Science - Creation/Evolution

Why I am a six-day evolutionist

We all know that fish is a good source of protein, but did you know that some are a good source of information? It’s true – I know that evolution is true and it’s all because a little fish told me.

The Astyanax mexicanus is a cave-dwelling fish. The river-dwelling version of this species can see with the best of them, but this, the cave-dwelling cousin, has adapted to its lightless surroundings by losing its eyes. As a result, the two versions of this fish look quite distinct. However, they can still be interbred which shows that they are the same species.

The evolution of the blind fish

The history of this fish is easy to imagine. At one point some sighted fish made their way into dark caves where they were subsequently trapped. These caves had no light so their eyes served no useful purpose to them. Not only were their eyes useless, having eyes in this environment might actually have been harmful in one critical way: eyes are softer than the rest of a fish, so as these fish bumped around in the dark their eyes were susceptible to gouging and cuts from the rocky protrusions on the cavern walls.

So imagine that a fish without eyes is born into this environment. In the outside world, this would be a disadvantage. But here, in the darkness, no eyes simply means it has no soft flesh to get gouged. This eyeless fish is, therefore, hardier and fitter than its sighted siblings. That makes it more likely that this blind fish will reproduce and pass on its blindness to the next generation.

Over a number of generations this blind fish and its offspring must have competed with the sighted fish until only the blind fish – the fitter fish – remained.

This is a clear example of survival of the fittest, of evolution in action, and it is quite convincing. It is why I am an evolutionist.

Evolution’s two meanings

But while I may be an evolutionist, I don’t deny that God created the world in six literal days, because, after all, that’s what the Bible tells us. I’m an evolutionist, but I’m also a creationist. I was rather shocked when I first came to this realization. I had been raised a creationist and for a very long time I thought that meant I had to reject evolution in any and all forms.

But it turns out that the word “evolution” can mean a number of different things, and some of those meanings do not conflict with the biblical account. There are two very common meanings to the word:

  • Evolution is often used to describe the small changes that animal species may undergo over time. Perhaps a species of bird might, on average, start having larger beaks – scientists would readily call this evolution. This particular use of the word is sometimes referred to as microevolution. Animal species are adaptable (just think of how dogs have adapted in a variety of ways to meet different needs) so this use of the word isn’t particularly controversial.
  • A second use of the word is where the battle actually commences. “Evolution” can be used as a descriptor for the theory that says man evolved from a single cell, which in turn emerged from the primordial soup eons ago. This molecule-to-man hypothesis is sometimes called macroevolution and it directly conflicts with the six-day creation account given in Genesis 1 and 2.

Equivocation

The reason this all matters is because evolutionists often use examples of microevolution to try to prove macroevolution, their molecules-to-man hypothesis. And similarly sometimes amateur creationists waste their time (and their credibility) arguing against microevolution because they think they have to be against all things evolutionary.

The Astyanax mexicanus fish is a good example in both cases. Since this fish seems to have adapted to its dark cave environments by losing its eyes, evolutionists think it is compelling proof of their molecules-to-man theory. It is so compelling that this blind fish might bother some creationists.

But creationists need not worry – the blind fish’s beneficial mutation doesn’t contradict creationism. We live in a fallen world, and that means children and offspring are sometimes born with handicaps via mutations. An eyeless fish is just another normal outcome of this fallen state. Most often these mutations will be harmful but in some rare circumstances, like the Astyanax mexicanus fish, the mutation may actually be beneficial. But it is important to note here that the loss of eyes is an example of devolution, rather than evolution. This fish has lost an ability it once had – the part of its genetic code responsible for making eyes has been short-circuited. The molecules-to-man theory of evolution says that complex life arose from simpler life, but this blind fish is an example of a complex animal becoming simpler and less developed.

If this fish is evidence of anything, it is that we live in a broken world (Rom. 8:22).

Conclusion

In any debate it is vital to first define the terms. This is particularly important in the creation/evolution debate since it is by confusing the terms that evolutionists make their most compelling case. They can’t point to macroevolution in action so instead they use examples of microevolution. Then they act as if there is no difference between the two, calling both the same thing – evolution.

Therefore creationists have to be careful that when they argue against evolution they haven’t made the mistake of arguing against microevolution. Arguing against microevolution is a losing proposition since we see animals undergoing small changes all around us. Evolution in this sense is an indisputable fact.

But evolution on a larger scale – the whole molecules-to-man hypothesis – flies in the face of what God tells us in the Bible, and also what He shows us via the degeneration and decay we see going on in the world around us. So I am, and will remain, a six-day evolutionist.


Never miss an article!

Sign up for our newsletter to get all the week’s posts sent right to your inbox each Saturday.

4 Comments

4 Comments

  1. Miguel Antonio Sanchez

    January 31, 2020 at 3:17 am

    I will give you food for thought: I am also a creationist but also of scientific mind and disposition. To me creation and evolution ARE NOT mutually exclusive. 1) God is master of everything including time. Millions of years for men is a blink of the eye for God… and VICEVERSA. 2) God handles creation like a sculptor handles clay. 3) Sometimes God expends a long time for a miracle that takes a second for us.

    • Reformed Perspective

      January 31, 2020 at 3:37 am

      Time is but one of the problems with resolving Scripture with evolution. Another would be the perspicuity, or clarity, of Scripture – is God’s Word understandable? It says He created in six days, and if those words can be reinterpreted to mean billions of years, then what does God’s Word mean when it says Jesus rose from the dead? Do those words mean what they seem to? Or should we reinterpret them too?

      Another issue is the character of God. Creation via a process of millions of years of death, sickness, and survival of the fittest, gives us a very different understanding of “God saw what he had made and it was good” (Gen 1:31). Evolution necessitates death before the Fall into Sin, and that, then, presents us with a very different idea of what is “good.”

      And time is still a problem. You seem to be alluding to the text 2 Peter 3:8 that says, “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” If that is indeed what you are referencing, then it would be good to look at it in context. This passage is about God’s patience. But nowhere can we get from it that when God says six days he actually meant six thousand years, or six billion. This isn’t about God being unable to tell time, but about Him being merciful.

    • DAVID WHEELER

      February 6, 2020 at 8:49 pm

      Miguel, there is a huge problem with this belief. If you accept that the Universe evolved over billions of years, then most of Genesis cannot be taken literally. I issue a challenge for you. Go through Genesis 1 and 2 for a start, and cross out anything, which you don’t believe to be literally true. If you do this you won’t find much left! If we then accept that Genesis is not literally true, then how can we trust the rest of Scripture?
      True science actually supports creation in six days and a young Earth. Also the mathematical probabilities of complex organisms originating from random change and natural selection vanish into impossibility. Read Michael Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box.

  2. Kevin

    February 3, 2020 at 5:18 am

    Evolution vs. God: https://youtu.be/U0u3-2CGOMQ

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Most Popular

Our mission is "To promote a Biblically Reformed perspective in all spheres of life by equipping and encouraging Christians to think, speak, and act in a manner consistent with their confession."

Sign up for the weekly RP Roundup

Get the week's posts delivered to your email inbox each Saturday. Sign up, and if you don't get a quick confirmation, check your spam folder.
* = required field

powered by MailChimp!

Follow Us

Copyright © 2018 Reformed Perspective Magazine

To Top