COULD MONKEYS TYPE THE 23RD PSALM? - The chance that even the simplest self-reproducing life forms might have emerged by evolutionary processes) is comparable with the chance that ‘a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.’ The obvious inference from science, as well as the obvious implications of Scripture, is that the original creation of living things involved the very opposite of chance, namely, the imposition of external intelligence on to matter by an original Designer or Creator. - On 30 June 1860, there occurred an event which, was the turning point for the public acceptance of the theory of evolution in its confrontation with Christianity. This was the debate between the agnostic Thomas Huxley, known as ‘Darwin’s bulldog’, and the Bishop of Oxford, Samuel Wilberforce, son of the famous William Wilberforce. The debate was held at a meeting of the British Association, Oxford, of which Bishop Wilberforce was a vice-president, and was sparked by the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species seven months earlier, in November 1859. Wilberforce was an experienced and skillful debater. As well as being a theologian, he was an able naturalist. He had also acquired a first in mathematics in his graduate days at Oxford. He was also a Fellow of the Royal Society, and had the unusual combination of being both Professor of Theology and Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford.

...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Could monkeys type the 23rd Psalm?

,

The chance that even the simplest self-reproducing life forms might have emerged by evolutionary processes) is comparable with the chance that ‘a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.’ The obvious inference from science, as well as the obvious implications of Scripture, is that the original creation of living things involved the very opposite of chance, namely, the imposition of external intelligence on to matter by an original Designer or Creator.

by Russell Grigg

 

Thomas Huxley (left) and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, the protagonists   
at the famous debate on the subject of evolution at the
Oxford meeting of the British Association, June 30, 1860

On 30 June 1860, there occurred an event which, in the minds of many people, was the turning point for the public acceptance of the theory of evolution in its confrontation with Christianity.

This event was the debate between the agnostic Thomas Huxley, who came to be known as ‘Darwin’s bulldog’, and the Anglican Bishop of Oxford, Samuel Wilberforce, son of the famous anti-slavery politician, William Wilberforce.

The debate was held at a meeting of the British Association, Oxford, of which Bishop Wilberforce was a vice-president, and was sparked by the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species seven months earlier, in November 1859.

Wilberforce was an experienced and skillful debater.

As well as being a theologian, he was an able naturalist.

He had also acquired a first in mathematics in his graduate days at Oxford.

He was also a Fellow of the Royal Society, and had the unusual combination of being both Professor of Theology and Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford.

He was well versed in Darwin’s theory as, shortly before the debate took place, he had written a 19,000-word review of the Origin, which was published in the Quarterly Review, July 1860.

When Darwin read this review his comment was:

‘It is uncommonly clever; it picks out with skill all the most conjectural parts, and brings forward well all the difficulties.’

Wilberforce began the debate and, after making several scientific points, concluded with Paley’s argument that a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker, and similarly design in nature implies the existence of a Designer.

Huxley then arose and is said to have put forward his now well-known argument that six eternal monkeys or apes typing on six eternal typewriters with unlimited amounts of paper and ink could, given enough time, produce a Psalm, a Shakespearean sonnet, or even a whole book, purely by chance that is, by random striking of the keys.

In the course of his presentation Huxley pretended to find the 23rd Psalm among the reams of written gibberish produced by his six imaginary apes at their typewriters.

He went on to make his point that, in the same way, molecular movement, given enough time and matter, could produce Bishop Wilberforce himself, purely by chance and without the work of any Designer or Creator.

It seems, from the various accounts of what happened (mostly letters written by Darwin’s followers, as no report on the debate was published by the British Association), that the worthy Bishop did not have an answer to this line of reasoning.

This is rather surprising in view of his erudition in the realm of Mathematics.

So let us consider some answers to Huxley’s argument — an argument that is still advanced from time to time by modern-day evolutionists — that chance is a better explanation for origins than design.

Chance vs. Design

Let us imagine a special typewriter, ‘user-friendly’ to apes, with 50 keys, comprised of 26 capital letters, 10 numbers, one space bar, and 13 symbols for punctuation, etc.

For the sake of simplicity we shall disregard lower-case letters and settle for typing all to be in capitals, and we shall disregard leap years.

How long would it take an operator, on the average, to correctly type the 23rd Psalm, by randomly striking keys?

To obtain the answer, let us first consider the first verse of the Psalm, which reads: ‘THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD, I SHALL NOT WANT.’

According to the Multiplication Rule of Probability (in simplified form) the chance of correctly typing the three designated letters ‘THE’ from possibilities is 1 in 50 x 50 x 50, which equals 125,000.

At a rate of one strike per second, the average time taken to make 125,000 strikes is 34.72 hours.

The chance of randomly typing the eight keys (seven letters and one space) in the right sequence for the two words THE LORD is 1 in 50 x 50 … eight times (i.e. 508).

This is 1 chance in 39,062 billion.

There are 31,536,000 seconds in a year, so the average time taken in years to make 39,062 billion strikes at the rate of one strike per second would be 1,238,663.7 years.

The time taken on the average to correctly type the whole of verse 1 of the 23rd Psalm, which contains 42 letters, punctuation, and spaces, would be 5042 divided by 31,536,000 (seconds in a year), which is 7.2 x 1063 years.

And the time taken on the average to correctly type the whole of the 23rd Psalm, made up of 603 letters, verse numbers, punctuation, and spaces, would be 50603 divided by 31,536,000 which is 9.552 x 101016 years.

If the letter ‘b’ stands for billion (109), this could be written as about one bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb years.

By comparison, the evolutionists’ age of the Earth is (only) 4.6 billion years, and the evolutionists’ age of the universe is (only) almost 15 billion years.

Probability of a DNA molecule forming by chance

When we apply probability theory to the correct arrangement of a DNA molecule, a similar situation is seen, as per the following quotation:

‘When we come to examine the simplest known organism capable of independent existence, the situation becomes even more fantastic. In the DNA chain of the chromosome of the bacterium E. coli, a favourite organism used by molecular biologists, the [DNA] helix consists of 3-4 million base pairs. These are all arranged in a sequence that is ’meaningful’ in the sense that it gives rise to enzyme molecules which fit the various metabolites and products used by the cell. This unique sequence represents a choice of one out of 102,000,000 alternative ways of arranging the bases! We are compelled to conclude that the origin of the first life was a unique event, which cannot be discussed in terms of probability.’

Notice that this refers only to the correct arrangement of already formed bases.

Harold J. Morowitz, Professor of Biophysics at Yale University, has taken into account the covalent bond energies required to actually form such a DNA molecule.

He arrives at a probability figure for the spontaneous formation of one complete bacterium of Escherichia coli in the history of the universe, of less than one chance in 10 to the power 100 billion (which can be written 10-100,000,000,000).

Such numbers are far too large for most people to comprehend.

However, the late Sir Fred Hoyle, who was Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University and was not a Christian, illustrated the point this way: ’Now imagine 1050 blind persons [that’s 100,000 billion billion billion billion billion people—standing shoulder to shoulder, they would more than fill our entire planetary system] each with a scrambled Rubik cube and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling [random variation] of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.’ (Emphasis added.)

Another of Professor Hoyle’s very expressive analogies is that the chance that even the simplest self-reproducing life forms might have emerged in this way (i.e. by evolutionary processes) is comparable with the chance that ‘a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.’ (See also Q&A: Probability).

Some objections countered

What about natural selection?

Lest it be thought that the Darwinian concept of natural selection could increase the chance of forming life (i.e. that with time, mutations may contribute superior survival value to some members of a species), it should be realised that natural selection could only work on a living organism that could produce offspring.

By its very definition it could not work on non-living chemicals, as pointed out by leading evolutionist Dobzhansky.

To try to get around these insurmountable difficulties, some evolutionists are now postulating that the universe is eternal, because if time is eternal, they argue, then theoretically any event is certain to occur.

Eternal universe?

The idea of an eternal universe cannot be substantiated, however, because the universe is slowly approaching ‘heat death’ in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics.

Heat death will occur when all the energy of the cosmos has been degraded to random heat energy, with random motions of molecules and uniform low-level temperatures.

If the universe were eternal, this state would have been reached ‘a long time ago’.

The fact that the universe is not dead is clear evidence that it is not infinitely old. For more information, see Who created God?

‘Somewhere, sometime’

To overcome this problem, Huxley’s modern-day supporters are ready to talk about previous universes before the present one, and other spaces ‘beyond’ our space.

They then argue that, no matter how small the probability of an event, it will occur with the probability one (certainty) ‘somewhere, sometime’, as long as the probability is not actually zero (impossibility).

Moreover, they claim that the reason we observe the realisation of the totally unlikely event is that it can only be observed by the sentient beings it produced.

However, as Professor A.M. Hasofer (Statistician, University of New South Wales) has pointed out in a private communication, there is a fatal scientific weakness in such reasoning, because such a model fails Karl Popper’s fundamental criterion of scientific acceptability, that it be falsifiable.

Professor Hasofer writes:

‘The problem [of falsifiability of a probabilistic statement] has been dealt with in a recent book by G. Matheron, entitled Estimating and Choosing: An Essay on Probability in Practice (Springer-Verlag, 1989). He proposes that a probabilistic model be considered falsifiable if some of its consequences have zero (or in practice very low) probability. If one of these consequences is observed, the model is then rejected.

‘The fatal weakness of the monkey argument, which calculates probabilities of events “somewhere, sometime”, is that all events, no matter how unlikely they are, have probability one as long as they are logically possible, so that the suggested model can never be falsified. Accepting the validity of Huxley’s reasoning puts the whole probability theory outside the realm of verifiable science. In particular, it vitiates the whole of quantum theory and statistical mechanics, including thermodynamics, and therefore destroys the foundations of all modern science. For example, as Bertrand Russell once pointed out, if we put a kettle on a fire and the water in the kettle froze, we should argue, following Huxley, that a very unlikely event of statistical mechanics occurred, as it should “somewhere, sometime”, rather than trying to find out what went wrong with the experiment!’

Reversibility — the Achilles’ Heel of biogenesis by chance

There is one other aspect that needs to be considered — yet another fatal flaw in Huxley’s reasoning and that of his modern-day followers — when applied to the idea of biogenesis by chance or the formation of living cells from chance combinations of molecules.

Let us consider the situation where time is infinite, and probability equals one.

We have just seen that evolutionists do not have infinite time, but just suppose they did, could Huxley’s argument be sustained? In particular, could chance combinations of molecules produce life (or even Bishop Samuel Wilberforce), if there was no restriction on time?

The idea that life can form spontaneously from non-life involves the formation of proteins10 from peptides which have formed from amino acids, (which have formed from the gases in a reducing atmosphere).

However, the biochemical reactions involved in the formation of proteins from peptides and peptides from amino acids are reversible — they go the other way as well.

This is represented below in the simplest reaction of two amino acids forming a dipeptide while releasing a molecule of water (the R in the table stands for any one of 20 different functional groups.

The different R groups are responsible for the wide variety of proteins, and the precise sequences are very specialised and improbable):

NH2–CHR–COOH + NH2–CHR′–COOH → NH2–CHR–CO–NH–CHR′–COOH + H2O       Condensation Reaction       amino acid 1 + amino acid 2 combine to give dipeptide + water       ↔             (reversible — dipeptide breaks down in water)

Under the right conditions, the condensation continues, with a dipeptide reacting with a third amino acid to form a tripeptide and releasing another water molecule, and so on.

Sometimes hundreds or thousands of amino acids link up, with a corresponding number of water molecules released.

For n amino acids in a chain, n-1 water molecules are released.

This means that condensation reactions, like the synthesis of peptides from amino acids, are inhibited by excess water, and the reverse reaction is favoured.

Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith, commenting on this fact, writes:

‘The consequence of this well-known fact of organic chemistry is important: concentrations of amino acids will combine only in minute amounts, if they combine at all in a primeval ocean providing excess water, to form polypeptides. Any amounts of polypeptide which might be formed will be broken down into their initial components (amino acids) by the excess water. The ocean is thus practically the last place on this or any other planet where the proteins of life could be formed spontaneously from amino acids. Yet nearly all textbooks of biology teach this nonsense to support evolutionary theory and spontaneous biogenics. It requires a very great unfamiliarity with organic chemistry not to take into consideration the above-mentioned facts when proposing postulates for biogenesis…’ (Emphasis in the original.) [See also Origin of life: the polymerization problem.]

In the case of biogenesis, these reversible reactions are all in equilibrium with one another, since there is no cell machinery to remove products selectively.

In the body, organic reactions such as the synthesis of proteins and the oxidation of fats occur because of the intervention of specific enzymes (acting as a type of ‘chemical machinery’) acting specifically at each step along the reaction chain.

However, enzymes are proteins, and one cannot claim synthesis for a product if one begins with the product one is trying to end up with.

The purpose of Huxley’s typewriter argument was to show that, given enough time, any event is certain to occur.

However, for this argument to be analogous to the idea of the formation of proteins by chance combination of amino acid molecules, Huxley’s typewriters needed to be reversible!

With an ordinary typewriter, any words typed by an ape would stay on the paper and would not get modified into more meaningful combinations, nor would they decompose into their constituent letters.

This means that each word is out of equilibrium with its precursors and has no ‘postcursors’.

However, with a reversible typewriter, when the key ‘A’ (for example) was depressed, the letter ‘A’ would be printed on the paper; but when the same key was released, the printed letter ‘A’ would arise from the paper without leaving a trace, so that the typewriter would type out just as quickly and effectively as it typed in.

All of which means that Huxley’s eternal apes would have typed as much or as little after one second as after a billion years.

Furthermore, it would not matter how many billion apes were typing (or molecules of matter were combining), or how many (billion) times per second this might have been happening.

The result at any time would always be zero, whether it be apes typing reversible typewriters or amino acids combining in reversible reactions.

Another way of saying this is that ‘increased time spans in biological systems will merely increase the probability of equilibrium being set up, and not the probability of improbable reaction products being formed’.

Conclusion

The concept of ‘somewhere, sometime’ does not apply, because the probability of forming a stipulated end-product from reversible reactions in equilibrium is zero.

The theory that chance random combinations of living matter could produce the Bishop of Oxford, a living cell, or even a single functional protein molecule, whether in time or in eternity, therefore fails on all counts.

Life is bristling with machinery, codes and programs, which are not an inherent property of the material substrate (the information for their construction having been passed on during reproduction).

No observation has ever shown such information-bearing structures arising spontaneously.

The obvious inference from science, as well as the obvious implications of Scripture, is that the original creation of living things involved the very opposite of chance, namely, the imposition of external intelligence on to matter by an original Designer or Creator.

Addendum: Did Wilberforce really say it?

Writers dealing with the famous debate between Huxley and Wilberforce often repeat the story that the Bishop, towards the end of his speech, turned to Huxley and asked whether it was through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed descent from an ape?

Huxley, in reply, is supposed to have said that he was not ashamed of having an ape as an ancestor, but he would be ashamed of having as an ancestor a man who used his abilities in a sphere of science with which he had no real acquaintance and who used aimless rhetoric in an appeal to religious prejudice.

J.R. Lucas sums up the evidence for and against this story in a long article in the Historical Journal, summarised in Nature.

He points out that the audience was ‘larger than a full House of Commons’, which means that, in the noisy and somewhat gladiatorial circumstances of this debate, not everyone would have correctly heard everything that was said.

He goes on to say,

‘It is doubtful that Wilberforce asked Huxley whether he was descended from an ape. It makes a good story, but Wilberforce had used the first person plural in his review, and the use of the first person is borne out by Wilberforce’s biography and one—admittedly late—account. What Wilberforce may have asked Huxley in the second person is where he drew the line between human descendants and ape-like ancestors, if, as was generally admitted, the offspring was of the same species as the parents.19 Huxley, however, was ready to answer the question he had not been asked. Three months earlier, in the April issue of the Westminster Review, he had accused critics of Darwin of making him out to be no better than an ape himself, and since Wilberforce was now criticising him for being a Darwinian, he must be calling him an ape too.’

It would seem therefore that Wilberforce did not try to ridicule Huxley, but rather the reverse was actually what happened.

If so, it gives a very different picture of what really occurred at this famous debate.

Russell M. Grigg M.Sc. (Hons.)

Creationist Chemist and Missionary

CMI–Australia

Biography

Russell Grigg was born in Auckland, New Zealand, in 1927. He received his schooling and university education in that country. He studied chemistry at Victoria University College, Wellington (now known as Victoria University of Wellington), graduating in 1948. He then worked for a number of years as an industrial chemist and then as a manager in the paint manufacturing industry in Wellington and Christchurch.

After theological studies at the New Zealand Bible Training Institute (later known as the Bible College of New Zealand, and now as Laidlaw College), he joined the Overseas Missionary Fellowship in 1959. He served for 12 years, heading up OMF’s publishing program in Jakarta, Indonesia. Here he met and married Miss Merle Cornelius, another member of OMF, from Adelaide, Australia. Merle went to be with the Lord in January 2009. Russell has three adult children and nine grandchildren.

In 1971, the family settled in Adelaide and Russell worked for 10 years with Rigby Ltd., an Australian publishing company, rising to be one of the Senior Editors. Here he wrote two books, Australian Trains and Death in the Family: What to Do, both published by Rigby Ltd.

In 1982, Russell rejoined OMF and served on the home staff for eight years. He was State Director for South Australia.

https://creation.com/could-monkeys-type-the-23rd-psalm

DON’T BLAME MALTHUS - Darwin and Wallace both credited an English clergyman for inspiring their evolutionary theories. In the 19th century, two men independently of each other conceived the supposition now known as the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. They were Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. Both these men were inspired by An Essay on the Principle of Population, written by English clergyman and economist Thomas Robert Malthus. It was not their theory of evolution that led Darwin and Wallace to disbelief in God, but rather their non-belief in God that led to their theory of evolution. Natural selection, or “survival of the fittest”, is a reality in this fallen world. But it is not capable of supplying the new genetic information to turn microbes into magnolias and microbiologists. Malthus’s Essay triggered a line of thinking in the minds of both Darwin and Wallace that led both men independently to conjure up the concept of evolution by means of natural selection, in opposition to the Genesis account of creation. Malthus cannot be blamed for this, and many of his assumptions have not stood the test of time. Malthus was challenging the so-called Enlightenment philosophy that man was essentially good, that he had proceeded upward from the savage, and would continue towards perfection as a law of nature. Malthus said that population numbers tend to go up much more rapidly than food supplies, resulting in misery for mankind.

............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Don’t blame Malthus!

Darwin and Wallace both credited an English clergyman for inspiring their evolutionary theories. What are the facts?

.

In the 19th century, two men independently of each other conceived the supposition now known as the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. They were Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. Both these men were inspired by An Essay on the Principle of Population, written by English clergyman and economist Thomas Robert Malthus. It was not their theory of evolution that led Darwin and Wallace to disbelief in God, but rather their non-belief in God that led to their theory of evolution. Natural selection, or “survival of the fittest”, is a reality in this fallen world. But it is not capable of supplying the new genetic information to turn microbes into magnolias and microbiologists. Undoubtedly Malthus’s Essay triggered a line of thinking in the minds of both Darwin and Wallace that led both men independently to conjure up the concept of evolution by means of natural selection, in opposition to the Genesis account of creation. Malthus cannot be blamed for this, and many of his assumptions have not stood the test of time.

By Russell Grigg

In the 19th century, two men independently of each other conceived the supposition now known as the theory of evolution by means of natural selection.

They were Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913).

Both these men were inspired by An Essay on the Principle of Population, written by English clergyman and economist Thomas Robert Malthus (1766–1834), first published in 1798.

Population vs food supply

Malthus was challenging the so-called Enlightenment philosophy that man was essentially good, that he had proceeded upward from the savage, and would continue towards perfection as a law of nature.

Malthus said that population numbers tend to go up much more rapidly than food supplies, resulting in misery, not perfection, for mankind.

He wrote: “[T]he power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man. Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio.”

“Taking the population of the world at any number, a thousand millions, for instance, the human species would increase in the ratio of 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, etc. and subsistence as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc. In two centuries and a quarter, the population would be to the means of subsistence as 512 to 10: in three centuries as 4096 to 13 ….”

He went on to say that the system was kept in check by things which retarded population increase.

These he labelled ‘misery’, i.e. pestilence, plague, war, and famine; and ‘vice’, e.g. infanticide and murder.

In later editions of his Essay he added moral restraints such as postponement of marriage, and sexual abstinence prior to and outside of marriage.

In addition, Malthus opposed financial relief for the poor because it encouraged larger families rather than smaller, and so resulted in more workers for fewer jobs in the labour market.

Effect on Darwin and Wallace

In his Autobiography Charles Darwin recorded the following tribute to Malthus: “In October 1838 … I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed.

The results of this would be the formation of new species. Here then I had at last got a theory by which to work … .”

He was not considering survival of the fittest, but was writing to debunk utopian views of perfection in society inspired by the French Revolution, at least, before the Reign of Terror.

Alfred Russel Wallace, too, tells us in his autobiography: “One day something brought to my recollection Malthus’s ‘Principles of Population,’ which I had read about twelve years before. … Why do some die and some live? And the answer was clearly, that on the whole the best fitted live. From the effects of disease the most healthy escaped; from enemies the strongest, the swiftest, or the most cunning; from famine, the best hunters or those with the best digestion; and so on. Then it suddenly flashed upon me that this self-acting process would necessarily improve the race, because in every generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the superior would remain—that is, the fittest would survive. … The more I thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the origin of species.”

So, what should we think of Darwin’s and Wallace’s crediting of Malthus for the idea that all things evolved by selection from a common ancestor? Consider these points:

Malthus certainly was entitled to his view of the economic situation as he saw it in 1798 ff.

However, life was changing. The industrial revolution of the 19th century required a huge new work force.

In Malthus’s day, in Britain, much farming was done by individuals on small land plots that were subdivided as families increased.

He could not have foreseen the huge increase in food production that would be provided by the application of machinery to the farming of vast areas of countryside as has occurred in the USA and elsewhere.

Nor the modern breakthroughs in crop varietal selection and breeding to produce greater yields.

Malthus was not a scientist but an economist.

He was not considering survival of the fittest, but was writing to debunk utopian views of perfection in society inspired by the French Revolution, at least, before the Reign of Terror.

Malthus saw his principle of population in the context of God’s providence.

Thus, it was not the duty of humans to struggle against each other for survival, but to resist evil.

He concluded his Essay: “Evil exists in the world not to create despair but activity. We are not patiently to submit to it, but to exert ourselves to avoid it. It is not only the interest but the duty of every individual to use his utmost efforts to remove evil from himself and from as large a circle as he can influence, and the more he exercises himself in this duty, the more wisely he directs his efforts, and the more successful these efforts are, the more he will probably improve and exalt his own mind and the more completely does he appear to fulfil the will of his Creator.”

Throughout his Essay, Malthus constantly referred to God as the Creator, the Supreme Being or Providence.

He even invoked the Gospel in his final chapter: “But the doctrine of life and Mortality which was brought to light by the Gospel, the doctrine that the end of righteousness is everlasting life, but that the wages of sin are death, is in every respect just and merciful, and worthy of the great Creator.”

It was not their theory of evolution that led Darwin and Wallace to disbelief in God, but rather their non-belief in God that led to their theory of evolution.

In contrast, Darwin had given up Christianity by the age of 40 (1849), and Wallace said he was an agnostic by the age of 21 (1844).

In this connection it is interesting to note that it was not their theory of evolution that led Darwin and Wallace to disbelief in God, but rather their non-belief in God that led to their theory of evolution.

Selection, yes; evolution, no

Natural selection, or “survival of the fittest”, is a reality in this fallen world.

But it is not capable of supplying the new genetic information to turn microbes into magnolias and microbiologists.

Even where new species have been observed to arise from selection adapting a population to its environment, these are information-losing (downhill) events.

The idea of natural selection was proposed well before Darwin and Wallace by Edward Blyth, but Blyth was an ardent creationist.

He saw the process of natural selection as a conserving mechanism for eliminating unfit individuals from the created order to preserve the species, i.e. an anti-evolutionary mechanism that kept the species stable, rather than a means of forming new species.

Weeks writes, “If one assumes that the normal type of the species is adapted to its environment, then any departure from that type will be less fit and will be selected against. Thus with Blyth, natural selection is a homeostatic mechanism to prevent change.”

Evolutionist Francis Hitching goes so far as to say that Darwin “showed real insight by listening to Blyth and realizing that everything he was saying could be used to support an opposite conclusion.”

Conclusion

Undoubtedly Malthus’s Essay triggered a line of thinking in the minds of both Darwin and Wallace that led both men independently to conjure up the concept of evolution by means of natural selection, in opposition to the Genesis account of creation.

However, Malthus cannot be blamed for this, and many of his assumptions have in any case not stood the test of time.

Russell M. Grigg M.Sc. (Hons.)

Creationist Chemist and Missionary

CMI–Australia

Biography

Russell Grigg was born in Auckland, New Zealand, in 1927. He received his schooling and university education in that country. He studied chemistry at Victoria University College, Wellington (now known as Victoria University of Wellington), graduating in 1948. He then worked for a number of years as an industrial chemist and then as a manager in the paint manufacturing industry in Wellington and Christchurch.

After theological studies at the New Zealand Bible Training Institute (later known as the Bible College of New Zealand, and now as Laidlaw College), he joined the Overseas Missionary Fellowship in 1959. He served for 12 years, heading up OMF’s publishing program in Jakarta, Indonesia. Here he met and married Miss Merle Cornelius, another member of OMF, from Adelaide, Australia. Merle went to be with the Lord in January 2009. Russell has three adult children and nine grandchildren.

https://creation.com/dont-blame-malthus