Once again, I am not really going to discuss what you might expect. Well, not too much, and only as a segway into a larger point.

Often appearing in capital letters, “Natural Selection” is a phrase frequently used as a synonym for Darwinian evolution. It consists of just two words. “Natural,” being associated with nature, and “Selection,” being associated with the idea of something chosen as a preference over something else.

I will not delve into the inner workings of this concept in detail, but I will highlight a few key points before jumping into my main point.

First of all, informed evolutionists don’t really perceive nature as a conscious entity that purposely selects anything with some sort of larger goal in mind. They do, however, see it as playing a crucial role in the evolution of all life on this planet.

According to National Geographic:

“Natural selection is the process through which species adapt to their environments. It is the engine that drives evolution.”

This view makes natural selection seem very powerful. However, it’s not a “force of nature,” and it is not a “creative force.” When properly understood (and I emphasize “properly”), it can be an accurate explanation for why certain creatures tend to die out and why others don’t. However, natural selection doesn’t create new “kinds” of creatures; it only partially describes why over time we see varieties of the same “kind” of creatures.

Here’s a very interesting quote from Evolutionary Biologist, J.A. Endler (Ph.D.):

“Natural selection must not be equated with evolution… natural selection does not explain the origin of new variants…”

Speaking more generically, natural selection is also referred to as “survival of the fittest.” Our public education system and state universities teach that this is how we (humans) got here—survival of the fittest, over millions and millions of years. The fittest were rewarded with survival. Those that weren’t the fittest generally died out. We are told we owe our very existence to this process. If that’s true, then it follows that it was a good thing. A beneficial thing.

Let’s take them at their word and explore this a bit further.

Consider the following scenario. It’s Monday, and in a 7th-grade history class, the teacher hands out an in-class test. The following day, the teacher returns the graded tests. Much to his dismay, little Billy got a big fat zero! He asks the teacher, “Why did you give me a zero?” She replies, “Your answers were virtually identical to Steven’s who sat next to you. You either copied his test, or he copied off yours. Either way, I gave you each a zero.”

Billy then responds by saying, “Of course I cheated,” to which the stunned teacher replies, “Why did you do that?” Little Billy then explains that he didn’t study because he just wanted to play basketball with his friends and watch movies. Therefore, he had to cheat in order to pass the test, in order to pass the class, in order to graduate, get out of this boring school, and move on with his life. “So,” little Billy said, “I had to do whatever it took to pass. You know, survival of the fittest. That’s how you taught us we got here. But now you’re telling me it’s wrong? When did it change from being such an amazing and productive thing to being bad? I missed the memo on that!” Very interesting!

What I shared was just a light-hearted example. I wish that’s all the further it went. Many of you remember the names Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. They were the high school perpetrators of the massacre at Columbine High School (April 1999), where they killed 13 students, one teacher, and wounded 23 others. Harris actually wore a shirt with “Natural Selection” printed on it. He was intentionally using a warped concept of natural selection to enact his rage against those he was offended by, as well as other innocent bystanders, getting rid of those “less fit” and less deserving of being alive. Such a horrendously sick and sad tragedy!

But why is what Harris and Klebold did wrong? “Well,” you might say, “We have laws against such acts. Laws against murder.” Yes, that’s true, but guess what? We weren’t sitting around wondering what we should think about murder, whether it is right or wrong. We intrinsically knew it was wrong! That’s why we made laws against it. It’s not like it was a neutral concept, but then we established laws which subsequently made it wrong. We knew it was wrong; therefore, we created laws predetermining what would be done to those who commit such acts. The law didn’t make it wrong; it was inherently wrong, so we made laws consistent with that belief. And why is it inherently wrong? Because we are created in the image of God, and He has imposed His moral law on our hearts. Murder is a violation of His character and standards.

However, if we are just highly evolved animals, there’s no absolute basis for claiming murder is wrong. Murder would just be one among many actions you can carry out as a human. Who’s to tell you it’s wrong? Yes, we can agree as a society that murder is harmful to the community, but who gave society the right to set the rules? Might makes right? The majority rules? How do you vote? Country by country? State by state? City by city? And how often do you vote? People change their minds all the time. It’s a complete can of worms!

That’s one of the reasons our public schools are failing. They want to enforce some level of morality, but they have no real basis or justification for doing so. The only way to say anything is right or wrong is if there was a singular source of authority against which everything must be measured. How about God’s Word? Oh, but you can’t use that! Yes, you can. That’s not the problem. The problem is people don’t want to use it. They don’t want to be accountable to God’s Word. It’s ultimately a heart issue. Surprise, surprise.

So, is natural selection wrong? If so, we’ll have to rewrite our science textbooks. If not, we’ll have to stop telling students they can’t cheat on tests (or murder others)!

I’m just getting warmed up, but now I have to finish before this turns into my next book.