Is Natural Selection Natural or Selective?

By Richard Overman Ph.D.

President

Creation Education Resources, Inc.

INTRODUCTION

That there is design in the universe is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. We can see design in the DNA code, which is so sophisticated that we are still trying to decipher it. We can see design in Fibonacci numbers which are repeated in many ways throughout creation. We can classify stars or recognize order in nature as examples of design.

There are two suggested explanations for this design. One is the nature-god explanation. This holds that nature is making all the design decisions. These decisions would include design and production of everything across cosmic, chemical and biological levels with random chance processes.

The alternative is that a supernatural God is responsible for the design of all that exists. This creator is the Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who is outside the known universe. He was the first to use design engineering principles to create a purposeful and functional universe. “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” Romans 1:20[1]

Those who accept the nature-god alternative say that random mutations and selection are the agents of chemical and biological design. Dr. Randy Guliuzza put it this way. “Darwinian selectionists envision a substitute volitional agent selecting for the ‘fittest’ characteristics over time. Thus, to us, certain biological features look to be the purposeful effects of an intelligent, volitional agent while to selectionist they’re only the unforeseen outcome of nature ‘selecting for/against’ or ‘acting on’ random mutations. Nature itself is visualized as the volitional, creative agent that replaces God.” [2]

If random chances are really in control, there should be no order to the universe. What goes up will not always come down, heat will not always flow from hot to less hot, life will not always come from life. We should not be able to make predictions from a random process. Science would not be possible in a random universe.

On the other hand, a supernatural God would create an orderly universe. In that case, we should be able to recognize and model order in multiple phenomena. We should be able to categorize and classify stars, plants, and animals. In short, we could recognize patterns and make predictions. It would therefore be possible to practice science.

NATURAL SELECTION

Belief in natural selection begs multiple questions. Who or what is making the selection? Does the term ‘natural’ imply that nature itself is making the selection? Does that mean that nature ultimately drives variation between species by inducing changes within one species to become two species? In other words, if one believes in natural selection, do they believe that nature is in control of speciation? If so, are such believers actually worshipping the nature-god?

For nature-god worshipers, there are three theoretical iterations of how the nature-god selects. The first is Darwinism, which is based on Darwin's book, On The Origin of the Species. The second is Neo-Darwinian Theory, which is a modification of Darwinism. The third is known as the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, which is essentially Neo-Darwinian theory with some selective power given to the animal itself, in addition to external natural processes. Each one of these explanations employ natural selection in some form. That is, nature is selecting, and thus causing, variation in every organism; hence, nature is creating and regulating all forms of biological diversity on Earth.  

Miller and Levine state that, “Natural selection is the process by which organisms with variations most suited to their local environment survive and leave more offspring.”[3] Since survival of the fittest says that as the fittest animals survive the population changes. Natural selection and survival of the fittest are basically the same thing, which is an environment-driven process where a nature-god is in control. They are, in essence, "co-conspirators" in evolution's magic wand, Survival of the fittest is really circular reasoning (see figure 1) or what is known as a tautology. A tautology is “A statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it true whether the simpler statements are true or false.”[4]

“Survival of the fittest”

Simpler question statement one – Who survives? Answer – The fittest

Simpler question statement two – Who are the fittest? Answer – The ones who survive

Figure 1

As shown in figure 2, natural selection, or the nature-god process, relies on random mutations that may, or may not cause survival of the animal. If it does not survive a mutation, it is not fit enough. If it survives a mutation, it is fit enough. The problem is that thousands of survivable random mutations, out of hundreds of thousands of unsurvivable random mutations, are needed to cause species variation. The nature-god process is inefficient and impossible.

Figure 2

Creator-God Alternative

Is there an understandable Creator-God alternative? This has been a problem for a long time until Dr. Randy Guliuzza at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) developed what is called the Continuous Environmental Tracking (CET) model.[5]

“CET is an engineering-based, organism-focused characterization of adaptation. CET expects to find that organisms adapt via systems with elements analogous to those within human-engineered tracking systems, namely: input sensors, internal logic mechanisms to select suitable responses, and actuators to execute responses.”[6] CET predicts that “adaptive changes would be characterized as highly regulated, rapid, repeatable, sometimes reversible, and produce solutions that target and may even anticipate specific environmental challenges.”[7] The ability for the animal to make these changes is encoded into their DNA by the Creator-God.

WHICH WORKS BETTER

ICR has been experimenting with Astyanax mexicanus (Mexican tetra), a species of fish that has two morphotypes (group of different types in the same species): a pigmented surface fish (SF) with a functional eye, and a blind cavefish (CF). Figure 3 shows both morphotype. According to theory, an original surface fish migrated into cave systems in Northeast Mexico sometime between 8 million and 200,000 years ago.[8] The result of that migration is considered to be the catalyst for the emergence of the cavefish morphotype we see today, including a suite of adaptive changes in characters as shown in figure 4. Experiments that were performed by ICR scientists reveal that melanic pigmentation is flexible, and it can be induced (CF) or diminished (SF) within weeks to months. For example, if a cavefish is exposed to more light, its external pigmentation resembles the pattern of a surface fish.

Figure 3[8]                                                                                       Figure 4[9]

Figure 5 shows that melanin pigmentation in an adult surface fish changes when it is maintained under minimal light, lower than normal oxygen (0.9–4.0 mg/L) and moderately high CO₂ (pH 5.8–6.0) for about 3 months. And that is just dealing with skin color. There are multiple characteristics that indicate adaptive changes in cavefish. Notable adaptations are found in organ systems involved with feeding, smell, respiration, energy metabolism and peripheral sensation by neuromasts. Figure 6 shows a single cavefish that was exposed to high light intensity for 72 days. This cavefish has most likely increased melanin expression as a protective mechanism, implying that increased pigmentation protects cells and tissues from UV radiation. “Since this data was presented and published in 2023, we've found that pigmentation in A. mexicanus, and many other fish, can rapidly change due to stress, background environment (camouflage), predation, day-night cycle, and more.”[10]

And we can drastically reduce pigmentation in surface fish within 30 mins to an hour under different conditions.

Recall that CET predicted that adaptive changes like these would be rapid, repeatable, and sometimes reversible. From this experiment we can see that the results support CET and falsify natural selection.

                              Figure 5[11]                                                       Figure 6[12]

CONCLUSION

CET may fundamentally change how we perceive organisms; from passive modeling clay shaped over time by nature, to active, problem-solving creatures that continuously track environmental changes to better fit existing niches or fill new ones. A fictional nature-god is not in control. Natural selection is neither natural nor selective. The Creator God has intentionally designed all life to initiate adaptive changes by engineering adaptability into the DNA code, and the cells, tissues, and organ systems operating within every organism.

[1] e-Sword, 2021 Rick Smith

[2] How Darwin Poisons Science, Randy Guliuzza, Acts and Facts, Vol 52 No. 5, September/October 2023, p. 6.

[3] Miller & Levine Biology, 2012, Pearson, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, p. 463. (High School Biology book currently in use in Clay County, Florida)

[4] American Heritage Dictionary, 1975, American Heritage Publishing Company, New York, p.1319.

[5] Guliuzza, R.J., and P.B. Gaskill. 2018. Continuous environmental tracking: An engineering framework to understand adaptation and diversification. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism, ed. J.H. Whitmore, pp. 158–184. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship.

[6]  Ibid

[7] Tomkins J., Arledge S., Guliuzza R., Blind Cave Fish (Astyanax mexicanus) as a Model System for Continuous Environmental Tracking and Adaptive Engineering, 2022 CRSQ 58:289-296.

[8] Boyle, Michael J.; Thomas, Brian; Tomkins, Jeffery P.; and Guliuzza, Randy J. (2023) "Testing the Cavefish Model: An Organism-focused Theory of Biological Design," Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism: Vol. 9, Article 17.

[9] Tomkins J., Arledge S., Guliuzza R., Blind Cave Fish (Astyanax mexicanus) as a Model System for Continuous Environmental Tracking and Adaptive Engineering, 2022 CRSQ 58:289-296.

[10] Boyle, Michael J. Personal communication 11/24/25

[11] Boyle, Michael J.; Thomas, Brian; Tomkins, Jeffery P.; and Guliuzza, Randy J. (2023) "Testing the Cavefish Model: An Organism-focused Theory of Biological Design," Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism: Vol. 9, Article 17.

[12] ibid