similar to the process followed by genetic engineers on the cutting edge of research in biology and biochemistry. They peer into the genes and chromosomes of a particular strain of sweet corn, for example, unravelling the long spiral DNA molecule and reading the sequence of code—GATCCTTGAAATTC... and so on—found inside. Through painstaking effort they find and identify the portion of code controlling some undesirable feature they want to remove. Or, perhaps they find the appropriate spot to insert a snippet of genetic code borrowed from another species, to give this sweet corn a new trait. Then they modify the code and try it out. The result is genetically engineered corn.
Genetic research has not yet progressed to the point where even a scientist who is tops in his field could sit down and write out genetic code from scratch to produce a living organism. Rather, like novice web designers, they modify existing organisms by cutting and pasting code. Happily, despite the elevation of the theory of evolution to the status of a sacred cow, there are still brave biologists who give credit where credit is due and honor the Creator, the divine writer of the genetic code.
Ever since the Scopes trial, the creation-versus-evolution controversy has been a matter of litigation and legislation. Attempts to include creationism in the science curriculum of public schools have most often been thwarted by arguments that creationism points to a Creator, thus making it a religious teaching which, according to prevailing legal precedent, must be excluded. More recently a number of men of science have come together into what they have dubbed the "intelligent design movement." They argue scientifically that the genetic blueprints and the irreducible complexity of structures found within living things rule out gradual development through a series of accidental mutations and point, instead, to intelligent design. And they have entered the legal fray, with the aim of being heard and allowing young students to hear these ideas as well.
Since I'm neither a litigator nor a legislator, nor a microbiologist, I don't have a powerful voice to lift up against the tyranny of authority of the evolutionists. But, just as surely as the "HTML" used in creating
websites stands for HyperText Markup Language, to me our DNA sequence "GATGC" should stand for God Authored The Genetic Code.
The evidence against the theory of evolution is overwhelming. Yet it is not when the scope of this book to present all of that evidence. Hopefully, what is written here will whet the appetite of those who wish to learn more. You can do that by reading a number of fine books authored by or featuring data assembled by qualified scientists:
Dr. Lee Spetner's Not by Chance! — Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution (The Judaica Press, 1998)
James Perloff's The Case Against Darwin — Why the Evidence Should Be Examined (Refuge Books, 2002)
James Perloff's Tornado in a Junkyard — The Relentless Myth of Darwinism (Refuge Books, 1999)
Michael J. Behe's Darwin's Black Box — The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (Simon & Schuster, 1996)
William A. Dembski's Intelligent Design — The Bridge Between Science & Theology (InterVarsity Press, 1999)
(See also additional books by the above authors, as well as books referenced within their writings.)
As a young man I had read numerous books on evolution and atheistic cosmology, and felt that they explained adequately where man and the universe came from. I didn't possess the finely detailed knowledge held by microbiologists and astrophysicists, but I had read enough to comprehend the big picture. It wasn't necessary to be able to sketch from memory a diagram of the atomic structure of DNA molecules, nor to scribble out from memory the formula for the eliptical orbits of heavenly bodies.
Later, however, as I matured, I began to grow in appreciation for the some of the finer qualities I saw displayed in ordinary lives: love, self-sacrifice, loyalty to friends, thoughtfulness, and so on. Then, one evening while I sat alone in a quiet room, tired out from a day's work, a thought struck me that I had