Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In the first half of the twentieth century, the major scientific discoveries
had been made in the physical sciences and mathematics. In the second half, it
was the turn of the biological sciences. For, as Eric Hobsbawm writes, “within
ten years of the Second World War, the life sciences were revolutionized by
the astonishing advances of molecular biology, which revealed the universal
mechanism of inheritance, the ‘genetic code’.
However, the discovery of DNA had a far deeper and more fundamental
effect than merely eliciting these debates on the relative roles of genes and
environment in various human conditions and situations. Although this has
not been recognized by most scientists to this day, the discovery of DNA has
completely undermined the theoretical basis of Darwinism itself. For it revealed an
information-based mechanism for the transmission of the genome that could
not possibly have come into existence by chance, but must have been created
by an intelligent designer – in other words, God. Information is a concept that
makes no sense without a mind possessing it. And the amount of information
contained in just the simplest reproducible cell points to an infinite Mind… 2
Thus Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, says that DNA is like computer
code – only much more complex and sophisticated than any computer code
created by man. Now computer code is always created by an intelligent
designer – man. So the question arises: who created the code of DNA?
1
Hobsbawm, Age of Extremes, London: Abacus, 1994, pp. 552-554.
2
In spite of this undoubted fact, huge prizes are still offered to anyone who can produce a
genetic code from inorganic material. See Megan Humphrey, “$5 million Tech Prize Seeks
Answer to Origin of Life”, Front Line Genomics, March 1, 2018,
http://www.frontlinegenomics.com/blog/19919/5-million-tech-prize-seeks-answer-origin-
life/
“As scientists began to decode the human genome they found it to be
approximately three billion DNA base pairs long. ‘One of the most
extraordinary discoveries of the twentieth century,’ says Dr. Stephen Meyer,
director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in
Seattle, Washington, ‘was that DNA actually stores information – the detailed
instructions for assembling proteins – in the form a four-character digital
code.’
3
Halvorson, Evolution. The World’s Fourth Great Religion, Colorado Springs: Dawon Media,
2011, pp. 19, 105.
protein families suggests that the rate of destruction is, at a minimum, 8 times
the rate of neutral or beneficial mutations.
“Simply put, the digital information of life is being destroyed much faster
than it can be repaired or improved. New functions may evolve, but the
overall loss of functional information in other areas of the genome will, on
average, be significantly greater. The net result is that the digital information
of life is running down.
“Finally, humans are not exempt. As biologist Michael Lynch points out in
a paper in PNAS, ‘Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human
mutation’:
New discoveries keep being made that are incompatible with Darwinism.
Thus Eric Metaxas writes: “The Darwinian mechanism of mutation and
4
Durston, “An Essential Prediction of Darwinian Theory Is Falsified by Information
Degradation”, Evolution News, July 9, 2015,
https://evolutionnews.org/2015/07/an_essential_pr/
natural selection explains everything about life, we’re told—except how it
began. ‘Assume a self-replicating cell containing information in the form of
genetic code,’ Darwinists are forced to say. Well, fine. But where did that little
miracle come from?
“A new discovery makes explaining even that first cell tougher still. Fossils
unearthed by Australian scientists in Greenland may be the oldest traces of
life ever discovered. A team from the University of Wollongong recently
published their findings in the journal Nature, describing a series of structures
called ‘stromatolites’ that emerged from receding ice.
“What’s so special about them? Well, they appear in rocks most scientists
date to 220 million years older than the oldest fossils, which pushes the
supposed date for the origin of life back to 3.7 billion years ago.
“This, admits the New York Times, ‘complicate[s] the story of evolution of
early life from chemicals...’ No kidding! According to conventional geology,
these microbe colonies existed on the heels of a period when Earth was
undergoing heavy asteroid bombardment, making it virtually uninhabitable.
This early date, adds The Times, ‘leaves comparatively little time for evolution
to have occurred…’
“Dr. Stephen Meyer explains in his book Signature in the Cell why this may
be Darwinism’s Achilles heel. In order to begin evolution by natural selection,
you need a self-replicating unit. But the cell and its DNA blueprint are too
complicated by far to have arisen through chance chemical reactions. The
odds of even a single protein forming by accident are astronomical. So Meyer
and other Intelligent Design theorists conclude that Someone must have
designed and created the structures necessary for life.”5
At the same time, one of the (very few) encouraging signs about the world
today is the stubborn resistance to this corner-stone of the modern world view
even among highly educated people.
Thus Yuval Noah Harari writes: "According to a 2012 Gallup survey only
15 percent of Americans think that Homo sapiens evolved through natural
selection alone, free of all divine intervention; 32 percent maintain that
humans may have evolved from earlier life forms in a process lasting millions
of years, but God orchestrated the whole show; 46 percent believe that God
created humans in their current form sometime during the last 10,000 years,
just as the Bible says. The same survey found that among BA graduates, 46
percent believe in the biblical creation, whereas only 14 percent think that
humans evolved without any divine supervision. Even among holders of MA
and PhD degrees, 29 percent believe the Bible, whereas only 29 percent credit
natural selection alone with the creation of our species."6
The problem with Darwinism does not consist solely in its non-
correspondence with the facts. As Fr. Seraphim Rose pointed out, it is not
falsifiable, and therefore not science at all: it is in fact philosophy. More
accurately, it is a religion – a modern, sophisticated form of paganism.
Paganism believes in the spontaneous generation of higher life-forms, even
gods and goddesses, out of lower forms, as if by magic. So does Darwinism.
5
Metaxas, “New discovery makes Darwinists’ case even harder to make”, LifeSiteNews,
September 14, 2016, https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/evolutions-can-opener
6
Yuval Noah Harari, Homo Deus, London: Vintage, 2015, p. 119.
theories about the world, they might as well give up natural science and take
up religion. Yet is that not exactly the situation with Darwinism?’
Towards the end of the twentieth century the word “creationism” began to
be dropped in favour of the less religious-sounding “intelligent design”.
8[
Those who teach intelligent design are as firmly opposed to evolution as the
old-fashioned creationists, but it is not politically correct to say that you
believe in a Creator God (you might lose your job). So you have to say that
you believe in “intelligent design” instead – which comes to the same thing,
for who could have intelligently designed the universe if not God?
7
“No Controversies about Darwinism? Try this one”, Evolution News, May 30, 2017;
Lewontin, “Testing the Theory of Natural Selection,” Nature 236, no. 543 (1972): 181-182, cited
in Bethel, p. 65.
8
Of course, there were still some old-fashioned, but formidable scientists who preferred to
talk about God. One of these was the Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Paul Dirac, who said in
1971: “It could be that it is extremely difficult to start life. It might be that it is so difficult to
start life that it has happened only once among all the planets... Let us consider, just as a
conjecture, that the chance life starting when we have got suitable physical conditions is
10−100. I don't have any logical reason for proposing this figure, I just want you to consider it
as a possibility. Under those conditions ... it is almost certain that life would not have started.
And I feel that under those conditions it will be necessary to assume the existence of a god to
start off life. I would like, therefore, to set up this connexion between the existence of a god
and the physical laws: if physical laws are such that to start off life involves an excessively
small chance, so that it will not be reasonable to suppose that life would have started just by
blind chance, then there must be a god, and such a god would probably be showing his
influence in the quantum jumps which are taking place later on.” Of course, if the extreme
improbability of the emergence of life is enough to make the existence of God probable, the
existence of DNA makes it far more probable! (Helge Kragh, "The purest soul". Dirac: A
Scientific Biography. Cambridge University Press, 1990, pp. 256–257)
true – our mental machinery, having developed from that of lower animals,
would be highly unreliable when it came to generating true theories. (Darwin
himself once confessed to the same doubt: ‘Would anyone trust in the
convictions of a monkey’s mind?’) In other words, if our belief in Darwinism
were true, then none of our theoretical beliefs would be reliable – including
our belief in Darwinism. But theism escapes this difficulty: if we are made in
the image of God, he can be counted on to have supplied us with reliable
cognitive faculties.
9
Holt, “Divine Evolution”, Prospect, May, 2002, p. 13.