Evolution is Just Another Word For Survival

By P. Karl Benzforte

(Written originally 7 July 2006 for www.scribblevillage.com)

We have a neighbor across the street that raises pigeons and falcons. He just got a new falcon
(which he named “Duck”, for reasons beyond my comprehension), and was sitting outside with it
chained to his leather glove. I went over to see his new bird.

It’s a Harris Hawk, which is an unusual type of bird in that it hunts in packs. Most birds of prey
are solitary, but these animals work together to flush out their prey. Apparently once they’re
trained, a falconer can go out with his hawk, and they work together to hunt rabbits.

We began talking about its scaly feet, and eventually the theory that many birds evolved from
dinosaurs. I told him that I subscribed to that theory, and my neighbor stared at me in disbelief.
He said, “How can you believe in evolution? You’re Mormon.” This wasn’t the first time I had
been confronted with this question, so I explained my stance to him, as I’ll do here.

As I understand it, we base evolution on and around Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Simply
put, this is the theory that organisms will adapt to their environments by slowly passing traits
from one generation to the next. When Darwin visited the Galapagos in the mid-nineteenth
century, he found a series of finches that were later determined to have shared a common
ancestry, but had settled on each separate island. The finches’ beaks had, over time, become
highly adapted to their common food sources on the island (larger beaks for crushing nuts,
hooked beaks for digging, etc.). His theory was new and revolutionary.

So in a very abbreviated way, this theory states that nature will do what it needs to do to survive.
We live in a very harsh world with a lot of competition. The strong and adapting survive, the
weak and static do not.

You want an example of this phenomenon that is very close to home? Take a look at the
dandelions in your front lawn. Have you noticed how low to the ground the flower is when it
blooms? Compare that to the dandelions you see out in the mountains. On average they are much
taller when they bloom. Why is this? They’re the same flower; they should bloom at the same
height. So what’s going on?

The explanation lies in the weekly visit of the lawnmower blade. Remember that when grass is
allowed to grow in the wild, it grows anywhere from 1′ to 3′. Dandelions cannot reproduce until
their flowers have been pollinated, and their flowers can’t be pollinated until it is spotted by an
insect. It’s not going to be spotted if it hugs the ground, so naturally it wants to grow taller than
the grass.
Once we started mowing our lawns regularly, this all changed. If the plant waited until it was 1′
to 2′ high before opening its flowers, it never would survive the unforgiving lawnmower.
Instead, the plant has adapted. In many lawns you’ll find dandelions that actually hug the
grass. The yellow flower is low among the blades of grass, below the cutting line.

So there you’ve got one example. Same flower, different characteristics based on differing
environments.

Are we okay? Have we denied God by thinking this? Not at all. If anything, we have glorified
God by discovering the degree of perfection that are His creations.

Now let’s move on to something a little stickier: evolution as it applies to anthropology. I took an
anthropology class in college, and it was a good experience. For one, I appreciated being able to
study these theories more in depth. I was, however, more than once annoyed at some of the way
things were portrayed.

I’m speaking specifically about the evolution of man. For a moment, let’s take religion out of the
equation. So here we are, looking for empirical evidence on our origins. We see animals that
have similar traits to humans, so we start comparing skeletal structure to theirs (maybe like
Darwin’s Finches?). We start digging around in Africa, and begin finding very old and unusual-
looking skulls. Being humans and liking to draw boxes around everything, we start putting
pictures of these skulls on charts and begin drawing timelines. Based on these so-called
timelines, we go from skull to skull, tracing our supposed ancestry of countless years to modern
times, and declare that we evolved from apes.

That’s like me trying to recreate an ancient tree that once lived on my property by digging up
very old sticks in my yard. I’d hold a press conference, and people would take me very seriously
when I declared that not only had I found very old sticks, but they once belonged to a rare
species of elm, stood approximately 27 feet high, had oval leaves with white streaks, produced
marvelous shade in the summer, and eventually died after being blown down. All this from a few
sticks. The press would applaud me, and tree-lovers would hate me, since what I’ve asserted
didn’t seem to match their beliefs. Sure, they’re assumptions based on weak at best empirical
evidence. But hey, it could be true, right?

I hope you’re catching my sarcasm.

I don’t know much about anything, but I do know that nothing’s that simple. These incredibly
serious assertions are based upon a dozen or more old, bizarre-looking skulls. The empirical
evidence of the skulls is undisputable. They exist. The assumption that they’re humanoid or ape
or somewhere in between is just that. An assumption. I’m not going to get my panties in a bunch
over someone’s assumption.

So there’s my beef about the science of it. Empirically speaking, yes, they have some skulls and
bones. But finding an old Lego under the couch doesn’t mean you can build a whole fortress.
I also have a beef with the creationists in the whole debate. Creationism or Intelligent Design is
the supposed counter-theory to Evolution. It states that God created the world in 7 days, the earth
is 4,000 years old, and evolution does not take place. Because I believe in the scriptures, I’m
supposed to be on this side of the debate I suppose. However, I’m not.

I think it is incredibly arrogant to assume we know everything about the Earth and its geological
and anthropomorphic history. So is the Bible a true record, coming from God? In my belief yes.
However, the Bible is also incredibly symbolic at times. Take the Book of Revelations as an
example. If you take that book literally, then keep your eye out for a four-headed beast.

Dinosaurs, to my knowledge, are never spoken of in the Bible, yet we have indisputable evidence
that they existed. If I believe dinosaurs were on this earth, am I denying the power of God? Or
am I glorifying God in recognizing another remarkable creation?

To sum things up:

To the anthropologists: Stop making your pathetic charts spanning millions of years based on a
dozen or more ancient and interesting skulls. It is dangerous to assume, especially in science,
because assumptions sometimes hitch rides with empirical evidence. In other words, people feel
obligated to accept your assumptions based on your empirical evidence.

To the creationists: To assume that we have been informed of all the events of this earth by God
because we have scriptures is ridiculous and arrogant. Do I believe God created the earth? Yes.
Do I believe he did it in 7 days? Yes. Do I know how long each ‘day’ was, or whether the term
‘day’ is symbolic? No idea. Does life on this planet adapt, grow, and change in order to survive?
Yes. Does it happen to the extent that scientists assert (i.e. ape to man)? No. Remember that
scientists like to come up with ideas. Some are good and kept, others are bad and discarded. But
in the end, God is in charge.