"[Evolutionary theory] is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of it's more aggressive advocates would have us believe."
Michael Denton, molecular biologist
Although I can appeciate the evolutionists scientific view when discussing the origins of life I am also amazed at how "their" perception on the matter is to be the only one considered as "scientific" (according to them) as opposed to those within the science community who feel that the same science points towards Intelligent Design. After all, are not both theories? And are not both theories based on science? And most importantly, do they not both have a belief?
I have often discovered that the evolutionist will dismiss Intelligent Design because it requires belief in a deity. Yet at the same time the evolutionist requires a same "belief" that there is nothing after life. If neither can be "proven" and both are considered theories based on science then one cannot claim to be science while the other is simply dismissed.
A friend of mine on the evolutionary side of the spectrum once explained it to me this way:
"...someone who arrives to a conclusion that we were made by a supernatural being using science is biased.[That] is, science cannot deal with knowledge beyond nature."
Says who? What if the more the science of evolution is tested for it's merit the more it leans away from evolution and more towards Intelligent Design. For example, one of the "scientific" arguements for the evolutionary process is the close genetic similarities between man and chimpanzee. That being a difference of 1.6%.
I could argue that there are many species, fruits, and atmoshpere formations that share identical genetical similarities and I could also point out the none of them imply evolutionary relationship. But for the sake of the evolutionist, let's stick to the science.
Here is what we know of random genetic mutation. That the slightest altering of the genome is fatal to the extreme and crippling to the least.
" The vast, vast majority of genetic mutations are usually lethal, or at least crippling to the organism, drastically damaging survival and function. A few examples in humans include trisomy 21 (Down’s Syndrome), polycystic kidney disease, and cystic fibroses…The important point is that science has now quatitated that a genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (0.000000 percent) of an animal’s genome is relentlessly fatal!…Now the genetic difference between human and his “nearest relative”, the chimpanzee, is a least 1.6 percent. That doesn’t sounds like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48 million nucleotide differences that must be bridged by random changes. A random change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal (and, of course, the death of a crippled mutant animal ends all possibility of further change)…obviously there is no way to bridge even small genetic gaps successfully between animal species closely resembling each other.”
Genetics Researcher Barry T. Maddox, “Human Genome Project: Quantitative Disprove of Evolution”, Cleburne, Texas: Self Published, 1992, pp. 1-3
A difference of 48 million nucleotide and if so much as three are out of order it is fatal! Mathematically speaking the difference is not only astronomical but the chances of this randomisation ever occuring are about 1 in 10 with about 60 zero's after it. By scientific standards that would be declared impossible.
But what if the genetic difference between man and chimp were to be larger then 1.6%? The chances of natural randomisation would be up against even greater odds. Impossibiltites we could not mathematically fathom.
“What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have evolved from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size. If humans were ‘only’ 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross.”
Dr. Don Batten, Ph.D
So what does science tell us today? Is it still as conclusive about our genetic similiarties? I am not so sure. It was , Roy Britten of the California Institute of Technology who around 1972 came up with the conclusion that genetic similiarities between man and chimp were 98.5%. I am quite sure that evolutionists would vehemently defend these findings by a respected colleague. After all he is a fellow scientist and evolutionist.
But what if Roy Britten himself were to dismiss his original findings based on his own negligence? It is certainly within the parameters of responsible science to correct original findings...is it not? According to Roy Britten the genetic similaritiy between man and chimp is now 94.5%. Here is a recent update:
“The new figure, 94.5 percent or less, was proposed by the same man who many decades ago had published the 98.5 percent figure, Roy Britten (California Institute of Technology). Britten’s original 98.5 percent figure compared only one type of variation, called single base variation, in which a single “letter” of genetic code is different in corresponding strands of DNA from humans and chimps. However, there are two other major variations that Britten ignored in his original analysis. These types involve large sections of many “letters” of DNA, called insertions and deletions. When Britten factored these types of variations in, they added 4 percent to the difference between humans and chimps. Further, this difference is based on only about one million DNA bases out of the estimated three billion that make up each of the human and chimp genomes. Britten says of his estimate, “Its just a glance.”
Marvin Lubenow, “Bones of Contention”, Revised and Updated, Master Books, 2004, pp. 304-305. Lubenow quotes Britten from Andy Coghlan, “Not Such Close Cousins after all”, New Scientist Magazine, 28 September, 2002, p. 20
The math is beyond impossible. Will the evolutionist accept this. Maybe, but I suspect they will either find a way around it or simply dismiss it. I am left to conclude that well meaning and respected evolutionists will not embrace the "possibity" of Intelligent Design (even if the science is there to suggest it)quite simply because they do not WANT there to be anything beyond nature.
With more biochemists, biologists, and other researchers (not necessarily individuals of any faith) over recent years raising serious objections over the science of evolution it is no longer a debate of science vs. religion but one of science vs. science. Until next time...
