Charles Darwin as Walt Disney: "If You Wish Upon a Fossil..."

Recently I was in a bookstore that was giving away free books. One little paperback caught my attention--Charles Darwin's The Origin of the Species. The "price" was right so I got it.  I wanted to take a look at Darwin's own words to see if I would learn something about the man and his ideas.

After all, an idea is only as good as its source. Would Charles Darwin's words change my mind or at least cause a few doubts about my opposition to macro-evolution?

On the contrary. After reading the Origin of the Species from cover-to-cover I'm all the more convinced that what we see around us is the work of God's special creation.

Charles Darwin was the Walt Disney of the 19th century. "If you wish upon a fossil..."

This comparison is not meant to de-mean Walt Disney. I greatly respect the man who blessed millions of kids with his stories and creations. But when I think of Walt Disney, I think of the power of "imagination." His memorable stories and remarkable theme parks are based on creative imagination--the world of make-believe.

That was my take-away from Darwin's book. His theory is not based on science or facts--but rather on creative observation and imagination.

Make believe.

I was really disappointed by the lack of science in his book.

Reading his words only strengthened my belief in God and his incredible Creation. It makes far more scientific sense. In fact, I hope we make school kids start reading The Origin of the Species. I think it would drive most of them to becoming creationists.

Darwin's Personal Skepticism and Doubt

One of the more lasting impressions I received from The Origin of the Species was Darwin's doubt in his own theory. On nearly every page he confesses his skepticism, or "how ignorant we are" (p. 388), or how the scientific evidence just wasn't there.

For example "I have not found a single terrestrial animal that can fertilize itself. This is a remarkable fact" (p. 103). Darwin was amazed that plants could self-fertilize, but mammals couldn't. Could it be that they were "designed that way?" If he can't find evidence, then why believe an untruth?

Or how about this stunning admission: "Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the most complex organs and instincts have been perfected, not by means superior to but analogous with human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor. Nevertheless, this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination insuperably great, cannot be considered real..."(p. 426).

Translation: It really looks like things were created by a Superior Mind. But this can't be real so we need to use our imagination and just believe things evolved.

Talk about blind faith.

Yet, after sharing his doubts and problems with the theory of evolution for over 450 pages, he ends the book with the following visionary words:

"Hence we may look with some confidence to a secure future of great length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress toward perfection...Thus from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely the production of higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are evolved" (450).

This hyperbolic paragraph is filled with amazing contradictions. He talks about looking with "confidence" at his theory but he doubts the evidence the entire book; He says that natural selection works solely for the "good of each being." Really? How does that work? Are there not bad mutations? Isn't entropy a fact of life? He says the "war of nature" produces this grandeur of intelligent life. Does war ever produce grandeur? He mentions the fixed law of gravity. Who put it there? And he says what is produced by chance and war is beautiful and wonderful--because it has evolved!

Darwin's concept of beauty is really strange.  All beauty I see is designed--created to bless. Well, at least Darwin says that this process is "breathed by the Creator."

Charles Darwin is not an atheist. He beleives in Theistic evolution.

Darwin on Imagination and Analogy

In every chapter of this book, Darwin observes nature and then uses his imagination--Disney-like--to try and convince himself that it all came about by blind, random chance. In numerous sections he appeals to imagination to make his points. Example: "I must beg permission to give one or two imaginary illustrations" (p. 95). Why does he need imaginary illustrations? I thought science was supposed to test the reality of things to discover truth. Apparently the tests failed. All that remains is imagination.

He also uses abundant analogies to describe his blind theory. He says, "Analogy leads me to believe that all animals and plants are descended from one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide." (446). At least he's being honest. Using his imagination and creative analogies--not science-- he concocts a theory that time + matter + chance = YOU. But he opines, this could be "deceitful."

I agree. To leave the obvious Creator God out of the equation is the height of deception.

Darwin's Other Problems

Here are some other examples of facts Darwin struggled with and couldn't find a way to explain with his imaginary theory of natural selection.

1. On the electric organs of fish - "The electric organs of fishes offer another case of special difficulty; for it is impossible to conceive by what steps these wondrous organs have been produced (175). Earth to Charles - how about God?

2. The creation of the eye - "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (168). Yes, Charles. We agree. It is rather absurd. The eye is an amazing creation.

But still Darwin uses his imagination to block out his common sense. This is his explanation of the development of the eye: "Let this process go on for millions of years, and during each year on millions of individuals of many kinds; and may we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to those of man?" (171).

No, Charles. We don't have that much faith. Millions of years would not produce an eye. Humans create glasses. God creates eyes.

3. On the wonder of instinct and honeycombs - "Many instincts are so wonderful that their development will probably appear to the reader a difficulty sufficient to overthrow my whole theory." (228) The honeycomb: "He must be a dull man who can examine the exquisite structure of a (honey)comb, so beautifully adapted to its end, without enthusiastic admiration." Yes, Charles, the power and precision of animal instincts leads us to throw out your theory. And the root meaning of "enthusiasm" = full of God. Yes, when we look at the incredible beauty and design of a honeycomb, we are full of admiration for God.

4. On apes and men - "Why have not apes acquired the intellectual powers of man? Various causes could be assigned, but they are conjectural...A definite answer to the latter question ought not to be expected" (205). I think everything you've said is conjectural--and the Bible does give us a very definite answer.

5. On beauty in nature - "(Creationists) believe that many structures have been created for the sake of beauty, to delight man or the Creator...I fully admit that many structures are now of no direct use to their possessors, and may never have been any use to their progenitors; but this does not prove that they were formed solely for beauty or variety. Such doctrines, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory" (185). I'd say your theory has many fatalities. Yes, God made many things for beauty and appreciation--just like human artists do.

The Problem With the Fossil Record

Despite the above problems, the greatest scientific condemnation of his theory is that the fossil record rejects it. Darwin dreams on even though he knows that the fossil record is a "a crowd of difficulties."  He laments, "I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered...If species have descended from other species by fine gradations, why do we not everywhere see innumerable transition forms?" (158).

Yes, this is a problem. The evidence isn't there. Again: "Why do we not find (fossils) embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? This "confounds me." This lack of evidence he calls the "imperfection of the geological record" (287).

Hey, Charles. Could it be the imperfection of your theory that science cannot confirm? But no problem! We have imagination! "It may be worthwhile to sum up the foregoing remarks on the causes of the imperfection of the geological record under an imaginary illustration..." (303).

He concludes his depressing survey of the fossil record: "He who rejects this view of the imperfection of the geological record will rightly reject the whole theory." (336). Yes, Charles, we do. So here is his last chance: "The evidence of links may be buried beneath the great oceans" (431).

Or how about removed by aliens? Charles Darwin can't get the scientific fossil record to back him up so he "imagines" that 20,000 leagues under the sea might help. This line of reasoning is pitiful if it weren't so destructive to young impressionable minds.

The Fatal Flaw of Darwinism

Charles Darwin lived before the age of powerful microscopes. He had no idea of the intricacy and complexity of the human cell. Missing that understanding, he made this bold prediction: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" (171).

Well, molecular biology has now shown us the irreducible complexity of the various parts of the human cell. Michael Behe and others have demonstrated that the various "chemical machines" of the human cell "could not have possibly been formed by numerous successive slight modifications."

If Charles Darwin lived today, he would have to repent and become a creationist.  And next time you look at an eye, a honeycomb, a beautiful sunset, or a gorgeous flower, thank your Creator for the amazing world he has made.

He's not Charles Darwin or even Walt Disney.

He is the Loving Creator of all things.