Do people who don't believe in evolution believe in genetics?

Question

I know it would be paradoxical, since they are basically the same thing, but it touches on genetics in the bible, so don't creationists have to believe in it?
And if so, how do they rationalize it?

Answer 1

What about natural selection? As the Dutch botanist, Hugo de Vries, said, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.” That statement is just as true today.

Natural selection is a logical process that anyone can observe (and it was actually a creationist named Edward Blyth who seems to have first wrote about it in 1835–37, before Darwin). We can look at the great variation in an animal kind and see the results of natural selection. For instance, wolves, coyotes, and dingoes have developed over time as a result of natural selection operating on the information in the genes of the dog kind.

But natural selection can only operate on the information already contained in the genes; it doesn’t produce new information. There are limits. For instance, you can’t breed a dog to the size of an elephant, much less turn it into an elephant. The different dogs we see today have resulted from a rearrangement or loss of information from the original dog kind; no new information was produced. That is why you can breed wolves to get to chihuahuas, but you can’t breed chihuahuas to get to wolves.

And the thing is, what are they? Dogs. What were they? Dogs. What will they be? Dogs. The same could be said for Darwin’s finches, peppered moths, and so forth. There is a big difference between subspeciation (variation within a kind) and transspeciation (change from one kind to another).

To go from that first single celled organism to a human means finding a way to generate enormous amounts of new information. You need the recipes to build eyes, nerves, skin, bones, muscles, blood, etc. Without a way to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists now agree with this and so they point to mutations (copying errors in the genetic code) to provide the new information for natural selection to act upon. This is called “neo-Darwinian evolution.” So, the question is, can random mutations produce new creative information?

Obviously experts argue about this, but listen to what some have said.

Dr. Lee Spetner (a biophysicist who taught at John Hopkins University) in his book Not By Chance analyzes examples of mutations that evolutionists have claimed to have been increases in information, and shows that they are actually examples of loss of specificity, which means they involved loss of information. He concluded, “All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.”

He also said, “The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all lose information they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the NDT [Neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there are. Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up in volume.”

Dr. Ray Bohlin (who has a Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology) said, “We see the apparent inability of mutations truly to contribute to the origin of new structures. The theory of gene duplication in its present form is unable to account for the origin of new genetic information—a must for any theory of evolutionary mechanism.”

And Dr. Warner Gitt (an information scientist who was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology), in answering the question (Can new information originate through mutations?) said, “...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.”

Mutations can cause an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information. Even the somewhat beneficial mutations they point to like antibiotic resistance in bacteria are always a rearrangement or loss of information, never a gain.

For instance, a mutation that causes the pumps in its cell membrane not to work in a certain way so it doesn’t suck in the antibiotics we try to kill it with. You see, it is resistant because of a loss of an ability. Another mutation might change a binding site used by the antibiotic within the bacteria, rendering it unable to kill the bacteria. In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new genetic information.

Sickle-cell anemia is often used as an example to support evolution, but the mutation causes a loss of normal function with no new ability or information.

Wingless beetles on a windy island and blind cave fish may have a survival advantage, but it comes from a loss of information.

This kind of stuff is used as evidence for evolution, but in every mutation (even the beneficial ones), this seems to always be the case. All we see is a downhill change that fits with the fall in Genesis 3, headed in the wrong direction. Evolution requires new creative information, not a loss of information. Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into more advanced forms.

OK, what about homology? Don’t we see similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different animals? Sure we do. Evolutionists like to argue that these similarities prove that all life evolved from a common ancestor (common descent).

First of all, there are plenty of problems—like homologous structures that are not produced by homologous genes or the same embryological development, or homologous structures in animals that are not suppose to have a close common ancestor (no evolutionary relationship), and so forth.

But the thing is, homology can just as easily point to a common designer; it fits quite comfortably with the creation model.

As Dr. Don Batten has said, “Think about the original Porsche and a Volkswagen ‘Beetle’ cars. They both had air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent rear suspension, two doors, trunk in the front, and many other similarities. Why did these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer!”

And as Dr. Jerry Bergman said, “...the requirements of life are similar for similar living things, and some designs are preferred in constructing animals because these designs are superior to competing designs. All automobile, bicycle and pushcart tires are round because this design is superior for the function of most tires. A tire homology does not prove common descent, but common design by engineers throughout history because of the superiority of the round structure for rolling.”

Dr. Carl Weiland said the same: “By its very nature, creation involves the intelligent application of design information, which it would seem logical to conserve. For example, if the pattern of the forelimb bones in a frog works well, following good bioengineering principles, then it would seem reasonable for the same principles to be used in the other creatures, modified to fit their particular needs.”

As T. Wallace has said, “A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)”

Answer 2

Animals don't adapt to their environments. If they are pre-disposed to surviving in the environments then they flourish. If they are not then they die out. The same thing goes for particular members of animals within the same specie. That's why animals can go extinct and why human beings, and mammals in genera, l took so long to flourish. The environment was hostile. Creationism doesn't always take the changes in species into consideration. Things are as they always have been, is usually what I get from creationists. However, some of them do agree that there has to be some kind of mechanism for change. Don't forget about mutation. It gets foggier when you do consider the extinct species. For example, why would God create life that can not adapt and survive in the environment He creates? or why would he change the environment at all? I'm just happy to be on evolution's good side. At least for the moment.

Answer 3

Absolutely people who believe in evolution believe in genetics! Both are science. Both have more relavence in helping humans understand how god created us through science more than the Bible does.
The Bible has more relavance, still today, about understanding applied morality than does science. The Bible is an ancient text that survived through the Midieval Era in which religion was used to control the masses. The Bible is one of the great religious texts, but should not be taken litterally. The lessons of the bible are what is still relavent in todays world. This goes for every religious text - newer and older. Once we become close minded about other religions and other beliefs (science), we begin to miss the point about what the bible teaches.

Answer 4

Genetics are a fact. One that can be scientifically proven through designed experimentation.

Evolution is a hypothesis. It is not a theory as it cannot be experimentally tested.

There is no need to 'believe' in a fact. It is and no amount of belief or disbelief can change that.

It takes a great amount of faith to believe in an untestable, unprovable hypothesis...whether it be evolution or God.

Answer 5

They're called hypocrites. You know there's a study for creation. Imagine how much money is wasted on that every year. What can you possibly do with a creationist degree other than trying to piss off real scientists.

Answer 6

You understanding of both is incorrect. Evolution is the supposed creation of a NEW species through genetic mutation. That has not been seen in recorded history. Never has there been a documented case of genetic mutation leading to a new species.

Creationists understand genetics. Mutations generally work to the detriment of a species not its betterment. Genetics and evolution are two separate items. Not the same as you declare.

Answer 7

Gnesis Chapter One is the ancient version of the Classification of Species. Evolution Is called Secular Humanism, it is a religion and a law unto itself. It is a theory of how the universe was formed.

Answer 8

Yes, I do believe in genetics. I do not believe in one species evolving into another. God tells us that everything reproduces after it's own kind.

Answer 9

I'm sure since genetics is touched on in the bible, they will believe it, but evolution is the devils work.

Answer 10

Who is to say thet are not the same thing. Peace