Home » 'Junk DNA' » If you want to argue for Darwin’s god, the worst place to begin is …

If you want to argue for Darwin’s god, the worst place to begin is …

So junk DNA turns out to be “junque” DNA? You know the scenario – it was junk to the guy cleaning out his attic, but the dealer he sold it to for $3.00 got $10K from a collector. And all legal too. A perfect snapshot of the theistic evolutionist.

Over at ENV, Casey Luskin reflects on how Francis Collin’s slam dunk arguement for Darwinism (junk DNA) is “pushed Into Increasingly Small Gaps in Scientific Knowledge” (May 2, 2011), observing:

Such arguments are dangerous for those who make them, because they are based upon our lack of knowledge of these types of DNA. They amount to “evolution of the gaps” reasoning–because as we learn more and more about biology, we’re discovering more and more evidence of function for so-called “junk” DNA. The argument that much DNA is functionless junk, and thereby evidence for evolution, is relegated to gaps in our knowledge–gaps which are increasingly shrinking over time as science progresses.[ ... ]

In 2002, evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg surveyed the literature and found extensive evidence for function … Sternberg’s article concluded that “the selfish DNA narrative and allied frameworks must join the other ‘icons’ of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory that, despite their variance with empirical evidence, nevertheless persist in the literature.”

Collins seems to sort of recognize this now.

The skinny: If you want to argue for Darwin’s god, the worst place to begin is the assumption that just anything that looks messy or useless to you is a big mistake or the result of random error. The new atheists who assume that there is no God have persistently made more sense than the Christian Darwinists.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

2 Responses to If you want to argue for Darwin’s god, the worst place to begin is …

  1. I’ve never been too concerned about the “junk DNA” argument anyways.

    Think of a computer. Think of less hard disk space, less RAM, less cache, smaller BIOS, a smaller instruction set, a cpu that can only move around 8 bits at a time, smaller bus widths.

    To me a larger genome indicates more potential. More room for variability. Greater chance of increased INFORMATION.

    To me, the claim that there are “leftovers” or “vestigial segments” in DNA is absurd in the sense that then the claimant is left needing to explain how the original functionality came about and why it was lost.

    Supposedly Darwinism had to build it up in the first place.

    Darwinism explains how functionality can be built up but then lost, but ID doesn’t?

    Score one for ID, IMO.

    A theory that can explain everything isn’t all that to be envied, as those critics who equate ID with “goddidit” never hesitate to remind us.

  2. Can we stop kicking Darwin’s dog?

Leave a Reply