Perhaps the bee is more of a problem to the theory of evolution than anything else. This insect has solved one of the most veiled mathematical problems in the construction of its honey cells. But how did this creature come to possess this marvelous instinct? It is doubtful that the bee acquired it by habit-forming methods; it only removes the mystery a step farther back when pondering the initial tendency to form such a habit is as great a mystery as the habit or the instinct itself. In fact, the impulse must always precede the habit or the instinct, and this compulsion to build hexagon cells is just as fatal to the theory Evolution as the daily working practices of the creature.
The bee’s cell is the pinnacle of spacesaving construction, and this creature had been forming this wonderful cell for thousands of years before an evolutionist had been born. Moreover, there is not an evolutionist alive who, untaught, could produce a counterpart of this work. Yet the bee goes on making her marvelous cell right under their gaze. Our wise modern entomologists tell us that it is “habit,” fixed into an instinct. How easy! But who or what guided the bee in forming such a habit?
Evolutionists admit that the bee has the ability to measure distance, to “judge accurately at what distance to stand from her fellow when several are making their spheres.” Think of evolutionists talking about bees “judging distance!” Yet these are the men who grow inflamed at the least suggestion of intelligence in the “orderly processes” of nature. The use of wax in forming the cell is reduced to the lowest possible amount, something highly necessary to the bee, and the ratio of sugar and wax is fifteen to one.
Then consider the care of the queen bee. There is an oversupply of queens till one is certainly established, and then the others are executed. Consider the marvelous formation of certain cells too narrow to be entered by the males and be made fruitful. By what hypothesis does an evolutionist account for all these amazing instincts working together to the common good and perpetuity of the hive? Is this the survival of the fittest? Is this “natural selection?” There is nothing in the vast literature of evolutionary thought stating that a single law applies in this case, nor is there a logical explanation of it. Every attempt of evolutionists to apply their imaginative impulses to the bee are absurd and shallow. And let me add that the same is true of everything in nature. They have not a sensible explanation of anything. The whole thing is one of the most gigantic and indefensible frauds ever conceived in the minds of men.
There is one thing more in the case of the bee which should be considered. Go back to the first “variation” of this insect and look toward his present form: would not that variation, and all subsequent variations, be wholly worthless and impossible if there were no flowers? Bees exist because there are flowers, and flowers because there are bees! But will evolutionists explain that foreordaining wisdom which operated on the first variation of the future bee, looking to a perfect adaptation of the bee to flowers? How did that first variation know there were, or would be, flowers? Is not all this too much for cold force to achieve? And when we consider all the other countless adaptations in the world of nature which are just as wonderful, just as amazing, are we not compelled to accept a more reasonable explanation than evolution?
And when we add Darwin’s admission that neuter insects, including ants, often differ widely in instinct and form from their parents, the theory of evolution is distressed beyond reconstruction. Darwin says: “No doubt many instincts of very different character could be opposed to the theory of natural selection, cases in which we could not see how an instinct could have originated; in which no intermediate gradations are known to exist; cases of instinct of such trifling importance that they could not have been acted upon by natural selection; cases of instinct almost identically the same in animals so remote in the scale of nature that we cannot account for their similarity by inheritance from a common ancestor. … I will confine myself to one of special difficulty which at first seemed to me insuperable and actually fatal to the whole theory. I speak of the neuters, or sterile female in insect communities; for these neuters often differ widely in instinct and in structure from both the males and fertile females, and yet they cannot propagate their kind” (Origin of Species, p. 253).
All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made.
– The Gospel of John 1:3
Darwin was right. His theory does fall before this difficulty, as it does before a thousand others. Evolution gives no sensible explanation of anything, and the modern hodgepodge of guessing and theorizing, and hypotheses taken for granted as proven fact is even in a worse state now than it was in Darwin’s time. The modern evolutionist, if he were an honest man, would be compelled to admit the silliness of his theory, and having no answer, doggedly contends for his absurd hypothesis with nothing new to offer.
For further study: