News: Is Science Shaking from DNA Studies?
Materialists and Evolutionists Have Ignorance Down to a Science. World's Most Famous Atheist's Penchant for Bumping His Head Against His Own Ego
By Chris Parker, Copyright 2020

Edited and Updated by Terry Lee Miller

“For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.” Romans 1

In 2003 an amazing, worldwide, research project called the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) was started to map the entirety of the human genome—our DNA—the very structure of life. When finalized, their findings may yield the greatest health benefits of all time.

The hope is that doctors will be able to cure many diseases simply by altering our cell’s genetics. As expected, there are many promising possibilities for humankind. However, the ENCODE project may also have a huge drawback—Materialists and Evolutionists are using it to show they were right: there is no God. Science is the answer to everything—or is it?...s8intcom

SCIENCE AND RELIGION CLASH

Many who promote or adhere to today’s scientific paradigm feel they are in the best position to determine whether something is true, including our spiritual beliefs. Even when it appears they are speaking from “ignorance.” This is not using the word “ignorance” in a pejorative (negative) sense but rather as Webster’s Dictionary defines it: A state of being uninformed (a lack of knowledge).

Finding oneself in the state of being uninformed is a common human condition but to build an area of science around it, or to make scientific assertions built upon a foundation of one’s own ignorance—is highly misleading. Especially once newfound knowledge can dispel that ignorance.

Let us look at history for some guidance into whether ignorance has deceived us before.

For years scientists did not know the functions of a various organs (structures) within the human body. They could have said, “We do not know what the function of this particular organ is?” Instead they chose to build upon the “evolution” paradigm.
They turned their ignorance into “scientific knowledge” claiming that these “vestigial organs (structures) were leftovers from the evolutionary past—which had lost their functions. Currently, functions for many or most of these structures, previously thought to be “vestigial” evolutionary leftovers” have been found. And it would take some boldness to continue to argue that any structure in the body is vestigial rather than a simple lack of knowledge.

Only Matter and Energy?

Materialists, and strict evolutionists, believe there is only matter and energy in the universe and that somehow the two organized themselves into planets, comets, stars, and eventually life. They don’t believe in any Holy Spirit, nor the souls of man, and therefore, not in God, who is Spirit, because such can’t be scientifically proven and quantified.
Information

There is, however, another sphere that exists apart from matter and energy: information. Even the materialists admit it is real.
Information exists and, in fact, is the basis of life itself.

Information is non-material and exists apart from any method or material used to convey it. It exists everywhere, in copious amounts, in the cells of all living things. This information (DNA) is the language living cells can read, understand, and “obey.” It provides the instructions for what to do, when to do it, and how to do it for every facet of life.

In our cells, the National Institute of Health (NIH) says, information to run DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemicals, called bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). The DNA of people is made up of approximately 3 billion bases and interestingly, their code is 99% the same across all peoples.

It is the code’s order, or sequence, that determines which information is available to build or maintain our bodies. This process can be compared to written languages. By themselves, the letters of the alphabet mean nothing, but when arranged in the correct sequence (order), they create words, phrases, ideas, and even images, that can only be explained by yet other information.
INFORMATION SHOWS THAT GOD EXISTS!

For the DNA language (information) to make sense and be useful, with all its complexities, it must come from an intelligence—with an extraordinary mind. This mind is infinitely above us, and capable of outdoing, any technology or combination of technologies ever known, since the beginning of time. In short, it could only have come from a massively superior intellect. This should be obvious because whoever placed the language into the cells of every living thing, by the hundreds of trillions, first had to have a stupendous and incredible mind to create this knowledge, and then be able to predict how and when it would be needed.

This creator then had to know the “end from the beginning” to be to be able to instruct each cell what to do, and when it to do it. And finally, the creator had to know “how” to implant that information appropriately into the cells of our vast varieties of life, from the gigantic to the infinitesimally small. This was all done to ensure success—the creation and sustainment of life itself.

This throws the argument that the creation self-formed as a random accident, out the window. It is impossible to accept that an incalculable number of cells could have self-formed, that they then “knew” how to multiply themselves, and finally how to accurately unite to mold themselves into the intricate mass of interconnections required to generate every individual life pattern on the earth. Imagine the coding complexities that had to be created to blend them all together into a working, interacting world.

If materialists and evolutionists gave themselves a moment to reflect on this idea of how massive combinations of cells could accidentally begin working together perfectly, they might realize that DNA is proof that God must exist. And yet, many steadfastly refuse to consider this data and instead spend their time trying to create counter arguments to the obvious. It’s as though they have something to hide from God, so they must prove He doesn’t exist. They can’t allow themselves to accept that HE is watching them, and that HE will judge their actions in the end.

Even well-known materialist, Bill Gates (co-founder of Microsoft) said he realized that our cells are extremely complex: “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” (The Road Ahead)
It is interesting to note that all of Bill Gates software codes are far less complicated than those of DNA, yet have one commonality: they only occur because of a “creator.”

Anyone who has honestly considered whether God exists, must see how DNA is absolute proof of a Creator. Even the smallest cell of bacteria requires so much information that it could not have randomly united to form an accurately working element of life.

As I.L. Cohen, (Member NY Academy of Sciences; Officer of the Archaeological Inst. of America) Mathematician and researcher said about the great debate:

"At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt."
(Darwin Was Wrong – A Study in Probabilities New Research Publications, 1984, p. 4)

IGNORANCE AS EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION

!The central focus of gene studies has been a small portion (2%) of the human genome. This 2% is the code for creating proteins—the building blocks of all life. The larger portion of the genome, as yet, is only partially defined.
While scientists worldwide continue to study this massive undefined portion of the genome, Materialists and Evolutionists seized upon the initial lack of full understanding to declare it “junk DNA.” Simple evolutionary junk—leftovers from eons of evolutionary activity.

Did everyone agree with this viewpoint?

The past Director of the Human Genome Project said the following, regarding materialistic scientists using their own biases to continue the current No-God paradigm in science: "There were long stretches of DNA in between genes that didn’t seem to be doing very much; some even referred to these as “junk DNA,” though a certain amount of hubris was required for anyone to call any part of the genome “junk,” given our level of ignorance." (The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief)

Unfortunately, Materialists ignored Collins’ warnings, and those of Creationists, and plunged on with their evolutionary bent. However, today, with an example from the mosquito, we understand that the so-called “junk DNA” controls early life in the development of their embryos.

The term “Junk DNA,” coined by Susumu Ohno over 40 years ago, was an obvious expression of contempt intended to suggest a lack of design and thus a lack of a designer—God.

Regarding this matter, evolutionists challenge creationists thusly:

Evolutionists: Can you explain why God would make “junk DNA?”

Further:
A good portion of our genetic code has no apparent purpose … that is until you account for millions, if not billions, of mutations that no longer have a phenotype in modern humans. (Evolutionist, Anonymous)

Richard Dawkins, the world’s preeminent Atheist wrote a number of passages with unconcealed sarcasm toward the Creator in several of his popular books on evolution:

"Once again, creationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA". (The Information Challenge, 2001)

…"it is a remarkable fact that the greater part (95 percent in the case of humans) of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes."" (The Greatest Show on Earth, September 2009)

Dawkins further doubled and tripled down with this quote from “Greatest Show on Earth”:

"What pseudogenes are useful for is embarrassing creationists. It stretches even their creative ingenuity to make a convincing reason why an intelligent designer should have created a pseudogene — a gene that does absolutely nothing and gives every appearance of being a superannuated version of a gene that used to do something — unless he was deliberately setting out to fool us." (Greatest Show on Earth, 2009)

DAWKINS WAS WRONG

In the September 2012, issue of Science magazine Elizabeth Pennisi writes:

"This week, 30 research papers, including six in Nature and additional papers published online by Science, sound the death knell for the idea that our DNA is mostly littered with useless bases. A decade-long project, the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (Encode), has found that 80% of the human genome serves some purpose, biochemically speaking. Beyond defining proteins, the DNA bases highlighted by Encode specify landing spots for proteins that influence gene activity, strands of RNA with myriad roles, or simply places where chemical modifications serve to silence stretches of our chromosomes". (Encode Project Writes the Eulogy for Junk DNA)

The Guardian UK further stated the importance of the larger portion of the genome in (Breakthrough Study Overturns Theory of ‘Junk DNA’ in Genome):

"Long stretches of DNA previously dismissed as “junk” are in fact crucial to the way our genome works", an international team of researchers said on Wednesday. For years, the vast stretches of DNA between our 20,000 or so protein-coding genes – more than 98% of the genetic sequence inside each of our cells – was written off as “junk” DNA. Already falling out of favor in recent years, this concept will now, with Encode’s work, be consigned to the history books.
Les Sherlock, (Junk DNA, In the Beginning.org, Sept 2012) further stated:

"Well, now it is the evolutionists who are embarrassed – or certainly should be. For 40 years, ever since Susumu Ohno introduced the term in 1972, they have been waving ‘junk DNA’ in the face of creationists, asking why their Creator-God would have produced DNA with only 5% that had any function. Now they know, or are beginning to find out, that it wasn’t that it was without function, but simply that they knew too little about it to be aware of what it did. In fact, this mirrors exactly the blunder they made 100 years ago or so, when they claimed over 100 human organs were vestigial: remnants of our evolutionary past that were no longer functional. They were wrong with vestigial organs 100 years ago, and they have been wrong for the past 40 years with junk DNA. Will they never learn?"

Gina Kolata of the New York Times viewed the DNA issue this way:

“Now scientists have discovered a vital clue to unraveling these riddles. The human genome is packed with at least four million gene switches that reside in bits of DNA that once were dismissed as “junk” but that turn out to play critical roles in controlling how cells, organs, and other tissues behave. The discovery, considered a major medical and scientific breakthrough, has enormous implications for human health because many complex diseases appear to be caused by tiny changes in hundreds of gene switches.

The findings, which are the fruit of an immense federal project involving 440 scientists from 32 laboratories around the world, will have immediate applications for understanding how alterations in the non-gene parts of DNA contribute to human diseases, which may, in turn, lead to new drugs. They can also help explain how the environment can affect disease risk. In the case of identical twins, small changes in environmental exposure can slightly alter gene switches, with the result that one twin gets a disease and the other does not.”

As scientists delved into the “junk”—parts of the DNA that are not actual genes containing instructions for proteins—they discovered a complex system that controls genes. At least 80 percent of this DNA is active and needed.”
(Bits of Mystery DNA, Far From “Junk,” Play Crucial Role, New York Times 9/6/2012)

ARE WE A MONKEY’S UNCLE?

Evolutionists have trumpeted the similarity of the chimpanzee genome to that of humans, claiming that since the chimpanzee’s DNA profile matches ours up to 98% (actual number debated) this is proof of evolution. However, the 98% match only relates to the 2% of the respective genomes that code for proteins.

This means, as the Encode Project findings show, the vast majority of the monkey and man genomes are totally unrelated. In fact, the extreme differences between the two species (non-coding DNA regions) are too large to have naturally occurred in the short time allegedly required to have evolution move from chimps to man.

THE CONCLUSION OF IT ALL

William Dembski , an American mathematician, philosopher, and theologian sums up both reasons materialists use for saying portions of the genome are “junk.” He further shows why finding so much function in the genome tends to eliminate the possibility for evolutionary explanations to be correct:

"Design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term “junk DNA.” Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus, on an evolutionary view, we expect a lot of useless DNA.

If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. And indeed, the most recent findings suggest that designating DNA as “junk” merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function” (Dembski 1998)

So far, the Encode Project, and scientists working in this area, have found function for over 80% of the human genome. (U.S Library of Science, May 2020.)

It would now betray the evidence and show a stubborn, anti-scientific ignorance of facts to continue believing functions of the entire DNA code won’t be found. As we learn more, we will further our understanding of DNA and what God has created in us—If the world stands.

Epilogue: One more thought on the world’s foremost Atheist, Richard Dawkins. The poor man simply cannot stop trying to make points for evolution using his own ignorance and being eventually made to look foolish by his own words in front of the scientific world he endeavors to represent. Perhaps in the future he should write with a pencil with an eraser.

He and others had pointed to the human eye as an example of bad design because to many of them it appeared to be “wired backwards”.

“Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells would point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that the photocells might point away from the light, with their wires departing on the side nearest the light. Yet this is exactly what happens in all vertebrate retinas. Each photocell is, in effect, wired in backwards, with its wire sticking out on the side nearest the light. The wire has to travel over the surface of the retina, to a point where it dives through a hole in the retina (the so-called ‘blind spot’) to join the optic nerve. This means that the light, instead of being granted an unrestricted passage to the photocells, has to pass through a forest of connecting wires, presumably suffering at least some attenuation and distortion (actually probably not much, still, it is the principle of the thing that would offend any tidy-minded engineer!).” Dawkins, “The Blind Watchmaker”, 1987.

Science has caught up again however, and a great deal of this ignorance has been exposed.

“Having the photoreceptors at the back of the retina is not a design constraint, it is a design feature. The idea that the vertebrate eye, like a traditional front-illuminated camera, might have been improved somehow if it had only been able to orient its wiring behind the photoreceptor layer, like a cephalopod, is folly.” (Hewitt, J. Fiber optic light pipes in the retina do much more than simple image transfer. Phys.org.

“Every statement by Dawkins, Miller, Ayala, and others about the eye’s poor design—from photocells being “wired backwards” to the eye being “outright dysfunctional”—is scientifically incorrect. “Folly” accurately describes their blunder.” (Major Evolutionary Blunders: Evolutionists Can't See Eye Design
By Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D.
Friday, September 30, 2016)

 

Please Support the Research of S8int.com!

Since 2002, Chris Parker has done the majority of the research and writing of articles for s8int.com. If this site has been an encouragement to you, please donate to support Chris's ongoing research. (S8int.com is not incorporated and your donations may not be tax deductable.)

More Posts About Intelligent Design