Creationists have a range of views on natural selection, but most reject the idea that it can produce new species or higher taxonomic groups. Here’s an overview of common creationist perspectives on natural selection:
Natural selection happens but is limited
Most creationists agree that natural selection occurs and can cause changes in populations over time. However, they argue that these changes are limited to minor variations within created “kinds.” Natural selection cannot produce the major innovations and new body plans required for macroevolution. As Answers in Genesis puts it, natural selection only “removes genetic information; it cannot create new genetic information.”
Creationists point to breeding experiments like those with dogs that demonstrate the limits of selection. All dogs remain dogs despite selective breeding that has created a wide variety of sizes, colors, shapes, etc. Extrapolating from microevolution to macroevolution goes beyond what the scientific evidence allows, creationists contend.
Natural selection removes information
Many creationists argue that rather than adding new information to the genome, natural selection actually removes information. Mutations delete or corrupt genetic information, and natural selection preserves mutations that are neutral or beneficial in a particular environment. But over time, the loss of information limits possible variation and adaptation. The earth and its lifeforms are declining over time, not advancing to higher complexity.
From this perspective, chloroquine resistance in malaria or antibiotic resistance in bacteria represent losses of genetic information, not gains. Creationists see natural selection acting as a conservative force, not a creative mechanism.
Design and purpose in nature
Creationists see evidence that natural selection is not random or purposeless, but rather is programmed by the Creator to preserve life. Examples like bird and fish migration, symbiotic relationships, and genetic switches that control timing of embryo development point to design in living things to aid survival. Natural selection reflects the Creator’s providence, not undirected natural processes.
Creationists also contend that evolutionary theory cannot account for altruistic behaviors, cooperation, and morality within and across species. Such phenomena indicate divine purpose, not simply natural selection for reproductive fitness.
Effects of the Fall
Creationists correlate natural selection with Genesis 3 and the Fall, when sin and death entered the world. The burden of mutations, disease, and environmental stresses that drive natural selection are considered results of the Fall. Natural selection is therefore more a sign of deterioration than progress.
Before the Fall, creationists posit that natural selection as we observe it today would likely not have been necessary. The original created kinds reproduced after their own kinds and were able to adapt to changing environments without mutations and death driving biological change.
Open to additional mechanisms
While opposing macroevolution via mutations and natural selection, creationists are open to other proposed mechanisms that could accelerate change and diversification after the original Creation. These include:
- Pre-programmed adaptive capacity engineered into the original created kinds.
- Epigenetic factors and DNA switches that control gene expression.
- Modularity and dissociability of genetic elements.
- Change in developmental timing (heterochrony) or developmental processes.
- Intelligence and purposeful behavior by animals could play a role.
Creationists are skeptical but remain open to hypotheses of designed mechanisms for biological change that do not contradict scriptural accounts or depend on random mutations and selection.
A different paradigm
At a fundamental level, creationists approach natural selection and speciation from a different paradigm than secular evolutionists. Creationists allow for change within limits over time, but reject both the sufficiency of natural selection to produce new complex features or body plans and universal common descent from a single ancestor.
These presuppositions stem from acceptance of the biblical accounts of creation in their historical context. As such, no amount of evidence for evolution could convince a creationist to abandon divine creation by God as described in Genesis. Natural selection as a mechanism is evaluated based on these prior commitments.
Within ecology, genetics, medicine and other fields, creationists make use of evolutionary concepts like natural selection in their work. But the overarching evolutionary framework that extrapolates natural selection into fully naturalistic macroevolution is rejected on biblical grounds. The conclusions rather than the data are disputed.
Intricacies of adaptation
Creationists acknowledge many intricacies and complex examples of adaptation in nature that evolutionists attribute to natural selection. These include phenomena like:
- Industrial melanism in peppered moths.
- Stickleback fish armor plating changes based on predation.
- Lactase persistence adapting to dairy consumption in humans.
- Pesticide resistance in insects.
- Differential survival of Galapagos finches depending on beak size.
In cases like these, creationists accept natural selection and microevolution as valid descriptions of biological change over time. But they dispute the assertion that such examples support macroevolution or the ability to produce new anatomical features or body plans.
Creationists contend that much evidence used to support evolution fits equally well or better within a creation model. Interpretation depends heavily on starting assumptions and worldviews.
Conclusions
In summary, creationists largely reject natural selection as a mechanism for macroevolution while accepting its observable effects within limited scope. They view natural selection as a God-designed process that maintains biological function and adaptation, not as an unguided mechanism for building the vast array of life on earth across geological ages.
Creationist perspectives on natural selection stem from acceptance of the biblical accounts of creation and the Flood. Scientific evidence for natural selection is interpreted based on this framework. While creationists reject macroevolution via natural selection, they remain open to discovery of other pre-designed mechanisms God could have employed within creation kinds.