Molecular Biology vs. Evolutionary Biology, from Atheist to

A forum for discussion and criticism of specialized topics relevant (pro and con) to Creation Science - fossil dating, flood geology, C14, K/Ar, radio metric dating, diffusion dating, racemization dating, DNA dating, stellar and planetary evolution, erosion dating, fast stratification, interpretations of the geological column, baraminology, distant starlight problem, Y-chromosomal Adam/Noah/Aaron/Abraham, mitochondrial Eve, Tower of Babel, Proton-21 laboratory, Sodom and Gomorrah, OEC,YEC, Progressive creation, white hole cosmology, Carmeli cosmology, VSL theories, alternate electrodynamics, mantle plume theories, folding rock theories, RATE work, planetary magnetism, faint young sun paradox, moon recession, ocean mineral saturation, astrometry and proper motion surveys, very long baseline interferometry, CMBR, moon evolution, cosmological vs. non-cosmological red shifts, polonium halos, Hydro Plates and Castastrophic Plates, varves, tree rings, noah's ark, over thrusts, lithification, hydrologic sorting, canopy theory, crater theory, planetary heating, ancient civilizations, Atlantis, trophical trees in the arctic, woolly mammoths and tropical trees in Siberia, UFOs and creationism, comets and orbital mechanics, planet satellite capture problems, planetary rings, origin of folded rocks, the Grand Canyon, the Green River valley, the Three Sisters, mountain formation, seafloor formation, tectonics, etc.

Molecular Biology vs. Evolutionary Biology, from Atheist to

Postby stcordova » Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:24 am

Molecular Biology vs. Evolutionary Biology, from Atheist to Christian

I recently talked with a student and he related the story of losing his Christian faith at age 12 and then regaining it 3 years later. He said what made him believe in God again was looking at the steps in protein translation. I've heard the same from other students. That's why I encourage study of the utterly BORING details of molecular biology. Brute boring FACTS inspire lasting faith.

There are many disciplines in biology with evolutionary biology being the most worthless and speculative of the disciplines. Is that my prejudiced opinion? Nope! Hear it straight from a famous evolutionary biologist:

>In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to [the pseudoscience of phrenology] than to physics. -- Jerry Coyne

[btw, I studied physics in grad school, and I toally agree with Coyne that evolutionary biology is closer to pseudoscience than it is to physics.]

There are disciplines like:

microbiology (study of microbes and germs)
cellular biology (study of cells)
developmental biology (study of creatures going from zygote to adulthood, etc)
structural biology (study of molecular structure)
anatomy and physiology
molecular biology
population genetics

To creationists wishing to understand God's creation vs. the speculations of evolution, I recommend studying 20 parts molecular biology vs. 1 part evolution (if even that much).

So how did I come up with the ration of 20 to 1? Ok, when I took biology courses, how many questions were related to evolution? Eh, maybe 1 out of 20, if that. I'm presently taking a graduate level course in neurophysiology. Evolution is hardly ever mentioned. EXPERIMENTS are more important than evolution. Experiments are FACT FACT FACT, not evolution.

One of the most famous evolutionary biologists pointed this out:
>Although many science, and all biology, students are required to endure molecular courses, evolution—even introductory evolution—is often an elective. The reason is simple: **biochemistry and cell biology get Junior into med school, evolution doesn't.**
Consequently, many professional scientists know surprisingly little about evolution. -- Allen Orr

Translation: evolutionary biology is relatively useless.

Instead of the idea of common descent (evolution) we can use the idea of common design to do medical research. For example we can study rat brains to understand human brains if we simply assume God created the similarities between species to help us understand ourselves. Thus there is no need to assume evolution (universal common ancestry) to do biology. NONE! Knowledge of comparative anatomy was pioneered by creationists.

One other note in Orr's quote, he uses this phrase: "endure molecular courses." That describes the journey. It's more about enduring and suffering through many boring and seemingly pointless facts than it is about being smart. But then the facts eventually get all tied together into a marvelous design.

If I taught you about an airplane by making memorize parts lists, you might get really bored. But when you see an airplane fly, you'll appreciate the design even more. Such is the case with studying molecular biology. Lots of boring facts that are connected to an incredible design.

So let me compare and contrast the two disciplines:
From Wiki:

>Molecular biology is a branch of biochemistry which concerns the molecular basis of biological activity between biomolecules in the various systems of a cell, including the interactions between DNA, RNA, and proteins and their biosynthesis, as well as the regulation of these interactions.[1]

And evolutionary biology:
>Evolutionary biology is the subfield of biology that studies the evolutionary processes that produced the diversity of life on Earth, starting from a single common ancestor. These processes include natural selection, common descent, and speciation.

If molecular biology is a sub-discipline of biochemistry, then I recommend studying bio-chemistry too. You don't need to pay big bucks to learn, you can learn a lot with even a simple 9-minute video for FREE!

I encourage creationists to watch the video below 1-40 times. The more you watch it the more you'll learn. Learning biochemistry and molecular biology is like memorizing a phone book. It is boring, but that is where the glory of God is revealed, in brute FACTS! Evolutionists don't like dealing with FACTS like this.

When an evolutionist asks why you believe in miracles, confront him with protein synthesis. You'll notice he'll retreat in to incomprehensible technical jargon rather than try to answer your question directly. He'll cite numerous papers that did "research" into the matter, but when you actually looking into the papers, they are nothing more than speculation. For example, how much experimental work was done showing a cell can evolve with major missing parts of the protein synthesis mechanism missing? Eh, pretty much none, because the cell would effectively be dead or unable to reproduce, etc.

Or the evolutionist might say something illogical like, "it evolved so that the creature could live" (as if mindless molecules have an inherent tendency to create things!).

Anyway, here is a very accessible video. Only 9 minutes long. A high school kid could learn the essentials of molecular biology by watching this video over and over again:

It is good for the soul to learn these things so you can declare the works of the Lord (like protein synthesis which God created) to others.

>I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the Lord.
Psalm 118:17
Posts: 447
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:41 am

Return to Creation Science