Institute of Biblical Defense

According to the standard DNA model only about 2% of human DNA codes for amino acids. Amino acids are used by the cell to, among other things, construct proteins and catalyze reactions. The proteins, in turn, are used to construct structures (such as hair and skin) while the catalysts allow our cells to function by helping process materials and chemicals for use.

This leaves 98% of our genome as “non-coding”. In 1972, Susumu Ohno ignorantly claimed that these sequences were functionless leftovers of the random process of Evolution. He coined the phrase, “Junk DNA“. It is today recognized that much of our non-coding DNA serves any number of functions, such as: maintaining structure, controlling which genes are expressed and acting as hooks for RNA to attach to when copying segments of “coding” DNA. It reminds on of the equally as ignorant “vestigial organ” theories of the 19th century; where many organs were thought to be useless throwbacks to a different time.

Of course, humans and other creatures do have vestigial “features”. These are features that have lost either part of all of their functionality because of selective pressures (environment), sexual selection (it looked bad) or mutation. Now, there is no scientific consensus on exactly how much of our DNA is actually just broken junk. However, this part is certain to grow with time. Eventually, if the genetic load becomes too heavy, our species will become extinct.

This leads us to the conclusion that ancient peoples (at some time in the past) had what are now broken functions in full working order. From research into the ancient past, we can tell that those humans who came before us were an amazing lot. With foot falls in the mud clocking them at 23 miles per hour (and accelerating), strength that makes us modern folks look like wimps, larger brains, amazing memories that could remember huge amounts of information (including oral traditions like the ones used when Moses wrote genesis) and even giants, we can definitely see how, in many ways, we are less than those who came before us.

Now this concept of becoming “less” over time kind of sums up what “Genetic Load” is. For example, if we take Biblical history as fact, we can see clearly how human life spans began to shorten after the flood. It is well known today that anytime a creature is reduced to only a few members (like 8), any genetic problems present in that number become a permanent addition to the genome quite quickly. So us modern folk are victims of broken, non-functional DNA passed down from our ancestors.

It’s not only humans, however, who suffer from this misfortune. The modern cheetah and panda populations are nearing extinction. As population loss creates a sudden rise in genetic load, these creatures are quickly approaching genetic non-viability; According to natural selection, their time is up.

So, if genetic load is slowly destroying life on earth, how long do we have? What does it say about how long we have been here? What about evolution and its millions of years?

Here’s the skinny. If most of the human genome is discovered to have purpose (little is classified as junk) then the human genome has a small genetic load. If most of the DNA is useless junk then humans have a large genetic load. It’s that simple.

Now, we inherit approximately 60 to 200 mutations per generation via our parents’ reproductive DNA. Although most of the changes are neutral, they do represent change and can combine to either benefit or harm the genome. Fortunately, we can run simulations to discover how quickly genetic load builds over time, taking into account such factors. The simulations, however, are only as accurate as the numbers entered.

Here is where both creationists and evolutionists must begin making assumptions and creating models. A creationist will take straight forward approach, counting the neutral, beneficial and destructive mutations. This reading leads to a human race doomed after only a few hundred generations. On the other hand, evolutionist models rely heavily on Junk DNA. If humans are a million years old,  there must be large regions of useless DNA that have and will continue to absorb most of the mutations while the protein coding and useful non-coding regions are left mostly unharmed (in a similar way to how Jupiter protects the earth from asteroids). This leads to using numbers that are different than those used by creationists and viability up to 10k generations and beyond.

In the end, simulations aside, it seems to me that this entire issue of genetic load and viability revolves around two rates which are scientifically measurable. Since we know how quickly genetic load accumulates, the only thing left to measure is how quickly it degrades our viability. Here, however, is the second point where the creationist and evolutionist models diverge.

In the creationist model, the genome started with zero genetic load; It was perfect when created by God. After the fall, it began to degrade as it was attacked by viruses, exposed to carcinogens or attacked by other mutation causing factors (including the human race being reduced to 8 people). In the evolutionist model, the genome is in constant flux. Mutations that are destructive are kept in check through selective pressures (sexual selection, fitness, etc) and are absorbed by junk DNA while beneficial and neutral ones are spread. This keeps the genetic load from ever reaching the extinction point (1) and allows for new functions to be created.

One of these models relies on a lot of “must haves” and “probably’s”; In other words, a lot of assumptions that we can’t validate.  The other model relies on known values and measurements that corresponds to a known historical and anthropological discoveries. I’ll leave it to you to figure out which is which.

Evolution is a word that, in Christian circles, stirs up deep contentions. So much so that most pastors would rather ignore the issue of creation rather than risk the inevitable, divisive controversy. Why is this the case? At face value, it seems as if science and scripture are almost totally at odds about the origins of life. If a pastor embraces biblical creation, aren’t they just inviting ridicule from unbelievers and closing doors to the gospel? Maybe.

Since I’m not one to shy away from controversy, I thought I’d offer a small argument in favor of creation. This argument relies on a little bit of science and a little bit of logic; Both lie just at or above the layman’s level. Please feel free to add your own comments as you feel appropriate.

The logic of the argument arose organically while I was defending Christian theism on YouTube (as I often do). It goes like this:

1) According to the theory of Naturalistic Evolution, the first creatures on this earth were simple; They had a small amount of DNA (relatively speaking) and few moving parts.

2) Today, there are many complex creatures in the world; They have large amounts of DNA and many interacting, interdependent, moving parts.

3) In order to get from a simple creature to a more complex creature, as is obvious, copious amounts of functional (protein coding), instructional and structural DNA must be added to a creature’s genome.

4) The only known means to create this new genetic information is mutations, where, for one reason or another, a creature’s current genetic information gets altered, extended or both to create a novel function.

5) Although mutations occur in cells throughout a creatures life, only mutations that are passed on are relevant to evolution.  Mutated cells that die without being passed on are irrelevant.

6) Therefore, unless a mutation occurs in the reproductive organs or in a very, very early stage of fetal development, they are pointless in terms of evolution.

So it isn’t just mutations that urge on Naturalistic Evolution via Natural Selection, it’s mutations that occur in the reproductive areas to the DNA that is used to create a baby. Now, what are the odds that any random shuffle of reproductive DNA will contain a mutation? What are the odds that the mutated DNA will be among the fortunate few used to create a baby? What are the odds the mutation will be both beneficial (or neutral) and contain new information?

Considering the number and eggs a woman has and the mind-numbing number of sperm a male produces in his productive years, these numbers are already infinitesimally small. Wait, it gets better.

In a similar way, in order for a creature to pass on an information adding, beneficial or neutral mutation to a significant number of the other members of the species (so as to become fixed), the population must be small and, on most occasions, inbreeding must occur. At this point, the odds are getting very, very, very small. So small that, in fact, it would almost seem impossible.

Add to this the fact that DNA contains a “language” of sorts that is read and interpreted to create proteins and you can see where I’m going with this. There’s a reason why famous agnostic/atheist Anthony Flew rejected pure atheism in favor of his own flavor of deism in 2004: The sheer volume of both coincidences and serendipitous situations that must occur for a single high order creature to arise from a lower level one border on the a number that suggests the miraculous.

Now, let’s wrap all this up with some great Naturalistic Evolutionary science.

Since it’s nearly impossible to make DNA work as a first source of life, an alternative hypothesis has been suggested. In this hypothesis, DNA was not necessary at all, instead RNA (which carries copied DNA information to protein creation machines) functioned as both a catalyst and carrier of information; DNA wasn’t necessary because the RNA both stored information and allowed it to be copied into proteins. Ingenious, right?

So where did RNA come from? Simple. Enter the ironically nick-named “garbage bag” theory. Oily or metal oxide membranes formed in water. Huge numbers of random polymers just happened to be floating around (what a coincidence). Since the membranes allowed small polymers in and kept large polymer chains from leaving (how serendipitous) longer and longer chains formed. Other substances destructive or distracting to this process were somehow kept out of the process (it’s a miracle in the ancient seas) and among the polymers there were a variety of monomer sequences available. Then, some mysterious means to amplify the number of polymer chains containing certain catalytic properties came along (this miracle is apparently not of God) which caused the RNA to fold up and start to do something (rather than just do nothing).

Yeah … I’m convinced. How about you?

In the first part of this response, I mentioned a few of the arguments atheists use to discredit theists; For the most part, their contentions lack evidence and their convictions are just as religious as any Sunday morning Christian. We are not fooled.

Now that the groundwork has been laid, let’s ask the question the article brings up: Did the scientists  indeed create life in the laboratory;  Was this a precursor to artificial intelligence? I know this may seem surprising, considering the way the article words it, but the answer to both of these questions is no.

First of all, the idea of a true AI has already been demonstrated to be untenable. John Searle demonstrates this with his famous thought experiment: Imagine a native English speaker who knows no Chinese. He’s locked in a room full of boxes. Each is covered with Chinese symbols (a data base of sorts). At his disposal is a book of instructions for manipulating the symbols (a program). Imagine that people outside the room send in other Chinese symbols, which, unknown to the person in the room, are questions in Chinese (input). Now imagine that by following the instructions in the program, the man in the room is able to arrange and pass out Chinese symbols which happen to be correct answers to the questions sent in (the output). The program does enable the person in the room to pass the Turing Test for understanding Chinese. However, he still doesn’t understand a word of Chinese.

Searle goes on to explain that the man in the room is similar to a computer. While computers can process information at an incredible rate, they don’t have the capacity to think about what they process. True “Artificial life” shouldn’t just produce inputs and outputs. In order for it to be what most consider real, it must have independent thoughts about those inputs and outputs; Or more precisely, this AI must participate in a function found only in humans: the use of second order mental states.

Second order mental states are essentially thoughts about thoughts; It would be impossible for a machine to do this. A machine can evaluate evidence and determine probabilities concerning various outcomes. That, however, is hardly a second order mental state. Now, in time, machines, androids, or some other type of AI could become so anthropomorphized that they are barely distinguishable from humans. Once again, this is not a true artificial intelligence, but rather the result of very clever and careful programming.

Back to the article. While there are some very intriguing uses for the molecular science mentioned in the article, this is in no way creating life. Essentially, this is more like the photocopying of a cell. In a nutshell, the process includes: Taking existing DNA, sequencing it, rebuilding and programing it, and  placing the DNA into an existing live cell and watching it grow. It isn’t anything new and it only acts according to how it was programmed. Now, it’s not my intention to diminish this fascinating work, but in no way does this article describe creating life; After all the hype is stripped, it merely describes how scientists can rearrange existing life.

Originally posted by IBD Vice President Matt Coombe on mjcoombe.com

I recently read about this article on an atheist forum. It is provocatively titled: “Scientists create life. We are God.” I’m not sure if their intention was to mock theists or to disprove God (or both). Either way, I have every intention of dismantling not only the title but the evidence presented in the article as well. Before I can do that, however, we need to understand where these arguments come from. We should first take a look at current trends in atheist argumentation.

There are many trends in atheist thought today. That said, there appear to be two getting the most media attention. These are the incoherent claim: “Look at this amazing scientific breakthrough! God surely does not exist!” and the ever popular: “Look at these religious cooks! They’re part of some obscure cult! It’s obvious that all religious people are mentally deficient … and God surely does not exist.”

The first argument, the science disproves God claim, is usually spouted by atheists without any thought given to the actual evidence; I’m convinced most don’t even realize they’re using the argument. It forces me to respond with comments like: “Why is this subject being discussed under the guise of atheism?” Of course, I usually await atheist responses in vain.

As for the article (linked above), my response was: “Why is this article being discussed on an atheist forum?” Not that atheists aren’t free to discuss whatever they wish; Don’t get me wrong. I was just wondering why such an obviously religious article, as its title makes clear, is so popular among a group that abhors religion … unless, of course, they are engaging in the religious practice of apologetics.

At times it seems like atheists are similar to those “religious” people who claim to see miracles everywhere (i.e. “I found my car keys, it’s a miracle!”).  In the same way, an atheist claims: “Science did something really cool, therefore God does not exist!’” It’s beyond the scope of this essay to argue this point further, but science and theism are in no way fundamentally contradictory.

As for the second popular argument, where religious people are viewed as deficient, I always tell my students: “If you want to refute something, you must refute it at its best. If you had the choice to refute a ‘moral’ atheist who loves his wife, provides for his family, and gives to the poor, or refute an atheist who is a murdering rapist, we should choose to refute the better example of atheism.” When I first ask my students which of the two we should  refute, they usually miss the mark (atleast at first) and assert the immoral atheist should be refuted. But I remind the student, Christianity can measure up to and overcome any other worldview at its best; After all, the most superior being in all of existence should bestow a superior worldview or lifestyle.

Atheists like to point out pedophile priests or suicide bombers, but such claims are informal fallacies, stemming from (but not limited to): The “red herring”, “poisoning the well”, and “straw man” arguments; None address the fundamental evidence for theism. Atheists (and at times Christians too) think that if they were to sink another’s boat it would entail that their own boat is floating. But this is not the case. Poking holes in the Christian worldview will in no way seal the holes of atheism (or vice versa). While lifestyle or actions should play somewhat of a role in determining the relative superiority of a worldview, the debate should come down to evidence. Who is more justified in believing what they believe?

It seems at best strange for an atheist to make the assertion, “We are God.” As people that openly voice their hated of religion, they certainly do seem to make alot of religious claims. For example, I hear atheists refer to their conversion to atheism or make large, sweeping metaphysical pronouncements. Despite the very similar terminology and subject matter, atheists still vehemently maintain: “Atheism is no religion.” Really?

I recently read a popular atheist argument that goes like this: “Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby.” Okay, I understand the statement. However, I disagree; Atheism is more than merely a lack of participation. Consider the example presented and imagine it this way: Atheism is like a man confronting a stamp collector and saying, “Why do you collect stamps? That’s a child’s hobby! Who even collects stamps, anyways?” As soon as someone is willing to fight for a belief, whether in a verbal or physical way, the belief begins to enter into the realm of religion.

In fact, whatever belief is most important to a person, if it shapes their worldview and guides their actions, that belief is for all practical purposes their religion. It isn’t just having a belief in one or many supernatural beings that necessitates a religion; In fact, many traditional Buddhists are atheists. Buddha himself was an agnostic; To him, the existence of God wasn’t even an important question. Even so, who would claim that devout monks, spending hours in meditation each day while secluded in cloistered monasteries are not religious people? Clearly, atheists can be highly religious people.

However, are all atheists religious? Maybe it’s just the vocal minority. Maybe it’s not. Many people aren’t aware of this, but the original humanist manifesto clearly referred to secular humanism as a religion. Mankind’s salvation would be found through reason and technology. Since the atheists making the “We are God” claims are obviously secular humanists, it appears that they are denying the very definition of their own beliefs. As Ravi Zacharias once said, “It’s not me you have a problem with. It’s reality.”

So even if an atheist isn’t an activist, they still espouse a religious worldview. As Dr. Fernandes has questioned, “If the statement, ‘There is a God’ is a religious statement, then why is the statement, ‘There is no God’ not a religious statement?” Well said. After all,  aren’t both statements making judgments about the same metaphysical truth?

Anyways, since I spent so much space on tangents here, I’ll have respond the article tomorrow.