http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4788
God and the Laws of Science: Genetics vs. Evolution [Part 2]
[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part 1
of this two-part series appeared in the January issue. Part 2 follows
below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first
article ended.]
In answer to the question, “Can new information originate through
mutations?” Gitt responded, “This idea is central in representations of
evolution, but mutations can only cause changes in
existing information.
There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are
injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot arise;
mutations cannot be the source of new (creative) information” (Gitt,
2007, Ch. 11, emp. added, parenthetical item in orig.). Meyer explains,
“[N]atural selection can ‘select’ only what random mutations first
produce. And for the evolutionary process to produce new forms of life,
random mutations must first have produced new genetic information for
building novel proteins” (2009, Ch. 9). And again, that simply does not
happen.
[M]utations of the kind that macroevolution doesn’t need (namely, viable genetic mutations in DNA expressed late in development) do occur, but those that it does need (namely, beneficial body plan mutations expressed early in development) apparently don’t occur.
According to Darwin (1859, p. 108) natural selection cannot act until
favorable variations arise in a population. Yet there is no evidence from developmental genetics that the kind of variations required by neo-Darwinism—namely, favorable body plan mutations—ever occur....
[M]utations in DNA alone cannot account for the morphological changes
required to build a new body plan (Meyer, 2004, emp. added).
Mutation simply “does not constitute an adequate causal explanation of
the origination of biological form in the higher taxonomic groups”
(Meyer, 2004).
Meyer summarized the problem for neo-Darwinism:
Neo-Darwinism seeks to explain the origin of new information, form,
and structure as a result of selection acting on randomly arising
variation at a very low level within the biological hierarchy, namely,
within the genetic text. Yet major morphological innovations depend on a
specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational
hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. Yet if DNA is not
wholly responsible for body plan morphogenesis, then DNA sequences can
mutate indefinitely, without regard to realistic probabilistic limits,
and still not produce a new body plan. Thus, the mechanism of natural
selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot in principle generate novel body plans (2004, italics in orig., emp. added).
In the words of Sanford:
[E]ven when ignoring deleterious mutations, mutation/selection cannot
create a single gene within the human evolutionary timescale. When
deleterious mutations are factored back in, we see that
mutation/selection cannot create a single gene, ever. This is overwhelming evidence against the Primary Axiom.In my opinion this constitutes what is essentially a formal proof that the Primary Axiom is false (2008, p. 139, emp. and italics in orig.).
Michael Behe, biochemist and Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh
University, points out that some microorganisms have been shown to be
able to rapidly adapt to new environments. However, in doing so, those
organisms never develop new internal functions. According to Behe, their
adaptations amount, not to innovation, but merely fine-tuning (2007).
So in the words of Gould, mutations do not “produce major new raw
material.” They simply change something that already exists. They alter
what is already present. They are variations within types of already
existing genes. They might cause a fly to have extra wings, a fish to
have extra eyes, or a person to have an extra toe; but mutations cannot
create a new kind of creature. A mutation would not cause a wing to
appear on a creature unless the creature already had wings in its
genetic code. If a fish does not already have antlers in its genes, it
is not going to grow them. If a dog does not have webbed duck feet or
feathers in its genes, neither it nor its descendants are going to grow
them. If a person does not have tank treads in his genes, he will never
be able to roll over to his neighbor’s house, regardless of how long he
(or his progeny) lives and mutates. Neo-Darwinian evolution simply
cannot happen. Sanford lamented:
Very regrettably, evolutionists have treated two very different phenomenon, adaptation to environments and evolution of higher life forms,
as if they were the same thing. We do not need to be geniuses to see
that these are different issues. Adaptation can routinely be
accomplished by loss of information or even developmental degeneration
(loss of organs). However, development of higher life forms
(representing more specified complexity) always requires a large
increase in information (p. 202, italics in orig.).
And Darwinian evolution cannot provide it.
Information: If It’s Not a Product of Naturalistic Processes, Then…
East German scientist J. Peil wrote, “Information is neither a physical
nor a chemical principle like energy and matter, even though the latter
are required as carriers” (as quoted in Gitt, 2007, Ch. 3). The late
American mathematician Norbert Wiener, previously professor of
mathematics at M.I.T., graduate of Harvard University, and considered to
be the originator of the field of cybernetics, long ago said,
“Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which
does not admit this can survive at the present day” (1965, p. 132). What
does that truth imply about information?
In the words of Gitt, in what he calls “Theorem 1,” “[t]he fundamental quantity information is a non-material (mental) entity.
It is not a property of matter, so that purely material processes are fundamentally precluded as sources of information”
(Ch. 3, emp. added). He further explains, “Information is always based
on the will of a sender who issues the information…. Information only
arises through an intentional, volitional act” (Ch. 3). “[I]t is clear
that the information present in living organisms requires an intelligent
source…. Any model for the origin of life (and of information) based
solely on physical and/or chemical processes, is inherently false” (Ch.
4, parenthetical item in orig.). Gitt proposes Theorem 29 as a summary
of that truth: “Every piece of creative information represents some
mental effort and can be traced to a personal idea-giver who exercised
his own free will, and who is endowed with an intelligent mind” (Ch. 8).
In other words, “[n]ew information can only originate in a creative
thought process” (Ch. 8).
What about the findings from computerized evolutionary algorithms and
ribozyme-engineering experiments? Don’t they prove neo-Darwinian
evolution could happen? Meyer responds:
[M]inds can produce biologically relevant structures and forms of
information, but without mind or intelligence little, if any,
information arises…. [I]ntelligent agents can produce information. And
since all evolutionary algorithms require preexisting sources of
information provided by designing minds, they show the power—if not the
necessity—of intelligent design….
[R]ibozyme-engineering experiments demonstrate the power—if not,
again, the need for—intelligence to produce information—in this case,
the information necessary to enhance the function of RNA enzymes….
Undirected materialistic causes have not demonstrated the capacity to
generate significant amounts of specified information. At the same time,
conscious intelligence has repeatedly shown itself capable of producing
such information. It follows that mind—conscious, rational, intelligent
agency—what philosophers call “agent causation,” now stands as the only
cause known to be capable of generating large amounts of specified
information starting from a nonliving state (2009, Ch. 15).
Radiologist Henry Quastler, who pioneered the use of isotopes to study
cell kinetics and “was one of the first to apply Information Theory to
biology” (Ducoff, 2007), long ago stated, “[C]reation of information is
habitually associated with conscious activity” (Quastler, 1964, p. 16).
If this be the case—if all the evidence points to an intelligent
Designer for the origin of information—why reject the evidence?
“Whatever information is—whether thought or an elaborate arrangement of
matter—one thing seems clear. What humans recognize as information
certainly
originates from thought—from conscious or intelligent activity” (Meyer, 2009, Ch. 1, italics in orig.).
But Still…Couldn’t it Happen?
Even if genetic mutation
could sporadically provide
new information, there are other, even more significant issues. Meyer
explains, “[A]ny minimally complex protocell resembling cells we have
today would have required not only genetic information, but a sizable
preexisting suite of proteins for processing that information” (2009,
Ch. 9). And what’s more,
scientists investigating the origin of life must now explain the
origin of at least three key features of life. First, they must explain
the origin of the system for storing and encoding digital information in
the cell, DNA’s capacity to store digitally encoded information.
Second, they must explain the origin of the large amount of specified
complexity or functionally specified information in DNA. Third, they
must explain the origin of the integrated complexity—the functional
interdependence of parts—of the cell’s information-processing system
(2009, Ch. 5).
Sanford points out further how Darwinian evolution would still not be possible with sporadic instances of new information:
I believe the “going down” aspect of the genome is subject to concrete analysis. Such analysis persuasively argues that net
information must be declining. If this is true [and the primary focus
of his book illustrates that it is—JM], then even if it could be shown
that there were specific cases where new information might be
synthesized via mutation/selection, it would still be meaningless since
such new information would promptly then begin to degenerate again. The
net direction would still be down, and complex genomes could
never have arisen spontaneously. If the genome is actually degenerating,
it is…bad news for evolutionary theory. If mutation/selection cannot preserve the information already within the genome, it is difficult to imagine how it could have created
all that information in the first place! We cannot rationally speak of
genome-building when there is a net loss of information every
generation! Halting degeneration is just a small prerequisite step
before the much more difficult question of information-building can reasonably be opened for discussion (pp. 105-106, italics in orig.).
Wells argues that
even if scientists eventually observe the origin of a new species by
natural selection, the observation would not mean that natural selection
can also explain the origin of significantly new organs or body plans.
But the fact that scientists have not observed even the first step in
macroevolution means that “evolution’s smoking gun” is still missing.
Despite the lack of direct evidence for speciation [i.e., the origin of
new species—JM] by natural selection, Darwin’s followers still assume
that he was essentially correct and regard changes within existing
species as evidence for their theory (2011, p. 13, emp. added).
Once again, speculation and conjecture without supporting evidence rule
the day in evolutionary circles and textbooks. All the while, mounds of
evidence exist which indicate that new information is not possible
through genetic mutation. So neo-Darwinian evolution is not possible.
Genetic Entropy:
The Unavoidable Trend
Mutations are, by definition, “errors”—mistakes in the replication of
DNA (cf. Ayala, 1978, 239[3]:56-69). There are three possible kinds of
mutations: bad, good, and neutral (i.e., those that have no net effect
on a species one way or the other)—none of which add new raw material or
information to the genome. Evolution hinges on the idea that beneficial
mutations must be the trend, since evolution requires a
progression in species (and those mutations must simultaneously add new raw material in order to evolve a new species).
However, in truth, the scientific evidence indicates that this trend is
not the case. Renowned geneticist of Stanford University, Luigi
Cavalli-Sforza, head of the International Human Genome Diversity
Project, said, “Genetic mutations are spontaneous, chance changes, which
are rarely beneficial, and more often have no effect or a deleterious
one” (2000, p. 176, emp. added). Prominent evolutionary taxonomist,
Ernst Mayr (professor emeritus of Harvard), wrote, “[T]he occurrence of
beneficial mutations is rather rare” (2001, p. 98, emp. added). In fact,
it has long been realized that, after eliminating the neutral mutations
from the discussion, 99% of the remaining mutations are said to be
actually harmful—not beneficial (Crow, 1997; Cartwright, 2000, p. 98;
Winchester, 1951, p. 228; Martin, 1953, 41:100; Ayala, 1968, 162:1436;
Morris, 1984, p. 203; Klotz, 1985, p. 181). This was recognized as long
ago as 1950, when Nobel laureate and geneticist, Hermann J. Muller said,
“The great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful
in some way” (1950, 38:35, emp. added). Famous evolutionary geneticist
of Rockefeller University, Theodosius Dobzhansky, admitted that
beneficial mutations make up less than 1% of all mutations (as quoted in
Davidheiser, 1969, p. 209).
Several decades of further research did not help matters. The late
evolutionary geneticist of the University of Massachusetts in Amherst
Lynn Margulis, and her co-author, science writer Dorion Sagan,
referenced Muller’s historic work, emphasizing that “as was pointed out
very early by Hermann J. Muller (1890-1967), the Nobel prizewinner who
showed X-rays to be mutagenic in fruit flies, 99.9 percent of the
mutations
are [still—JM] deleterious. Even professional
evolutionary biologists are hard put to find mutations, experimentally
induced or spontaneous, that lead in a positive way to evolutionary
change” (2002, pp. 11-12, emp. added). According to theoretical
evolutionary geneticist Philip Gerrish of the University of New Mexico
and Richard Lenski, experimental evolutionary biologist of Michigan
State University, it seems that the best estimates for beneficial
mutations are now “roughly one in a million” (1998, 102/103:132). That’s
one ten-thousandth of one percent. Thomas Bataillon, evolutionary
biologist of Aarhus University’s Bioinformatics Research Centre, and
Santiago Elena, molecular and evolutionary geneticist of the Institute
of Molecular and Cellular Plant Biology in Spain, argue that the rate of
beneficial mutations is so low that it cannot even be measured
(Bataillon, 2000; Elena, et al., 1998). Behe even argues, based on a
thorough examination of relevant evolutionary experiments over the last
few decades, that those mutations which are considered to be
“beneficial” for an organism still typically involved a loss of function
(i.e., a loss of genetic information)—not a gain. In the summary of his
2010 article in the
Quarterly Review of Biology, he says, “The
results of decades of experi-mental [sic] laboratory evolution studies
strongly suggest that, at the molecular level, loss-of-FCT [i.e., loss
of function—JM] and diminishing modification-of-function adaptive
mutations predominate” (2010, p. 441). In truth, this circumstance
should be expected, since mutations are, by definition, deviations from
what would have occurred in the replication of DNA, if everything worked
in the way that it should.
So mutations do not provide the progressive, beneficial trend required by evolution, but rather, reveal a
digressive trend. Mutations, by and large, are deleterious, not beneficial to the genome. That is what the
scientific evidence
indicates—an avalanche of harmful mutations sweeping all species on the
planet down the slope of deterioration, decay, and digression. This
trend is in keeping with the Second Law of Thermodynamics—entropy is
inevitable (see Sanford, 2008 for a decisive treatise on the truth of
genetic entropy). The genome will inevitably deteriorate, not evolve.
This trend is also supported by information theory (Gitt, 2007).
“Error catastrophe” is the term used to describe what happens when
natural selection cannot adequately counter the loss of information that
occurs due to deleterious mutations—a situation we are currently
facing. During the final phase of degeneration, “mutational meltdown”
occurs (Bernardes, 1996)—the “rapid collapse of the population and
sudden extinction” of the species (Sanford, p. 220). Kevin Higgins and
Michael Lynch, evolutionary biologists of Indiana University and the
University of Oregon, respectively, argue that extinction is currently a
significant risk for many mammals and other animals because of the
existing state of deterioration in the genome due to mutations. “Under
synchronous environmental fluctuations, the acceleration of extinction
caused by mutation accumulation is striking…. [F]or a large globally
dispersing metapopulation with mutation accumulation, the extinction
time is just slightly longer than 100 generations” (2001, p. 2932).
There is no doubt that genetic entropy is the trend, not genetic
organization.
Behe argues, “[N]ot only does Darwinism not have answers for how
information got into the genome, it doesn’t even have answers for how it
could
remain there” (as quoted in Sanford, 2008, back
cover, emp. added). Genetic entropy prohibits it. No wonder Sanford
wrote, “Degeneration is the precise
antithesis of evolutionary theory. Therefore the reality of Genetic Entropy is
positively fatal to Darwinism” (p. 206, italics in orig., emp. added). Expounding on that idea, he said:
If the genome must degenerate, then the Primary Axiom is wrong. It is
not just implausible. It is not just unlikely. It is absolutely dead
wrong. It is not just a false axiom. It is an unsupported and
discredited hypothesis, and can be confidently rejected.
Mutation/selection cannot stop the loss of genomic information, let
alone create the genome! Why is this? It is because selection
occurs on the level of the whole organism. It cannot stop the loss of
information (which is immeasurably complex) due to mutation, and is
happening on the molecular level. It is like trying to fix a computer with a hammer (p. 147, italics and emp. in orig.).
Due to entropy, the genetic trend is downward. But evolution demands an upward trend—not good for Darwinian evolution.
Notice again, however, that while deterioration destroys evolutionary
theory, the trend towards deterioration is in keeping with the Creation
model, which argues that the genome was originally pristine in the
Garden before sin entered the world, initiating the decay process
(Romans 5:12; Psalm 102:25-27). The natural trend all around us is
clearly that living creatures are being swept down the proverbial
mountainside in an avalanche of entropy. Yet evolutionary theory
irrationally postulates that the trend for the mindless, accidental
evolution of species has actually been up the mountain-side against an
oppressive wall of tumbling snow.
Mutations: Not the Evolutionary Mechanism
No wonder, like Gould and Hayward, Margulis and Sagan strongly
expressed their disagreement with the idea that genetic mutations could
be the mechanism for evolution, as neo-Darwinism contends. They said,
“[R]andom mutation, a small part of the evolutionary saga, has been
dogmatically overemphasized” (2002, p. 15). “Many ways to induce
mutations are known but none lead to new organisms. Mutation
accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or new
tissues…. We show here that the major source of inherited variation is
not random mutation” (pp. 11-12, emp. added). Evolutionist Pierre-Paul
Grassé, who was the chair of evolution at the Sorbonne in Paris for over
30 years, said, “No matter how numerous they may be,
mutations do not produce any kind of evolution”
(1977, p. 103, emp. added). Nobel laureate, Sir Ernst Chain, who is
credited with having purified penicillin in such a way that it could be
used as an antibiotic, said years ago, “To postulate…that the
development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of
chance mutations…seems to me a hypothesis
based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts” (1970, p. 25, emp. added). As we have seen, such profound statements are still relevant today.
Indeed, due to the nature of genetics, mutations simply do not provide a
mechanism for Darwinian evolution to occur. In the words of Sanford,
“The demise of the Primary Axiom leaves evolutionary theory without any
viable mechanism. Without any naturalistic mechanism, evolution is not
significantly different from any faith-based religion” (2008, p. 206;
cf.
Houts,
2007). [NOTE: “Faith” is used by Sanford here to describe those who
believe in God without evidence—an idea which the Bible does not support
(cf. John 8:32; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; Acts 17:11; 1 John 4:1;
Miller,
2013).] Neo-Darwinism has no mechanism for progressing towards new
species, and the origin of the genetic code remains a mystery for
naturalists. Evolutionist Douglas Hofstadter, physicist and
Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science at Indiana University in
Bloomington once said:
There are various theories on the origin of life. They all run aground
on this most central of all central questions: “How did the Genetic
Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA
molecules) originate?” For the moment, we will have to content ourselves
with a sense of wonder and awe rather than with an answer (1980, p. 548, emp. added).
Writing in
Nature, evolutionist John Maddox said, “[I]t is disappointing that the origin of the genetic code is
still as obscure
as the origin of life itself” (1994, 367:111, emp. added). The
unfortunate truth is that so many, both theists and atheists alike, have
been steamrolled into believing Darwinian religion by the naturalist
crowd. Evolution has been foisted upon the minds of children and touted
as scientific fact for decades, when all the while, upon closer
examination of the evidence, evolution is found to be baseless in its
attempt to explain the origin of species. All along, an explanation for
the origin of the kinds of creatures we see on Earth has been available
that does not contradict the scientific evidence.
The Bible and Genetics
In the words of famous atheist, theoretical physicist, and cosmologist
of Cambridge University, Stephen Hawking, “[T]he Universe is a machine
governed by principles or laws—laws that can be understood by the human
mind.... But what’s really important is that these physical laws, as
well as being unchangeable, are universal. They apply not just to the
flight of the ball, but to the motion of a planet and
everything else in the Universe”
(“Curiosity…,” 2011, emp. added). As with everything else in the
law-abiding Universe, reproduction behaves in accordance with governing
laws. Life produces according to its kind.
The Bible, which articulates the Creation model in simple terms, stated
long ago a truth that has stood the test of time and continues to be
verified by modern science. God made living creatures and then
established the ordinances which would govern their reproduction. The
phrase “according to its kind” is used repeatedly (Genesis
1:11,12,21,24,25), highlighting the fact that God created distinct
creatures from the beginning. They did not evolve from previous kinds of
creatures, and such passages further allude to the existence of
barriers that God established between various forms of life—distinctions
which evolutionary theory seeks to dissolve. God personally created
life (i.e., “living creatures/things”—Genesis 1:21,24-25; 2:7) and
further instituted the Law of Biogenesis by telling the natural realm
(i.e., “Earth”) how life was to be multiplied: “bring forth the living
creature according to its kind” (Genesis 1:24). [NOTE: The word “kind”
was written in Genesis long before the modern taxonomic categories
developed. While there may be no direct equivalent to the present
taxonomic system, the “family” of a creature may be the best parallel in
most cases (cf. Wood and Murray, 2003).] That general rule is precisely
what we see occurring in nature. Indeed, “whatever a man sows, that he
will also reap” (Galatians 6:7)—Paul’s articulation of a Universal law
of nature. In the words of Jesus, “For every tree is known by its own
fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes
from a bramble bush” (Luke 6:44). That simple concept has profound
implications and denies the theory of evolution, which requires
inter-kind leaps—evolution across phylogenic boundaries—prohibited by
the evidence from genetics. The Creation model, however, passes the
genetics test with flying colors.
REFERENCES
Ayala, Francisco (1968), “Genotype, Environment, and Population Numbers,” Science, 162:1436.
Ayala, Francisco (1978), “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, 239[3]:56-59, September.
Bataillon, T. (2000), “Estimation of Spontaneous Genome-wide Mutation Rate Parameters: Whither Beneficial Mutations?” Heredity, 84:497-501.
Behe, Michael (2007), The Edge of Evolution (New York: Free Press).
Behe, M.J. (2010), “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, 85[4]:419-445.
Bernardes, A.T. (1996), “Mutation Load and the Extinction of Large Populations,” Physica ACTA, 230:156-173.
Cartwright, John (2000), Evolution and Human Behavior (London: Macmillan).
Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca (2000), Genes, Peoples, and Languages (New York: North Point Press).
Chain, Ernst (1970), Social Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society (London: Council of Christians and Jews).
Crow, J.F. (1997), “The High Spontaneous Mutation Rate: Is it a Health Risk?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., 94:8380-8386.
“Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” (2011), Discovery Channel, August 7.
Darwin, Charles (1859), On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (London: John Murray).
Davidheiser, Bolton (1969), Evolution and Christian Faith (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed).
Elena, S.F., L. Ekunwe, N. Hajela, S.A. Oden, and R.E. Lenski (1998),
“Distribution of Fitness Effects Caused by Random Insertion Mutations in
Escherichia Coli,” Genetica, 102-103[1-6]:349-358.
Gerrish, Philip J. and Richard E. Lenski (1998), “The Fate of Competing Beneficial Mutations in an Asexual Population,” Genetica, 102/103:127-144.
Gitt, Werner (2007), In the Beginning was Information (Green Forest, AR: Master Books), Kindle file.
Grassé, Pierre-Paul (1977), The Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press).
Higgins, Kevin and Michael Lynch (2001), “Metapopulation Extinction Caused by Mutation Accumulation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98[5]:2928-2933.
Hofstadter, Douglas R. (1980), Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid (New York: Vintage Books).
Klotz, John (1985), Studies in Creation (St. Louis, MO: Concordia).
Maddox, John (1994), “The Genesis Code by Numbers,” Nature, 367:111, January 13.
Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan (2002), Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species (New York: Basic Books).
Martin, C.P. (1953), “A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution,” American Scientist,41[1]:100-106, January.
Mayr, Ernst (2001), What Evolution Is (New York: Basic Books).
Meyer, Stephen C. (2004), “Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,”
Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117[2]:213-239,
http://www.discovery.org/a/2177.
Meyer, Stephen C. (2009), Signature in the Cell (New York: Harper Collins), Kindle file.
Morris, Henry M. (1984), The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Muller, Hermann J. (1950), “Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material,” American Scientist, 38[1]:33-50,126, January.
Quastler, Henry (1964), The Emergence of Biological Organization (New Haven, CT: Yale University).
Sanford, J.C. (2008), Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications), Kindle file.
Wells, Jonathan (2011), The Myth of Junk DNA (Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press).
Wiener, Norbert (1965), Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine (Cambridge, MA: M.I.T.).
Winchester, A.M. (1951), Genetics (Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin).
Much
of mankind loves to classify and sort things. We like to sort socks by
color and shirts by kind. We categorize books topically. We arrange
files alphabetically. We organize tools by their function. We take
pictures of people by their size (“tallest in the back, shortest up
front”) and then arrange them chronologically in “properly” labeled
albums. We like things certain ways; we want things “just so”; and when
things do not fall in line with our ideas and expectations, we wonder
what happened.
The most frequent reference to Jesus’ resurrection reveals that He rose from the grave on the
third day of His entombment. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all record Jesus
as prophesying that He would arise from the grave on this day (Matthew
17:23; Mark 9:31; Luke 9:22). The apostle Paul wrote in his first
epistle to the Corinthians that Jesus arose from the grave “the third
day according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:4). What’s more,
while preaching to Cornelius and his household, Peter taught that God
raised Jesus up “on the third day” (Acts 10:40, emp.
added). The fact is, however, Jesus also taught (and Mark recorded)
“that the Son of Man” would “be killed, and after three days
rise again” (Mark 8:31, emp. added). Furthermore, Jesus elsewhere
prophesied that He would be in the heart of the Earth for “three days
and three nights” (Matthew 12:40). So which is it? Did Jesus rise from
the dead on the third day or after three days?