If you want to argue for Darwin’s god, the worst place to begin is …
|May 5, 2011||Posted by O'Leary under 'Junk DNA'|
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.