The Robbinsdale Radical left a comment today regarding sponges and evolutionary theory.
Genetic material for nerve synapses has been found in sponges, and of course this is believed to be evidence of evolution (just like evidence for global warming can be found whether it's cold or hot or wet or dry or windy or calm, so almost anything can be interpreted as supporting evolution because of the worldview involved).
It just happens that Answers in Genesis (that evil bunch of knuckle-draggers who opened the Creation Museum recently) addresses these sponges today:
Noticeably, whereas the article describes the genes as “very similar,” Oakley states categorically (albeit with some editorial alteration) that the sponges have the human synapse genes. We suspect this is due to Oakley’s (and evolutionists’ in general) view that if two genes are similar in two organisms that share a common ancestor (which, ultimately, are all organisms in the evolutionary worldview), the two genes are presumed to be the same gene, merely mutated in different directions over eons of supposed evolutionary history. Accordingly, the article notes:
The researchers speculate that the sponge genes were recycled over evolutionary time, with small modifications, to create the nervous systems of later animals.
The creationists’ view, by contrast, is to emphasize that similarity can never prove evolution nor disprove creation. Evolutionists explain similarity through their worldview as the inevitable result of shared ancestry across all life. We creationists explain similarity through our worldview as the understandable result of one Designer creating a system of life that shares the same world. Indeed, the only statement in the article that uniquely supports either creation or evolution is the final paragraph:
Other genes would also have had to evolve or to have been co-opted to create complex nervous systems, such as our own. Scientists think an estimated 77 to 1,000 genes are important for human synaptic communication, Oakley said.
Thus, while similarities are easily explained by creation and evolution, the differences are only explained well by the creation model; the evolution model, despite its supposed emphasis on empirical support, has never shown that mutations increase information—such as yielding the hundreds of genes required just for our nervous system—as Darwinian evolution requires. While this is interesting postulation, note that mechanism for the creation of new genes has neither been described, nor demonstrated, but is apparently blindly believed to have taken place.
Now I know there are many out there who automatically dismiss anything that comes from AIG as being unreliable. That's about as logical as suspecting that any arrest made by the police is oppression just because you once received a speeding ticket; just because you don't like what they have to say doesn't mean what they say is wrong. Just stop for a minute and weigh the viability of what they've said before running off in blind faith to a bunch of evolutionary apostles in white lab coats.
Consider this another way: if you examine the code behind two different computer programs, say a spreadsheet program and a word processing program, you'll notice a lot of different code...but you'll also notice some similar elements of code, and maybe even some of the same functions.
This doesn't mean the spreadsheet program evolved from the word processing program or vice versa; it only means that the "creator" simply used some of the same elements, arranged differently.
Finding similar genetic elements in different organisms is no more proof of evolution than finding similar code strings in different programs is proof one program evolved from the other.
4 comments:
"Consider this another way: if you examine the code behind two different computer programs, say a spreadsheet program and a word processing program, you'll notice a lot of different code...but you'll also notice some similar elements of code, and maybe even some of the same functions."
That's a great anaology. For 160 years many new discoveries have been touted as the "final nail" in the coffin for Creationists, only to yield to futher study and analysis and provide even more support for the biblical worldview. I'll have to give it to the evolutionists though, they doggedly persist in their beliefs. Why, you'd think that their lives depended on it!
I don't know why a person can't believe in both at the same time. God created life, all life. Whether he did it through separately creating each species as in creationism, or through evolution guided by his hand is immaterial to me. Both ways God created life and created man. We are here, an undeniable fact, and God's hand created us. Both creationism and evolution can complement each other.
You are correct, Anonymous, that God COULD HAVE used evolution as a mechanism for biological change.
However, if you're going to believe the Bible, the two are incompatible. There are a number of incompatibilities, but the first and perhaps main one is that the Bible says God created everything GOOD, in a state of perfection. Yet evolution teaches that struggle, conflict and death were a part of existence here on earth from the beginning. While evolution teaches that death has always been a part of the natural order--even before humans came a long--the Bible teaches that the universe existed in a state of perfection (including no death) until Adam and Eve sinned, bringing the curse, which included death, upon all of creation which was under man's dominion. And if this fallen state is the natural order, why would God call it "good," and why would he send his son Jesus to redeem and repair something that God himself made this way in the first place?
I used to believe much as you theorized, but as I examined more closely what the Bible teaches, I soon realized you just can't harmonize the teachings of the two.
Anonymous said: "I don't know why a person can't believe in both at the same time."
(1) Because, as Bob points out, evolution is incompatible with the Bible.
(2) Because the more I learn (including about what evolutionists say), the more I can see that evolution is incompatible with true, operational SCIENCE.
Why on earth should I try to believe in the Bible's true history AND some false (however popular) science at the same time?
Post a Comment