For the Wisdom of This World is Foolishness with God

November 24, 2009 marks the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's claim to fame, The Origin of Species, which is considered to be the distinguished scientific foundation of the study of evolutionary biology. However, as shown in the following statement from Peter Ungar, Professor of Anthropology, University of Arkansas, Darwin's views have been cleverly woven into other areas of study not relevant to biology: Darwin's ideas remain today fundamental guiding principles for research in many of the disciplines represented in the Fulbright College of Arts and Sciences. But the name "Darwin" strikes fear in the hearts of many of our students, especially those not exposed to evolutionary theory before they arrive in our hallowed classrooms. Darwin's ideas are really not scary - they are simple, obvious, and elegant.

The foregoing quote illustrates just how insidiously the unproven theory of evolution has pervaded the halls of academia in fields obviously unrelated to biology. This theory is also deceitfully proclaimed as being based on ideas that are "really not scary" but rather are "simple, obvious, and elegant." The only sense in which Darwin's ideas can be considered simple and/or obvious is that he concocted a theory which simply removes any intelligent design or divine presence associated with the natural world, and obviously confirms worldly wisdom which is of course foolishness with God. Among the meanings of the word elegant are stylish and fashionable, which also characterize worldly wisdom in opposition to God.

The name of Darwin and his authorship of the theory of evolution should give pause to all those who believe and understand that our Heavenly Father has created the heavens and the earth and sustains man and all other forms of life. God has pronounced His assessment of those who would deny this marvelous truth and profess such an irrational and blasphemous alternative: The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God (Psalm 14:1).

In any serious consideration of the theory of evolution one will encounter a plethora of vague words such as "perhaps," "if," "maybe," "likely," "may," "hint," etc. A cardinal principle of evolution is that change between generations occurs in frequencies through which hereditary characteristics appear in a population. Evolutionary theory postulates that with enough change over enough generations, new species come into being. "If," for example, the proportion of a population with "dimples" (or some other trait) changes over time, an evolutionary process is assumed to have occurred. Yet, such frequencies can change between generations for a variety of reasons. "Perhaps" a population building block results in a disproportionate number of people in the next generation having dimples, or "maybe" other factors are involved such as a multitude of individuals without dimples moving in or out of the population.

A couple of reasonable questions arise when analyzing the foregoing example of "if," when the percentage of people within a population with dimples changes sufficiently over time: (1) Does a change in the incidence of dimples within a population result in a new species of man, those with dimples or those without dimples, and why might the presence or absence of dimples in man imply an evolutionary process? (2) Furthermore, would a larger pro-portion of people within a population with dimples indicate that group to be more advanced and therefore superior to those not having dimples? Is this natural selection and survival of the fittest? Such reasoning would constitute pure hypothesis and foolish supposition (the wisdom of this world).

The fanatical proponents of evolution believe that nothing in biology makes sense except in the illumination of evolution. Such adherents proclaim that evolution happens and that it is fact. They do not either comprehend or appreciate that their understanding of the origin of life and of man's existence (based upon the theory of evolution) is totally at variance with what Yahweh has declared: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imagination, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools (Romans 1:20-22).

Such have turned their backs on God and have closed their minds to His instruction as described in Job 21:14-15: Therefore they say unto God, Depart from us; for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways. What is the Almighty, that we should serve him? And what profit should we have, if we pray unto him?

Thoughtful reflection on the theory of evolution in contrast to the creation as presented in the scriptures reveals that the two explanations of existence are totally incompatible. Belief in evolution and the development of man from single cell organisms requires a truly blind faith in that the assumed process is both unobserved and not subject to replication. Evolutionists may be compared to those men in Athens to whom the apostle Paul revealed: God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring (Acts 17:24-28).

Robert Miller, Sherwood, AR

Is "Junk DNA" Really "Junk?"

Contrary to their claims [a reference to evolutionists Shermer, Miller and Kitcher], recent scientific discoveries have shown that the nonprotein-coding regions of the genome [allegedly 'junk DNA'] direct the production of RNA molecules that regulate the use of the protein-coding regions of DNA. Cell and genome biologists have discovered that these supposedly "useless" nonprotein-coding regions of the genome: (1) regulate DNA replication, (2) regulation transcription, (3) mark sites for programmed rear-rangements of genetic material, (4) influence the proper folding and maintenance of chromosomes, (5) control the interactions of chromosomes with the nuclear membrane (and matrix), (6) control RNA processing, editing, and splicing, (7) modulate translation, (8) regulate embryological development, (9) repair DNA, and (10) aid in immunodefense or fighting disease among other functions. Overall, the nonprotein-coding regions of the genome function much like an operating system in a computer that can direct multiple operations simultaneously...far from being "junk" as materialistic theories of evolution assumed...

Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in The Cell, p. 407