Monday, October 31, 2005


The following quote has been attributed to Thomas Edison.  (I did not research it and can not verify the correctness of that.)

“No one can study chemistry and see the wonderful way in which certain elements combine with the nicety of the most delicate machine ever invented, and not come to the inevitable conclusion that there is a Big Engineer who is running the universe.”

The Peoria Journal Star printed a letter to the editor on 10/16/05 disputing the concept of intelligent design.  As I’ve said, intelligent design is incomplete because it does not acknowledge that GOD is the intelligent designer.  I’m going to do something I don’t normally do.  I’m going to quote the entire letter.  “With the mapping of the human genome complete, we now know that much of our DNA sequence is junk DNA.  It adds nothing to what makes us human.


This is clear evidence of randomness in its formation, not intelligent design.


Take a watch, for example.  It looks, and is, complex.  But it wasn’t designed to be complex.  It was designed to be as simple and efficient as possible, to do the job it was designed to do.  Intelligent designers don’t design complexity and wastefulness.  They design simplicity and efficiency.  


If the watchmaker just throws in a bunch of junk parts that add nothing to the function or efficiency of the watch, we might want to question his intelligence.”


Let’s examine these statements.  How long did it take humans to learn about and finally map our DNA sequence?  Just because the scientists don’t know what some of the purposes of it are does not necessarily mean that it does not have a purpose.  If the first time you are exploring a man made watch you can’t immediately identify a function or a purpose for it, it does not necessarily mean it has no function or purpose.  It just means you don’t know the purpose of it.  Question?  If you know the purpose and function of every portion of a watch, can you then duplicate that watch?  I would think the answer is yes.  Therefore, if scientists know the purpose and function of the DNA sequence, can they duplicate a human being?  You and I know that they can not.  So just maybe, they don’t know as much as they think they know.  It would not be the first time!  Just maybe, the parts considered “junk DNA” really aren’t.


However, even if GOD chose to include DNA in the sequence that has no function that does not prove that it was random.  Is it not arrogant to claim that the creator of something did not know what he was doing in that creation if you can’t even create the same thing let alone something better?  Is it not arrogant to claim you understand completely the process involved but you can not do the process that you completely understand?  Who’s intelligent and who is not?  


Is it not arrogant to tell the designer his design is “wrong” if you can’t do any better?  You can’t even copy that which HE designed from nothing.  And there is the rub.  Evolution still can’t and never will be able to explain through the concept of evolution where all the first mass came from.  How does something come from nothing?  They will always have to begin with the assumption that something was there from the beginning.  We know however that can not be scientifically true!          


Imagine this.  You are a student who is being taught by a master bridge builder how to build bridges.  He does something you don’t understand and don’t see the need for.  Would you then tell that master bridge builder that he is wrong because you don’t believe there is any need for what he has done?  Jesus said in Matthew 10: 24, “’A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master.’”  When the student (man) can build from scratch (i.e. starting from nothing) a better mouse trap (a man), I may begin to believe that man evolved.  Until then, I’ll believe that GOD created the universe and all that is within it.  “In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1: 1)  “So GOD created man in his own image, in the image of GOD HE created him; male and female HE created them.” (Genesis 1: 27)      


The end of physical life under evolution is the absolute end of life for that person.  Christians believe, because the Bible says it is so, that the end of life leads to a new beginning.  A new beginning in which each of us will bow down before GOD.  Do you think those individuals who accept evolution as truth will tell GOD the creator that HE did not create the universe?  I don’t.  They will be speechless before GOD asking for forgiveness or arrogantly defiant to the end but to no avail.  We each have a choice.  The only true choice is to repent and accept GOD as creator and savior or to reject HIM and spend eternity condemned.  To me it’s an easy choice.  To those who accept evolution, it’s the wrong choice!    




2 Comments:

Blogger Lee Keele said...

The person who wrote in the Star has made several logical errors. First, he assumes that the idea that some DNA may be referred to as "junk" provides "clear evidence" of randomness.

Let's take his "junk" analogy and see where it goes. Suppose for a moment I go and look in someone's dumpster and see a bunch of junk! I could assume an infinite number of things based upon what I see in the "junk" pile. I could assume that the lives of the people in whose dumpster I'm peeping are "junky" people. I could assume they live like pigs -- after all, look at all this garbage. I could assume this was their living room. I could assume they ate 40 pounds of rotten potatoes for breakfast, etc. etc.

POINT: Even if we can assume that God placed "junk" DNA in the human genome, it makes no more sense to assume it was random than it does to assume that what goes into my dumpster is random. I put in my dumpster exactly what I want to put in there. I plan to put in the garbage, that's the way I've designed it. I don't put my living room furniture in it. I don't put my children in it. I put garbage in it. The very fact that there is "junk" in the "junk" only proves that what I put there isn't likely useful to anyone. So what.

The Star write that you quote here, Gunslinger, takes an assumed fact (that much of DNA is "junk") which may be only a theory, and he applies to it conclusions that are not nearly as "clear" as he would like them to be.

Hope this makes sense.

3:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh my goodness! Awesome article dude! Thank you so much, However I am
going through difficulties with your RSS. I don't understand why I am unable to join it. Is there anybody having the same RSS issues? Anyone who knows the solution will you kindly respond? Thanks!!

Here is my web-site: free cline

2:14 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home