You’ve made it clear that you think the Bible describes the scientific nature of the world around us. This is one of the most illogical statements I know of — one that you are completely entitled to hold if you so choose. One need only compare the good book and a science journal to see they’re concerned with very different things. But again, this is my opinion, and I will not endlessly argue it in circles if someone refuses to agree.

I would like to mention one thing. In holding your various positions, you are setting yourself in direct opposition to tens of thousands of scientists. Not only that, a sizeable subset of those, numbering again in the thousands, are Christian men and women who also have devoted their lives to studying the world around them — what they view as God’s world. I frankly find it insulting, that people with little background or understanding so vigorously call these people fools (whether directly by name or subtly by implication). As I’ll keep saying, you can believe whatever you wish. That does not make it scientific.

I blog because I wish to share my thoughts with others, and provide quick commentary on things going on in the world around me — both scientific and religious. You’re welcome to comment where you will (provided it does not become obnoxious — which is hasn’t). Just understand that I may not respond.

“All five transposable elements are identical, with 764 base pairs (bp) each. This comprises over eight
percent of the plasmid. How could random mutations produce three new catalytic/degradative genes
(coding for EI, EII and EIII) without at least some changes being made to the transposable elements?
Negoro speculated that the transposable elements must have been a ‘late addition’ to the plasmids to not
have changed. But there is no evidence for this, other than the circular reasoning that supposedly random
mutations generated the three enzymes and so they would have changed the transposase genes if they
had been in the plasmid all along. Furthermore, the adaptation to nylon digestion does not take very long,
so the addition of the transposable elements afterwards cannot be seriously entertained.”

“Japanese researchers demonstrated that nylon degrading ability can be obtained de novo in
laboratory cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa [strain] POA, which initially had no enzymes capable of
degrading nylon oligomers.9 This was achieved in a mere nine days! The rapidity of this adaptation
suggests a special mechanism for such adaptation, not something as haphazard as random mutations
and selection.”

The article is ‘The adaptation of bacteria to feeding on nylon waste’ by Don Batten, PhD in Agronomy and Horticultural Scienc

if my little points can’t be plainly answered in a few words, then it is a bad sign.

Ray, lots of things “can’t be plainly answered in a few words.” Why do you think every intro to biology textbook is 1,000 pages long? Further, many scientific theories are explainable only in terms of high level mathematics. This is particularly true in the field of Physics. Very few people can even discuss some of those theories, due the level of math involved. Just because something isn’t simple, doesn’t mean it’s not true. As Einstein famously quipped, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

Also, my desire to point you to information rather than explaining it myself is not because I can’t explain it, but rather because my days are long with thesis work, and I feel no need to pour effort into a response when good materials exist elsewhere.

Your statement that “information” cannot be created is incorrect too. Though there are other ways (again, I won’t elaborate), the most common is gene duplication via unequal crossover on homologous chromosomes during meiosis. Once duplicated, mutations are free to modify a gene while other copies still provide the original function of the gene. For example, I believe there are some 50 copies of genes that code for histone proteins in the human body due to duplication. (That’s off the top of my head, I hope I haven’t mangled that fact).

Also, mutations can be beneficial. My favorite example of all is bacteria evolving the capacity to metabolize nylon. This amazing accomplishment is all the more remarkable since nylon did not exist prior to the 1930s. The mechanism involved was a frameshift mutation, resulting in a new function. A clear cut case of an organism gaining function via mutation.

And besides all of that, how does the lack of DNA’s ability to produce new info automatically lend support to intelligence? The Bible documents natural phenomenon, I agree, but where do the biblical writers record God as producing new genetic info? Now that is a pretty synical question for myself to ask since I have been a christian since a little girl and am even a pastor’s kid. Several times in the creation story it talks about the ‘land producing’ vegetation, living creatures, ‘according to their kind’. The ‘land producing..’ is interesting wording, why didn’t the author just say, “God made…” or “God created”? The “Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground” and to dust he will return. From the dust is also interesting, perhaps formed out of pre-existing material, not new info. Breathing life into man could be referring to the soul alone, which is what most christians argue as being the most definitive thing that distincts man from beast. And if God created them all the same, why did He need to breath life into some (humans) and not others, why does the biblical account say ‘the land produced’?

There are just as many, if not more, biblical gaps in our understanding as there are scientific. The problem I have with people who try to argue from a biblical perspective, especially trying to argue science, is that they tend to pick out scripture that is convenient to them, string it all together, in hopes of making a strong case. IMO, you cannot do that, Ray, you can’t pull scripture out of context from different books of the Bible, written by different authors, in different contexts, and make a claim about the mechanisms of life processes. Shoot, not just life processes, you can’t do that for a lot of the crap fanatical christians try to pull, like issues in gender equality and the like. You talked about the information in the Bible being about revelation, well the revelations of the Bible, IMO, have nothing to do about life processes and mechanisms, but rather our relationship with God and the relationship we are to have with the rest of the life around us (humans and the environment alike). If that were the case, that the revelations in the Bible were about God’s making of the earth and sustaining nature of ecological balance, I think God, in His infinite wisdom, would have made sure that the biblical writers used a little more clarity and be detailed-minded when writing about the science of it all. And maybe they would have spent more time talking about how cool insects are

When I say God is my Maker, I am referring to Him being the Author of my life. He has made my life what it is, He formed me in the womb, but not in a myotic/embyronic developmental sense. He formed my soul, He breathed life into my personality. Without the relationship I have with God, I would not be who I am. Anyway, if you are going to argue science from a biblical perspective, take it one passage at a time, within context, instead of trying to group passages collectively together to make a case.

If you’re interested though, here’s a brief overview of the evolutionary implications of bird flu, another on the evolutionary implications of fighting disease in general, and a lengthy overview of evolution itself, which I would highly recommend to anyone interested in learning the basics of the science.