|Revelation 11: 15|
What came first: the chicken or the egg?
Either answer demands a clear explanation... yet complications arise while aiming at simple answers.
Science desires to theorize life on earth, and how it came about, having derived from a single-celled amoeba of sorts... having come to exist by mere chance.
This single and simple living thing would eventually 'evolve' over many years of mutations into all other living things on the planet excluding plants... while some simple amoebas would still exist.
If all living things undergo evolution and mutation, why do these simple life forms still exist?
Wouldn't have they 'evolved' from their primitive and simple state?
Looking at evolution and mutation, there seems to be a developing paradox regarding these two notions.
It seems that science has discovered the vast majority of mutations are detrimental; about 99% of mutations are “bad”. (see pages 54, 55 and 56)
The idea that the vast majority of mutations have evolved constructively and positively into producing the vast array of complex life we see on earth is, well, in sharp contrast with the current theory of evolution (I say).
What should be evident according to that theory AND the scientific reality in mutations would be the production of many adversely mutated animals.
But this is not the case... instead there are anomalies and not an abundance of adverse life.
To quote from the University of California Berkeley website:
“Mutations are essential to evolution; they are the raw material of genetic variation. Without mutation, evolution could not occur.”
What it seems to be, according to my eyes, is that we see very specific selections of the genetic code... and only very unique and a very small amount of mutations actually providing a 'good' adaptation.
Evolution is indeed evident, but evolution alone doesn't provide adequate answers that speak to what further science discovery is revealing.
The mutation factors being one issue.
Here is where an Intelligent Design does explain how, among an ocean of bad mutations that would lead to dead ends, the crème de la crème rises to the surface again and again.
This suggestion isn't simply throwing one's hands into the air in wishful thinking and calling “intelligent design” where a scientifically viable answer doesn't exist.
The scientific answer has existed, but not according to acceptable social norms of academia.
This suggestion speaks to the fragile and improbable sustainability of life on a planet that is the perfect distance from the sun providing for the proper amount of light, heat, evaporation and ever-working and ever-regenerating closed systems of life.
Why do some people dismiss the realities when science describes them as somewhat meaningless?
Why, as some minds delve into the very fabric of life (invisible and visible, material and immaterial) portray a static salad of terms that have appointed thoughts to concepts, but have been emptied of the amazing?... or providing sensible answers.
I think it takes effort (and a certain amount of 'belief') to accept the argument of insignificance through the dry eyes of science than it takes to elaborate on how very significant, and very purposed, all of observable life truly is.
The bridge between evolution and design, between static science and ritual religion, between one side of the mind and the other... is at hand.