ADAM, EVE AND NOAH VS MODERN GENETICS

Posted on by

This is an important, in fact, critical topic for the creation model. The world does not look at the Bible in a favorable light. In fact, it disparages it, sometimes with open hostility. Attacks are often centered on the claim that the Bible is not reliable on historical grounds, and if the history of the Bible is inaccurate, what about the theology? Think about what Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3:12, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” Many people today see no history in the Bible; therefore, the spiritual implications are meaningless to them. What would happen to evangelism if the history of the Bible turns out to be true after all?

It comes as a surprise to most people to hear that there is abundant evidence that the entire human race came from two people just a few thousand years ago (Adam and Eve), that there was a serious population crash (bottleneck) in the recent past (at the time of Noah’s Flood), and that there was a single dispersal of people across the world after that (the Tower of Babel). It surprises them, even more, to learn that much of this evidence comes from evolutionary scientists. In fact, an abundant testimony to biblical history has been uncovered by modern geneticists. It is there for anyone to see if they know where to look!

For our purposes, the most important places to look are in the Y chromosome (which is only found in males and which is passed on directly from father to son) and in the mitochondrial DNA (a small loop of DNA that we nearly always inherit from our mothers only; males do not pass it on to their children). These two pieces of DNA record some startling facts about our past.

The evolutionary map of world migrations is startlingly close to the biblical account of a single dispersal of people from Babel. The evolutionary “Out of Africa” theory tells us there was a single dispersal of people, centered near and travelling through the Middle East, with three main mitochondrial lineages, with people traveling in small groups into previously uninhabited territory, and that all of this occurred in the recent past. Every item in that list is something directly predicted by the Tower of Babel account in the Bible. (Image http://www.mitomap.org).

Over the last decade, a vast amount of information has been collected that allows us to answer questions that we could not even consider earlier. The tools of modern genetics allow us to specifically ask questions about history, for our genes carry a record that reflects where we came from and how we got to where we are. The tools at our disposal are powerful.

Creation and genetics

There are two brief passages in the Creation account we can use to draw some conclusions about human genetic history. Please note that we cannot use these verses for land animals (because we do not know how many of each kind were initially created) or any of the swimming critters (“with which the waters abounded”—Genesis 1:21). These statements apply to people only:

“And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.” Genesis 2:7

“And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.” Genesis 2:21–22

These simple statements have profound implications. They put a limit on the amount of diversity we should find in people living today. The Bible clearly says the human race started out with two people only. But how different were these two people? There is an intriguing possibility that Eve was a clone of Adam. The science of cloning involves taking DNA from an organism and using it to manufacture an almost perfect copy of the original. Here, God is taking a piece of flesh, with cells, organelles, and, importantly, Adam’s DNA, and using it to manufacture a woman. Of course, she could not be a perfect clone, because she was a girl! But what if God had taken Adam’s genome and used it to manufacture Eve? All he would have had to do was to leave out Adam’s Y chromosome and double his X chromosome and, voilá, instant woman!

I do not know if Eve was genetically identical to Adam. The only reason I bring this up is because we have two possibilities in our biblical model of human genetic history: one original genome or two. Either result is still vastly different from the most popular evolutionary models,2 but we need to discuss the range of possibilities that the Bible allows.

Your genome is like an encyclopedia (almost literally). And, like an encyclopedia, the genome is broken down into volumes, called chromosomes, but you have two copies of each volume (with the exception of the X and Y chromosomes; women have two Xs but men have one X and one Y). Imagine comparing two duplicate volumes side by side and finding that one word in a particular sentence is spelled differently in each volume (perhaps “color” vs “colour”). Can you see that if Eve was a clone of Adam, there would have been, at most, two possible variants at any point in the genome? If Eve was not a clone, however, there would have been, at most, four possible variants at any point in the genome (because each of the original chromosomes came in four copies). This still allows for a lot of diversity overall, but it restricts the variation at any one spot to 2, 3, or 4 original readings.

Does this fit the evidence? Absolutely! Most variable places in the genome come in two versions and these versions are spread out across the world. There are some highly variable places that seem to contradict this, but most of these are due to mutations that occurred in the different subpopulations after Babel.

There are indications, however, that Eve may not have been a clone. The ABO blood group is a textbook example of a gene with more than two versions.3 There are three main versions of the blood type gene (A, B, and O). However, many, but not all, people with type O blood carry something that looks very much like a mutant A (the mutation prevents the manufacturing of the type A trait on the outside of cells). So here is a gene with more than two versions, but one of the main versions is clearly a mutation. This is true for many other genes, although, as usual, there are exceptions. The important take home point is that essentially all of the genetic variation among people today could have been carried within two people, if you discount mutations that occurred after our dispersion across the globe. This is a surprise to many.

The Flood and genetics

Like in the Creation story, there are only a few verses in the Flood account that help us with our model. But as seen before, these verses are profound. About 10 generations after Creation, a severe, short bottleneck occurred in the human population. From untold numbers of people, the entire world population was reduced to eight souls with only three reproducing couples.

“So Noah, with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives, went into the ark because of the waters of the flood.” Genesis 7:7

“Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth… These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.” Genesis 9:18–19

We can draw many important deductions from these statements. For instance, based on Genesis 7 and 9, how many Y chromosomes were on the Ark? The answer: one. Yes, there were four men, but Noah gave his Y chromosome to each of his sons. Unless there was a mutation (entirely possible), each of the sons carried the exact same Y chromosome. We do not know how much mutation occurred prior to the flood. With the long life spans of the antediluvian patriarchs, it may be reasonable to assume little mutation had taken place, but all of Creation, including the human genome, had been cursed, so it may not be wise to conclude that there was no mutation prior to the Flood. The amount of mutation may be a moot point, however, for, if it occurred, the Flood should have wiped out most traces of it (all of it in the case of the Y chromosome).

How many mitochondrial DNA lineages were on the Ark? The answer: three. Yes, there were four women, but the Bible does not record Noah’s wife as having any children after the Flood (in this case, girl children). And notice the claim in Gen 9:19, “These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.” This is a strong indication that Noah’s wife did not contribute anything else to the world’s population. With no prohibition against sibling marriage, yet,4 one or more of the daughters-in-law may have been her daughter, but this does not change the fact that, at first glance, we expect a maximum of three mitochondrial lineages in the current world population. There is a chance that there will be less, if there was very little mutation before the Flood or if several of the daughters-in-law were closely related. At most, we do not expect more than four.

How many X chromosome lineages were on the Ark? That depends. If you count it all up, you get eight. If, by chance, Noah’s wife passed on the same X chromosome to each of her three sons (25% probability), then there were seven. If Noah had a daughter after the Flood (not expected, but possible), there could be as many as nine X chromosome lineages. Either way, this is a considerable amount of genetic material. And since X chromosomes recombine (in females), we are potentially looking at a huge amount of genetic diversity within the X chromosomes of the world.

Does this fit the evidence? Absolutely! It turns out that Y chromosomes are similar worldwide. According to the evolutionists, no “ancient” (i.e., highly mutated or highly divergent) Y chromosomes have been found.5 This serves as a bit of a puzzle to the evolutionist, and they have had to resort to calling for a higher “reproductive variance” among men than women, high rates of “gene conversion” in the Y chromosome, or perhaps a “selective sweep” that wiped out the other male lines.6 For the biblical model, it is a beautiful correlation and we can take it as is.

The evidence from mitochondrial DNA fits our model just as neatly as the Y chromosome data. As it turns out, there are three main mitochondrial DNA lineages found across the world. The evolutionists have labeled these lines “M”, “N”, and “R”, so we’ll refer to them by the same names. They would not say these came off the Ark. They claim they were derived from older lines found in Africa, but this is based on a suite of assumptions (I discussed these in detail in a recent article in the Journal of Creation7). It also turns out that M, N, and R differ by only a few mutations. This gives us some indication of the amount of mutation that occurred in the generations prior to the Flood.

Let’s assume ten female generations from Eve to the ladies on the Ark. M and N are separated by about 8 mutations (a small fraction of the 16,500 letters in the mitochondrial genome). R is only 1 mutation away from N. This is an indication of the mutational load that occurred before the Flood. Given the assumption that mutations occur at equal rates in all lines, about four mutations separate M and N each from Eve (maybe four mutations in each line in ten generations). But what about R? It is very similar to N. Were N and R sisters, or perhaps more closely related to each other than they were to M? We’ll never know, but it sure is fascinating to think about.

One more line of evidence crops up in the amount of genetic diversity that has been found within people worldwide. Essentially, much less has been found than most (i.e., evolutionists!) predicted. The general lack of diversity among people is the reason the Out of Africa model has humanity going through a disastrous, near-extinction bottleneck with only about 10,000 (and perhaps as few as 1,000)8 people surviving. However, the reason for this lack of diversity is twofold. First, the human race started out with only two people. Second, the human race is not that old and has not accumulated a lot of mutations, despite the high mutation rate. Third, there actually was a bottleneck event, Noah’s Flood!

The Tower of Babel and genetics

Could it be possible that there is evidence to back up this tale of rebellion and judgment? Like the Creation and Flood accounts, there are only a couple of verses that apply to our model of genetics. But, like the others, these verses are as profound as they are simple.

“Now the whole earth had one language and one speech.” Genesis 11:1

“And they said, ‘Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.’” Genesis 11:4

It sounds like they were in a homogenous culture, but what do people in that situation do? Would you expect them to mix freely? Were language or cultural barriers present that would have prevented the sons of Shem from marrying the daughters of Japheth? Would the daughters of Ham be expected to marry freely with the sons of any of the three men? Note in Gen 11:4 that they knew about the potential for spreading out and getting separated from one another and intentionally did the opposite! However, this was against the express command of God, who had ordered them to spread out (to populate the earth). So, He took matters into His own hands.

“’Come, let Us go down and confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.’ So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city.” Genesis 11:7–8

There are tremendous implications that come from the Babel account. First it explains the amazing cultural connectivity of ancient peoples—like pyramid building, common flood legends, and ancient, non-Christian genealogies that link people back to biblical figures (e.g., many of the royal houses of pagan northern Europe go back to Japheth, the son of Noah).

The dramatic rise in world population over the past several decades is a well known fact. From a biblical perspective, the current human population easily fits into the standard model of population growth using very conservative parameters.10 In fact, starting with 6 people and doubling the population every 150 years more than accounts for the current human population (a growth rate of less than 0.5% per year!). Population size would have increased quickly given the rate at which the post-Flood population reestablished agriculture, animal husbandry, industry and civilization. So we must ask the question, “Why are there so few people in the world today?” The answer is that the world is young and we have not been here many thousands of years.

When did the dispersion occur? Our best clue about the timing of the event comes from Genesis 10:25. In referencing the 5th generation descendent of Shem, a man named Peleg, it says, “in his days the earth was divided.” To what is this referring? Many people believe this is referring to a division of the landmasses (plate tectonics). This may be true, but it would require a huge amount of geologic activity after the Flood, and this would have occurred in historical times with no record of the events. The interpretation I favor is that this passage is referring to the division of people at Babel. Just a few verses after the Peleg reference, the section is summed up with another reference to the division at Babel. This fits both the context and the science. In context, Peleg was closely associated with Babel.

How large was the population at the time? We would expect rapid population growth, but we cannot know exactly. There are 16 named sons born to the three brothers, Shem, Ham and Japheth. If we assume about the same number of daughters, Noah had on the order of 30 grandchildren. At that rate of growth, there would have been about 150 children in Salah’s generation, about 750 in Eber’s generation, and about 3,750 in Peleg’s generation. Of course, these generations overlap, etc., so let’s say there were between 1,000 and 10,000 people alive at the time of Babel. This fits nicely with the available data. It is a high rate of growth, but wars and disease had yet to start taking their toll.

There is one more verse in this section that we need to discuss:

“These were the families of the sons of Noah, according to their generations, in their nations; and from these the nations were divided on the earth after the flood.” Genesis 10:32

At Babel, God did not separate the nations according to language. He used language to separate them according to paternal (male) ancestry! This has monumental significance and is the key to understanding human genetic history.

Do you see the implication in this simple verse? At Babel, God did not separate the nations according to language. He used language to separate them according to paternal (male) ancestry! This has monumental significance and is the key to understanding human genetic history. Paternal sorting would lead to specific Y chromosome lineages in different geographical locations. Since males and females from the three main families should have been freely intermixing prior to this, it also leads to a mixing of the mitochondrial lines. It is as if God put all the people into a giant spreadsheet and hit a button called “Sort According to Father.” He then took that list and used it to divide up and separate the nations.

We already saw that Y chromosomes have little variation among them. We now add the fact that this little bit of variation is almost always geographically specific. That is, after the nations were separated according to Y chromosome, mutations occurred in the various lines. Since the lines were sent to specific geographical areas, the mutations are geographically specific. The current distribution of Y chromosome lines is a tremendous confirmation of the biblical model.

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) adds another confirmation. We have already learned that there are three main lineages of mtDNA. We now add the fact that these three lineages are more or less randomly distributed across the world. Also, the various mutations within each of the three main families of mtDNA are geographically specific as well.11 In other words, as the three mixed mitochondrial lines were carried along with the Y chromosome dispersal, each line in each area began to pick up new mutations, just like we would predict.

After the Flood

The last remaining significant reference in the Bible that will help us build our model of human genetic history is called The Table of Nations. It is found in Genesis chapters 9 and 10. The Table of Nations is a record of the post-Babel tribes, who they descended from, and where they went. If the Bible is an accurate source of history, one might expect to be able to find a significant amount of evidence for the Table of Nations in genetic data. The truth is not that simple, however, and it is important to keep several things in mind. First, the account was written by a person in the Middle East and from a Middle Eastern perspective. It is incomplete in that there are huge sections of the world that are not discussed (sub-Saharan Africa, Northern Europe, Most of Asia, Australia, the Americas, and Oceania). It also reflects a snapshot in time. It was written after the dispersion began, but not necessarily before the dispersion was complete. Indeed, much has changed in the intervening years. People groups have migrated, cultures have gone extinct, languages have changed, separate cultures have merged, etc. The history of man has been full of ebb and flow as people mixed or fought, resisted invasion or were conquered. The history of man since Babel is very complicated. Modern genetics can answer some of the big questions, but answers to many of the smaller details may elude us forever.

From an article Adam, Eve and Noah vs Modern Genetics by Dr Robert W. Carter http://www.creation.com/noah-and-genetics

THREE PILLARS OF EVOLUTION DEMOLISHED

Posted on by

Jerry Bergman is a well-known creationist author who has extensively published over many decades and who has taught at several universities. He has taught biology, biochemistry, anatomy and physiology, genetics, and other courses for over 40 years. He has over 1,700 publications in both scholarly and popular science journals and monographs.

The three pillars of evolution identified by Bergman are abiogenesis (aka chemical evolution), natural and sexual selection, and mutations. The author of this book finds all three of these pillars defective as evidence for evolution.

Bergman has examined claims of abiogenesis, the nature of mutations, and the explanatory power of natural selection. As in the title of this book, he has thoroughly demolished them. The monopoly of the theory of evolution, in academia, is all the more irresponsible. In fact, it is puzzling.

Naturalistic origin of life assumed, not demonstrated

Bergman is especially critical of Miller–Urey ‘chemical soup’ explanations for the putative abiogenesis of life, not so much because they are grossly inadequate, but because they are not even seriously examined.

“Producing even simple amino acids and functional proteins requires highly laboratory-controlled experiments. Even under these ideal conditions, the very conditions hypothesized to create amino acids also rapidly destroy proteins” (p. 60).

Finally, ‘chemical soup’ experiments very much confuse the issue. Forming the building blocks of life, by abiogenesis, is the trivial part. The hard part is accounting for the information content necessary for even the most rudimentary form of life. Evolutionistic origin-of-life hypotheses do not even begin to do this!

Most ‘neutral mutations’ are not neutral after all

The next pillar of evolution, examined by Bergman, is that of mutations. The term ‘neutral mutation’ refers to a mutation that neither enhances nor reduces the fitness of the organism bearing it. Evolutionary orthodoxy long held that most mutations are neutral. Bergman challenges this and shows that most ‘neutral’ mutations are mildly deleterious. This creates a new problem for evolution. ‘Neutral’ mutations are not innocent, as previously believed. They do not kill the bearer outright, but, because their harm is subtle, they accumulate with other ‘neutral’ mutations in the genome. Bergman warns, “Even mutations that have ‘little effect’ on health can accumulate both in somatic and germ cells, eventually causing major damage” (p. 120)

Natural selection—an amorphous and misleading term

The third pillar of evolution is identified as natural selection. Bergman has a way with analogies. He compares the claims of natural selection with the statement, “The man is rich because he has money.” Others have characterized the natural selection explanation as a ‘survival of the survivors’ statement.

One must make a clear distinction between the arrival of the fittest and the survival of the fittest. The two, though often conflated, are most certainly not the same. The confusion goes back to the very beginning, as pointed out by Bergman:

“Darwin … portrayed natural selection as equivalent to artificial breeding, thereby making it more difficult to refute natural selection by arguing that it was a real physical force. Claiming that nature does the selecting avoids the requirement of discussing the actual factors involved in the causation events attributed to natural selection. Such obfuscation may have been excusable in Charles Darwin’s day, but is inexcusable in ours” (p. 165).

Natural selection does not even have theoretical explanatory power in many cases. Bergman comments: “Human life consists of many activities that are mentally pleasurable, none of which natural selection convincingly explains. Walking in forests, listening to music, creating poems, doing scientific research, aesthetic enjoyment of nature, and myriads of other activities are often not related to survival, or adaptation in a Darwinian sense. Some writers have struggled in vain to explain the existence by natural selection of our human ability to create music and art, all of which involve extremely complex body and brain systems” (p. 213).

Get the book from Creation Ministries: http://www.creation.com

WHAT AXIOMS IS YOUR WORLDVIEW BASED UPON?

Posted on by

The Creation/Evolution debate

The origin of our universe has never been about facts and evidence as such—we all have the same world, the same evidence, the same facts. It is the philosophical framework within which facts are interpreted which differs and philosophical frameworks are based on axioms (presuppositions, or starting beliefs). The scientific conclusions of Darwinism are squarely based on anti-biblical (naturalistic) axioms, while those of creation are based on biblical axioms. In any discussion on origins, the axioms need to be openly ‘on the table’, and it should be realized that one can discuss them in a secular setting without teaching religious doctrine as such, but without hiding or running away from the implications. The evidence concerning origins can be discussed through a critical comparison of axiom-based models (see below) without fostering the secular myth of ‘neutrality,’ i.e., that evidence ‘speaks for itself’ in some mysterious way.

There are creation and flood stories in most cultures that bear strong similarity to the Biblical accounts: ‘Why not then teach e.g. Australian Aboriginal creation and flood stories in science lessons?’ One could ask such objectors whether they are aware of any origins or flood teaching outside of the Biblical narrative which:

  • Claims to be absolute revelational truth from the Creator in documentary form
  • Has been held and believed consistently for many centuries in essentially its modern form.
  • Has been held to offer a serious historical explanation for all of reality including the origins of man and the universe and the reason why there are millions of dead things buried all around the world.
  • Is supported by a significant group of qualified scientists and other intellectuals who are convinced that it does indeed explain the data at least as well as evolution/long ages.

Extract from an article by Dr Carl Weiland: CMI’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement http://www.creation.com

BEST NEWS EVER TOLD

Posted on by

The GOSPEL is the best news ever.in human history. Consider what God, our heavenly Father, did to make it possible for mankind that had rejected His sovereignty at THE FALL to be restored back into a right relationship with Him.

Adam was told that death would be the result of eating from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil> Yet Eve and he chose to disobey God and eat it being deceived by another being, a spiritual being, that had already chose to disobey God, Satan, also known as the Devil. Mankind thus bought death and suffering into a word that was originally created perfect.

God’s plan to restore mankind is beyond our comprehension and it is only because God originally made us in His image to be in relationship with Him does He reach out to us by His Holy Spirit to make Himself known.

The most remarkable part of God’s plan is that He, Himself entered His world in the person of His Son, Jesus to pay the price of mankind’s disobedience – death. It is important to understand Jesus came exactly as prophesied in God’s Word given through His prophets.

God has demonstrated that He wants a relationship with each of us. He has done this ever since Creation by working with individuals that trusted Him. It is why it is so important we know His Word (The Bible) is inerrant, it conveys the true history of this world and of His working with individuals.. Events such as Noah’s Flood, The Tower of Babel, Israel’s exodus from Egypt and above all Jesus resurrection from the dead were all real events. Satan has contrived with strategies that are demonstrably untrue, such that the world made itself via evolution and therefore miracles are impossible and that God’s intervention in His world with miraculous events such as Noah’s flood are myths. In the case of Noah’s Flood this is despite the fact most nations around the world have a flood story in their origins.

Delivering the Gospel, the best news this planet has ever heard should be a joy for us to deliver and we should be anxious to share it with everyone. The Holy Spirit indwells every believer. He is also the one who convicts unbelievers of sin so He will direct us to those people that need to hear the Good News if we are available to be led by the Spirit and are saying each day, as Jesus did when He walked this planet, not my will but yours, Lord be done today.

Time is short, brothers and sisters in Christ so let us get about our joyous task of delivering the best news ever told. Your own testimony of what God has done and is doing in your life is an important part of the Good News. So too is Jesus prophesied soon coming return to put things right.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-1.jpeg
They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. Rev. 20:5

This fallen world will experience the rule and reign of Jesus with the Saints for 1000 years before this world is destroyed by fire. The second resurrection of the dead and the White Throne judgement follows and only then will believers join Jesus and God the Father on a new earth and heaven. Jesus work is complete and He hands over sovereignty of the new earth to the Father. All unbelievers have been relegated to the Lake of Fire, punishment and a second death.

“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who conquers will not be hurt by the second death.” Revelation 2:11

“Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.” Revelation 20:6

“Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.” Revelation 20:14

But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” Revelation 21:8

ATHEISTS, PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO

Posted on by

Three eminent Ph.D. scientists say it is impossible for life as we now know it to exist based on Darwinian evolution. Their views are based on science. Theology and Christianity are not on the agenda.

Dr. David Berlinski holds a PhD from Princeton University and has taught philosophy and mathematics at universities in France and the United States. A Senior Fellow of Discovery Institute, he is a best-selling author of such books as The Deniable Darwin, A Tour of the Calculus, The Advent of the Algorithm, Newton’s Gift, and The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions. He lives in Paris, France.

Dr. David Gelernter is professor of computer science at Yale, chief scientist at Mirror Worlds Technologies, Contributing Editor at the Weekly Standard, and a member of the National Council of the Arts. He is the author of several books and many technical articles, as well as essays, art criticism, and fiction.

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer received his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge. A former geophysicist and college professor, he now directs Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle. Meyer’s has two landmark books, the New York Times bestseller Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design and Times (of London) Literary Supplement Book of the Year Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design

Q & A: Based on new evidence and knowledge that functioning proteins are extremely rare, should Darwin’s theory of evolution be dismissed, dissected, developed, or replaced with a theory of intelligent design? Has Darwinism really failed? Peter Robinson discusses it with David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer, who have raised doubts about Darwin’s theory in their two books and essay, respectively The Deniable Darwin, Darwin’s Doubt, and “Giving Up Darwin” (published in the Claremont Review of Books). Robinson asks them to convince him that the term “species” has not been defined by the authors to Darwin’s disadvantage.

Gelernter replies to this and explains that there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape. Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether Darwin can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. Meyer explains Darwinism as a comprehensive synthesis, which gained popularity for its appeal. Meyer also mentions that one cannot disregard that Darwin’s book was based on the facts present in the 19th century. The video is excellent and if you believe that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution provides the evidence for all you observe in this universe then you owe it to yourself to view it.

ORIGIN OF FIRST SELF-REPRODUCING CELL?

Posted on by

A huge problem for naturalistic evolution is how life with its complex coded information could have arisen spontaneously in evolution’s very first living cell. I would suggest it is adequate proof for an Intelligent Designer and a good reason to take a look at the Bible’s account of Creation in Genesis. We learn God created a perfect world and humans made in the image of their Creator. Man’s SIN is the reason for death and suffering in this world. The Good News is that our loving Creator has provided the solution to restore our relationship with Him and overcome death. Jesus is His name.

Image result for picture of dna replication

Extract from editorial in Creation Magazine Vol 30 No.4 2017.

We have previously written about how scientists have attempted to determine the simplest self-reproducing cell (see creation.com/simple). This hypothetical cell was said to require a minimum of 256 genes. The problem for
evolutionists is that they cannot appeal to natural selection to explain the first cell. That’s because natural selection requires a living, reproducing cell to pass on any trait selected for! Further research in 2006 increased this figure to 387 protein-coding and 43 RNA-coding genes.
In 2016, the minimalist genome was once again increased with the creation of a synthetic self-reproducing bacterium: this time, to 473 genes (531,560 ‘letters’), including 65 whose function are unknown but which were essential for the survival of the cell. This is not much less than Mycoplasma genitalium (482 genes, 582,970 letters)—which itself is a parasite of even more complex organisms.

How then can evolutionists explain the origin of the very first self-reproducing cell? It is a mathematical impossibility for just one gene to have arisen by chance—much less 473.

The Bible says in John 1:1, “In the beginning was the WORD” and of course we now  know that every living thing has at its nucleus, DNA, a word of thousands of letters controlling all the functions of each cell. What follows in John 1:1  “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Research highlights, Nature 439(7074):246–247, January 2006 | doi:10.1038/439246a.
Glass, J.I. et al., Essential genes of a minimal bacterium, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103(2):425– 430, January 2006 | doi:10.1073/pnas.0510013103.
Hesman, T., Scientists build minimum genome bacterium, sciencenews.org, March 2016.

SCIENTISTS EXPLAIN LIFE IN A FINELY TUNED UNIVERSE

Posted on by

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”  Romans 1:18-20 

Image result

The book, A Fortunate Universe – Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos is full of helpful information for those seeking to understand the extent to which our universe in finely tuned for life. The authors are well qualified to write on the subject. Geraint Lewis is Professor of Astrophysics at the Sydney Institute for Astronomy and Luke Barnes has a Ph.D. in astronomy from Cambridge University in the UK.

At the atomic level, the level of fine tuning is phenomenal, both concerning the mass of the various particles and the four fundamental forces at play: gravity, electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. Lewis and Barnes conclude “Playing these forces off against one-another has a drastic effect on the universe , with an almost imperceptible region of stability”.

In the penultimate chapter the authors deal comprehensively with objections to the view that fine-tuning is a reality, and demonstrate that these carry little weight. Interestingly, they comment:

“The fine-tuning of the Universe for life is unique in our experience for the strength of the opinions expressed … Even those who don’t think fine tuning means anything simply must enthusiastically explain, in great detail, exactly why it doesn’t mean anything.”

Barnes takes the view that the fine tuning is not accidental but purposeful. To him the universe “contains good things like free moral agents and all that they can do and learn and appreciate” These he feels reflect the intent of a creator (pp. 347-348). On his blog, he has been very critical of atheists such as Victor Stenger, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Richard Carrier.

Lewis is more sceptical and argues that the presence of evil and suffering makes God’s existence unlikely: “I would expect a morally perfect being to create a morally perfect universe” (p. 346). He sees a multiverse as a more probable explanation for fine tuning. “Ours is but one of a vast sea of universes each with differing laws of physics and properties of matter, set at their birth through some cosmic role of dice …” Lewis is obviously not aware of Biblical history. God did make a morally perfect universe in fact He made a perfect universe. It was mans sin that resulted in God cursing the earth introducing death and suffering. Fortunately, our loving Creator has provided atonement for our sin, in His death on the Cross. Eternal life in a new heaven and earth is available to all who will repent of their sin and acknowledge Jesus as their Saviour and Lord. Also, realistically, multiverse thinking can have no place in science. Apart from being unobservable (and therefore untestable) it logically leads to the view that no data set should be regarded as evidence for anything. In a multiverse it could always occur by chance!

In conclusion; a life-sustaining universe requires a number of fundamental physical constants to be very precisely determined, and creationists rightly view this is evidence of intelligent design.

In addition, the big bang could not produce a life-sustaining universe unless many additional characteristics were exquisitely fine-tuned. This is so improbable that, to any reasonable mind, such a naturalistic explanation must be seen to be utterly, utterly implausible.

Taken from an extensive book review by Dominic Statham C.M.I.

 

BROAD COALITION OF EVANGELICALS RELEASE A TIMELY STATEMENT ON HUMAN SEXUALITY

Posted on by

A broad coalition of Christian leaders, including J. I. Packer and Francis Chan, have released a statement articulating God’s design for human identity as male and female. 

Dr. Richard Land (shown here), president of Southern Evangelical Seminary and Christian Post executive editor is one of the Nashville Statement’s initial signatories. He said, “The answer to the question ‘What and who is a human being?’ is the mega-ethical issue of our time. It impacts everything,” He noted that if the meaning of the human person cannot be defined in Scripture, the very Gospel is at stake.

“This statement is an attempt to equip the Church to address this issue from a biblical, Christian perspective,” Land said, “to provide a catechism for churches, for Bible study groups, for Sunday schools, families, college students, to equip themselves to understand what the Bible says about these issues and to do so in a positive way.”

“And if we truly love people, we are going to tell them the truth,” he emphasised, “and telling the truth to people is often hard. Telling the truth to segregationists about race was not easy. But they were trapped in racism. It stultified their souls and they were accountable to God for it and it was our responsibility as Christians to tell them the truth: God is no respecter of persons.”

When one engages sexuality issues, Land said, one must deal with the doctrine of creation, and specifically God’s creation of human beings. Although marred and twisted by the Fall, human beings are the only part of His created order that are imprinted with the divine image, he added, and that divine image cannot be separated from His plan for marriage and human sexuality.

Such a statement is needed, they say, in order to resist the spirit of the age and for the church to maintain its counter-cultural witness in a world that seems “bent on ruin.”

The document contains a preamble and 14 articles responding to the current realities in the Western world regarding the many messages swirling in society and even in some churches about sexuality, particularly homosexuality and transgenderism, which have come to the fore in both politics and church life in recent years.

“Evangelical Christians at the dawn of the twenty-first century find themselves living in a period of historic transition. As Western culture has become increasingly post-Christian, it has embarked upon a massive revision of what it means to be a human being. By and large the spirit of our age no longer discerns or delights in the beauty of God’s design for human life,” the statement’s preamble reads.

Important articles in the Nashville Statement say:

Article 4

WE AFFIRM that divinely ordained differences between male and female reflect God’s original creation design and are meant for human good and human flourishing.

Article 7

WE AFFIRM that self-conception as male or female should be defined by God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption as revealed in Scripture.

WE DENY that adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption.

The authors of the Nashville Statement assert in Article 10 that matters pertaining to sexuality, including homosexual practice and transgenderism is an not an area where faithful Christians can “agree to disagree,” but that this is central to the Gospel message.

Katie McCoy, assistant professor of theology in women’s studies at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Forth Worth, Texas, commented to CP, “The gender issues facing women today hit at the core of our being. McCoy, who is also the editor of BiblicalWoman.com, is among the Nashville Statement’s initial signatories.

When asked what she wants the Nashville Statement to accomplish in the Kingdom of God and how it marks this present moment in church history, McCoy said she hopes it brings boldness to everyone to proclaim the timeless truths of Scripture.

“[Theological] orthodoxy will be increasingly unaccepted and unacceptable but with a statement like this comes the reminder that we are not as alone [as we think], that the truth is never quite on the fringes,” McCoy said.

“And God’s people will remain faithful to God’s Word no matter how unpopular it is, no matter how culturally unacceptable it is.”

The statement’s initial signatories include a multi-generational and racially diverse array of men and women leaders in the body of Christ from a variety of denominations. Over 100 prominent theologians, Bible scholars, church pastors and ministry leaders, seminary presidents, college professors, Christian public policy thinkers, and writers have all already signed on. Baptists, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, nondenominational evangelicals, and almost every other historic Orthodox Protestant tradition are represented among those signatures and additional signers continue to be added.

 

 

WHAT IS THE MOST COMPLEX COMPUTER OPERATING SYSTEM IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE?

Posted on by

The human genome is the most complex computer operating system anywhere in the known universe.

It controls a super-complex biochemistry that acts with single-molecule precision. It controls the interaction network of hundreds of thousands of proteins. It is a wonderful testament to the creative brilliance of God and an excellent example of the scientific bankruptcy of neo-Darwinian theory. Why? Because the more complex life is, the less tenable evolutionary theory becomes. Super-complex machines cannot be tinkered with haphazardly or they will break. And super-complex machines do not arise from random changes.

The four dimensional human genome defies naturalistic explanations.

Our computer programs are essentially one-dimensional. The human genome operates in four dimensions. This is one of the greatest testimonies to the creative brilliance of God available.

ecoli-bacterium-lge

Figure 1: A comparison of the control of transcription in E. Coli (left) with the Linux call graph (right). The bacterial cell is able to control many protein-coding genes (green lines at bottom) with relatively few controls (yellow and purple lines). Linux, while obviously a result of intelligent design, falls far short in that it requires many more high-level instructions to control relatively few outputs. From Yan et al. 2010.1

I am serious when I compare the genome to a computer operating system. The only problem with this analogy is that we have no computers that can compare to the genome in terms of complexity or efficiency. It is only on the most base level that the analogy works, but that is what makes the comparison so powerful. After millions of hours of writing and debugging we have only managed to create operating systems that can run a laptop or a server, and they crash, a lot. The genome, though, runs a hyper-complex machine called the human body. The organisation of the two are radically different as well. A team made up of computer scientists, biophysicists, and experts in bioinformatics (in other words, really smart people) compared the genome of the lowly E. coli bacterium to the Linux operating system (figure 1) and have discovered that our man-made operating systems are much less efficient because they are much more “top heavy”.1 It turns out that the bacterial genome has a few high-level instructions that control a few middle-level processes, that in turn control a massive number of protein-coding genes. Linux is the opposite. It is much more top heavy and thus much less efficient at getting things done. The bacterium can do a lot more with fewer controls. I predict that the study of genomics will influence the future development of computers.

This is very brief summary of the information contained in the DVD by Dr Robert Carter  The High Tech Cell. You need to get this valuable resource and I suggest you purchase a copy from the Creation Ministries webstore.