Field of Science

An “in your face” kind of God

With disdain, ridicule, and frustration, here are a few comments on a letter from a Phil Dreitz in Delhi to the Worthington Daily Globe. I have no idea where that is, but who cares?

He writes
Consider that the human genome — the entire set of instructions on how to build the human body, contains far more information than the instructions needed to build the space shuttle. And, that all of it is packed into a cell much smaller than a speck of dust; and there are some 100 trillion cells in your body, all of them linked by some means of communication. The “letters” in this “genome manual” are made up of four types of very small molecules called nucleotides, and these are grouped together to form “words,” which gather together to form the genes or “chapters” in the manual, which are grouped to form chromosomes or “volumes” of the instructions, which are grouped to form the genome or the entire “library.” How small is a nucleotide? If it was the size of a pea, our body would be 10,000 miles tall — most of our body would extend into outer space.
Considered. And? Ooh, and aah. Fascinating. Cells are small, there are many of them, yada-yada-yada.
Consider also that with each passing generation of humans produced, the instructions are getting a little more mixed up. Genetically, the human race is mutating into a less healthy product as the molecular machines being produced have more defects in them or “mis-spellings” in the genetic code. Some researchers say that we will go into extinction within a few hundred generations, but it may be sooner because we have seen a rise in genetic disorders, from 1487 in 1966 to 17,000 in 2005 (stats from Mendelian Inheritance of Man catalog at John Hopkins University).
Right. Phil does not have any understanding of what's going on. The human population is large, which means that many different mutations are tried within the population. And as selection against some disorders is relaxed, they are allowed to persist (or, it takes longer to purge them). At the same time science has identified many more disorders, but that need not be because there exist more kinds if disorders than 40 years ago. In fact, if that 1,143 percent increase is highly unlikely to be due to a real increase in numbers of disorders. Besides, even if it is true, then Phil misses the point of natural selection. Not everyone has any of these disorders, so unless there are signs that that will change, then some will go free and the species will survive.
Our continual “minor” mutations will at some point accelerate into a kind of irreversible “meltdown”; we will be so diseased and dysfunctional as to be unable to reproduce. This also seems to be the case as we individuals get old because there is a mutation with each cell division so we become genetically more mutant the older we get. These “mutations,” which occur continuously in us, cannot produce new, higher levels of genetic information, but only a kind of “dumbing down” of existing high level information i.e. “Devolution.” We are in a continual state of genetic entropy. (See Dr. J.C. Sanford’s Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome).
Oh, so that is in fact what he thinks will happen. There is, however, no indication that everybody will become unable to reproduce. Still, the global population is increasing, and not showing a decline, despite the doomsday interpretations that Phil is advocating.

Mutations cannot produce new information? Sure they can. If one mutation increases entropy in the genome (information is lost), then the reverse mutation (which is a possibility) will decrease entropy and increase information.
Common sense seems to tell us that if we could extrapolate backward in time we would come to a point where the genome was perfect or near perfect; no “mis-spellings” in the instruction manuals. When did this happen? Common sense tells us there must have been a point of instantaneous creation.
Common sense has been replaced. By science. The use of common sense has been deprecated. It is not a reliable method to learn about the natural world.
Over the last few hundred years, atheists have been praising science as a means of freeing us from belief in God because all things can be explained on a natural level. But now science is showing us, whether we like it or not, that God is really an “in your face” kind of God when viewed from a scientific perspective. And that is why today, there is no such thing as an honest, intelligent atheist or evolutionist; he’s simply out of touch with objective reality.
Just no. That is not what science is showing us. There is no indication in science that any god has had a hand in the origins of anything. How laughable to chide scientists for being out of touch with objective reality. You are assuming that words in a book, that you can't know who wrote, are the "objective" words of God, and you call me a stupid liar?
It now follows logically that this “Chief Design Engineer” or “Creator” is monitoring and recording your thoughts and deeds 24 hours a day from the time you were in your mother’s womb to the time your molecular machinery grinds to a screeching halt. So we must guard against thoughts of evil.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that this... this... man doesn't understand logic. But I am, because logic is really not that difficult to grasp. Yet, there are apparently some people who think that it logically follows from an "in your face" kind of God so self-evident when you are not a stupid, lying atheist that God is now reading your mind twenty-four seven. So beware of evil thoughts.



  1. I'm glad you posted this, it represents a creationist worldview I had inferred but not actually encountered directly.

    I wrote about the incredibly pessimistic and racist connotations of the idea that mutations can produce only degeneracy:

  2. I find it to be a rather common view among creationists. I have no trouble finding a handful of this kind if letter to the editor ever so often.

    Check out Babu Ranganthan.

  3. To a creationist, logic is a tool to be used in the service of faith: it is not a means to determine which ideas deserve the investment of one's belief. Unless one comes to the argument fully armed with the knowledge of this assumption, creationist rhetoric can induce sputtering, hair-pulling incomprehension in nonbelievers, even if the nonbelievers are otherwise quite level-headed people. Which of course only confirms the creationists' assumption that anyone who doesn't believe in their version of god is an amoral lunatic.

    I am still tearing my hair out trying to think how the hell I can have a conversation of any kind on the topic with my creationist loved ones without inflaming their martyrdom glands. So far I got nothing.

  4. Whatever you do with your creationist loved ones, remember that by far most religious people are first and foremost emotionally invested. Take that into account whenever you have a related discussion with them.


Markup Key:
- <b>bold</b> = bold
- <i>italic</i> = italic
- <a href="">FoS</a> = FoS