Let the Evidence Decide

The following article is a response to some comments I received on my last blog post. An atheist gentleman who calls himself the “Human Ape” read my article on Theistic Evolution and took it as an opportunity to express his views the topic. His comments are still up, and you may read them if you like.
_____________________________________________________

Mr. Human Ape,
I was not aware I was entering an arena when I clicked the comment box this afternoon! That being said, I am very glad you decided to post your counter-arguments, so we can debate them openly.
I believe the essence of your argument was summed up in this excerpt:
“In science, an idea that is widely accepted is not necessarily true. However if that idea has tons of evidence, and if the evidence is undeniable, than yes of course, it is fair to say that idea is true…the scientific community now has enough evidence to call the basic facts of evolution the strongest facts of science.”
I certainly agree on your point that any scientific theory must be backed by the evidence to be considered valid. That is why I believe we must weigh the evidence both for and against Evolution to decide if it is worthy to be taught as fact. This topic is far broader than can be covered in a single blog article. In future I hope to discuss it in more detail. For right now, I will give as brief a response as I can, outlining only a few of the many devastating evidences against evolution. I will begin with Molecular Biology:
To tell the truth, I was amused to find you consider Molecular Biology the strongest area of evidence for evolution. This is because it is in Molecular Biology that evolution has been most discredited in recent years.

1. The First Living Cell?
When Darwin originally developed his theory, he believed that simple cells were just that- simple. He therefore assumed it would be possible for such a simple life form to rise by spontaneous means. But until you have a self-reproducing organism, the only naturalistic mechanism for its evolution is random chance (natural selection does not work on dead matter). The simplest bacteria has over 200 genes encoded in over 100,000 base locations. This amount of information cannot possibly arise from random chance (even given billions of years over billions of planets). And this simplest of microbes is only a parasite, unable to reproduce without using machinery from more complex cells.

2. Irreducible Complexity
It has been shown that many microbiological systems in living things are irreducibly complex. This means that there is no simpler system from which they could have evolved. All the pieces of the system have to be in place for the system to confer any survival benefit to the organism. Examples of irreducible complexity include:
-The bacterial flagellum
-The intercellular protein transport system
-Machinery for translating encoded DNA and constructing proteins from it
-The blood-clotting system protein cascade
-The ATP Synthase Motor

3. Evidence from DNA
Most of the evolutionary arguments from DNA are based on the assumption that if DNA sequences in different species are similar, that shows an ancestral relationship between the species. This ignores the possibility that the similarities are due to a common designer and not common descent. After all, two programs for different computer applications written by the same programmer are more likely than not to contain similar coding sequences.
But apart from this, the evidence from DNA analysis for evolution is not consistent. For example, the initial estimate of a 98% similarly between human and chimpanzee DNA was only based on gene sequences that could be matched up and measured by single base-pair substitutions. Other differences, such as insertions and deletions (which are completely different sequences between the organisms) were totally ignored. Since then, the estimates for similarity have been steadily decreasing, as more genetic information is included in the analysis. Other studies have compared individual proteins that were common to many species and listed the similarity percentage. However, as more protein genes are sequenced for different species, the evidence for ancestry has been inconsistent. One protein analysis suggested that we were more closely related to guinea pigs than to chimps. Finally, many of the evolutionary DNA analyses assume that human DNA is 95% junk material, and therefore, differences in this DNA record the evolutionary history of the species. But as our knowledge of Molecular Biology increases, more and more vital functions are being discovered for this supposedly useless DNA (examples include: gene suppression and RNA machine templates). Thus the premise of these analyses is called into serious question.

4. Genetic Entropy and the Decay of the Human Genome
Another assumption evolution makes is that beneficial mutations are common enough and harmful mutations are rare enough that natural selection can work to improve the species. In order for this to occur, the number of mutations in the functional (non-junk) DNA must be less than 1 per individual. But current studies of Micro-biology have shown that the actual mutation rate in human beings is over 100 per individual. Even if 95% of our DNA is junk, this would still yield about 5 new mutations per individual per generation. Furthermore, it has been shown that the vast majority of these mutations are near-neutral or harmful. This suggests that rather than improving, the Human genome is actually decaying over time. No amount of natural selection can stop this. Evidence for decay can also be found in every higher animal species. If evolution is biological change over time, than it seems to me that we are changing in the wrong direction.
Based on this evidence, I hope you can see that my objections to evolution are not based only on my religious faith. There is plenty of scientific evidence to support my conclusions. The points I have listed are only a few out of many factual and logical objections to the theory of evolution.
If you are interested in further study, allow me to recommend the following resources (which I have used as sources for my argument):

-The Edge of Evolution by Dr. Michael J. Behe
-Darwin’s Black Box also by Michael Behe
-Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome by Dr. J.C. Sanford
-Unlocking the Mysteries of Life (this one is a video by Focus on the Family)
-Codes and Creation (a DVD from Creation Ministries International)

Again, thank you for commenting.
Respectfully yours,
Lightweaver
_____________________________________________________

To the rest of my readers: I hope this encourages you not to be afraid of the arguments raised against us by Evolutionists and others. The facts (twisted and suppressed as they are today) are in our favor. And science, real science, is an awesome testimony to the greatness of our creator.

Special thanks to my Mom (a mathematical statistician who studies science for a hobby) who helped me compile and organize the data for this article. You're amazing!

The Killer Compromise

As we all know, Darwinism is the official scientific philosophy accepted by our culture today. But here’s a question: does being widely accepted make a thing true? In the last article, we talked about how the validity of any given scientific philosophy should be judged by how closely it fits the observable evidence. Not how widely accepted it is. In other words, science is not democratic. Or at least, it shouldn’t be.
Sadly, many Christians assume that because Darwinism is so well established (i.e. widely accepted) it must therefore be the true science of origins. Taking evolution to be fact, they then try to fit their faith around it. There have been many pseudo-evolutionary theories put forward over the years to try to reconcile Christianity and Evolution. One of the most popular today is Theistic Evolution. Theistic Evolution is basically Evolution with a qualifier: God. God started everything and then let random chance, billions of years, and natural selection do the rest, only stepping in at key points (like the creation of man).
A reasonable compromise, a level-headed balance between science and religion, don’t you think? After all, we wouldn’t want to be labeled fanatics, or worse, Creationists, now would we? But there is one small problem with this seemingly reasonable, level-headed solution. Namely, it undermines the very foundation of Christianity itself.
What is the basis of Christianity? Christ. The belief that Christ is the Son of God and that he died on a cross to save sinners. This is what we call the Gospel.
Here are some of the ways Theistic Evolution undermines the Gospel:
Denies our need for a savior: This one doesn’t come intuitively, but think about it for a moment. Death is the vehicle of evolution. Survival of the fittest, natural selection, and millions of years all require death. If God created death as part of the original creation (as Theistic Evolution implies), then death was not the result of sin. If death was not the result of sin, then sin must not be a big deal. Therefore, if sin is no big deal, why do we need a savior to save us from sin?
Denies the goodness of God: How could a good God create a world full of death, disease, suffering, struggle, and pain? This makes death God's fault not man’s. So how is man responsible for death if it was there from the beginning?
Denies the truthfulness of God: If Theistic Evolution is true, then the Creation account in Genesis is false. That makes God a liar. If we cannot trust him to tell us the truth about creation, how can we trust him about anything else he says (especially about salvation for mankind)?
The list continues but the bottom line is this: Theistic Evolution denies the absolute truth of scripture by assuming the very first words of scripture, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” are false.
If the foundation is faulty, the building will collapse in the first earth quake.
Remember the reason for coming up with Theistic Evolution in the first place? It was to try to “fit” Christianity into the evolutionary paradigm. But in trying to fit Christianity into the paradigm, Theistic Evolution destroys the very meaning and purpose of Christianity.
Why do we want to fit Christianity into the paradigm, again? Because we believe the ridiculous fallacy that widely accepted equals true. But truth is not democratic (To those of you who would argue that truth is relative, I have a challenge for you: build a bridge on that principle and then walk across it.)
If you had to choose between the word of an infallible God who created the entire universe, or the word of a fallible scientist who frequently makes mistakes that result in the contents of a test tube blowing up in his face, whose word would you trust to tell you the truth about reality?
As Christians, our starting point should be “Scripture as absolute truth and see how the scientific evidence fits around it,” not “Evolution as absolute truth and see how scripture fits in around it.”