For the last 200 years, science has increasingly become ruled by a single “prime directive.” Those who remember the original Star Trek series will recall that every starship in the Federation fleet was bound by one unbreakable rule—they were never to interfere with the development of another culture. In a similar way, one unbreakable rule guides all modern scientific endeavors. Richard Dickerson, a prominent biochemist and member of the elite National Academy of Sciences, states it this way, “Science, fundamentally is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without ever invoking the supernatural... A chess player is perfectly capable of moving his opponent’s king physically from the board and smashing it in the midst of a tournament. This would not make him the champion because the rules have not been followed.” 1
It is because of the “prime directive” of science (i.e. we must explain everything via evolution) that no matter how conclusive the evidence for our recent creation, it will not be acknowledged. Further-more, the evidence pointing to this reality will be buried, ignored, and at times not even seen by those whose paradigm of reality is that the prime directive must be upheld even at the cost of intellectual honesty.
For the last 50 years, it has been acknowledged that if there is more than one minor mistake on the genetic code of a species per generation, that species is ultimately doomed to extinction. For instance, if cockroaches have been around for 300 million years and they have one minor random change to their DNA every generation, over a billion meaningless mistakes would have built up - dooming them to extinction. No mechanism exists which can eliminate these minor mistakes. Natural selection can act as a quality control mechanism which can eliminate individuals with major genetic problems because such offspring are less fit for survival. However, natural selection cannot remove mistakes in the genetic code that build up having minimal survival effect.
For instance, suppose our genetic code was similar to a textbook full of information and each subsequent copy of the textbook had a few letters randomly changed. Natural selection would be like the test taken by everyone who had read each unique textbook with its individual set of errors. Very few, if any of the textbooks, could be eliminated based on the results of end of the year student testing. The next generation of books would have a few more errors, and the third generation a few more..etc...until the textbook ultimately became meaningless nonsense. Yet, for any given textbook generation, natural selection (the testing of students using all of the textbooks from that generation of books) would have no ability to eliminate any but the most blatantly erroneous textbooks. This is why it has been acknowledged that more than one minor error per generation will ultimately doom a species to extinction due to the “genetic load” of errors building up on its DNA code.2
It is not widely reported that every generation of humans has not one random error in their DNA code but thousands of random and permanent changes. These random changes are actually a loss of functioning information—the same way that random changes in the letters of a textbook result in the loss of information content.
The obvious question of ‘where did all of the original information come from?’ is also being ignored, as is the rate of detrimental changes -- orders of magnitude greater than any yet to be identified source of adding information. Furthermore, the rate at which mistakes are increasing on the human genome provides compelling evidence that the human genome cannot possibly have been around more than a few hundred generations nor can it survive indefinitely.
Never has there been so much scientific evidence supporting the reality that humans were recently created by an unimaginably intelligent designer. It is this evidence which makes it obvious that our hope lies not in this life nor in this physical universe—which is winding down, not up. Our hope lies in reconciling ourselves with the designer of this universe and in what He has done to provide for us in the eternity which will follow our physical extinction.
1. Dr. Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Simon & Schuster,
p. 240, 1998.
2. Dr. J.C. Sanford, Genetic Entropy: The Mystery of the Genome, Ivan Press, 2005.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment