Friday, October 30, 2009

Biophysicist Cornelius G. Hunter writes:

There is yet another reason that the universality of the genetic code is not strong evidence for evolution. Simply put, the theory of evolution does not predict the genetic code to be universal (it does not, for that matter, predict the genetic code at all). In fact, leading evolutionists such as Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel are surprised that there aren’t multiple codes in nature.
Consider how evolutionists would react if there were in fact multiple codes in nature. What if plants, animals, and bacteria all had different codes? Such a finding would not falsify evolution; rather, it would be incorporated into the theory. For if the code is arbitrary, why should there be just one? The blind process of evolution would explain why there are multiple codes. In fact, in 1979 certain minor variations in the code were found, and evolutionists believe, not surprisingly, that the variations were caused by the continuing evolution of the universal genetic code. Of course, it would not be a problem for such an explanation to be extended if it were the case that there were multiple codes. There is nothing wrong with a theory that is comfortable with different outcomes, but there is something wrong when one of those outcomes is then claimed as supporting evidence. If a theory can predict both A and not-A, then neither A nor not-A can be used as evidence for the theory. When it comes to the genetic code, evolution can accommodate a range of findings, but it cannot then use one of those findings as supporting evidence. (Hunter, 38.)

3 comments:

Tristan Vick said...

You do a lot of cut and paste of things which you feel support your points, and that's fine and all, but I'm more curious in what you think personally and how you incorporate these "sound bites" into your greater belief system.

Call me inquisitive, but I'd like to hear more about your personal thoughts and experiences, incorporating the support you've found. That would be more engaging, but maybe that's not your target audience? I don't know. Just a thought.

Froggie said...

C.G. Hunter, a fellow at the Discovery Institute and an adjunct professor at Biola, whose motto is "Above All Give Glory to God."

This is just another failed scientist who could not keep up to the rigors of valid science and takes a job a Biola.

He has a vested interest in twisting and obfuscating valid science, as seen by the motto.

His whole argument about DNA is packed with bias. The fact is that Darwin did predict a mechanism that stored information and that mechanism is DNA.

Hunter's views have been soundly dismantled by valisd scientists.

Here's just one for starters.
http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=612

But, most importantly, to me, is what do you find so repulsive or unobjectionable to evolution?

Although science supports the veracity of evolution (and basically the Disco Institute does too- in a manner,) science does not speak to the existence of God.
I sure can't say with any certainty that God did not start all this moving in the beginning, but what I can say is when I study the fossil record, DNA, and the geologic column, some supernatural power went to extreme measures to plant scientific evidence that the earth/ universe is very old and that evolution happened, so much so that 99% of the hundreds of thousands of earth scientists are completely fooled.

Curious, that.

Makarios said...

"You do a lot of cut and paste of things which you feel support your points"

I didn't used to. I ran across a mit full of quotes and thought I'd use them in this manner. I will probably quit in a couple weeks. Just a phase.
==============
"what do you find so repulsive or unobjectionable to evolution?"

I don't think either of those words are accuate. "Where's the beef?" would be closer.