WAS IT EVOLUTION?

(Excerpted from "Scripture versus Science: Reconciling God's Ancient Wisdom With a Modern world View")

Many of the world’s biologists claim that the fact of evolution is settled. They hold firmly to evolution being a provable fact. In another blog I have pointed out that there is no physical evidence of an evolutionary process, let alone a testable hypothesis of how it happened. Their conclusion is based primarily on two general observations. Similarities between divergent species have long been considered an indication of a relationship of some kind. Now that the human and many animal genomes have been mapped, the striking similarities between the DNA of all animals is taken as proof of evolution. The high correlation between the DNA of humans and primates in particular has been taken as evidence of common ancestry. Let us consider the DNA observations.

Jeremiah it told to "go to the potter's House." (Jeremiah 18:2), so let's do likewise. What do we see there? A potter throws an appropriate quantity of clay onto a spinning disk and begins to shape it into the desired form. As skilled fingers work, an urn, for example, begins to take shape. If that isn't working right the potter may decide to make a cup instead. The process remains exactly the same, but the slight changes create a different product.  Only the quantity of clay used and the finishing touches differ.

The finishing touches are what make each product unique. Each piece of pottery is one of many, perhaps a group of containers or perhaps a group of gallon jugs. In all pieces the production process is identical. Whether a part of a generic group or a specific use group, however, the potter imparts a unique personality onto the piece. Every living organism, whether under the classification of the animal kingdom or Homo sapians has some degree of similarity. Likewise, every living organism is unique in some small detail. Humans are all basically of the same form, and at a larger scale we are even similar to all mammals. Two people may look similar, but there is always some difference between them. Every individual on the earth is unique in some way.

As biological scientists have unraveled the complexity of DNA, they have discovered that all animals have a similar pattern, and human DNA differs only slightly from that of primates. This has been used to “prove” that humans did not arise through intelligent design, but evolved from an ancestor common to the primates. However, this proves nothing other than a person’s inability to consider the option of intelligent design. If one applies a bit of logic, would it not make sense to find that all animals have similar DNA? Why would a designer alter the basic structure of a successful design? A potter does not redesign the entire process when embarking on production of a new piece. Does a builder redesign the basic structure for every new construction project? Would a scientist design a new protocol for every potential research project? Of course not. No matter how simple or complex a project may be, the starting point is the same for all similar endeavors. Only the details are altered to fit the requirements of the project at hand.

Despite the claims of biological scientists, similarities in animal genomes do not prove they were created in an evolutionary process. In fact, sections of the genome that have been considered “junk DNA” have recently been found to be the instructions for creating a unique individual, so our DNA is not so similar to primates as scientists had previously assumed. It must be recognized that whether humans were formed through intelligent design via DNA manipulation (supposedly evolution) or by some kind of spontaneous creation process, similarities in the gene sequence would be logically expected.

As pointed out in another blog, a major problem with the traditional evolution theory is that it requires a series of mutations to explain the transformation of one species into another. Theoretically, slow change is a possibility, but since any hypothesis of the formation process is based on observations, we must consider the observation that only very rarely do mutations result in a viable organisms. Mutations are almost always fatal to the offspring. Any evolutionary process should be supported by finding organisms with properties intermediate between the assumed parent and offspring. This criticism is answered by assuming that changes occurred rapidly, so few intermediate species existed from which fossils would be formed. The problem here is that a series of nonfatal mutations would have been required, and if single nonfatal mutations are rare, a series of such mutations over a short period of time would be extremely improbable, unless controlled through intelligent design.

To compound the problem at hand, and to enable the reproduction system, similar evolution had to happen simultaneously to a woman and a man; otherwise their children would be some kind of hybrid and could not create human offspring that were duplicates of themselves. On the other hand, if the genes were carefully adjusted to form a human, would it not be a simple matter of changing the Y-DNA that defines a man into the mitochondrial DNA that defines a woman?

Within either the plant or animal kingdom, one would expect DNA commonality to increase with the degree to which two organisms share similarities. It should be expected that humans share some DNA characteristics with cows or elephants.This similarity should not be used as proof of a common ancestor. It can be considered as evidence of intelligent design. In reality, evolutionary changes by natural alterations of DNA to form humans are infinitely improbable. When biological scientists insist that all life forms are the result of an evolutionary process, they are actually admitting that there is an intelligent designer in charge of things.