Posted on homepage: 15 March 2010 (GMT+10)
‘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).
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
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,
. Return to text.
- Jaroncyk, R., Saddle up the horse, it’s off to the bat cave,
. 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;
. Return to text.