Dwarfed Thinkers of Darwinian Evolution

I have to laugh at the statements contained in the conclusion of an article in defense of the Darwinian theory of evolution; "The evidence that all life, plants and animals, humansand fruit flies, evolved from a common ancestor by mutation and natural selection is beyond theory. It is a fact. Anyone who takes the time to read the evidence with an open mind will join scientists and the well-educated."

The writer assumes the thing he needs to prove in the article. He assumes similarities in functions, which the genes of a fruit fly share with those of a human, means they are the same. Read carefully his argument below.

Despite their enormous differences, fruit flies and humans descended from a distant common ancestor and share many genes that control similar biological functions. Seventy percent of human and drosophila genes are conserved, meaning the genes resemble each other in structure and still carry out a related or identical function. The same genes build the fly eye and the human eye. It is much easier to understand gene function in drosophila than in humans. No other organism has contributed more to our understanding of evolutionary and population biology then drosophila.

I find it amusing that the writer (who is highly-educated) acknowledges enormous differences between humans and fruit flies but relies on a seventy percent resemblance between their conserved genes and their function to jump to the conclusion that we all have a distant common ancestor. This is a clear case of an assumption in search of a meaning. We do share a common Creator but not a common ancestry.

Notice the way he uses language as he writes, "The same genes build the fly eye and the human eye." The same genes – that is preposterous! He equates the function and the similarity in structure of the genes with sameness. I am reminded of a line from the TV sit-com "The Office." Pam is talking to Jim, who has just been dumped by his girlfriend, about her wonderful relationship with her boyfriend. Jim retorts, "Well our relationship was exactly the same only better."

Ay, the real rub in the article: his use of the intimidation factor to try to get us to drink his kool-aid. His assertion has yet to be proven and is merely backed up with his hubris when he wrote, "Anyone who takes the time to read the evidence with an open mind will join the scientist and the well-educated." In other words, if you don't agree with it, you are neither educated nor open-minded. Chesterton said it best, "Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." We need substance not assumption. We need sound reasoning not jingoistic rhetoric wedded to an assumption in search of meaning.