I am at the Creation College 3, taking place at Lakeside Park Christian Church just south of Cincinnati. I missed last night’s and this morning’s sessions due to a funeral of one of our dear seasoned saints. This is a general session.
Dr. David Menton (Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University and Professor of the Year at Brown University twice) leads us in a session, “Does Darwin Make Sense Without Darwin?” He begins by answering the question in the title: “Yes!” He then jokingly (!) said that he would spend the next 59 minutes promoting resources.
The Evolutionary Paradigm: “Our present knowledge indeed forces us to view that the whole of reality is evolution—a single process of self transformation” (Julian Huxley, What is Science, 1955, p. 278). Once we buy into this argument, the extent of their argument is two words—“How else?”
Consider what is known as Dobzhansky’s Dictum: “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1900-1975, leading 20th century evolutionist). To deny this, Menton contends, would exclude many from the realm of science. Yet, Menton as a creationist with all his significant accolades (see above) proved this incorrect.
Menton acquainted us with a quote by Adam Wilkins, who gave both acknowledgment to the work of natural selection, but . . . .
“While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’. . . Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea, and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one” (Adam S. Wilkins, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes,” BioEssays 22 no. 12 (2000): 1051.
Yet consider Marc Kirschner’s understanding:
“In fact, over the last 100 years years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all” (Marc Kirschner, Boston Globe, October 23, 2005).
Paul Davies, never one to be at a loss for conviction, brings to light what many consider the paramount issue in regards to evolution and natural selection:
“How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software, and where did the very peculiar for of information needed to get the first living cell up and running come from? Nobody knows” (P. Davies, New Scientist, vol. 163:2204 (1999), p. 27-30).
Do mutations of this nature truly evolve into higher life forms? James Crow of the University of Wisconsin says, “No!”
“The typical mutation is very mild. It usually has no effect, but shows us as a small decrease in viability or fertility.” (James Crow, Chairman of Genetics, University of Wisconsin Medical School, 1997).
Motoo Kimura, Ph.D., Evolutionary Geneticists. In his graph on Kimura’s Distribution regarding mutation effect, there are no positive mutations which are beneficial, yet numerous which are neutral (read: lethal). The more frequent, the more lethal.
Bird Feathers: Feathers from Scales?
Those who hold to natural selection say that birds evolved from reptiles and that the feathers evolved into scales. Alfred Romer contends, “Although these structures seem quite different from the horny scales a reptiles’ body, the difference is in reality not very great” (Alfred Romer). Menton gave conclusive proof that there is a marked difference.
Scales are folds in the skin—one scale is attached to the next scale. Feathers grow up individually in follicles, which are tubes in the skin. Evolutionists ignore the similarity between feathers and a hair follicle!
I only gave a small portion of this lecture. But as “superfluous” as this theory remains, one must see the design of the Creator of Genesis 1:1 all over all we see. To deny otherwise is to build a religion built upon the faith of Dobzhansky’s Dictum (see above). No thank you!