Through a Glass Darkly

Science and the Pursuit of Truth

If you examine the continuing articles in the vanguard of the "new sciences," it is interesting to recognize how much of our current understanding of the nature of our universe is built on disturbingly small glimpses of actual data. It appears that many writers consistently draw vast conclusions from half-vast information.

The current high priests of paganism we call "scientists" actually have a rather dismal track record in their pursuit of "truth." The history of science is littered with the debris of discarded relics of what was once regarded as "truth":

For instance, the Phlogiston Theory once held that every combustible substance is a compound of phlogiston, and the phenomena of combustion was due to the liberation of phlogiston with other constituents left as a residue. The Phlogiston Theory thus provided a general explanation of the chemical processes of oxidation (the "liberation of phlogiston") and reduction (the "combination with phlogiston"). This 18th century chemistry was ultimately disproved by Lavoisier.

Aether was the element formerly believed to form the material of the heavenly spheres and bodies. This was disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment.1

The Nebular Hypothesis, the theory that the planets were formed by emanations from the sun, was first formulated by Swedenborg, endorsed by Laplace, and promoted by Kant. Even though it has since been shredded by the mathematics of orbital mechanics, it is still taught in astronomy classes.

Paleontology deserves no defense at all as its history is littered with deliberate frauds in support of evolutionary conjectures2 and is further indicted by the cover-up of the existence of ancient giants,3 etc.

Even physics, the premier of our "hard" sciences, has had its dismal episodes. The velocity of light was held to be infinite in the days of Descartes. Olaf Roemer demonstrated its finite velocity experimentally but even this was denied for 50 years until finally confirmed by Bradley. The velocity of light has been regarded as constant, despite the observations by Barry Setterfield and Trevor Norman over the past decade. Their abuse by classical physicists continues despite their vindication of numerous recent articles in professional journals.

The nature of light has seen its ostensibly schizophrenic nature the subject of much confusion. In 1906, J. J. Thomson received the Nobel Prize for proving that photons are particles. In 1937 he saw his son awarded the Nobel Prize for proving that photons were waves. In this case, both father and son were correct.

Perhaps the most disturbing upheaval was the advent of Quantum Theory. Preposterous conceptually, but proven experimentally. "Anyone not shocked by quantum physics has not understood it," claimed Niels Bohr, the highly venerated physicist.4 While the quest for understanding continues, we need to recognize that our current track record is disturbingly bleak.

Dark Matter

About two decades ago, astronomers began to recognize that the movements of celestial objects throughout the universe evidenced the existence of some kind of dark matter: mass (or energy) that was not visible to their telescopes, but clearly present in their gravitational effects. There have been a number of conjectures regarding the nature of this "dark matter," but all of them have eluded any empirical validation.5 What is particularly astonishing about this "dark matter" is that it apparently constitutes about 95% of all the matter in the universe! It is disturbing to realize that all that we know about atoms - the electrons, protons and neutrons, etc. - is but a small fraction of the physical reality around us. A small sample, indeed. And now it has been discovered that our understanding of the much-heralded DNA is on the same frail, shaky foundation.

"Junk" DNA?

This past year marked the 50th anniversary of the discovery of the famed double helix and the Human Genome Project announced its completion of the "final draft" of the DNA sequence for Homo Sapiens. The code sequences in the DNA molecule have begun to unlock the mysteries of life itself.

The proteins that make up the many mechanisms within the living cell are manufactured in four steps: First, an enzyme docks to the chromosome and slides along the gene, transcribing the sequence on one strand of DNA into a single strand of RNA.

Next, any introns-non-coding parts of the transcript-are snipped out, and the rest is spliced together to make a piece of "messenger RNA."6. The RNA message then moves out of the nucleus to the main part of the cell, where molecular machines translate it into chains of amino acids which become the proteins required. Finally, each protein chain twists and folds into its intricate and unique three-dimensional shape.

These non-coding parts of the DNA have been regarded as "evolutionary junk." What is shocking is that this "junk DNA" constitutes 98% of the DNA! Again, it appears that we have barely scratched the surface...

Hiding behind the basic DNA sequence are at least two layers of information beyond the traditionally recognized genes. One layer is woven throughout the vast "non-coding" sequences of DNA that interrupt and separate the genes. These have previously been written off as irrelevant because they yield no proteins and have therefore been widely dismissed as vestiges of "millions of years of evolution," etc. Now scientists are beginning to suspect that much of what makes one person, or species, different from another are these variations hidden within our "junk" DNA.

Beyond the DNA sequence itself is another layer of information in the chromosomes: "Epigenetic marks, embedded in the mlange of proteins and chemicals that surround and support the DNA operate through cryptic codes and mysterious machinery. Unlike genes, epigenetic marks are routinely laid down, erased, and rewritten on the fly."7

As biologists sift through the novel kinds of active RNA genes from among the long-neglected introns and intergenic stretches of DNA, no one can yet predict where it will all lead. What was once condemned as junk because it was not understood may turn out be the very basis of human complexity. What is astonishing about the process of discovery is that its practitioners still cling to their evolutionary premises-a context continually assaulted by the evidence.

An Inescapable Conclusion

What is even more remarkable than the myopia of the biologists is this: that as scientists scan the heavens with their radio telescopes in the hopes of receiving communication signals as evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence, they remain oblivious to the implications of the multilayered, error-correcting, digital codes making up the human genome! Here is an information system that still defies our understanding, and yet they willfully ascribe it all to the unaided evolution of random processes!

Peter was indeed correct when he called them "willfully ignorant":

When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him?

Psalm 8:3-4


  1. Some still doubt its conclusions since it cannot apparently be repeated without small residual values. The discovery of the physical properties of "empty space" appear to resurrect some of these ideas. See our Expositional Commentary of Genesis (currently being revised in our K-Rations studies) for further discussion.
  2. Duane Gish, The Fossils Say No; Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention; etc.
  3. Stephen Quayle, Giants - Master Builders of Prehistory, End Time Thunder Publishers, Bozeman MT, 2002.
  4. See our briefing package, Beyond Perception .
  5. This has been the topic of a number of previous news journals over the years: Personal UPDATE 2/93, 9/94, 2/95, and 8/01 among others.
  6. It is interesting that the DNA decoding process uses "equidistant letter sequence" codes that are similar to those discovered in the Biblical Scriptures. See our discussions in Cosmic Codes - Hidden Messages From the Edge of Eternity, available as Audio Download and MP3 CD-ROM.
  7. W. Wayt Gibbs, "The Unseen Genome: Gems Among the Junk," Scientific American, November 2003, pp. 48-53.