The Architect
by Patricia Mondore
‘For by him [Jesus Christ] all things were created
that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones
or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him’
(Colossians 1:16).
Compilation of images from stock.xchng
News media from all over the world ran the story. A small child fell into a gorilla
cage at a zoo outside of Chicago. Injured and bleeding, the terrified child screamed
as the crowd looked helplessly on in horror. Surely, the child would be torn to
shreds by the massive creatures he was now trapped with.
Then, the seemingly impossible occurred. A female gorilla fondly referred to as
Binti-Jua picked up the wounded child, protecting him from the other gorillas, and
eventually carried him to safety.
The press went wild. Soon the story was headlined in every paper and aired on every
news broadcast, as commentators informed us of how this animal-man connection was
further proof of our common ancestry. Were they correct, or is it possible they
were all missing the real story behind the observed similarities between animals
and humans?
Who is the architect?
The New Testament reaffirms that every living creature was made by God. This time,
however, it gives more detail as to the nature of this Creator-God. It states, ‘In
the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. He
was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing
was made that has been made’ (John 1:1–3). Here we see that He who made all things
is called the Word; that is, Jesus (John 1:14–18).
Elsewhere we are told, ‘He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn1
over all creation. For by him all things were created that are in heaven and that
are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities;
all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him
all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the
beginning … (Colossians 1:15–18). The Greek word used here for
‘beginning’ is ‘archē’, a word rich with meaning,
which can mean commencement, beginning, chief in order or rank, principality, power
or rule when used in the context of the Divine creation.2 The English word ‘architect’
comes from this Greek word. Applying these meanings to Jesus we see Him as the Chief
Architect of the creation event. Through Him the world, and all of the life it contains
had a commencement or beginning.
We also find this word used several times at the end of the Bible, again in reference
to Jesus and His act of creation. Jesus says, ‘To the angel of the church
in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness,
the ruler (archē) of God’s creation’ (Revelation 3:14). Other translations use the word ‘beginning’
(KJV, NAS) in place of ‘ruler’ or ‘origin’ (NRSV, Moffat).
All of these words point to the fact that Jesus is, indeed, the Creator (John 1:3) and Ruler (Revelation 1:7) of all things. While scientists grapple
with the question of the origin of life, here it is stated plainly: Jesus
is the origin of life. God the Father refers to Himself as the Beginning (archē)
and the End (Revelation 21:6) and shortly after, Jesus calls Himself
the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning (archē) and the End (Revelation 22:13). This intentional parallelism proves conclusively
that the Bible teaches Jesus is both God and Creator of all. He is the Divine Architect
(see also pp. 12–15).
- Greek: prototokos, meaning having the status of the firstborn; that is,
the pre-eminent One.
- QuickVerse, Parson’s Technology, 1997.
|
While the evolutionary rhetoric was being bandied about, someone contacted the newspaper
columnist Marilyn Vos Savant, who reputedly has the highest recorded IQ, and asked,
‘After reading about Binti-Jua … I heard an anthropologist state that
gorilla genes are almost identical to human genes. Is this true?’ Ms Vos Savant’s
response probably surprised some:
‘Most (or all) mammals … have comparable DNA content and roughly the
same number of genes. Mice have been studied extensively, and even these very different
creatures have a nearly one-to-one correspondence with humans: A particular mouse
gene almost always has a human counterpart. The animals differ because some of the
corresponding genes differ in DNA sequence. Using that as a gauge, chimpanzees share
perhaps 95 percent to 99 percent of their genes with humans … Gorillas may
range from 90 percent to 99 percent. … But this is not as impressive as it
seems at first. Even mice have 70 percent to 90 percent of their gene structure
in common with humans. … So I think these numbers indicate how great is the
genetic diversity—and the potential for even more—among different animals,
rather than how narrow it is’.1
As Ms Vos Savant pointed out, there is, indeed, a similarity between the DNA of
apes and humans. However, there are also similarities between the DNA of mice and
men. But, again, is this necessarily evidence of a common naturalistic origin?
Ten years have now passed since the incident with Binti-Jua but the scientific findings,
rather than confirming DNA similarities as proof of common ancestry, have only raised
more questions. In fact, several recent studies have raised questions about the
accuracy of the original often-stated 98–99% DNA similarity between chimps
and humans.
In 2003, one study calculated only an 86.7% similarity while another, in 2006, revealed
a genetic similarity of 94%. The results of the 2006 study created a major problem
for evolutionary geneticists who had previously found that the DNA of the Rhesus
macaque was 93% similar to human beings.
Evolutionists believe that these monkeys branched off from our supposed common ancestor
about 25 million years ago while chimpanzees branched off only six million years
ago. According to evolutionary theory, this would indicate that human beings diverged
from chimpanzees four times faster than from Rhesus monkeys. If the assumptions
of evolution were true, we should expect to see a much more significant difference
in the DNA of humans and the monkeys.2
Other recent findings add further complications to the similarities in DNA as evidence
of evolution. In 2005, scientists discovered that bats and horses shared a higher
degree of DNA similarity than cows and horses.3
This counters the naïve view that simple DNA comparisons will indicate degree
of similarity in anatomy. All of these recent studies suggest that similarity in
DNA is not nearly as significant as once believed.4
Since we know all life comes from the same Source it should be no surprise that
His ‘fingerprints’ are evident in every life form He created.
Nevertheless, this brings us back to the similarities we find in the DNA of so many
different creatures. Darwinists claim that this can mean nothing but proof of common
origin.
However, there is far more reason to believe that these similarities are evidence,
not of a common origin, but rather of a common originator. The
same Creator that made every fish, bird and animal also made man (Genesis 1:20–27). Also, the similarities are evidence
of the power and wisdom of the Creator and would bring Him great honour in most
cultures.5
This brings us back to DNA. DNA contains highly encoded language that produces the
entire array of life on the earth. Such coding systems only arise from intelligence.
The coding system is essentially the same in all living things. Since we know all
life comes from the same Source it should be no surprise that His ‘fingerprints’
are evident in every life form He created.
Buildings need a builder. To those familiar with architectural styles, buildings
by a certain architect bear similarities, distinctive and identifiable features
unique to him. In much the same way, similarities found in the DNA of every living
creature reveal the identifiable architectural style of their common Originator,
the Divine Archē!
References and notes
- Vos Savant, M., Ask Marilyn in Parade Magazine, p.
19, 21 September, 1997. Return to text.
- Jaroncyk, R.,
Decoding the dogma of DNA similarity, <creation.com/DNAdogma>.
Return to text.
- Jaroncyk, R.,
Saddle up the horse, it’s off to the bat cave, <creation.com/batDNA>.
Return to text.
- Ref. 3. See also: Junker, R.,
Morphology and molecules conflict yet again, Journal of Creation
22(1):8, 2008. Return to text.
- Holding, J.P.,
‘Not to be used again’: Homologous structures and the presumption of
originality as a critical value, Journal of Creation 21(1):13–14,
2007; <creation.com/homologous>. Return to text.
| Derek C. wrote: “This is an awesome website. As a Christian who’s finally just turning my life over to God (for good), I needed somewhere to look for answers when I had no one to ask.” Help keep the ‘awesome’ going!  | | |
|
