New Creation
[Originally published as the conclusion of The Novel Traits Conundrum]
Novel Traits and Creationism: Does it Actually Work?
Personally, I have no reservations about accepting the occurrence of novel innovations appearing in organisms as a means of adaptation. In fact, when I researched “contemporary evolution” as a means of post-Flood diversification, I discovered that biologists had settled on four events that could drive rapid adaptations.
These drivers of “adaptive radiation” are:1
- Colonization of new land masses.
- Extinction events.
- Appearance of new resources.
- Novel innovations.
Our current creation model already relies on the first three events to drive post-Flood diversification. While this alone is not a sufficient reason to accept the fourth, it does pose a provoking question:
Is it reasonable to reject the idea of novel innovations a priori, purely on the grounds that it originated as part of the theory of evolution?
Instead of dismissing ideas for philosophical reasons, let’s incorporate good ideas into our model, and allow the evidence to bring us closer to discovering the incredible mechanisms that God designed in His creation.
In many ways, this singular biological topic reflects a broader issue within creation discourse. Of course, all creationists should recognize that evolutionary interpretations and biases do impact mainstream scientific research. But this should not cause us to quickly disregard good ideas or legitimate scientific evidence on the basis that non-creationists came up with the ideas.
Recall that creationists and evolutionists agree on a vast quantity of natural processes but disagree on the timeline of the past. We universally accept processes such as erosion, sedimentation, radioactive decay, fossilization, cosmological processes, bioturbation, and plate tectonics. We only disagree about how long those processes took to shape the world we see today. It seems only natural that creationists take this interpretive approach to biology.
Accepting the Mechanisms, Challenging the Theory
Once again, I hope it’s clear that I am not advocating that creationists should accept the theory of evolution. The acceptance of new genes, novel traits, or beneficial mutations is an altogether different claim (both in scale and in substance) from the theory that mutations and selection produced all living organisms from a single-celled ancestor over the course of billions of years.
It is quite possible and reasonable to accept observable mechanisms of adaptation while still challenging the claim that these mechanisms are the sole forces that produced all of Earth’s biodiversity.
Scripture tells us that humans did not evolve from lower primates and that God created all of life in distinct kinds as special creations. We believe the Flood of Noah was worldwide and catastrophic. But the Bible never categorically rules out such biological process as beneficial mutations, novel traits, or even new genes. From a biological standpoint, one can make a better argument that a historical reading of Genesis necessitates these processes rather than rules them out.
The best available interpretation of biology is that mutations can cause the appearance of new traits in organisms, and selective sweeps can cause these traits to spread throughout a population in a radically short period of time.
Whether it is digesting new food sources, developing toxin immunity, or just swimming upstream, these mutations and their subsequent novel genes help a population access new resources and adapt to new environments. Such adaptations are a mechanism for adaptive radiation and a powerful tool in each animal’s quest to replenish the earth after the Flood.
Creationists have long been trying to explain how thousands of species originated from ancestral created kinds in the days of Noah, so this news should fill us with wonder and excitement. It seems quite detrimental to reject this well-grounded theory on ideological grounds when an idea fits well into a creation model that it brings us closer to solving one of our biggest questions in biology!
Creationism Adapts Too
The future of creationism remains bright not because we are making discoveries that far outpace the research of conventional scientists, but because all discoveries — Christian or secular — can be incorporated into the ever-growing scope of the creation model.
As creationists have correctly said for decades, we do not have a difference of observable data, but rather a difference in interpretation.2,3 It is therefore time for creationists to welcome this wealth of biological data and let it strengthen the creation model rather than hinder it. Even more importantly, we should celebrate and be awed by these biological wonders, because they are the handiwork of an almighty God Who wants us to dwell on his creation and give glory to Him!
Creationists have an incredible opportunity to give God the glory for these biological mechanisms. But if we unnecessarily reject scientific ideas on philosophical or ideological grounds, we leave it to conventional scientists to be the sole custodians of such intricate and fascinating data; scientists who will continue to attribute novel traits to mindless, unguided processes rather than design. Rather than make such a concession, Creationism must be like the organisms God created: able to accept and incorporate new information which leads to beneficial adaptation and ultimate improvement.
Footnotes
- Stroud, J. T., & Losos, J. B. (2016). Ecological opportunity and adaptive radiation. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 47(1), 507-532.
- Ken Ham, “Creation: ‘Where’s the Proof’?,” Answers in Genesis, October 1, 1999.
- Henry M. Morris III, “Contrasting Worldviews,” Institute for Creation Research.
