Skip to main content
Loading Explore guides…
Genetic Death & Evolution Critique · Acedra
Home
Explore
Biology
Genetic Death & Evolution Critique
Sign in to save
Chat
If YouTube asks you to sign in, open the video on YouTube.
Watch on YouTube
Reload player
Transcript
80 segments
Copy
Hide video
0:00
- We as the human species are heading for genetic death. - Mutations are not creating us, they're destroying us. Time is the enemy of evolution, it doesn't save the problem. - So the answer is it's going the wrong way. - It's going the wrong way. The only way you get information specified complexity is from intelligence, the only intelligence that's possible is God.
0:22
- Don, you've had a full-time career as an experimental biologist. Natural selection is taught in high school as evolution. You say this is incorrect. Can you tell me why?
0:35
- Yeah, it's true. Many textbooks just teach evolution is natural selection or natural selection is evolution, but even some prominent evolutionary biologists actually say this is wrong. And Dr. John Endler, he's famous for the research on guppies and their adaptations, and I'll read what he says to make sure I get it exactly right. He says, "Natural selection must not be equated with evolution, though the two are intimately related." And he goes on to say, "Natural selection
1:08
does not explain the origin of new variants, only the process of changes in their frequency." So evolution has to explain the origin of brand new features, such as feathers where there weren't before, muscles where there weren't before, and that sort of thing. And natural section does not create anything, so to say natural section is the same as evolution is quite misleading. - But we're told a lot that this is natural selection, this is what natural selection's done
1:35
and it is an evidence for evolution. So what's happening there? - Well, there are lots of examples of natural selection but none of them create any new features. Natural selection can favor a creature which has features which help to reproduce and produce more offspring, and then its features are then passed on to more offspring and they propagate through the population, and this is what natural selection does, but it doesn't explain the origin of the features.
2:03
The only thing that explains that is mutation, so they're actually leaving this out. Mutation is the only game in town. So what are mutations? They're accidental mistakes in copying the information from one generation to the next, mistakes in the genes, the genetic information. And that's the only mechanism they have to create new features, and I think the reason they don't talk about it much, almost nothing in many of the textbooks, is that they recognize that students will see
2:35
that mutations aren't up to the job. So they just downplay mutations and talk about natural selection. - So natural selection is a real process, it does things but it doesn't produce the type of change needed for evolution. - That's correct. - And you're saying it's mutations that is the thing that's relied on to make evolution happening. - That's the modern evolutionary theory, it's called Neo-Darwinism or the modern synthesis. And this has been since the 1920s
3:04
and it's still the theory of evolution, but the way it's taught today, they've virtually dropped mutations they just talk about natural selection. - So why can't mutations do it? Why can't mutations produce the type of change that we need for evolution? - Yeah, mutations are random changes. So basically you've got these specifications in the DNA that say how to make incredible things like motors and linear motors and rotary motors, and all sorts of amazing contraptions are specified in the DNA.
3:34
And so these instructions, it's like a massive computer program and the mutations are accidental changes in that information. So can you imagine throwing some accidental changes into a computer program and expect it to actually become a more complex computer program? That's what the problem with mutations is and that's why they're being downplayed, because if you go back many years ago when mutations were discovered, they said, "Oh, this is the mechanism for evolution to find new information."
4:06
And then they embarked on this massive program of a mutation breeding of fruit flies, so they zapped fruit flies with irradiation like gamma rays to make them mutate, thinking they're making 'em into super flies. And it never happened, they just created defective flies. And then they've done it with crops and things, and mutation breeding of crops and all you get is defective things. Sometimes defective things can be useful, like for example a dwarf wheat
4:32
can be better than a tall wheat 'cause it doesn't fall over, but you've still broken something to do that. So they've never found a mutation which actually adds a new gene or adds new information to make evolution believable. So all this has gone cold, the whole idea of zapping things with gamma rays and making them mutate and making 'em into super bugs and things. They recognized it doesn't work, so now they're teaching evolution as if mutations are really, "Well, mutations happen
5:03
but, you know, it's all about natural selection." That's what they're doing, and why do they do that? Because I think that most students would recognize that mutations just don't cut it to explain the information. - But what about, Don, with mutations, I know there can be deletions within the DNA but then I've heard people say, "Well, there's also insertions." So there you, go you've got some new information, you've got an insertion in the DNA, you've got more letters of DNA
5:29
therefore there's more information.
5:31
Could that not work? Could that not help evolution? - Well you can get letters inserted but it's like our computer program. Insert a letter, is that gonna make the computer program into something better? No, it actually wrecks it. And that's what you find these things do, insertions, deletions, none of them create a new gene. See, humans, for example, have over 130 different gene families and gene families are entirely different structured genes. So you can't take a gene from this gene family
6:02
and make a few little changes to it and make it into an entirely different gene. They are so different that you've gotta have massive change, and so just inserting a letter here or inserting a letter there, deleting a letter here, just doesn't do it. So, it just doesn't work. - Hmm, got you. So you can insert more information but it's not the type of information that's needed- - Well, the information, this is a misused concept because you can illustrate this way.
6:28
So there's stuff called Shannon information, so many years ago this guy by the name of Shannon did a lot of stuff on trying to work out how many bits it would take to transmit a bit of a string of data, you know. So basically, if you're gonna send it over a wire or transmit it or store it, how many bits would it take? And so he worked out, and very cleverly worked out, given something how many bits would be the minimum you could actually send this or store it or whatever.
6:56
So it's called Shannon information, but it's got nothing to do with the information content in a book or a piece of writing, or something like that, because if you think about it, take, so, for example: "She has an automobile." "She has an automobile." Right. - That sentence. - Sentence, 21 letters. - Okay. - Take another sentence: "Sue has a red Porsche." Same number of letters. - More information. - Same information, so Shannon's concerned. - Oh I see. - But "Sue has a red Porsche"
7:33
tells you the name of the person, the color of it and the type of vehicle, which was missing in the first sentence which was "She has an automobile." Or "She has an automobile." So the first sentence has less information than the second sentence, but it has the same Shannon information. - And you're saying the same applies to the DNA. - The same applies to DNA. So it's not good just adding a letter or throwing in, that's more Shannon information but it's not more specifications
8:01
that actually specify how to make a new machine or a new biochemical pathway, or a new enzyme or something, it just doesn't cut it. - Yeah, that's a great example. - So mutations randomize the information.
8:15
So in that sense they increase Shannon information but they destroy the information because they're upsetting these precise instructions for how to make the machines and things inside living cells. - Is there a name just so it's useful when we're talking about it, we've got Shannon information is this one type of information, and then is useful information useful? - Yeah, it's actually what we call useful information, we call it specified complexity.
8:37
- Specified complexity. - That's a technical term. - Okay. - But you specify something complex that functions, has a function, it has, you know... - So what evolution needs to do is find specified information? - That's right. - And there's no mechanism for that. - Yeah, how to make a new enzyme, how to make a new pathway, how to make a new protein, how to make muscles where they weren't there before, how to make an eye. You know, all these things, that has to be explained.
9:05
- Yeah, okay. So I wanna get onto some of this and I wanna ask you a question about superbugs 'cause you mentioned that but, first of all, can I just ask, you mentioned also the modern synthesis, just so that's clear. Does that mean, so Darwin, we all heard of Darwin, Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1859, but the modern synthesis came later and was that the thing that added mutations- - Yes. - ... to natural selection. - Yeah. - So Darwin said natural selection. - Darwin's just
9:26
natural selection. - Right. - So these modernists are coming back, just going back to Darwin like there's nothing happened in the last, you know, since Darwin. - Yes. - And they go back to Darwin, it's just, natural selection is evolution, that's what Darwin said. - Yes. - But they realized in the early 1900s that that didn't cut it, because you needed some source of new information, new genes. - Hence mutations, but we're saying that doesn't even cut it.
9:50
- Yeah, they now know that that doesn't cut it. - I know, I've even seen admissions from many secular biologists saying that, especially, I think it was 10 years ago they had a meeting and they said, "Look, this isn't working. The modern synthesis isn't working, we need something new." - That's correct. - Okay, Don, so superbugs, we talked about them, now isn't that an example of increased information? They're superbugs, they're better than the bugs before.
10:17
And we see 'em in hospitals, they cause havoc. Like, what's happening there- - Well this this is exactly the way they confuse these things because the so-called superbugs, what's happened, so for example, a typical example is
10:29
the antibiotics taken up through a channel in the cell membrane or cell wall of the bacterium, and that channel specified on the DNA; it's very complex, and that channel normally takes up food but it happens to take up the antibiotic as well. So that's how it gets into the cell. So then it kills the cell and it dies, and it loses that information but if there's one with a mutation which actually modifies the channel a bit so that it's not as effective at taking up its food,
10:58
it also doesn't take up the antibiotic, so it's resistant to the antibiotic. - But that doesn't sound good, if it can't take food in. - No, it can't take food up as well either 'cause it's modified the channel, and it can't take up the antibiotic but it can't take up its food as well, but it's resistant to the antibiotic. So then that multiplies as natural- Well, it's artificial selection in a sense so it's natural selection happening that the ones with the resistance multiply in the hospital
11:23
where you've got the antibiotic being used, and they multiply up, this is natural selection. So you're eliminating the ones that don't have the mutation, right, but you're not adding a new gene you're just modifying an existing one and actually making it detrimental to the survival of the bacteria when it's away from the antibiotic. - Yeah. - So you go out of the hospital into the outside world where the antibiotic's not being used- - It's gotta compete with the other bugs.
11:48
- It's gotta compete with the normal bugs that don't have the mutation. - And they can eat better. - And they can eat better, and they survive better. Natural selection works in the opposite direction and favors the one that's not mutated. So, you know, this is breaking something. In every case, dozen and dozens of examples of antibody resistance being studied at a molecular level, and in every case you break something,
12:10
you're not adding something. Now there's other cases where you can borrow the information from another bacteria that already has it, but that doesn't explain the origin of it, so... - Oh, is this when some of these singular cellular organisms can transfer DNA? I forgot what it's called - Yeah, there's little loops of DNA called plasmids, and they form a little tube between them, called conjugation. - Yes. - And they can
12:36
pass these loops between one another, and so they can share their antibiotic resistance when it's on that loop. - Yeah, I guess they're sharing their created DNA, we would argue. - That's right, yeah. - So, it's not really a, it's not a case of some new information coming from. - So if anything should mutate and evolve it should be bacteria, because there's so many of them and they've got a short generation time and they can sustain a high mutation rate. So these three things are supposed to be
13:08
the stuff of evolution, so if you're gonna see anything mutate, anything evolve, it should be bacteria, and you don't see them become something else. I mean, there's bacteria identified in the 1800s, 1850s and so on, they've been named then, and as far as we can tell they're just the same today. - Wow. - Well, slight differences but they're recognizably the same species, you know, so and you think, that's how many generations and so on that there should have been some evolution,
13:34
they should have changed into something else by then but they don't because the mechanism is not there to do it. - Yeah, I always think that would be the nail in the coffin if they really wanted to show us that evolution was true, well, give us an example.
13:47
It makes me think of the long term evolution experiment. - Oh, yeah- - Are you familiar with that one? - Lenski, yeah. Yeah, in the United States. So he's been through like- - I think it's over 70,000 generations. - It's been handed on to somebody else now but... Over 70,000 generations of E. Coli, and all they've got one little minor adaptation to feeding on citrate, you know, so the thing- - They're still bacteria. - This is still E. Coli and- - E. Coli, yeah. - Yeah, it's still E. Coli,
14:14
and all that's happened is normally E. Coli can't feed on citrate. Well, they can but they basically turn on the gene to feed on citrate. But in the presence of oxygen they don't feed citrate 'cause it's inefficient. - Yeah. - So what happened was, the mutation turned off its sort of suppression of citrate utilization. - Wow, so it's kind of like similar to what you're saying with the superbugs, (mumbling)- - It's a defect which in a certain circumstances is, you know, beneficial. - Yeah.
14:48
So in certain circumstances these mutations be beneficial in that certain environment, but if you put them back in their natural environment where they've gotta compete with their ancestors, in a way, they're not gonna, they're gonna be outcompeted. - That's right. - So it's not, you're saying it's not really advantageous, is that- - Well, it's not advantageous to their survival in those conditions- - At the time. - ... but it's not an upward progression that they're gonna go to something else,
15:12
some higher organism or something. This is the point- - Yeah. - You need a mechanism to generate new genes, new information- - Specified. - Specified information for new genes, new enzymes, new proteins, new functions that weren't there before. Feathers on reptiles, you know, muscles and things that didn't have 'em, put eyes on things that didn't have 'em. And mutations don't cut it. - Don, I'm glad we've got to cover a few of these examples like citrate uptake in E. Coli and superbugs,
15:41
because they're often pushed as these are advances in evolution, so I think it's great we've covered that. Now I just wanna bring us back to natural selection because we're saying, okay, its mutation needs to be the driver but why natural selection is sometimes pushed on its own as evolution, and I guess that's Darwin's original theory but what you've said is it doesn't appear to do anything to progress a creature to a more advanced form. So what's happening here?
16:07
Why are we being told that natural selection can progress a creature to a more advanced form? - I think it relates to the use of evolution as a materialistic indoctrination.
16:20
And, you know, if this was an just an honest presentation of information, you know, to educate people, then I don't think they'd be holding back that mutations don't cut it. So they're holding off on the on the mutation side of things because they know that people won't believe it if they really know what evolution's about, so these examples of natural selection are so obvious so they say, "Here's an example of natural selection, you know, there you are, there's evolution."
16:48
"Oh, okay. That's evolution, that's pretty obvious. You know, it must be true." And so they're hoodwinking people into believing it. - Can can you give us some of these examples? - So Darwin's finches, they've got all these different shaped beaks which adapt to different sorts of food, and some are good at probing into flowers and getting insects, other ones are good at cracking hard seeds, and so with the availability of food varying, depending on the seasons, whether it's a wet season
17:12
or a drought or whatever, certain beaks are gonna be better adapted to survival. So those finches with those beaks are gonna go up and down in population, so natural selection is operating here. No, I don't have a problem with it, I don't have a problem with adaptation, natural selection, speciation, I don't have a problem with the story; but they're still finches. They haven't changed into something else and this is the trickery of it. You think about those finches
17:37
and the variety in those finches is much less than you see in the variety of dog breeds we have today, and they've been bred in the last couple of 100 years, most of them. So, you know, look at the dog breeds and the variety and say, "Well, the variety in the finches are much less than that, and yet they give 'em different species names." So they're not even real species, they have interbreed together and everything. So how does that prove, how does variation in finches,
18:03
variation within a created kind, I would say, how does that prove that worms change into finches over 300 million years, Which is what evolution's supposed to claim? - Hmm. But it doesn't, but what you're saying is the reason people are not talking about mutations they're talking about natural selection is 'cause at least you can see it now. - Yeah, you can see it, you can see it and it's obvious, you know, so therefore evolution's obvious. - Hmm. - No, it's not.
18:26
- Well, I get told, Don, "Just give me enough time." You know, it's earth's been around a long time, I've spoke to people even recently and they've said this to me, "Well, just gimme more time and we'll, you know, the natural selection will carry on and we'll go from one kind of animal to another kind of animal." - Well, they say it's in the fossils but it isn't. But when we look at these mutations, they're actually destroying us, they're not creating us. For example, we humans have, now we know
18:53
that 100 new mutations per child, so every generation gets 100 new mutations and these are accidental changes to the 3,000 million chemical letters on our DNA. So on average they don't do a lot, there's not a huge, usually they're not lethal, but on average a mutation in three billion letters is gonna have a tiny effect. - Hmm. - But a tiny detrimental effect, 'cause it's a random change. And so natural section can't get rid of these mutations.
19:27
If you had, first of all natural section can't see them, they're too small effect, so it's like rust on your car. So every little rust spot in your car, the rust won't stop your car working. - So it's still surviving. - But eventually all the rust spots will join up, and then your car will fall apart. - Yeah, so you saying, we as the human species are heading for genetic death. - We're heading for genetic, genetic decay is destroying us not making us. And so time is the enemy of evolution,
19:56
it doesn't save the problem. - So the answer is it's going the wrong way. - Going the wrong way. - Right. - Going the wrong way, going backwards not... So you know, the Russian geneticist Alex Kudryavtsev said,
20:10
no, he's just an evolutionist, he said, "Why aren't we dead 100 times over? Looking at these mutations in humans, why aren't we dead 100 times over?" Now he's thinking about a timeframe of a million years for humankind, and so he's got this concept in his head so he's thinking about, "With a million years, surely we should be extinct already." But of course if we've only been here a few thousand years, I mean, it makes sense that we're not extinct yet, but we're heading for extinction.
20:35
So mutations are not creating us, they're destroying us. - Why is this not information not widely known? I mean, is it population geneticists that would be aware of this? - Oh yeah, yeah. Well, Conrad and Charles are population geneticists, and there's many others, and they write about this and they talk about it but don't expect to find in the textbooks that they use in schools and universities to basically convince students that evolution happens. - Do they have a way around it, Don,
21:02
'cause it seems like, well, if experimentally we can show that we're adding 100 new mutations per generation to the human genome, surely that puts evolution dead in the water. They must have some kind of work around, like do they... - No, there's no work around and it is dead in the water. - Okay, wow. Don, thinking about this makes me think I'm glad that Jesus is coming back soon, 'cause I'd guess that He is coming back before we're gonna go extinct. Would that be your thought too?
21:32
- I expect that's the plan, yes. - Yeah, 'cause although... if we've had a... And, again, I guess this fits in with the age of the earth according to the Bible because- - That's true. - I know you did mention that but if it was because it's a shorter time we've not gone extinct yet, and we don't think it's gonna be much longer in the future. I mean, we've been here 6,000 years, we're probably not gonna be here another 6,000 years and Jesus is gonna come back sooner,
21:59
so therefore this isn't as big an issue for a Christian as a non-Christian. - That's correct, yeah. - Because we have a hope. - And there's a flip side of this too, that if we're getting 100 new mutations each generation, it points back to less in the past, it points back to perfection in the past when God made Adam fresh from the dust, he didn't have mutations, he didn't have any defects in his DNA. So we're on this slide away from the perfection that was there in the beginning.
22:29
And why? Because of sin, because sin brought death and suffering into the world, and that's what happened with Adam. - So Adam would've had a perfect genome? - Yeah. - Without any mutations. - That's right. - And it's the result of the curse that mutations have even come about. - Yeah. God withdrew some of His sustaining power from the creation at that point, said, "If you don't want me to rule over you, well, okay, let's see what happens." (laughing)
22:56
- Don, could this be a reason why we see these long ages in the Bible at the beginning? You know, Adam, I think he lived over 900 years and, you know, you've got these people that lived 900, 800, 600 years, and we get this decline to today where we don't live that long. - Yeah, well, there's other things too like, you know, in the beginning brothers and sisters got marry, so people often ask, you know, "Oh, come on now, you know, Adam and Eve had sons and daughters.
23:18
Where'd all the people come from? Kind of incest, you know." But in the beginning there was not a problem because people didn't have these mutations and then, you know, Abraham married his half-sister with God's blessing- - Right. - But then down the track Moses is told by God, "No, brothers and sisters can't marry, that's not on, you know, so stop that." And why? Well, we can see today that the genetic decay would be a major reason why. And of course God knew that,
23:44
whereas Moses wouldn't have known it. - Yeah, so back then our genomes were in a better condition, and therefore if you married a close relative then it it's less likely that your kids would have genetic defects. - That's right. - But go on today and we've got a problem. - And most countries today don't allow first cousin marriages- - Yes. - Because it's dangerous for the offspring. - And that would again be a process in history where, you know, 400 years ago there would be,
24:08
a lot of countries would allow first cousin marriages. - Well some countries still allow it but it's not a good idea. - Yeah, yeah. No we wouldn't recommend that. - No.
24:17
- Okay, yeah. This has been good, Don. So we said that mutations are not often talked about because they can't make it happen, they actually go in the wrong direction. We said natural selection is the thing that's talked about because you can see real changes, but they're extrapolating too much. I'm just wondering, before we move on to our next section, is there a hard limit of natural selection? Like, can we say, "Look, you know, this is definitely not gonna go from one kind of animal
24:47
to another kind of animal because we can see a hard limit?"
24:51
- Well, the big thing about natural selection is that it gets rid of information out of the population, so it does not do anything which is going to progress something
25:03
from less complex to more complex. Without mutations natural selection just gets rid of information. - Yeah, and that's the opposite to the evolution story- - Which is the opposite of what they need. - Yeah, you've got to go from the basic symbol single-cell organism all the way to a human. - Yeah, so you just think about
25:21
wolves, for example, with long hair, you would think, well, they're adapted to cold conditions but ones with short hair, if you've got icy conditions the ones with short hair could be killed off by the cold. But what happens is that natural selection's got rid of the genes for short hair. - It's a loss of information. - A loss of information. So it's exactly the opposite of what evolution needs, so natural selection actually does the wrong thing.
25:44
You need mutations and mutations that are being downplayed. - Yeah, and it takes it the wrong way. - And mutations do the wrong thing so natural selection does the wrong thing, mutations do the wrong thing, evolution's an impossible process. - Yeah, doesn't sound like it's coming together. - No. (laughing) - So I've got another question here, Don, I wonder if we've already covered this. I've got doesn't natural selection help evolution by culling the bad mutations, just leaving the good ones.
26:11
- Yeah, it does that much. If you've got some serious defect and you don't manage to reproduce, then that genetic defect is lost from the population. That's natural selection. So, again, natural selection is a culling thing, it gets rid of things. Now before Darwin, creationist biologists recognize that natural selection, they might not call it natural selection but they recognized that this was a conservative thing that actually sort of helped populations to remain healthy.
26:42
And so it was seen as a conservative thing,
26:46
and then Darwin tried to make it into a creative thing. - Right. - So he twisted it around and said, "Oh, now we can change one thing into another rather than conserving what's there and keeping the health of the population." He tried to make it into a creative thing but it doesn't work. - Okay, so that still stands, it is a conservative thing because if someone has a certain, or a person or an animal in a population or plant in a population has a certain genome
27:17
that is defective, then that's not gonna survive, therefore the population can continue to exist. - Yeah, so it doesn't pass on the bad genes to the next generation. Yeah. - Okay. Don, we've been talking about the failure of natural selection and mutations to produce more complex creatures, and we mentioned at the start that actually people are, the biologists are realizing this now. And I've got a short quote from a Guardian article that summarized what was going on
27:51
in the biological research community just 10 years ago after eight scientists published an article, a leading article in the study, in the journal nature. And they asked the question, "Does evolutionary theory need rethink?" And their answer was, "Yes, urgently." But this is the quote from the Guardian article, "There are certain core evolutionary principles that no scientist seriously questions. Everyone agrees that natural selection plays a role, as does mutation and random chance.
28:23
But how exactly these processes interact and whether other forces might also be at work has become the subject of a bitter dispute. 'If we cannot explain things with the tools that we have right now,' the Yale University biologist Gunter Wagner told me, 'we must find new ways of explaining.'"
28:43
So that's where they're at Don, they need to find new ways of explaining. Have you got any suggestions for them? - Good luck. (both laughing) - And so bring this home for us Don, what's the answer? Like, what do they need to know? I mean, they wanna do biology which I'm saying you'd commend is a good thing, they're finding out the way that God's made things, God's encouraged us to do science, but what do they really need to know in their heart as well as their mind?
29:10
- Well there's a recognition there that natural selection and the mutations really don't explain what they're trying to explain, and so they're scrabbling around trying to find something better, but what else have they got? You've got the genetic information and living things, how can it change? How can you add new code? Because if you're gonna write a computer program or add a new part to a computer program, how do you do that? You need to apply intelligence. The only way you get information,
29:42
specified complexity, is from intelligence. They don't want intelligence because the only intelligence that's possible is God. So they're trying to work out how we can explain all this information and increased information, living things without God. And they're gonna come unstuck because you can't do it.
30:02
You can't do it, there has to be intelligent input to create the new code, the new information. I mean, no scientist could ever dream of creating even one of the enzymes that is in a living cell. And they come along after the event and understand, you know, how they work maybe
30:22
and the structure of it, but to actually go from scratch and say, "I'm gonna design an enzyme that does this." No, not possible. And so then they say, "Oh, but all life made itself." It's just so irrational. So these very clever people can be very irrational because they actually don't want to believe in a creator. - Yeah, it sounds like they could almost be working against God if they're trying to find a naturalistic explanation for something God has clearly put there to tell us
30:51
that He's there. And I'm thinking of Romans one, Don, where it says God has revealed- - Romans chapter one is so clear that the attributes that God are seen in His creation. - Exactly, yeah. - And so people have no excuse. I think the people who have the least excuse on this are molecular biologists, people actually studying the things that we've been talking about, the amazing complexity and design in living things at all levels, even the simplest bacterium
31:16
is amazingly complex and amazingly intricately designed. And so I think the people who have the least excuse are the people who are studying this stuff. - Yeah. And just so that we have a bit of compassion on any molecular biologists out there, often we get trained in this way of thinking- - Yeah. - And you have to produce the paper in this way, but would you encourage them, Don, just stand back from your study and have a look at it and think about it, how did that information get there?
31:41
I mean, would you encourage them- - Yeah, absolutely. - ... in that hind of way. - Really stand back and look at it and say, "Did this stuff really come about by, you know, millions of years of mutations and natural selection?" It just doesn't add up. - And what you'd say is, this is God speaking to you. - That's right, yeah. - That this is information, it can't come about by random process, it can't come around By naturalistic means, it points to a supernatural,
32:04
it points to a designer, as you would say. - (mumbling), a supernatural designer. - Supernatural designer. - Yeah, yeah. - So the whole of creation is telling us God's there, God made it. - It's shouting at us, God created everything. It's really shouting very loud, you know, that God created things, they didn't just happen. - Yes. And I think this is great that we can tell our young people, "Go and study, go and study nature, go and study science, go and find out the way God's done things
32:30
'cause you're gonna find that it's shouting about design." - That's right, exactly. So people might want to know, "Where can I get more information?" - Yes. - You can go to creation.com, just look up natural selection. - Excellent. - And you'll find lots of articles and videos and things about natural selection and explaining why it doesn't really add up for evolution. - Brilliant, so that's creation.com? - Yeah. - Thanks, Don. Thanks a lot for your time today. - Thanks, Scott. (lively music)
Here to help you learn
Sign in to keep a private conversation with your course tutor.
Ask me anything about the material…
Sign in to chat