On the 4th of November, I posted the following in reply to a post on Disqus. See if you think I made some good points against blind acceptance of evolution.
You must admit that there are some things that are real that science can never fully help us understand. For example, returning to my sugar analogy. Science can never help us to know what sugar tastes like, yet the taste is as real as we are. Science can do a lot with sugar: it could help us produce it, it can explain why we taste sugar, it can explain how sugar functions in the body. But again, it can never show us what sugar tastes like. It must be experienced to realize the truth of it.
Regarding the DNA issue, I suppose my wording and my not using the proper scientific terminology made it less clear.
My basic point is that the genetic code was present in the earliest organisms. If life came into existence unaided by some sort of intentional plan, would we really expect these most primitive organisms to contain a coding system that could be used to eventually create humans billions of years later? Is this a reasonable belief? I don't think it is. I believe that earlier organisms would have had some primitive system of coding that would have had to change over time before more complex creatures could be produced. The DNA coding system that existed in the earliest organisms had all that was necessary to be capable of producing humans if only the correct sequence were put together. To me that suggests a framework for life that was put in place from the beginning.
Based on unaided evolution, we must then assume that random forces somehow not only produced a form of life, but produced perhaps the only form of life that contained this DNA coding system that could change and mutate sufficiently to produce humans. I just don't buy it. Scientist haven't proven this to be the case, but only make guesses and assumptions based on their current understanding of things.
I don't buy the concept of an unintelligent process somehow yielding a result so superior to itself, the most complex and intelligent being on the planet. Is this concept reasonable? We have no precedent for it. Perhaps man's most advanced creations are computers or fighter aircraft, maybe nuclear power plants. None comes close to the complexity of human beings. Yet each of these creations took much knowledge and intelligence to create, as well as intentional efforts. Other than man's theories, what precedent do we have for a process creating something so significant, so complex, so impossible?
I believe in science and find the workings of the universe fascinating. But when we try to use science to dispute something that is beyond the realm of science, then I have a problem with that. Rather than using science to somehow feebly disprove the existence of a creator, I believe we should look for evidence that there is a creator. I think we should use our knowledge that we gain from science to better understand our creator. His knowledge is greater than our own, as evidenced by the vast complexity of life and our earth. Maybe we could learn something from him.
- Posted on disqus on 4 Nov 2014
I mentioned above, the scenario regarding the taste of sugar. We could extend this some more. For example, science also can't help a person to know what the color blue looks like if they had never seen it. Now with these two sensory experiences, the taste of sugar and the color blue, we can see another issue. We must experience the particular item through the proper medium. In other words, you can't see or hear what sugar tastes like, but you must taste what sugar tastes like. And with the color, you can't taste or hear what blue is like, but you must see what the color blue looks like.
In terms of a creator, who created us, we must experience a connection with him through the proper medium. Perhaps this explains why science can't give much insight to the existence of God. It has the means to detect many things through various media, but what medium can scientists use to examine God? For those who believe, the medium seems to be through the "heart" or emotions and feelings. But this medium also seems to include events that an individual senses are acts of God on his or her behalf, for his or her benefit. Obviously, this is a very simplified, non-scientific description of the medium through which one might come to know God. We would also have to somehow include the Holy Spirit in this medium. The medium likely is quite complex, thus eluding scientists and their "all-knowing" instruments.
Another question that evolution scientists have not yet answered is whether natural selection can really cause changes from one species to the next. Experiments have proven that various conditions can indeed cause a particular species to change in various ways, such a color changes or changes in size of bird beaks. But this is only a small revelation that in no way proves that these incremental changes could actually lead to a whole new species with a different genome than the previous species.
One experiment has been going on for over twenty years using e. coli bacteria. Because of the rate of multiplication of the bacteria, these twenty years are equivalent to many thousands of years of evolutionary activity. In the study, researchers have observed changes in the bacteria that in fact seem to be effects of natural selection. However, with all the changes, they still only have e. coli bacteria.
I would argue that natural selection can only go so far, strengthening a species to the maximum that is possible within the species for the present conditions. Within the species, natural selection will lead to a peak in survivability for the prevalent conditions where the species exists. Beyond that, it is likely natural selection can't do much; there will never be a new species evolved from the e. coli bacteria in the study.
There are still more questions to be answered about evolution. I challenge biologists, and other evolution science practitioners to test this hypothesis. We need an answer.
