Here is Why the DNA Code is a Problem

A Good Case Study

The genetic code was discovered about fifty years ago and it has been a challenge for evolution ever since. As we saw last time it provides an example of evolution’s metaphysical reasoning. As Wikipedia puts it, “the genetic code used by all known forms of life is nearly universal with few minor variations. This suggests that a single evolutionary history underlies the origin of the genetic code.” That, of course, is false—at least from a scientific perspective. In science we may say hypothesis H predicts observation O, but not the reverse. O does not imply H. It doesn’t even suggest H. It merely doesn’t falsify H. To say anything more requires additional premises and, in this case, that is where the metaphysics comes into play. As evolutionist Mark Ridley put it in his evolution textbook, if the species were created they wouldn’t share the same code. That doesn’t come from science. Now there is nothing wrong with metaphysics, per se. The problem here is that evolution claims to be free of any such metaphysics. Like the drunk who doesn’t know he is drunk, those who are most influenced by metaphysics are the most oblivious to it. The evolutionist’s utter reliance on metaphysics reveals an internal contradiction in evolutionary thought.

But metaphysics is not the only problem that the DNA code reveals. For instance, the code is both conserved and unique. It is found throughout the species, apparently with only a few minor variations, and so if evolution is true this means the code must be difficult to evolve. It somehow arose very early in evolutionary history, and then remained constant thereafter for billions of years.

But the code is also unique and special. It has several profound properties that are very helpful. For instance its arrangement is such that the effects of copying errors are minimized. This means that if evolution is true, the code must have evolved by a long, drawn out process that “found” these special properties. That is, the code must have been repeatedly altered so that the design space was explored and selection must have guided this process to the extant code.

But if the code evolved in this sort of process, that means it is not particularly difficult to evolve. But we just pointed out above that if evolution is true the code must be difficult to evolve. So we have another contradiction.

Beyond all this, the fact that the code is unique and special also presents the problem that the code would be difficult to evolve. In fact a recent paper computed that the probability that the DNA code could have arisen via evolution is 0.0000000000001. Of course there are evolutionary assumptions built-in to this calculation, but even so the result is that the probability of the DNA code evolving is extremely small.

And yet given all the problems that the DNA code presents to evolution, evolutionists nonetheless claim the code as a powerful proof text for their theory. Religion drives science, and it matters.