A different perspective
As you probably know I have a degree in veterinary science. I enjoy reading and writing veterinary articles, many of which you can seen here. Vets are required to keep up to date with Continued Professional Development across three different categories in order to keep our registration current.
Recently I was updating an article I’d written on antibiotic resistance and came across the following in a National geographic article by Ed Yong:
“The British chemist Lesley Orgel had a rule: Evolution is cleverer than you. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria have repeatedly proven him right. Since humans started making antibiotics for ourselves in the 1940s, bacteria have evolved to counteract our efforts. They are now winning. There are strains of old foes that withstand everything we can throw at them. Meanwhile, our arsenal has dried up. Before 1962, scientists developed more than 20 new classes of antibiotics. Since then, they have made two.”
Immediately my hackles rose. First they had assigned intelligence to evolution, and second used a bait and switch deception. Sadly we are bombarded with evolutionary propaganda like this to the point where many no longer notice.
So do antibiotic resistant bacteria prove evolution? No, they prove natural selection or survival of the fittest. Arrival of the fittest is a different story. We don’t see microbes becoming microbiologists. As any breeder can tell you, natural selection is a potent culling force of genetic information, it can only shuffle or delete existing genes, not create new ones.
Neo Darwinian evolutionary theory claims mutations acted upon by natural selection incrementally generated new genetic information resulting in microbes becoming men over millions of years. In our lifetimes we can only see small variations in gene expression, but it’s still not hard to see that the direction of change is in the opposite direction to what it should be if molecules to man evolution had really happened. Time and again we see loss of genetic information or devolution. A net gain in useful genetic information, countless examples of which would be needed for evolution to be possible, doesn’t happen. Mutations are good at breaking things, not at making functional new things. Getting back to our “superbugs” the antibiotic resistant bacterial population has lost genetic information carried by the susceptible ones. They’ve become more specialised, their population less diverse and are ultimately closer to extinction with fewer of their original genes to select from as selection pressures change.
I’ve focused on genetics because it’s a subject I understand, but if evolutionary theory falls down here, what about other fields and is there a better explanation of how we came to be? Is evolution the greatest show or the greatest hoax on earth? I hold that the Bible provides a true account of how the universe and life came into existence, created directly by God, and that the evidence from design, the fossil record, information theory etc. is what one would expect if this is so. Operational science can repeat experiments to prove a point, eg water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level. Forensic science looks at historical events (the origin of the universe and life) and assigns a probable cause. It’s like a trial where both sides build their case based on evidence and eye witness accounts. The jury (us) then has to decide who gave the correct explanation.
These days, there is a wealth of information supporting the Bible’s account of creation (see below). It is a perspective that we’re seldom exposed to in our secular society. Psalm 19 says “The heavens declare the Glory of God” and Romans 1 tells us “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.”
All the links given are to creation.com which is a fully searchable site containing thousands of articles. I've been a subscriber to their magazine for over 10 years, so can confidently endorse them.