Mutations supposedly benefit the advancement of life through the concept of evolutionary theory by means of natural selection. Yet mutations have not been proven to progress life but rather they have shown to be either neutral or harmful towards an organism. Also mutations do not add any new genetic information to the gene pool but only leads to a loss of information as DNA can not be improved on and will more than likely lead to sterilization and death versus a proliferation of life.
All of this mutation business is to somehow lead to the configuration of a new species but if we were to look at the fossil records there is only the evidence for extinction rather than an emerging/transitional species which requires new genetic information. If makes you wonder if life really occurred billons of years ago and based on the evidence of extinction its any wonder that there should be any life at all and therefore it appears that there is a better case for the demise of all living organisms versus the rise of species. After all we hear on a regular basis about extinctions but when have you ever heard about a new species?
Additionally, if this process is a necessary means to the end regarding the survival of the fittest then why should we use modern conservationism to try to save those species which are considered endangered contrary to the historical and natural processes of elimination?
If we really thought that mutations meant the advancement of life then why don’t these same scientists who support this theory put themselves and their family and pets in some nuclear hotspots to benefit the race such as with Chernobyl or Three Mile Island? That’s because they realistically know that exposure to radiation is harmful and not helpful in advancing society unless you see population control as being beneficial.
Also why doesn’t society outlaw abortion for those women who have abnormal pregnancies as this could mean a developed improvement with time? You may argue that it appears to be presently harmful which becomes a judgment call and a immediate inference in light of what distant and future genetic mutations may take place to advance the human genome.
Again, along this line of thought it takes special pleading to somehow show that these mutations take long periods of time to be beneficial which based upon the fossil evidence and modern phenomena these transitional species are non-existent. Not only that but to base science on the inductive reasoning of naturalism by assimilating a deductive hypothesis of beneficial mutations is more an inspiration of mythological speculation and imagination then the scientific method.
Now in regards to manipulated genetic modifications it is one thing to see diversity for instance in the dog kingdom due to the loss of genetic information but in the end a dog is still a dog. Micoevolution within a species is not a problem as we readily see variations within species but to be indoctrinated to believe that all of these small variations lead over time to a huge jump (of faith) towards the macroevolutionary process of molecule to man is a fraudulent and unfounded claim. It is a desperate attempt to salvage the question of life with a naturalistic philosophy versus a theistic view of reality.
Whatever future course that science takes it will be a biased and predisposed approach towards embracing something in opposition to an innately obvious sense of otherness. Evolution is the predominate secular theory for now but based on their own philosophical presuppositions they are subjected to their own criteria which states that most everything is in a constant state of flux and therefore as their theory continues to be proved obsolete or inadequate it may have to be replaced with the obvious and superior evidence of intelligent design as the future of this movement appears to be bleak.
If science commits to an alternative view of intelligent design then perhaps they will take a position that life was somehow generated from an unknown and advanced alien race while avoiding the God question at all cost. Maybe the true motivation behind any futuristic revisionist outlook to the concept of origins is really more about a science of escapism rather than objective truth.
In summary with all of the technological advancements and modern technology that we have available there has never been any scientist that has ever observed a random mutation to produce a new hormone, enzyme or simple organ.
When looking at DNA as the building blocks of life we see thousands of pages of complex and technical information which is essential and basic for all of life’s functionality. This information requires a code which in turns involves a mental source rather than some mindless random act of chance.
Life abounds in the language of the cell and yet can this degree of intelligence, by which we have only discovered the tip of the iceberg, be formed by a state of non-intelligence?
Could it be that the language of the cell is really been programmed by a “Creator” who not only speaks to us from a cosmic plane but also on a cellular level as well?
Psalms 19:1-4
1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.
3 There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard.
4 Their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
Romans 1:18-23
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. (false religion and philosophy)
Atheist and Agnostic Resources
English Articles on Atheism and Agnosticism
Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (London:Rider Press, 1981), pp.67,68