Apologetics, Take Three (Evolution)
Posted in Apologetics, Evolution, Nick's Posts 7 comments
If you’ve been following my series on apologetics, then you may recall that in the first week, I recommended a couple of highly educated authorities on the subject. One of those was Ken Ham. Today I’d like to share a highly condensed version of what Mr. Ham has to say on the theory of evolution. If you are interested in Mr. Ham’s ideas, you should check out one of his books or a video of him speaking, because his ideas are much more clearly conveyed in those. Plus, he has a great sense of humor. :)
Mr. Ham tells about when he and his wife went to an evolution museum in London. They saw an exhibit on dogs and how dogs have changed over the ages. Then they saw an exhibit on horses and how horses have changed over the ages. This continued until they got to the end and they saw something that said that now they have seen the proof of evolution. How could that be, though, they thought? They must’ve missed it.
But no. They didn’t miss anything. What they saw was the same thing that is being taught in colleges and universities across the world. We are being indoctrinated to believe that changes within a species are somehow proof of evolution from molecules to man. This is, quite simply, not true.
The foundations of evolution rest on the presumption that organisms get more information in their DNA as they become more “evolved.” This, too, is false. It’s actually quite the opposite.
Mr. Ham uses dogs to illustrate his point. In the beginning, there were two dogs, and they had all of the genetic possibilities of every dog today. On down the line, a group of them migrated north, where the short-haired dogs died out because they couldn’t handle the cold. At that point, the only dogs left were the ones who only had the genetic information for long hair. So, the remaining dogs LOST information from their DNA instead of gaining it. It was still survival of the fittest, but the remaining dogs have less genetic possibilities than their ancestors, because they no longer have the ability to re-introduce short hair into their population.
In light of this, most evolutionists point at mutations as the “curve ball” that adds information to the DNA. However, Mr. Ham points out that even mutations result in a lack of information.
For example, there was a bacteria that became resistant to a medicine because of a genetic mutation. Evolutionists point at that as proof that mutations add information. The truth, though, is hidden in the details. The way that medicine worked was this. It was absorbed into the bacteria. The bacteria would then break it down and convert it into an enzyme. The resulting enzyme was poisonous to the bacteria and would kill it. But then the mutation came about. The mutation removed the information that allowed the bacteria to create the enzyme. Since the enzyme was not produced, the bacteria would not die. So, while the end result was that the bacteria became resistant to the medicine, the reason for it was a LOSS of information as a result of a mutation.
Ultimately, a gain of DNA information is necessary in order for molecule to man evolution to be possible. After all, we have WAY more DNA information than single celled organisms. A gain of DNA information is also the only thing that evolutionists cannot produce evidence for. They can’t produce evidence because the evidence just isn’t there. We refuse to accept this because of the implications.
7 comments:
Nick,
If you plan to take on evolution in the public realm, it would behoove you to do a few things:
1) Don't quote backwards, young-earth creationists like Ken Ham, who barely managed to eke out a bachelor's degree in applied science. Try to go with people like Francis Collins, a Christian man with a distinguished scientific career, who happens to believe that evolution can be reconciled. He wrote a fantastic book called The Language of God, where he puts forth an excellent argument.
2) Don't bring up topics you don't have a clear understanding of. As a person who has spent the last two years studying bacterial responses to antibiotics, your explanation and understanding is both limited in scope and vague. Stick with what you know.
3) If you plan on mounting an assault on evolution, I would consider doing some heavy reading or pursuing higher education. The majority of these arguments I encounter across the internet (and in person, unfortunately) are from outside the scientific community, and honestly, these people aren't even qualified to hold a conversation with us.
Posts like this are unfortunate, mainly because people like you are driving people away who might be receptive to the message. You take a tiny piece of DOGMA, ignoring the rest of the Bible, and blow it up into something that is required to be a Christian. Vinegar, my friend. Vinegar.
The face of Christianity is changing. Don't get left behind.
I hate to agree with anon, but he's right. As silly as it sounds, I would read the wikipedia article on evolutionary biology. If you can't wrap your mind around the bare-bones basics of the theory, I would stay out of the arena. This is the kind of discourse that divides, not unites.
To Anon 1 & 2:
I appreciate your comments. This is certainly meant to be a place where open discussion is welcome. I don’t claim to know all of the answers, so honest, open, and respectful debate is always welcome.
That being said, Anon #1, you sound rather certain of yourself while simultaneously offering no counter-arguments or opposing evidence. With your experience in studying bacterial responses to antibiotics, could you share an example of when a mutation that has been studied on the molecular level added information to the bacteria’s DNA?
Regardless of your feelings about Mr. Ham, I would hope you could address the idea rather than the man. After all, plenty of great ideas in history have come from high school or college dropouts. However, if you still require people with doctorate degrees, The New Answers Books 1-3, edited by Ken Ham, are full of them. When examining the central assertion that mutations do not add information, Mr. Ham quotes Dr. Lee Spetner’s book Not By Chance (“All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.”) and Dr. Werner Gitt, a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (“…mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious.”). There is much more, but these are the highlights.
In terms of my understanding of the issue, I was not attempting to write a multi-page thesis on the issue. Rather, I wanted to convey the bare basics of Mr. Ham’s reasoning in a simple, blog-sized post that was easy to be understood by the average joe.
I’ll also emphasize that a person’s views one way or another on evolution have no bearing whatsoever on their salvation, so I am not suggesting that it is “required to be a Christian.”
I welcome further discussion on this topic. However, I would request that you share your identity in future comments so I can know with whom I am talking.
Anon #1 here...
You're right, I did come across as rather self-righteous. I was immediately aggravated and wrote that post out of anger. For my douche-baggery, I apologize.
However, my post wasn't meant to add any information or insightful argument to the debate. Rather, it was to express frustration over how creationists offer up vague arguments to evolution, and have little understanding of the bigger picture. They argue out of ignorance.
For example:
* Mr. Ham argues that mutations only remove information, rather than add information. This frustrates me to no end, because it is patently untrue.
* Mutations in the genome take a variety of forms. They can be deletions (subtracting from the genome), duplications (adding to the genome), inversions (changing the order of the genome), insertions and translocations. When expressed, they can be silent mutations, missense mutations and nonsense mutations.
* The end result of these mutations is variety in the genetic population. The endless shuffling and reshuffling of these genes creates new combinations with each generation. Remember that our DNA is made up of only 4 bases (5 if you count RNA). Pretty amazing, considering those 4 bases are the building blocks of everything living.
* Most of the time, these mutations are either silent or harmful. Most of the harmful mutations result in instant death of the organism. However, as time goes on, novel mutations are seen that can give organisms new, previously unseen abilities.
* An example of this would be the long-term E. Coli evolution experiment that Richard Lenski has been running since 1998 (http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/). In that time, he has taken an identical population of E. Coli bacteria, and allowed them to grow in the absence of any outside influence. What he has observed is this: In the 50,000 generations that have passed, a small population has emerged that have developed the ability to grow on citrate media. For those who aren't familiar with our friend E. Coli, they are (by definition) unable to grow on citrate. This population of bacteria contain a novel mutation that conferred the ability to use citrate as an energy source and NOT as a loss-of-function mutation.
Can you see my frustration? To say that all mutations result in the loss of genetic material is to ignore 99% of molecular genetics. To then extend that as an argument against evolution is hilariously inept.
As far as your comment that "plenty of great ideas in history have come from high school or college dropouts" goes, you are absolutely right. Plenty of ideas have come from dropouts…but not in the field of genetics and molecular biology.
As far as my identity goes, I have no desire to reveal it. I am friends with your wife, and have no desire to hurt our friendship or continue this discussion in the real world.
Clarification:
My comment "To then extend that as an argument against evolution is hilariously inept", is directed at Mr. Ham, not at you.
Anon #1,
I find all of that very interesting and will take a deeper look at that in the coming weeks. From just a first glance, I find one seeming contradiction rather puzzling. You say, "Mr. Ham argues that mutations only remove information, rather than add information. This frustrates me to no end, because it is patently untrue."
It seems that you're also saying that this is more or less common knowledge in the scientific community. However, it flies in the face of the quotes I shared from Dr. Lee Spetner and Dr. Werner Gitt from Mr. Ham's book. Obviously, these people are very knowledgeable about the subject, so what I find puzzling is that their assertions are such a sharp contrast to what you've shared.
As I said, something I'll look at in the coming weeks.
I also ordered the book you mentioned, The Language of God by Francis Collins. I'll be taking a look at that in the coming weeks as well.
Anon #1 here
You're absolutely right!
It flies in the face of what they say, because it is untrue. It is common knowledge not only in the scientific community, to the point that I can open my (super old) biology 101 textbook and read about it. Let's take it to its logical conclusion: If every mutation resulted in a loss of information, our DNA would be nonexistent. Rather, we find that our DNA is highly conserved, and has an almost innumerable amount of variation (resulting from mutation).
I don't want to insult Dr. Spetner, but here is an example of just how grievous his mistakes are. You shared a quote earlier from him saying, "All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.” Literally, the definition of a point mutation is a single base SUBSTITUTION, meaning it is neither a loss nor a gain. When he can't even get basic science concepts correct, I'm not surprised that he would come to such a conclusion.
This is the danger of Christian scientists who take a handful of scientific knowledge and try to shoehorn it into what they WANT it to say.
Scientists like Francis Collins have taken the position that science (and evolution) simply is a record of HOW God created the world. They look at the unbelievable complexity of life and marvel at the God who could have created it.
Lets be real: Why would God snap his fingers and bring all the world into existence (as "traditional" creationists would have us believe), and leave a trail of evidence suggesting that the universe came about in a different way (evolution)? Why would a loving God intentionally try to confuse and mislead us like that?
Isn't it easier to just look at what science has discovered and say, "WOW. God is pretty damn creative"?
This will be my last post, because I've already made an ass out of myself, and in all reality, I'm not going to change anyone's mind. Sorry for the disruption, and I hope your intellectual journey goes well, regardless of what conclusions you draw.
Post a Comment