wasn’t the first time I had been confronted with this question, so I explained my stance to him, as I’ll do here. As I understand it, we base evolution on and around Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Simply put, this is the theory that organisms will adapt to their environments by slowly passing traits from one generation to the next. When Darwin visited the Galapagos in the mid-nineteenth century, he found a series of finches that were later determined to have shared a common ancestry, but had settled on each separate island. The finches’ beaks had, over time, become highly adapted to their common food sources on the island (larger beaks for crushing nuts, hooked beaks for digging, etc.). His theory was new and revolutionary. So in a very abbreviated way, this theory states that nature will do what it needs to do to survive. We live in a very harsh world with a lot of competition. The strong and adapting survive, the weak and static do not. You want an example of this phenomenon that is very close to home? Take a look at the dandelions in your front lawn. Have you noticed how low to the ground the flower is when it blooms? Compare that to the dandelions you see out in the mountains. On average they are much taller when they bloom. Why is this? They’re the same flower; they should bloom at the same height. So what’s going on? The explanation lies in the weekly visit of the lawnmower blade. Remember that when grass is allowed to grow in the wild, it grows anywhere from 1′ to 3′. Dandelions cannot reproduce until their flowers have been pollinated, and their flowers can’t be pollinated until it is spotted by an insect. It’s not going to be spotted if it hugs the ground, so naturally it wants to grow taller than the grass.

Once we started mowing our lawns regularly, this all changed. If the plant waited until it was 1′ to 2′ high before opening its flowers, it never would survive the unforgiving lawnmower. Instead, the plant has adapted. In many lawns you’ll find dandelions that actually hug the grass. The yellow flower is low among the blades of grass, below the cutting line. So there you’ve got one example. Same flower, different characteristics based on differing environments. Are we okay? Have we denied God by thinking this? Not at all. If anything, we have glorified God by discovering the degree of perfection that are His creations. Now let’s move on to something a little stickier: evolution as it applies to anthropology. I took an anthropology class in college, and it was a good experience. For one, I appreciated being able to study these theories more in depth. I was, however, more than once annoyed at some of the way things were portrayed. I’m speaking specifically about the evolution of man. For a moment, let’s take religion out of the equation. So here we are, looking for empirical evidence on our origins. We see animals that have similar traits to humans, so we start comparing skeletal structure to theirs (maybe like Darwin’s Finches?). We start digging around in Africa, and begin finding very old and unusuallooking skulls. Being humans and liking to draw boxes around everything, we start putting pictures of these skulls on charts and begin drawing timelines. Based on these so-called timelines, we go from skull to skull, tracing our supposed ancestry of countless years to modern times, and declare that we evolved from apes. That’s like me trying to recreate an ancient tree that once lived on my property by digging up very old sticks in my yard. I’d hold a press conference, and people would take me very seriously when I declared that not only had I found very old sticks, but they once belonged to a rare species of elm, stood approximately 27 feet high, had oval leaves with white streaks, produced marvelous shade in the summer, and eventually died after being blown down. All this from a few sticks. The press would applaud me, and tree-lovers would hate me, since what I’ve asserted didn’t seem to match their beliefs. Sure, they’re assumptions based on weak at best empirical evidence. But hey, it could be true, right? I hope you’re catching my sarcasm. I don’t know much about anything, but I do know that nothing’s that simple. These incredibly serious assertions are based upon a dozen or more old, bizarre-looking skulls. The empirical evidence of the skulls is undisputable. They exist. The assumption that they’re humanoid or ape or somewhere in between is just that. An assumption. I’m not going to get my panties in a bunch over someone’s assumption. So there’s my beef about the science of it. Empirically speaking, yes, they have some skulls and bones. But finding an old Lego under the couch doesn’t mean you can build a whole fortress.

I also have a beef with the creationists in the whole debate. Creationism or Intelligent Design is the supposed counter-theory to Evolution. It states that God created the world in 7 days, the earth is 4,000 years old, and evolution does not take place. Because I believe in the scriptures, I’m supposed to be on this side of the debate I suppose. However, I’m not. I think it is incredibly arrogant to assume we know everything about the Earth and its geological and anthropomorphic history. So is the Bible a true record, coming from God? In my belief yes. However, the Bible is also incredibly symbolic at times. Take the Book of Revelations as an example. If you take that book literally, then keep your eye out for a four-headed beast. Dinosaurs, to my knowledge, are never spoken of in the Bible, yet we have indisputable evidence that they existed. If I believe dinosaurs were on this earth, am I denying the power of God? Or am I glorifying God in recognizing another remarkable creation? To sum things up: To the anthropologists: Stop making your pathetic charts spanning millions of years based on a dozen or more ancient and interesting skulls. It is dangerous to assume, especially in science, because assumptions sometimes hitch rides with empirical evidence. In other words, people feel obligated to accept your assumptions based on your empirical evidence. To the creationists: To assume that we have been informed of all the events of this earth by God because we have scriptures is ridiculous and arrogant. Do I believe God created the earth? Yes. Do I believe he did it in 7 days? Yes. Do I know how long each ‘day’ was, or whether the term ‘day’ is symbolic? No idea. Does life on this planet adapt, grow, and change in order to survive? Yes. Does it happen to the extent that scientists assert (i.e. ape to man)? No. Remember that scientists like to come up with ideas. Some are good and kept, others are bad and discarded. But in the end, God is in charge.