Does the structure of human genes disprove creation? That's what Noble-winning scientist David Baltimore says. He believes that the recent announcement of the transcription of the human genome "confirms something obvious and expected, yet controversial: Our genes look much like those of fruit flies, worms and even plants. Should there be any doubt . . . the genome shows that we all descended from the same humble beginnings and that the connections are written in our genes. That should be, but won't be, the end of creationism."
But as Mark Hartwig shows in a recent article in Focus on the Family's Citizen magazine, the structure of human genes actually raises vexing problems for contemporary evolutionary theory. Genetic similarity would make sense if life was the result of an Intelligent Designer. But this high level of genetic similarity would not be what evolution might produce.
Jonathan Wells, author of a new book entitled Icons of Evolution, argues that these genetic similarities are not what evolutionists might predict. According to Darwinian theory, changes in the genetic program in the embryo would result of mutation and natural selection. Thus, "different kinds of organisms should have different genetic programs--and for years, this is what neo-Darwinists predicted."
That is not what geneticists have found. According to Wells, "The genes that have major effects in early development turn out to be strikingly similar across a wide range of phyla." If evolution is true, then these genes come from a common ancestor. But that ancestor lacks the features that these genes now control. Wells asks, "What's the advantage of evolving a gene if the feature it controls doesn't exist?"
And there are other questions to be asked. So the next time you hear that the Human Genome Project has disproved creation, you might want to get a second opinion.
I'm Kerby Anderson of Probe Ministries, and that's my opinion.