In your last letter you raise a point that is often raised. Look at the cruelty and waste of nature. How can that be the product of a benevolent deity? Darwin wrote: “What a book a devil’s chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low and horribly cruel works of nature!” He went on to say that all nature is at war, one organism against another, or with external nature. Wallace, who may be called a co-discoverer of the theory of evolution, describes nature as locked in a struggle for existence, in which the weakest must always succumb. And Darwin’s friend, Thomas Huxley calls the animal world on the same level as a gladiator’s battle.

Unfortunately this view of nature is widespread and totally accepted by many as a fair representation of what is going on in nature. Many subscribe to the famous phrase coined by Tennyson about nature, red in tooth and claw with ravine (violence). But this is totally incorrect as to what is happening in nature – it is an erroneous caricature – as we will see shortly.

Many examples can be given to show that Darwin got it all wrong in terms of competition in nature.

There are many strategies used to defray competition. One of these is to have different niches for species. An illustration of this are two species of British cormorants occupying the same shoreline. Darwinians would think that these two species would be locked in a battle for survival. Investigation shows that one species eats mainly sand eels and sprats. The other eats a mixed diet but no sprats and sand eels. One nests high on the cliffs, the other on lower cliffs. One fishes at sea and the other fishes in shallow estuaries. No competition whatsoever – they occupy different niches. I could go on and on with many examples.

The bluebottle fly and the blowfly prefer to lay their eggs in the festering wounds of animals. At first thought, this would seem to be one of nature’s cruelest acts. But, when the larvae hatch, they feed on the pus, and consume the dead tissue. Even their excretions disinfect the wounds thereby giving valuable service to the injured animal. Interestingly, blowfly larvae were used to clean wounds of soldiers in the last century, before the discovery of antibiotics. In fact, there may be antibiotics to be yet discovered in these organisms.

A century ago there was almost a unanimous agreement that evolution was a record of open warfare with the strong conquering and vanquishing the weak. As we have looked at nature with a more careful and widespread gaze we see that the situation is really diametrically different from what Darwin had assumed. The urge to form partnerships, to link up in collaborative undertakings is probably the oldest, strongest, and most fundamental force in nature. We have come to a universal conclusion – every form of life is dependent on other forms and cannot exist in isolation on its own. Without others, it will perish.

Let’s take a closer look at the basis for Darwin’s claims about nature. He stated that a struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high rate at which organic beings try to increase their numbers. This seems to be an incorrect assumption.

Many examples can be given how species react to the problem of overpopulation. For example, under conditions of increasing population, female mice ovulate more slowly or stop ovulation completely. Some birds prevent the onset of sexual maturity to cope with problems of limited resources. I could give many more illustrations but creatures manage to respond to the problem of overpopulation and the danger of running out of food in a variety of ingenious ways.

The other major claim made by Darwin is that individual species will try to maximize the number of offspring. After all, the principal driving force behind evolution, according to Darwin, is to increase the progeny of a species. However, the general rule in nature is that the number of eggs produced is inversely proportional to parental care and protection. The female mackerel, for example, lays two to three million eggs of which 99.9996% are eaten within 70 days by predators, whereas the sea catfish lays only 30 eggs per season since almost all survive because the male protects them within his mouth. These are just several examples how nature controls the overproduction of progeny thereby questioning Darwin’s claims.

From mere observation it becomes evident that a very large part of the regulation of numbers of progeny depends not on Darwin’s hostile forces – famine, disease, predators, in a word, death – but on the initiative taken by the animals themselves. That populations are self-regulating fits in well with the notion of life in general as a self-directed movement. Nature is not at war, one organism with another; nature is mainly an alliance founded on co-operation.

Another charge leveled at nature by Darwin and repeated by many of his supporters is that nature is wasteful and inefficient. Much can be said to counter this but I will limit myself to several examples.

The largest seagoing vessel in the 1850’s was the ship called the Great Eastern. Despite all efforts to improve the efficiency of this vessel it was simply not economically feasible – it simply traveled too slowly. Because of physical laws that slowed it down, because of its poor design, because of lack of knowledge of water resistance on sea vehicles, the ship was a blunder and failed.

Fish are much more successful than this ill-advised ship. One does not find among living things fiascos such as the Great Eastern.

A calculation based on measuring the energy released in the oxidation of sugar by the adenosine triphosphate molecule (this is an extremely important molecule used by the body to generate energy so that our bodily processes can occur) showed an efficiency of 72% which can be contrasted to the 25% efficiency of the internal combustion engine devised by man.

Nature uses enzymes to speed up chemical reactions necessary in cells. Catalase (you can always tell the name of an enzyme by the ending ‘ase’; look at the ingredients of the Cherry Blossom chocolate and see if there is a catalyst as an ingredient) causes the breakdown of toxic hydrogen peroxide in the body one trillion times faster than in the absence of the catalyst. This again shows the efficiency of operations carried out in nature.

Enzymes are efficient ways of speeding up biochemical reactions so that they can occur within the required time and at a lower temperature.

The charges that there would seem to be a better way to create the world than through evolution is a biting criticism against belief in God. But a few examples do not a case make. And I repeat myself – I have listed a few examples, and this is far from an exhaustive listing but there are many, many more illustrations that give the lie to the assumption that nature is a blundering mistake operating through blind purposeless chance.

There are other examples which can be given showing that this creation is indeed magnificent and is not the slipshod caricature that is often portrayed. But allow me to end with an example that you will be able to relate to.

People often forget how crucial bacteria are to our bodily functions and even our very survival. It is said that there are more bacteria within the body than cells. Those bacteria in our intestines, for example, play a crucial role in extracting nutrients and even in producing important vitamins (vitamins, by the way are another class of catalysts used in the body and essential for our well-being).

Everyone has heard of e-coli bacteria especially in cases of infections which can be serious at times. These bacteria in our gut help in a variety of ways. One is to help by generating vitamin K2 which plays an important role in the coagulation of blood in wounds.

But, if these bacteria get into the blood stream, serious and life threatening infections can arise. What I am trying to say is that there is an ambivalence about nature and it can be benevolent but it can also be malevolent. However, we cannot say that nature is blind and operates pointlessly.

The point I am also trying to make is that nature, in itself, is not what Darwin portrayed it to be. The picture of a bloody nature of competition and killing, popularized in our media, has a modicum of truth in it but it is by far not the whole truth. There is much more that which is positive and co-operative in nature than we sometimes think and which the examples I have listed try to show.

We must never forget that what our faith teaches us – this is a fallen world and this has widespread repercussions. But continually, behind the façade of seemingly wanton violence (in nature this is totally absent; it is man that brings this to the world) there is visible evidence of care and benevolence and co-operation. There is a hidden purpose in nature – it is not all blind chance and this is important for us to remember.

Sincerely,
Bar-Abbas