ENCODE Eviscerates Evolution

The Grand Theory of Evolution essentially tells us that with no divine intervention, all biological creatures came from a rock while developing through small, successive modifications to mature into the tree of life that is seen today.

While popular and convenient, the grand theory of evolution has been facing very serious scientific challenges. One of the most recent of these challenges comes from the ENCODE project, which analyzed the human genome. Their findings undermined the predictions and expectations of evolution. Although the project itself is very technical, some clever people at EvolutionNews.org, have written four of a six part analysis of the project.

Here are some highlights from each of the blog entries:

  • Post One – “If the human genome is indeed devoid of junk DNA as implied by the ENCODE project, then a long, undirected evolutionary process cannot explain the human genome. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, then all DNA, or as much as possible, is expected to exhibit function. If ENCODE is right, then Evolution is wrong.”
  • Post Two – “Despite their bluster, critics have been unable to disprove what a leading ENCODE researcher stated in 2014: “There is not a single place in the genome that doesn’t have something that you might think could be controlling something else.”If we’re willing to follow ENCODE’s experimental evidence where it leads, unhindered by evolutionary assumptions, evidence of important genomic function is everywhere.”
  • Post Three – “Critics like Dan Graur charge that ENCODE is guilty of “divorcing genomic analysis from its evolutionary context” -and that’s exactly right. ENCODE’s empirically based finding that the vast majority of our genome is functional has withstood theoretical, evolution-based objections from critics. Maybe a divorce from evolutionary thinking is exactly what we need to liberate biology from bad evolutionary assumptions and explain what’s happening inside our cells.”
  • Post Four – “However, what I’ve shown above only scratches the surface of a huge body of literature. Again and again, evolutionary biologists have predicted that our genome is primarily useless junk. Occasional caveats from evolutionary scientists, allowing that some small amount of the “junk” might be functional, do not mitigate the widespread, longstanding view that our cells are full of junk DNA. We now know that, on this point, evolutionists were wrong. The “junk DNA” paradigm has conclusively faltered.”

Evolution has been masquerading as science for decades. It has become common to expel people from the discussion if they fail to worship at the altar of Saint Darwin, but with the latest findings, the charade is proving to be empty bluster.

Evolution is diametrically opposed to the Christian worldview, and is now being challenged on scientific grounds.

If we stand on the unmovable foundation of God’s Word, then there is a basis for Absolute Truth by which we can do science. Trusting what God has told us about our past gives us faith to trust Him with our future as well.

That’s fine for you, but

Moral relativism. The idea that everyone determines their own standards of morality. Is it cogent or absurd?

  • Relativists Can’t Accuse Others of Wrong-Doing
  • Relativists Can’t Complain About the Problem of Evil
  • Relativists Can’t Place Blame or Accept Praise
  • Relativists Can’t Claim Anything Is Unfair or Unjust
  • Relativists Can’t Improve Their Morality
  • Relativists Can’t Hold Meaningful Moral Discussions
  • Relativists Can’t Promote the Obligation of Tolerance

Why or why not could a moral relativist be able to handle the above scenarios?

When viewing reality through a Christian worldview, these things make sense. We can make comparisons and analyze the just nature of actions. The problem of evil makes sense, and since Jesus paid the penalty for our evil behavior, there is forgiveness and life.