Home  |  Search  |  Contact  
Order Book   |  Read Book Online  |  Testimonials  
 You are in / Foolish Faith / Read Book Online / Conclusion - Part 3
"Regular experience, not negligible probabilities and remote possibilities, is the basis of science."
»  Conclusion of Foolish Faith
- Part 1 2 3 4 5 6


Part 3

The theory of evolution is heavily based on the assumption that genetic mutations (accidental copying mistakes) can improve an organism’s genetic code (i.e., that mutations can create new genetic information). But a random mutation is not likely to improve an organism’s genetic code any more than firing a gunshot blindly through the hood of a car is likely to improve engine performance.

Indeed, all of our real-world experience would indicate that to rely on accidental copying mistakes to generate the information required to create complex structures like wings and eyes is the stuff of wishful thinking, not science.

However, because creatures can adapt to changing environments, evolutionists use such changes to show “evolution happening.” Yet these types of changes do not support evolution — they are either genetically neutral or genetically downhill, being losses of information instead of the required gains. Losing bits of genetic information a little at a time does not explain how the genetic code was built in the first place; you can’t build a business by losing a little bit of money at a time.

Since we never observe an addition of new genetic information when a creature adapts to its environment, but always a shift or loss of already-existing information (genes), it is reasonable to believe that a Creator pre-programmed creatures with enough genetic potential to adapt to future environmental changes.

And despite popular belief, there is not one location on earth where the fossil record shows “a clear vector of progress” as dogmatically proposed in textbooks. In fact, the fossil record seems to fit the creation model well — it is characterized by abrupt appearances of fully formed organisms, with large systematic gaps (lacking transitional forms) between different types of creatures.

If the fossil record offers little support for the theory of evolution (with only a handful of disputed transitional forms), and if virtually all of the observed examples that allegedly show evolution happening do not really support evolution at all (i.e., no example shows an addition of new genetic information, which is required to support the idea that a simple cell could have evolved into a human being) — if these two points are true — then what compelling reason is there to believe in evolution as the sole explanation for our origins, other than out of philosophical necessity?

And though the majority of scientists accept the theory of evolution as true today, should not we be reminded that the majority of scientists also once thought the sun revolved around the earth?

Incidentally, the “biblical scenario for the creation of life turns out to be not far off the mark.” It has been demonstrated that the biblical creation model is not unreasonable to believe as a fact of history. The creation model stands up to an objective analysis: not only is it reasonable, it is also consistent with what is observed around the earth today (i.e., it can satisfactorily explain things such as fossils and dinosaurs). As such, the biblical Book of Genesis does not need to be looked at as just a “story” — there is good evidence to warrant a literal interpretation of the events narrated.

But not only do creationist scientists argue that the biblical creation model is scientifically sound, they also argue that living things are ordered in such a way as to exhibit evidence of intelligent design. The high information content in the DNA of living things, equivalent to millions of pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica, indicates that rather than a random, purposeless evolvement, an intelligent source was ultimately necessary.

In the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI), the discovery of a radio signal from outer space with a high level of specified complexity would be hailed as evidence for an intelligent source. So why shouldn’t the discovery of high specified complexity in the DNA of living things, equivalent to millions of pages of Encyclopedia Britannica, also be hailed as evidence for an intelligent source?

Some of the world’s most distinguished scientists, such as Nobel Prize winner Dr. Francis Crick who made possibly the most important discovery of 20th century biology, have thus come to the conclusion that life could never have developed without the aid of a Master Designer.

But others, because of their presuppositions, refuse to come to such conclusions despite the weight of the evidence. One of today’s leading evolutionary biologists clearly expresses this dominant mindset:

   It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material [naturalistic] explanation of the . . . world, but, on the contrary . . . we are forced by our [presuppositions] . . . to produce material explanations . . . for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.[7]

But if science is a search for the truth no matter what the truth might be, then shouldn’t the door remain open to whatever truth is there to be revealed?


 Back  |  Next