Evolutionists from Darwin onward have claimed that the human body is a ‘museum’ housing many useless “leftover” parts from our evolutionary past.¹ These parts, called “vestigial organs,” are believed to have once served functional purposes in our evolutionary ancestors, but these functions have since been lost due to evolution.

Some of the most popular examples of “vestigial organs” include the so-called “tailbone,” believed by some to be a leftover tail; the appendix. supposedly a relic from the digestive system of our plant-eating ancestors; and wisdom teeth, which the long, jutting jaws of our ape-like ancestors could accommodate, but are often prevented from growing correctly in short-faced humans. But the truth is that none of these are really ‘useless’ leftovers! All of them serve a designed purpose in our bodies!

The “tailbone,” more correctly called the coccyx, is not actually a leftover tail, but serves as the end-point of the spinal cord. It is also the anchor-point for six important muscles that form the pelvic diaphragm, which supports many of your organs—without this important bone, your insides would literally fall out!¹

Image credit: Blausen.com staff. “Blausen gallery 2014”. Wikiversity

In the past, an appendectomy—the removal of the appendix, a small worm-like tube structure near the junction of our large and small intestines—was a common surgical procedure. After all, the appendix could become infected with a disease known as appendicitis, and it was thought that it served no useful function in the body. However, scientists and doctors today know that the appendix serves a role in the immune system, first as a lymph organ during the early years of life, and second, by acting as a “safe house” for good bacteria in the large intestine.^1,2 

Wisdom teeth, like the appendix, have a Fall-caused tendency to degenerate and cause problems in life, but just because an organ can cause problems doesn’t make it useless or a ‘bad design’! While some people’s wisdom teeth never develop, others simply do not have enough room in their jaws for the teeth to grow, so they become ‘impacted,’ meaning that they are blocked from growing into place by the other teeth. However, when there is enough room for them, wisdom teeth function as a perfectly-good set of third molars.³ It may be that God designed humans with these teeth to be used in chewing vegetation (man’s original diet, cf. Genesis 1:29).

In the late 19th century, one evolutionist named Robert Wiedersheim put together a list of 86 supposed ‘vestigial’ organs, which he believed were evidence of evolution. However, every one of these supposed ‘leftovers’ have since been shown to have a purpose in our bodies¹—exactly what we would expect to find if our bodies were created by an all-wise Creator God!

So, while evolutionists may want to find design-flaws or useless leftovers in our bodies, when we do more careful study, we find that we are truly, “ … fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.” (Psalm 139:14)

Free Resources for Further Learning:

Creation v. Evolution Book—Chapter 9: Vestigial Structures

Video – Vestigial Organs—Evidence for Evolution? 

Vestigial Organs—Evidence for Evolution?

Setting the Record Straight on Vestigial Organs

References:

¹Menton, David. “Vestigial Organs—Evidence for Evolution?” Answers in Genesis. Answers in Genesis, 7 July 2014. Web. 29 Dec. 2015. <https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/vestigial-organs/vestigial-organs-evidence-for-evolution/>.

²Bergman, Jerry. “Chapter 9: Vestigial Organs” in Dan Biddle, ed., Creation v. Evolution. 2015. Genesis Apologetics, Inc. Available here: https://genesisapologetics.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Creation_v._Evolution_20161.pdf.

³DeWitt, David. “Setting the Record Straight on Vestigial Organs.” Answers in Genesis. Answers in Genesis, 28 May 2008. Web. 29 Dec. 2015. <https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/vestigial-organs/setting-the-record-straight-on-vestigial-organs/>.

 In his book Origin of Species, Darwin wrote, “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous…Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”¹

“Lucy” as she appears on pages 14-15 of 6th grade California textbook History Alive! The Ancient World.

Over a century after Darwin, evolutionary paleontologist David Raup wrote, “In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found — yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.”²

Examples of this “pure fantasy” can be seen throughout the pages of 6th, 7th, and 10th grade California textbooks. Pages 14 to 23 of the 6th grade history textbook History Alive! The Ancient World illustrates the supposed progression from ape-like creatures to humans, claiming evidence from various fossil discoveries around the world, including “Lucy” (Australopithecus afarensis), Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Neanderthals, and Homo sapiens (Modern humans).³ Likewise, the 10th grade textbook Miller & Levine Biology teaches students that fossils linking whales to land mammals⁴, birds to dinosaurs⁵, and land-dwelling animals to fish⁶, have all been unearthed. Such claims are accompanied by flashy drawings fleshing out what these ‘in-betweens’ might have looked like (see picture above).  

However, all of these supposed ‘links’ have been questioned on scientific grounds by other evolutionists. As Senior Paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, Colin Patterson, wrote, “I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”⁷

Some may imagine, based on similarities between these creatures and those to which they supposedly link, that these fossilsreally are Darwin’s ‘intermediate varieties.’ “But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test,” Patterson responds.⁷ Just as someone could line up a fork, ‘spork’, and spoon, and claim to have found an evolutionary progression, such stories about fossils are only imaginative speculation based on a prior commitment to evolution.

So, even after 150 years of fossil discoveries since Darwin’s book, “the most obvious and gravest objection” to evolution still stands, and the ‘missing link’ is still…well, missing!

Free Resources for Further Learning: 

The Links Are Missing

Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish 

Bird Evolution?

Whale Evolution? 

Are There Apemen in Your Ancestry?

References:

¹Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859; rep., New York: Avenel Books, Crown Publishers, n.d.).

²Raup, D. M. “Evolution and the Fossil Record.” Science 213.4505 (1981): 289. Print.

³Frey, Wendy, John Bergez, and Amy Joseph. History Alive!: The Ancient World. Palo Alto, CA: Teachers’ Curriculum Institute, 2004. 14-23. Print.

⁴Miller, Kenneth R., and Joseph S. Levine. Miller & Levine Biology. Boston, MA: Pearson, 2006. 467-467. Print.

⁵Ibid, 762-767.

⁶Ibid, 760-761. 

⁷Colin Patterson, quoted from personal communication in Sunderland, Luther D. Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems. San Diego, CA: Master Book, 1984. 88-90. Print.

Science textbooks like Miller & Levine Biology use the fact that humans are classified as mammals in the primates group to argue that we are related to chimpanzees, gorillas, and gibbons, leading many to believe that man is only a “highly-evolved” animal.¹

Humans alone have the ability to enjoy a loving relationship with their Creator though faith in His Son, Jesus Christ.

Although the inventor of the classification and naming system for living things, Carolus Linnaeus, did classify humans as mammals and primates, he was also a committed Bible-believing creationist who held that mankind was distinctly created by God separate from the animals.² The reason why he classified humans as mammals and primates in particular is simply because we share many physical similarities with other creatures, especially monkeys and apes.

It is not hard to understand why Linnaeus did this; every time we visit the zoo, we love watching monkeys and apes as they display their humanlike behaviors and abilities, often in humorous ways. However, we also recognize that humans are special.

Although we share much in common with animals, what sets us apart is how God describes humankind in Genesis 1:26-27, “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

Being created in God’s image, humans alone are capable of rational thought, scientific discovery, building complex structures and devices, communicating using spoken and written language, practicing medicine and surgery on each other, composing music, creating works of art, and most importantly, enjoying a loving relationship with his Creator through faith in His Son, Jesus Christ. And it was for mankind alone that God sent His Son to come and pay the death penalty that we deserved for breaking God’s law, providing the way for us to live with Him forever.

Free Resources for Further Learning:

Are Animals Different From People?

Made in God’s Image Video

God’s Image: The Difference-Maker

References:

¹Miller, Kenneth R., and Joseph S. Levine. Miller & Levine Biology. Boston, MA: Pearson, 2006. 766-767. Print.

²Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. 2014. Carolus Linnaeus: Founder of Modern Taxonomy. Acts & Facts. 43 (11).

One of the “holy grails” of evolution is the claim that humans share 98-99% of their DNA with chimpanzees. Based on this evidence, the 10th grade California textbook Miller & Levine Biology confidently states that, “Recent DNA analyses confirm that, among the great apes, chimpanzees are human’s closest relatives.”¹

Humans and chimps are actually only 70% similar genetically, not the often-claimed “98-99%.” Image credit: icr.org

However, what is not commonly told is the fact that such numbers were gained using very unscientific means; “cherry picking” the data. Only segments of the DNA shared by chimps and humans were compared, so naturally, they would be very similar.²

It actually makes good sense from a creation-design standpoint for humans to share similar DNA with other creatures, for the obvious reason that man does many of the same things that animals do. For example, our bodies digest food, breath air, fight disease, and so on.

However, when the full genomes are taken into account and compared, the similarity number falls dramatically. As more recent research by both creationists and evolutionists has revealed, humans and chimps are only about 70% similar genetically; a far cry from the common 98-99% statistic promoted by secularists.⁴ This poses a huge dilemma for evolution, since this means that around 1 billion letters of DNA out of the total 3-billion in the human genome would have to be accounted for by random mutations and blind natural selection in only around 7 million years since humans and chimps last shared a common ancestor!⁵

The biblical account of the creation of man in the image of God, separate from the animals (including chimps) is a much better explanation for the complex genetic codes of humans and chimpanzees than evolution.

Free Resources for Further Learning:

Chimp DNA Video

Human and Chimp DNA—Nearly Identical?

The Myth of 1%

Chimp-human DNA Similarity: What Does It Really Mean?

References:

¹Miller, Kenneth R., and Joseph S. Levine. Miller & Levine Biology. Boston, MA: Pearson, 2006. 767. Print.

²Tomkins, J. 2012. Journal Reports Bias in Human-Chimp Studies. Acts & Facts. 41 (6): 6.

³Jeanson, N. 2013. Does “Homology” Prove Evolution? Acts & Facts. 42 (9): 20.

⁴Tomkins, J. 2011. Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth—New Research Data. Acts & Facts. 40 (10): 6.

⁵Tomkins, Jeffery P., Ph.D. “Chimp DNA Mutation Study-Selective Yet Surprising.” Chimp DNA Mutation Study-Selective Yet Surprising. Institute for Creation Research, 25 June 2014. Web. 10 July 2015. <http://www.icr.org/article/chimp-dna-mutation-studyselective-yet/>.

Did you know that California public-school science textbooks teach that humans are cousins to…worms?

Diagrams in both the 7th grade Focus on Life Science¹ and 10th grade Miller & Levine Biology² textbooks display a ‘family tree of life’, illustrating the path of evolution, from ‘simple’ invertebrates (at the ‘trunk’) to all the varieties of living creatures on earth, including human beings (the ‘branches’).

The evolutionary ‘tree of life’ vs. the biblical creationist ‘orchard of life’. Image credit: www.answersingenesis.org.

Genesis clearly teaches that all life forms, including plants and animals, were all created ‘after their kind,’ therefore, living things can only reproduce more of their own ‘kind’. This is what is scientifically observed in nature; dogs produce varieties of dogs, roses produce varieties of roses, and so on.

So, why do evolutionary scientists arrive at the conclusion that all living creatures are related? It is not the evidence that leads one to believe this, but rather the assumptions used to interpret the evidence. Evolutionary scientists begin with two major assumptions that affect the way they see the relationships between plants and animals:

1. All living things evolved from a ‘simple’ common ancestor.³
2. Features shared between different creatures (physical patterns, genes, etc.) are evidence that they are related.⁴

Neither assumptions are provable, and they often lead evolutionary researchers to unacceptable (by their own standards) conclusions. For example, bats and dolphins share a very similar gene for echolocation, yet bats are supposed to be closely related to shrews, while dolphins are supposedly close relatives of deer.⁵

So, how should Bible-believers respond? First, we need to recognize the folly of ‘connecting the dots’ between living things, understanding that any group of objects can be arranged in a ‘family tree’ based on similarities. For instance, one could create an evolutionary ‘tree of vehicles’, drawing the lineage of the car, truck, and tank back to a ‘simple’ farm-tractor ancestor. Of course, we know that each of these vehicles was created separately, although they share many similarities, to fulfill a specific purpose.

We know from the Bible that God created all living things ‘after their kind’ on Days 3, 5, & 6 of Creation Week, each fully functional and ready to ‘fill the earth’. With this starting point, we see that the same logic applied to man-made objects also applies to God’s creation. Instead of interpreting similarities as evidence for relationship, we see them as examples of the common design patterns that God has used to enable His creatures to fill their environments, in the same way that human designers use similar designs to accomplish various purposes.⁶ Equipped with this understanding, we can approach the natural world with a sense of awe at all that the Creator has made.

Free Resources for Further Learning:

Evolution Exposed: Classifying Life

What Grows on Evolution’s Tree?

In-depth: Darwin vs. Genetics: Surprises and Snags in the Science of Common Ancestry

References:

¹Coolidge-Stoltz, Elizabeth. Focus on California Life Science. Boston, MA: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2008. 415. Print.

²Miller, Kenneth R., and Joseph S. Levine. Miller & Levine Biology. Boston, MA: Pearson, 2006. 742. Print.

³Ibid, p. 525.

⁴Ref. 1, p. 225-226.

⁵“In Bats and Whales, Convergence in Echolocation Ability Runs Deep.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 27 Jan. 2010. Web. 30 June 2015. <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100125123219.htm>.

⁶Guliuzza, Randy J. “Similar Features Show Design, Not Universal Common Descent.” Clearly Seen: Constructing Solid Arguments for Design. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2012. 24-25. Print.

Dinosaurs are back in the news with Universal Picture’s recent theatrical release of Jurassic World. As to be expected, this long-awaited sequel to the Jurassic Park trilogy presents the standard view of dinosaurs as established fact; dinosaurs and humans were separated by millions of years, and never crossed paths.

A petroglyph under Kachina Bridge in Utah closely resembles a sauropod (long-necked) dinosaur.

However, God’s Word teaches that the Lord created heaven, earth, the sea, and everything in them “in six days.” Genesis 1 tells us that land animals were created on the sixth day, alongside the first humans, Adam and Eve. Thus, according to a straightforward understanding of Scripture, man must have walked alongside dinosaurs (land creatures). Also, because death didn’t come into the world until Adam sinned, no living creatures (i.e. dinosaurs) could have died out before humans existed.

Of course, this clearly contradicts the prevailing theory that dinosaurs died out millions of years ago. However, before we accept the oft-made claim that ‘science contradicts the Bible,’ we need to ask, “How and why did scientists come to this conclusion?”

Dinosaur fossils were originally declared to be millions of years, not because of radioactive dating, but because of a belief that rock layers were formed over long periods of time. As a result of this belief, the fossils found in the rocks, like dinosaur bones, were assigned to an ancient ‘period’ of earth history, the “Age of Reptiles.”

However, there is much scientific evidence that has been discovered that suggest that there really never was such a time when dinosaurs ‘ruled the Earth’ before humans:

1. Most dinosaur fossils are found in mass graves like that at Dinosaur National Monument in Utah/Colorado. Secular paleontologists are beginning to realize that many such dinosaur ‘graveyards’ could not have been the result of slow buildup of sediment and bones over millions of years, but are the result of the catastrophic death of hundreds of dinosaurs and the quick burial of their remains in mud and sand. This picture fits very well with the account of the Global Flood in Genesis.¹
2. Within the last decade, scientists have discovered dinosaur bones containing original soft-tissues and biological materials, including bone cells, blood vessels, red blood cells, and collagen, all of which are known by scientists to only last several thousand (in some cases up to one million) years, but cannot possibly survive 65 million years.² This should cause us to seriously reconsider the accepted secular timeline of history.
3. Nearly every culture on Earth has very similar records of giant, fearsome reptiles called ‘dragons,’ which have been depicted on pottery, cave walls, mosaics, and other artifacts. Many of these closely resemble dinosaurs, whose fossil bones have only begun to be understood for the last 200 years.³Details from these records and artifacts include skin, behavior, habitat, internal anatomy, and diet, which could not have possibly been gleaned by encounters with exposed fossil bones by ancient peoples, a popular evolutionary ‘explanation’ of these records. The only explanation left is that ancient peoples must have seen dinosaurs alive before their (recent) extinction.

Far from proving it wrong, the scientific evidence clearly confirms the Bible’s account of the history of man and beast, including the dinosaurs!

Recommended Resources:

Dinosaurs & Dragon Legends Video

Still Soft and Stretchy

Dinosaur National Monument in Utah

Double Decade Dinosaur Disquiet

References:

¹O’Brien, Jonathan. “Dinosaur Disarray.” Creation Magazine Apr. 2012: 28-31. Print.

²Catchoole, David. “Double Decade Dinosaur Disquiet.” Creation Magazine Jan. 2014: 12-14. Print.

³Nelson, Vance. Dire Dragons. Red Deer, Alberta: Untold Secrets of Planet Earth, 2012. Print.

Does evolutionary theory really conflict with Christianity? In order to answer this question, we must first clear up two commonly-held misconceptions about both evolution and Christianity.

First, Christianity, as founded upon a belief in the Bible as God’s Word, is not just about believing in things unseen. Yes, faith is crucial, but the faith that the Bible calls us to is one rooted in historical facts and realities, including the creation of man in God’s image, the fall of man, and the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ. Christianity rises or falls on the historical reality of these facts and events. As Apostle Paul strongly states in 1 Corinthians 15:14, “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.” [Emphasis added]

Second, evolution is not ‘just science.’ While changes in animals and plants (adaptation and variation) is scientifically observable and testable, the development of all of life from a primordial soup (molecules-to-man evolution) is not. So, in order to accept this second type of change, one must exercise faith.

Unlike Christianity however, faith in evolution is not rooted in historically documented events and facts (like the Resurrection), but in a belief in materialism, that matter is all that exists, and therefore, the material universe must have created itself (over a long period of time). This belief differs radically from what the Bible teaches, that God created the universe supernaturally in six days only a few thousand years ago, and that man was created separately “in the image of God.”

Obviously, both beliefs can’t be right, so a choice must be made between the two. Sadly, most students either choose to reject the Bible’s record of creation or try to make it fit with evolutionary beliefs without damaging the Bible’s spiritual message. However, if the Bible’s record of history cannot be trusted, why should its spiritual message rooted in that history be trusted? As Jesus said in John 3:12, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?”

Our mission as Genesis Apologetics, is to show students that the Bible’s “earthly things,” namely the creation and Flood accounts, can be trusted, so that students will also believe its spiritual message, that salvation from sin and its penalty, physical and eternal death (Hell) is available to who repent and believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31). To get equipped, start exploring our website today!

Recommended Viewing and Reading:

What’s Wrong With Progressive Creation?

Could Evolution and Creation Be Telling the Same Story?

Couldn’t God Have Used Evolution?

Is Evolution Compatible with Christian Religion?

This summer, Genesis Apologetics, Inc. is developing a campaign to prepare thousands of Christian students for the evolution teaching they receive in public schools. We are developing 11 brief videos that provide a Biblical responses to the 11 “pillars of evolution” that are taught in junior- and senior-high schools in CA. Then we plan on sending thousands of cards (that direct students to the videos) to every youth pastor in mid- to large-sized churches in CA (4,135 total). Youth pastors will be encouraged to hand out the cards to their students so they can pass them out to classmates.

Our intention is only to solidify the Biblical beliefs and values of our students; not to start controversies or debates. Christian students in today’s schools are inundated with evolution teaching, receiving over 250 pages and 50 instruction hours of evolution theory before graduating high school. Our plan has been designed to reach students in the most effective way possible: students reaching students.

We are raising $60,000 over the summer to fund this plan. Please pray with us or support us financially. If you would like a complete copy of our strategic plan with details, please email us. Our executive team continues to personally invest in this mission, but we could sure use some help! If you feel led to contribute, please click the Paypal link on our home page! www.genesisapologetics.com.

Contributions are tax-deductible, as we are a 501(c)3 organization with tax-exempt status.

Sincerely,

Dan A. Biddle, Ph.D.

One of the most common responses that Bible-believing students give to evolutionary teaching at school is, “Evolution is just a theory, so why is it taught as a scientific fact?”

A theory is “A well-tested concept that explains a wide range of observations.” Does evolution fit this description?

In anticipation of this argument, some textbooks, including the 7th grade California Focus on Life Science textbook, have gone out of their way to define ‘theory’ in such a way as to remove students’ doubt about evolution.

“Some words, such as theory…, have different meanings in science and in everyday use.” The everyday meaning of theory given is, “A guess; an idea of how or why something might happen,” while the scientific meaning is defined as, “A well-tested concept that explains a wide range of observations.”¹ Defined in this way, it becomes clear that when dissenting students and textbook authors call evolution a ‘theory,’ they aren’t saying the same thing!

So, is evolution really “A well-tested concept that explains a wide range of observations,” among the same ranks with germ theory and gravity theory?

It depends what you mean by ‘evolution.’ Oftentimes, textbooks choose to define ‘evolution’ as merely “change in a species over time.”² However, this definition does not distinguish between the relatively minor types of variation observed in already existing features of an animal (for example, in the size of finch beaks or color of peppered moths) and the development of all living things, including humans, from a single-celled organism. The latter type of change (molecules-to-man evolution) is what is most-often meant by the word ‘evolution.’ However, this type of change, as admitted by leading evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, “hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”³

So, when science textbooks say that evolution is a testable scientific theory, they are using a ‘bait-and-switch’ tactic, by equating ‘change’ with ‘evolution,’ then giving examples of minor changes as supposed ‘proof’ that molecules-to-man evolution is true.

What about the many observations that evolution supposedly explains? The textbook lists several ‘examples,’ including similar patterns of design observed in different creatures, DNA similarities shared by a variety of organisms, and the fossil record.⁴

However, as we have pointed out in previous blog posts, many of these observations contradict evolution, and biblical creation can explain many of them just as well, often better, than the evolutionary model can. For example, similarity in design points to a Common Designer, similar DNA reflects the similar purposes for which it was programed, and the fossil record is best explained as a result of the Global Flood.

So, if evolution (in its plain sense) is neither testable nor does it exclusively explain features of the living world, what is evolution? According to evolution-defender Dr. Michael Ruse, “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”⁵

Free Resources for Further Learning:

Video: Evolution vs. God

Video: Evolution Refuted

Video: Is Natural Selection the Same Thing as Evolution?

Is Evolution an Observable Fact?

Evolution: Not Even a Theory

References:

¹Coolidge-Stoltz, Elizabeth. Focus on California Life Science. Boston, MA: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2008. 220. Print.

²Ibid, 228.

³NOW with Bill Moyers. Transcript. December 3, 2004. http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html#dawkins

⁴Coolidge-Stoltz, 234-240.

⁵Michael Ruse, “Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians,” National Post, May 13, 2000, p. B-3.

Is the amazing ‘code of life’ in each of our cells a result of random chance mistakes? According to your 10th grader’s biology textbook, yes!

According to 7th and 10th grade California textbooks, the human genome is a result of genetic mistakes.

“Where did the roughly 25,000 working genes in the human genome come from?,” the textbook Biology by Miller & Levine asks students. “Modern genes probably descended from a much smaller number of genes in the earliest life forms. But how could that have happened? One way in which new genes evolve is through the duplication, and then modification, of existing genes.”¹

The textbook then offers this illustration, “Think about using your computer to write an essay for English class. You then want to submit a new version of the essay to your school newspaper. So, you make an extra copy of the original file and edit it for the newspaper. Duplicate genes can work in similar ways. Sometimes extra copies undergo mutations that change their function. The original gene is still around, just like the original copy of your English essay. So, new genes can evolve without affecting the original gene function or product.”²

At this point, we need to stop reading and ask a few questions:

• Can this process explain where the original genes came from?
• Are any truly “new” genes actually being created?
• Can meaningful information, like what is coded for by genes, be created without an intelligent mind behind it?
• Can mutations really ‘re-program’ genes for new functions?
• Is it really reasonable to believe that the copy would be modified, but not the original?

The answer to all of these questions is a resounding “No!” First, this process begins with genes already in existence! It doesn’t explain the origin of the first genes. Second, the ultimate result of this process is copies of already-existing genes, not totally ‘new’ genes. Third, meaningful information always comes from an intelligent source, and has never been observed to come from matter, so the idea that totally new genes coding for entirely new structures came into existence by themselves is preposterous.³

Fourth, the truth about mutations, as stated in the textbook, is that, “Most of those mutations [that we inherit from our parents] are neutral [cause no significant change]. One or two are potentially harmful.” While only, “A few may be beneficial.”⁴ Yet, even those rare ‘beneficial’ mutations, like those which cause anti-biotic resistance in bacteria, are a result of the destruction or loss of already-existing information.⁵ Ultimately, mutations can only scramble, corrupt, and destroy genes that already exist; they cannot make the kinds of careful, purposeful changes like those made to an essay by an intelligent editor.

Lastly, if left to time and chance, mutations would most certainly corrupt the original genes in addition to the duplicates. Eventually, this would lead to ‘mutation meltdown,’ with the creature going extinct due to massive amounts of missing and broken information. The fact that genomes still exist at all is a testimony to a recent creation.⁶

So, is it really reasonable to believe that the thousands of genes used in the construction of a human being were created by chance mistakes? Absolutely not! Rather, the fact that information can only come from an intelligent source requires that our genome must have been the product of a thoughtful, brilliant Creator.

Free Resources for Further Learning:

The Language of DNA Video

Are Mutations Part of the “Engine” of Evolution?

Information: Evidence for a Creator?

Mutation Buildup Indicates Living Populations Are Young

References:

¹Miller, Kenneth R., and Joseph S. Levine. Miller & Levine Biology. Boston, MA: Pearson, 2006. 499. Print.

²Ibid, 500.

³Gitt, Werner W. In the Beginning Was Information: A Scientist Explains the Incredible Design in Nature.Green Forest, AR: Master, 2005. 106. Print.

⁴Miller & Levine, 484.

⁵Purdom, Georgia. “What about Beneficial Mutations?” The New Answers Book 4: Over 30 Questions on Creation/evolution and the Bible. By Ken Ham. Green Forest, AR: Master, 2013. 289-303. Print.

⁶Sanford, John C. Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome. Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications, 2008. Print.