May 2009

Vol. 29, No. 5

Articles

The Jackhammer in Your Backyard

Caleb Colley, B.A., B.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

The RNA World Hypothesis Explained and Unexplained

Kathleen Hamrick & Will Brooks, Ph.D. 37

DepArtments

Speaking Schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Note from the Editor

New Tracts for Adults. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

resources

Are Americans Becoming Uncivil? . . . . . . . 17-R

CONTENTS

www.ApologeticsPress.org

May 2009 Reason & Revelation 29(5):33

The Jackhammer in Your BackYardCaleb Colley, B.A., B.S.

impact, from literally beating the birds’ brains out? The answer is that their skulls are reinforced with bone, to keep their heads from shattering. David Juhasz wrote:

The forces involved in the wood-pecker’s hammering away at trees are incredible, for the suddenness with which the head is brought to a halt during each peck results in a stress equivalent to 1,000 times the force of gravity. This is more than 250 times the force to which an astronaut is subjected in a rocket

If evolution were true, there would be no woodpeckers. Yet there they are, 6- to 16-

inch, brightly colored birds, daily chip-ping away at bark on our backyard trees (“Downy Woodpecker,” 2003; “Pileated Woodpecker…,” 1981). Though evolu-tionists suggest that the woodpecker’s uncommon characteristics are merely adaptations resulting from natural se-lection (Fergus, n.d.; Ryan, 2003), they cannot satisfactorily explain why these small birds have the ability to drive their beaks powerfully into the side of a tree, and survive to do it again less than a second later.

“Woodpecker” is the common name for just over 200 species (45 in America, 13 in Canada) of animals that are unique among fowl because they frequently cling to, and excavate, tree trunks (see “Woodpecker,” n.d.;

“Downy Woodpecker,” 1999; Fergus, n.d.). They “drill” into trees for three distinct purposes: (1) to find food; (2) to attract potential mates; and (3) to build nests (Eckhardt, 2001). The woodpecker’s suspension system allows it to absorb the force of lightning-fast, repetitive strokes on tree trunks. In fact, the bird can peck bark an estimated 20-25 times per second, and strike an estimated 8,000-12,000 times in a day (“Woodpeckers,” 2009; “How Many...?,” 2007).

No other bird can do this. If the kind of force withstood by woodpeckers on a daily basis were applied to the cra-nium of any other bird, its brain would quickly turn to mush (see “Wondrous Woodpeckers…,” 2002). Moreover, if a human once smacked his head against a tree as hard as woodpeckers do re-peatedly, he would suffer serious brain damage, even if he lived through the impact (“Knock on Wood,” 2004).

How do woodpeckers withstand such pressure? What prevents the force applied by the woodpeckers’ mighty neck muscles, and the sudden, swift

Great Spotted Woodpecker (Dendrocopos major)

Reason & Revelation is published monthly by Apologetics Press, Inc. Periodicals postage paid at Montgomery, AL. PoStmASteR: Send address changes to Reason & Revela-tion, 230 Landmark Dr., Montgomery, AL 36117; iSSn:[1542-0922] uSPS# 023415.

Apologetics Press is a non-profit, tax-exempt work dedicated to the defense of New Testament Christianity. Copyright © 2009. All rights reserved.

editor:

Dave Miller, Ph.D.*(*Communication, Southern Illinois University)

Associate editor:

Kyle Butt, M.A.*(*New Testament, Freed-Hardeman University)

Annual Subscription Rates:

$10.00 Domestic$ 8.00 Domestic Bulk (5+ to same address)

$16.00 Canada & Overseas Airmail

General inquiries, changes of address, or international callers:

Phone: (334) 272-8558Fax: (334) 270-2002

orders:

Phone: (800) 234-8558Fax: (800) 234-2882

On-line Web store/catalog, subscription order/renewal form, current issues, archives, and other information (all orders processed on a secure server):

URL: www.ApologeticsPress.orgURL: www.ApologeticsPress.org/espanolE-mail: mail@ApologeticsPress.org

Discovery—Scripture & Science for Kids is a sister publication for children. For more information, please contact our offices or visit the Discovery Web site at:

URL: www.DiscoveryMagazine.com

May 2009 Reason & Revelation 29(5):34

during liftoff…. In most birds, the bones of the beak are joined to the bones of the cranium—the part of the skull that surrounds the brain. But in the woodpecker the cranium and beak are separated by a sponge-like tissue that takes the shock each time the bird strikes its beak against a tree. The woodpecker’s shock-ab-sorber is so good that scientists say it is far better than any that humans have invented (2001, emp. added).Consider how the woodpecker takes

his position on the tree. Chuck Fergus described this process:

To grip trees, a woodpecker has short, muscular legs and sharply clawed feet. On most species, two toes point forward and two backward. This op-posed, “yoke-toed” arrangement lets a woodpecker climb with ease. Stiff, pointed tail feathers catch on the rough bark to brace the hammering body. During molt, the two middle tail feathers (the strongest ones) do not fall out until the other 10 have been replaced and can support the bird’s weight (n.d.).

Most birds have three toes in the front of the foot and one in the back, but the woodpecker’s feet are unique in the animal kingdom. The woodpecker’s

X-shaped (zygotactyl) feet are perfect for climbing, allowing the woodpecker to move in any direction on a tree trunk (see “Wondrous Woodpeckers…,” 2002; Bassett, n.d.; “The Malayan Woodpecker,” 2002 ). In addition to the amazingly well-designed X-shaped feet, the woodpecker needs its stiff—yet elastic—tail feathers to press against the tree in order to support its weight while it drills the trunk (“Woodpecker,” n.d.).

Next, consider the woodpecker’s tongue. Often extending five times farther than the beak itself, the tongue is so thin that it can reach into ants’ nests in trees. The tongue is also sticky, so it catches the ants and pulls them directly into the woodpecker’s mouth. The tongue’s adhesive, however, does not prevent the woodpecker from eating. The ants’ defense mechanism is no prob-lem either, because the tongue comes complete with a system that negates ant poison (see Yahya, 2004). Juhasz commented:

How does the woodpecker know it has caught the insects? The Creator has given it a tongue with a hard spearhead with bristles pointing rearward, which is attached by tiny fibres of the protein collagen. As the

tongue probes a tunnel, the impact of the spearhead on any object jams the head back along the shaft. Nerve endings are precisely located in the fluid-filled spaces between the col-lagen fibres. They provide the brain with information about the type of material contacted; thus, the wood-pecker knows whether it has secured an insect or hit the hard wood of a tree. Once the insects stick to its tongue, the woodpecker pulls them from the tree, then pulls in its long tongue and scrapes the insects off into its mouth (2001).Consider the beak itself. Like a chisel,

it is capable of penetrating even the hardest of wood, and, unlike manmade saws, its point never needs sharpening.

It is argued, however, that because some woodpeckers are different from others (some find their prey on the ground instead of in trees, for example), they all must have evolved from a com-mon ancestor, and that some wood-peckers are merely at different stages of evolution. For example, Juan Garelli wrote concerning the Galapagos:

There are, on the different islands of that archipelago, 14 different species of finch. The 14 species fill many of the roles we should expect—on another continent—to be played by other, unrelated birds. One of them,

The Woodpecker’s Zygotactyl Foot

May 2009 Reason & Revelation 29(5):35

for instance, is a woodpecker finch. It has evolved a long woodpecker-beak but not a long tongue; it therefore makes use of a twig, held in its beak, to extract insects from bark.If all the 14 species had been created separately, why are they all finches? If a woodpecker would serve as a woodpecker in the rest of the world, why should it be a finch that acts as a woodpecker on the Galapagos? But the facts make sense if the species all evolved from a common ancestor. If a single finch colonized the Galapagos and then speciated into the present 14 forms, we should expect them all to be finches: they all descended from a finch. The fact that they are finches is known from the homolo-gies that define a finch. If they had been created separately, we should not expect them to share all the finch-homologies. The woodpecker would be the same woodpecker as anywhere else in the world; it would not have finch-defining traits. The Galapagos finches, therefore, provide evidence of evolution (n.d.).

Ryan adds:The genetic changes necessary for such a modification are quite mi-nor. No new structures are required, merely an extended period of growth to lengthen an existing structure. It is likely that in ancestral woodpecker species which began to seek grubs deeper in trees, those woodpeckers with mutations for increased hyoid horn growth had a fitness advantage, as they could extend their tongue far-ther to reach prey. Some woodpeck-ers have no need for long tongues, and thus genes which shortened the hyoid horns were selected for. The sapsucker, for example, drills tiny holes in trees and then uses its short tongue to eat the oozing sap on the tree’s surface (and insects which stick to it) [2003, parenthetical item in orig.].Garelli and Ryan wrote about mi-

croevolution (small-scale changes that result in minor biological variations, but not new kinds of animals), which is responsible for much of the diversity

among animals (see Butt, 2002). But Garelli and Ryan did not document macroevolution, which is necessary for Darwinian evolution to be true. Some species of woodpeckers have changed over time, but they all remain wood-peckers. Woodpeckers do not “evolve” into other kinds of animals. To better comprehend this distinction, consider some questions to which evolutionists cannot provide adequate answers:• Even though woodpeckers possess

powerful mechanisms for drilling, they prefer trees that have visible signs of internal decay (“Pileated Woodpecker Cavities...,” n.d.). At what point did naturalistic evolu-tion “grant” the woodpecker ca-pability to “shop around” for the most suitable tree for excavation?

ran out of worms on the ground and then decided to look for worms in trees? If so, how did the woodpecker know that it needed to evolve a highly specialized beak, tongue, set of feathers, and skull, as well as a claw structure, which had to be different from every other claw structure on Earth? And what scientific behavioral measures did it take to initiate evolution?

• Could a woodpecker decide to evolve a new trait in the first place? If so, what motivated it to make such a decision? Why does the woodpecker not make such deci-sions now?

• If a woodpecker, of a species that eats insects from trees, had a tongue that had not yet evolved, but needed to access food deep in-side a tree trunk, would the bird have survived for long? If it had not yet “discovered” that it needed a highly specialized tongue to pull the ants into its mouth (and to keep the ants from hurting him), what would it have done, since it surely did not have enough time to “evolve” a totally different, entirely unique, specialized tongue before it died?

• If a woodpecker ran out of food on the ground, why would its ap-petite for ants have been so strong that it required the bird to over-look the danger of eating ants, and motivated it to evolve a special tongue for ingesting them? Would it not have preferred only less dangerous insects?

• What about the beak? If a wood-pecker’s beak were not sharp and sturdy, would not the first wood-pecker have been doomed to death or permanent injury on the first at-tempt to hammer a hardwood tree?

• How did the first full-f ledged woodpecker know that food (and a suitable location for nesting) was available inside trees, when

• Inherent in the suggestion that the woodpecker is the result of random mutations that took place over mil-lions of years, is that there was a time when the bird possessed some, but not all, of its capabilities. If we grant, for the sake of argument, that mutations are positive and that, given enough time, evolution could produce entirely new biologi-cal structures (concessions we do not grant), then what need moti-vated a woodpecker to “mutate” or

“evolve” new traits that it did not possess? Did the first woodpecker that pecked trees do so because it

The Woodpecker’s Specially Design Beak

May 2009 Reason & Revelation 29(5):36

the woodpecker’s ancestors had not a clue?

• How did the woodpecker learn that effective communication can be performed by hammering its beak on bark?

• What animal gave birth to the first woodpecker?

• How did the immediate descendant of the first full-fledged woodpecker know that it also should look for food in trees?

Juhasz added:[H]ow could the woodpecker have evolved its special shock-absorbers? If it had started without them, then all the woodpeckers that were alive would have beaten out their brains long ago. Therefore, there should be no woodpeckers left. And if there had ever been a time when wood-peckers did not drill holes in trees they would not have needed the shock-absorbers anyway (2001). Finally, we should also address the

claim that woodpeckers are pests, and in no way beneficial. Woodpeckers help control insects (one woodpecker can eat up to 2,000 ants in one day) and limit the spread of tree diseases by destroying

insect carriers. Also, the roosting holes created by woodpeckers are frequently used by birds of many other species (Clench and Austin, 1995, 15:90).

The fact is, woodpeckers are here, and they do things that defy Darwinism. Unlike evolutionists, creationists can adequately explain the woodpecker without contradicting their convictions concerning origins: God created the woodpecker with unique character-istics, and endowed it with particular instincts that cause it to do what it does. Woodpeckers are strong evidence for a divine Designer, as are all other living organisms.

reFerenceS

Bassett, David V. (no date), “The Wonderful Woodpecker: Jehovah’s Jaw-Jarring Jackhammer,” [On-line], URL:http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html?http%3A//www.cre-ationevidence.org/qustn_mon/ qustn_mon.html.

Butt, Kyle (2002), “A Finch is Still a Finch,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/bibbul/2002/bb-02-01.htm.

Clench, Mary Heimerdinger and Oliver L . Austin, Jr. (1995), “Birds,” Encyclopaedia Britannica (Chicago, IL: Encyclopaedia Britannica), 15:1-112.

“Downy Woodpecker” (1999), Canadian Wildlife Services, [On-line], URL: http://www.britishcolumbia.com/Wildlife/wildlife/birds/cw/cw_downywoodpecker.html.

“Downy Woodpecker” (2003), Nature of New England, [On-line], UR L: h t t p : //w w w. n e n a t u r e . c o m /DownyWoodpecker.htm.

Eckhardt, Liesl (2001), “Melanerpes caro-linus,” ed. Phil Myers, [On-line], URL: http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/informa-tion/Melanerpes_carolinus.html.

Fergus, Chuck (no date), “Woodpeckers,” Pennsylvania Game Commission, [On-line], URL: http://sites.state.

pa.us/PA_Exec/PGC/w_notes/woodpeck.htm.

Garelli, Juan (no date), “Social Evolution,” [On-line], URL: http://attachment.edu.ar/socialevl.html.

“How Many Pecks Can a Woodpecker Peck?” (2007), Wild Bird Centers, [On-line], URL: http://www.wild-bird.com/species-w.html.

Juhasz, David (2001), “The Incredible Woodpecker,” [On-line], UR L: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/woodpecker.asp.

“Knock on Wood” (2004), National Wildlife Federation, [On-line], URL: http://www.nwf.org/gowild/kzpage.cfm?siteid=3&departmentid=76&articleid=188.

“The Malayan Woodpecker” (2002), PageWise, [On-line], URL: http://mama.essortment.com/malayan-woodpeck_rizb.htm.

“Pileated Woodpecker Cavities: Master Builders of the Forest” (no date), A lberta Sustainable Resource Development, [On-line], UR L: http://www.fmf.ca/PW/PW_re-port8.pdf.

“Pileated Woodpecker: Dryocopus pileatus” (1981) [On-line], URL: http://www.otterside.com/htmfiles/woodp5.htm.

Ryan, Rusty (2003), “Anatomy and Evolution of the Woodpecker’s Tongue,” [On-line], URL: http://ome g a . med .ya le .edu/~r jr38/Woodpecker.htm.

“Woodpecker” (no date), Defenders of Wildlife, [On-line], URL: http://www.kidsplanet.org/factsheets/woodpecker.html.

“Woodpeckers,” (2009), Defenders of Wildlife, [On-line], URL: http://www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habitat/wildlife/woodpeckers.php.

“Wondrous Woodpeckers: The Design of a Birdbrain” (2002), Project Creation, [On-line], URL: http://w w w.projectcreation.org/Spot lights/2002/Jan02.htm.

Yahya, Harun (2004), “The Design of the Woodpecker,” [On-line], URL: http://harunyahya.com/70wood pecker_sci28.php.

Golden-fronted Woodpecker (Melanerpes aurifrons)

May 2009 R&R ResouRces 8(5):17-R

Are Americans Becoming Uncivil?Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Depending on your age and generation, no doubt you have noticed a change that has come over much of the American population. Citizens are becoming more discourteous, impolite, and rude. A recent Associated Press poll on American public attitudes about rude-ness found that 69% of those polled believe that Americans are more rude than 20 or 30 years ago (“American Manners…,” 2005). Perhaps you have approached the cash register of a store or fast food restaurant in hopes of checking out promptly. Instead, you are faced with employees chatting with each other, seemingly oblivious to your presence. When you eventually are noticed, the employees’ nonverbal signals make you feel as if you have interrupted them. What’s more, you cannot help noticing that their conversation is frivolous chit-chat, centered perhaps on social life, romantic relationships, or dissatisfaction with their employer or fellow employee. The very idea that their jobs actually depend on customer satisfaction seems to be of no con-cern. Where once American business literally survived and thrived on the notion that “the customer is always right,” now the widespread sentiment seems to be “I could care less about the customer—just pay me for doing as little as possible.” Attentiveness, generosity, and caring service have all but evaporated. How many times have you entered a restaurant and noticed unclean tables and unkempt floors? How often have you made a trip to the grocery store only to encounter shelves unstocked or in disarray—with the very item you came for sold out? In bygone days, the average grocery store manager would have considered such a situation with disgust—even alarm due to lost sales and customer dissatisfaction—and called the negligent employees to account for their inefficiency.

Another indication of the decline in vir-tue in American culture in the last 50 years is the behavior of motorists on America’s highways. Where once most truckers were renowned for their unassuming, courteous driving habits and their willingness to give way to automobiles and even extend assis-tance to the stranded motorist, an increasing number of truckers bully smaller vehicles by changing lanes unsafely, and radio airways are filled with foul language and truckers cursing

other truckers. Exceeding the speed limit is now the norm on the Interstate. Cutting in line, tail-gaiting, and angry exclamations are commonplace on the highways of the nation.

Politics has become an even nastier busi-ness. Cutthroat tactics and bashing opponents characterize a majority. In fact, the polite, civil candidate is pummeled and left in a state of shock. Children speak disrespectfully to adults in public. Individuals cut in line in stores, post offices, and amusement parks. Telemarketers seem kind and genuinely con-cerned—until the customer refuses to buy the product. Then the telemarketer often turns nasty and shows obvious irritation with the consumer. Where once the average gas station provided eager service to customers—not only pumping the gasoline, but washing the windows, checking the oil, and adding air to the tires—it’s now “every man for himself.”

Granted, it could be much worse. Compare America with many other nations of the world. Take, for example, Islamic nations, where the people press against each other in the streets and in the marketplace, jostling each other and competing for services. Many seem to be completely focused on self—with little thought and concern for those around them. But historically, such societal circumstances have not been typical of America.

What has happened? How can such pro-found change come over an entire civiliza-tion? The Founders of the American Republic anticipated just this social scenario—and even described the circumstances under which it would occur. The Founders predicted that: if Americans do not retain an ardent commit-ment to the moral principles of Christianity, civil society will wane.

Consider the following prophetic voices. In the 1811 New York State Supreme Court case of The People v. Ruggles, the “Father of American Jurisprudence,” James Kent, ex-plained the importance of punishing unchris-tian behavior, when he wrote that Americans are a “people whose manners are refined, and whose morals have been elevated and inspired with a more enlarged benevolence, by means of the Christian religion” (1811, emp. added). The gentility of the American spirit has historically been contrasted with those peoples “whose sense of shame would

© COPYRIGHT, APOLOGETICS PRESS, INC., 2009, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

May 2009 R&R ResouRces 8(5):20-R

not be effected by what we should consider the most audacious outrages upon decorum” (1811, emp. added).

Such thinking was typical of the Founders. In his scathing repudiation of Thomas Paine’s The Age of Reason, Continental Congress presi-dent Elias Boudinot insisted: “[O]ur country should be preserved from the dreadful evil of becoming enemies to the religion of the Gospel, which I have no doubt, but would be introductive of the dissolution of government and the bonds of civil society” (1801, p. xxii, emp. added). Dr. Benjamin Rush added his blunt observation: “Without the restraints of religion and social worship, men become savages” (1951, 1:505, emp. added). Noah Webster stated: “[R]eligion has an excellent effect in repressing vices [and] in softening the manners of men” (1794, Vol. 2, Ch. 44, emp. added).

The Founders believed that should Christian principles be jettisoned by Americans, manners would be corrupted, and social anarchy and the fall of the Republic would naturally follow. Declaration signer and “The Father of the American Revolution,” Samuel Adams, issued a solemn warning in a letter to James Warren on February 12, 1779: “A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy” (1908, 4:124). In his inaugural address as the Governor of Massachusetts in 1780, Founder John Hancock insisted that both our freedom and our very existence as a Republic will be determined by public attachment to Christian morality: “Manners, by which not only the freedom, but the very existence of the re-publics, are greatly affected, depend much upon the public institutions of religion and the good education of youth” (as quoted in Brown, 1898, p. 269, emp. added). The words of Declaration signer John Witherspoon are frightening: “Nothing is more certain than that a general profligacy and corruption of manners make a people ripe for destruction” (1802, 3:41, emp. added). In contrasting the general religion of Christianity with Islam, John Quincy Adams likewise explained:

The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion, is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. There is no denomi-nation of Christians, which denies or mis-understands this doctrine. All understand

it alike—all acknowledge its obligations; and however imperfectly, in the purposes of Divine Providence, its efficacy has been shown in the practice of Christians, it has not been wholly inoperative upon them. Its effect has been upon the manners of nations. It has mitigated the horrors of war—it has softened the features of slav-ery—it has humanized the intercourse of social life (1830, p. 300, emp. added).

There is no question that the influence of the Christian religion in America has been significantly curtailed during the last half-century. So what would we expect to occur? We would fully expect citizens to become uncivil, impolite, and discourteous. We would expect them to abandon the fundamental principle of human conduct articulated by Jesus Himself: “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them” (Matthew 7:12). As people move further away from Christianity, they will inevitably become selfish, self-centered, and savage in their treat-ment of their fellowman. The only hope, the only solution, is to return to the principles of the religion of Jesus Christ.

referencesAdams, John Quincy (1830), The American

Annual Register (New York: E. & G.W. Blunt).Adams, Samuel (1904-1908), The Writings of

Samuel Adams, ed. Harry Cushing (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons).

“American Manners Poll” (2005), Associated Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-10-14-rudeness-poll-method_x.htm.

Boudinot, Elias (1801), The Age of Revelation (Philadelphia, PA: Asbury Dickins), [On-l ine], U R L: http://w w w.goog le .com/books?id=XpcPAAAAIAAJ.

Brown, Abram (1898), John Hancock, His Book (Boston, MA: Lee & Shepard Publishers), [On-line], URL: http://www.archive.org/details/johnhancock00browrich.

The People v. Ruggles (1811), 8 Johns 290 (Sup. Ct. NY.), N.Y. Lexis 124.

Rush, Benjamin (1951), Letters of Benjamin Rush, ed. L.H. Butterfield (Princeton, NJ: The American Philosophical Society).

Webster, Noah (1794), “The Revolution in France,” in Political Sermons of the American Founding Era: 1730-1805, ed. Ellis Sandoz (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund), 1998 edi-tion, [On-line], URL: http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/817/69415.

Witherspoon, John (1802), The Works of the Rev. John Witherspoon (Philadelphia, PA: William Woodard).

© COPYRIGHT, APOLOGETICS PRESS, INC., 2009, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Kyle ButtMay 3-6 Primm Springs, TN (615) 799-0045

May 17 Peachtree City, GA (404) 713-6293

May 31 Ariton, AL (334) 762-3108

eric LyonsMay 6 Leeds, AL (205) 699-2447

May 15-17 Ripon, CA (209) 599-4452

Dave millerMay 1-3 Mobile, AL (251) 345-8050

May 16-17 Pulaski, TN (931) 363-2777

May 31 Chattanooga, TN (423) 894-7221

May 2009 Reason & Revelation 29(5):37

The RNA World Hypothesis Explained and UnexplainedKathleen Hamrick and Will Brooks, Ph.D.

[Editor’s Note: The following article was written by A.P. auxiliary staff scientist Will Brooks and one of his students. Dr. Brooks holds a Ph.D. in Cell Biology from the Uni-versity of Alabama at Birmingham and serves as Assistant Professor of Biology at Freed-Hardeman University.]

One of the goals within the dis-cipline of biology is to define life. This goal, however, is no

simple task. While we can have an in-tuitive understanding of what it means to be alive, forming this understanding into a precise definition of life poses a dilemma for scientists. Life comes in many shapes, sizes, colors, and forms, so placing all these variations of life into one nice definition is seemingly impos-sible. To circumvent this problem, sci-entists have defined life by stating char-acteristics shared by all life forms. To be considered “alive,” a system of mole-cules must possess each of these charac-teristics. Examples include (1) the abil-ity to sense and respond to stimuli, (2) the ability to acquire and utilize materi-als for energy, (3) the ability to store ge-netic information in the form of DNA, and (4) the ability to self-replicate. All

living organisms share these basic char-acteristics, and those systems of mole-cules which lack even one of these ba-sic characteristics is not considered to be a living organism.

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the genetic material used by all living or-ganisms to code for life. DNA can be thought of as the genetic fingerprint of each organism because it is unique to each species of organism. During the process of self-replication, this genetic code is duplicated and identical copies (discounting rare instances of mutation) are given to each progeny of an organ-ism, maintaining the fingerprint and thus the identity of that organism. The function of DNA as the genetic mate-rial of an organism is to provide a code for the production of another group of molecules known as proteins. Proteins serve a host of functions for an organ-ism. They are known, appropriately, as the workhorses of a cell, because they carry out the vast majority of organis-mal tasks, including catalysis.

A catalyst is any substance capable of increasing the speed of a chemical reac-tion. Within each living organism on Earth, millions of chemical reactions

take place every minute. The majori-ty of these reactions are prompted by a very large group of protein catalysts known as enzymes. These enzyme-me-diated chemical reactions range from those used to synthesize various me-tabolites to those used to break down ingested foods. By serving as enzyme catalysts, proteins play a crucial role in all living organisms. For without en-zymes, organisms would be both un-able to break down the food that they ingest and unable to make the neces-sary metabolites needed to sustain life.

While the vast majority of function-al enzymes within living organisms are proteins, scientists have discovered that another group of molecules, known as ribonucleic acids (RNAs), are also ca-pable of catalyzing some chemical re-actions (Kruger, et al., 1982). RNAs are very similar in structure to DNA, differing only in the type of sugar used to form the molecules—DNA utilizes deoxyribose and RNA utilizes ribose. While DNA is the vital genetic code that is passed down between parents and off-spring, RNA also plays an important role. Ribonucleic acids are a messenger system that carries the DNA code from the cell’s nucleus, the home of DNA, to the cellular cytoplasm where proteins are synthesized. These are known as messenger RNAs (mRNA). Further-more, another group of RNAs, known as ribosomal RNAs (rRNAs), is used along with proteins to build the cellu-lar structure known as the ribosome, which is the cellular location at which proteins are made. So, RNA plays sev-eral related roles in the process of pro-tein production: (1) it carries the genet-ic code from DNA to the ribosome, (2) it helps form the structure of the ribo-some, and (3) it functions in catalysis.

While there are a few other exam-ples (reviewed in Fedor and Williamson, 2005), the catalytic properties of RNA

Self-Replication

Transcription

Translation

Figure 1 The Central Dogma of Molecular Biology

May 2009 Reason & Revelation 29(5):38

are best seen in the ribosome. When proteins are synthesized by an organ-ism’s cells, small units known as amino acids are chemically linked together to form a long, linear chain. This chain of amino acids is known as a polypeptide or protein. The chemical bond that links together each amino acid in the chain is called the peptide bond. Because each of the 20 amino acids are very similar in structure, the same peptide bond is formed between every unit of the poly-peptide chain. The chemical reaction that forms this peptide bond requires catalysis. The protein-rRNA complex that we know as the ribosome has long been known to serve as the site as well as the catalyst in forming the peptide bond. But, scientists were surprised to discover that the protein component only serves as a structural element of the ribosome. It is the RNA component of the ribosome that serves as the cata-lyst (Nissen, et al., 2000). This catalytic RNA has thus been termed a ribozyme.

Later it was discovered that yet an-other group of RNAs, the small nuclear RNAs (snRNA), were also capable of cat-alyzing a chemical reaction (Valadkhan and Manley, 2001). When produced by the cell, mRNA must undergo a series of maturation steps before it is fully func-tional as a genetic message (Alberts, et al., 2002, pp. 317-327). One of these steps toward maturity is the process of splicing. Newly synthesized mRNA con-tains large regions, spread throughout its length, that do not directly code for protein production. These non-coding regions are called introns. To make the mRNA mature and functional as a code, each intron must be removed from the mRNA and the remaining coding re-gions, known as exons, must be linked or spliced back together. These “cut-and-paste” events occur within the cell’s nu-cleus within a structure that we call the spliceosome. Like the ribosome, the spliceosome is a large complex of both protein and RNA, in this case snRNA. Amusingly, these protein-RNA com-plexes have been dubbed small nuclear ribonucleoproteins or “snurps.” Inter-estingly, scientists found that not pro-tein, but RNAs were responsible for

catalyzing the chemical reactions that take place during these splicing events. RNAs were carrying out chemical reac-tions on other RNAs.

Scientists were very excited by these revolutionary findings. Now, they had a single type of molecule, RNA, that pos-sessed two very important properties. First, it was very similar in structure to DNA and thus theoretically could also store genetic information. Second, it could function as a catalyst like pro-teins. In 1986, Walter Gilbert coined the phrase “RNA World” and initiated what is now known as the RNA World Hypothesis (Gilbert, 1986). This hy-pothesis on the origin of life states sim-ply that because RNA has the dual abili-ty to both store genetic information and catalyze chemical reactions, it must pre-date DNA and proteins, both of which supposedly evolved after and perhaps from the RNA.

The RNA World Hypothesis is wide-ly accepted by evolutionists, because it provides an alleged solution to a long-recognized problem in evolutionary the-ory. Consider how proteins are made by a cell. First, DNA which holds the genet-ic code is converted into RNA through a process known as transcription. This process is similar to how one would copy a letter from one piece of paper onto an-

other sheet. The contents of the letter remain unchanged, only the medium—the paper—has changed. RNA carries this information to the ribosome, where it is read and used as a code to make a protein through a process known as translation. This process can be com-pared to translating the copy of the let-ter from one language into another. Nu-cleic acid (DNA and RNA) is changed into another molecule altogether: pro-tein. This linear progression of DNA to RNA to protein is known in biolo-gy as the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology (Alberts, et al., 2002, p. 301). Of the three components in the path, only DNA has the capacity to be repli-cated. So, while DNA stores the genet-ic code and can be replicated, it cannot perform any chemical reactions. And, while protein can perform chemical re-actions, it cannot store genetic infor-mation. So, in evolutionary thinking, which came first—DNA or protein? Making the problem even more diffi-cult, DNA relies upon proteins during its own replication. DNA does not self-replicate of its own accord. It must have protein enzymes to facilitate this pro-cess. So, what came first—the chicken or the egg? DNA or protein? Each re-lies upon the other. You should begin to see how RNA might solve this prob-lem. If RNA can both store genetic in-formation and catalyze chemical reac-tions, and if it evolved first, we have a single molecule that stores information and can catalyze its own replication, a self-replicating genetic material.

In order to prove this theory plausi-ble, a set of conditions must be created to favor the spontaneous formation of RNA molecules without the aid of a bio-logical catalyst. This would have had to be the starting point for an RNA world. One necessary component for RNA for-mation would be a steady supply of nu-cleotides, the building blocks of RNA. Scientists speculate these nucleotides were created from other small molecules present, or were generated in space be-fore arriving on earth. Ribose, the sugar used in RNA, is assumed to have arisen from formaldehyde via the formose re-action. The mystery of the addition of

HOO

OH

OH

HOO

OH

OH OHFigure 2Deoxyribose vs. Ribose

May 2009 Reason & Revelation 29(5):39

nucleotides onto a ribose backbone re-mains unsolved by scientists attempt-ing to create conditions of a primitive Earth (Müller, 2006, 63:1279-1280). Once these RNA molecules were formed completely by chance, they would have to have possessed or evolved the ability to catalyze reactions leading to self-rep-lication. After sustaining itself through several replications, the RNA would then need to gain the ability to create a barrier between the extraneous ma-terials surrounding it, in order to iso-late the beneficial products from those proving non-functional. Thus, a mem-brane of sorts would have had to evolve and be maintained (Müller, 63:1285-1286). These steps are only the basics, proving the task much too complicat-ed to occur by mere chance.

the sugar used in DNA, differs from ri-bose used in RNA, by lacking one or-ganic functional group known as alco-hol. The absence of this alcohol group greatly increases the stability of DNA over RNA. In ribonucleic acids, this

–OH group is capable of initiating chem-ical reactions which favor breakdown of the RNA molecule. For these and oth-er reasons, DNA is a much more stable and preferable genetic material. This is made obvious by the fact that all liv-ing organisms use DNA, not RNA, as their permanent storage medium of ge-netic information. It also indicates that RNA would be an unsuitable medium by which to initiate life.

Evolutionists would have us to be-lieve that non-living elements and mole-cules joined together and developed in-creasing biological capabilities. Those who believe in intelligent design reject this hypothesis, insisting that neither RNA nor living cells are able to evolve spontaneously. While some disagree-ment exists among those in the evolu-tionary community on the time frame for such alleged reactions to occur, the consensus is that, given large amounts of time, single-celled bacteria were formed. But all known biological principles militate against this notion. Even bil-lions of years could not provide mecha-nisms for the reaction products to evolve advantageous characteristics and form DNA and cell proteins, let alone create strings of RNA nucleotides, arriving at just the right sequence in order to code for a functional protein. The four nu-cleotide bases that form RNA (adenine, guanine, cytosine, and uracil) can be ar-ranged in an exponential array of com-binations and lengths. For an actual, functional protein to be coded, a pre-cise sequence of nucleotides must be obtained. Forming the code for even one protein by evolutionary means is impossible, without even considering the necessity of the number that work together in a single cell.

There is no scientific evidence to sug-gest that RNA is spontaneously being created and capable of forming pre-cel-lular life today. While some artificial ri-bozymes have been created in the labo-

ratory (reviewed in Chen, et al., 2007), there are still significant holes in repro-ducing an RNA world to support the hypothesis. The ribozymes created ar-tificially lack the abilities to sufficiently process themselves, and there is no ev-idence of them producing large quan-tities of advantageous nucleotide se-quences. Moreover, no system has ever created cellular life. There is even signif-icant debate among scientists over the conditions and constituents of a “pre-biotic Earth” model.

The RNA World Hypothesis is simply another attempt by scientists to explain the origin of life to the exclusion of the divine Creator. Given the absolute im-possibility of life originating from the reactions of non-living matter, it can be justified that RNA did not predate other biological molecules. All biolog-ical molecules were created together to work in concert. RNA was designed to be the essential intermediate between DNA and proteins, making our cells capable of sustaining life as it was cre-ated. The designer of this system must be the intelligent Designer, the God of the Bible.

reFerenceSAlberts, Bruce, et al. (2002), Molecular Biol-

ogy of the Cell (Oxford: Garland Science).Chen, Xi, et al. (2007), “Ribozyme Catal-

ysis of Metabolism in the RNA World,” Chemistry and Biodiversity, 4:633-656.

Fedor, Martha and James Williamson (2005), “The Catalytic Diversity of RNAs,” Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, 6(5):399-412.

Gilbert, Walter (1986), “The RNA World,” Nature, 319:618.

Kruger, Kelly, et al. (1982), “Self-splicing RNA: Autoexcision and Autocycliza-tion of the Ribosomal RNA Interven-ing Sequence of Tetrahymena,” Cell, 31(1):147-57.

Müller, U.F. (2006), “Re-creating an RNA World,” Cellular and Molecular Life Sci-ence, 63:1278-1293.

Nissen, Poul, et al. (2000), “The Structural Basis of Ribosome Activity in Peptide Bond Synthesis,” Science, 289:920-930.

Valadkhan, Saba and James Manley (2001), “Splicing-related Catalysis by Protein-free snRNAs,” Nature, 6857:701-707.

In all known organisms living today, DNA and not RNA is the genetic ma-terial. DNA has advantages over RNA which make it a more suitable mole-cule to store the very important genet-ic code. First, DNA is a double-stranded molecule while RNA is single-strand-ed. The double-stranded nature of DNA gives it the ability to be replicated in a much simpler series of steps. When DNA is replicated, each of the two com-plimentary strands serves as a template on which to build another strand. The result is that in one step, each strand of DNA is replicated to produce four to-tal DNA strands or two identical dou-ble helices. RNA, however, is single-stranded. In order for it to be replicat-ed, two sequential rounds of replication would be required. First, a complimen-tary strand would need to be synthe-sized from the original parental strand. Only then could that new complimenta-ry strand be used to re-make the paren-tal strand. As stated before, DNA and RNA differ in the sugar which makes up the molecule’s backbone. Deoxyribose,

Periodicals PostagePaid

APoLoGetiCS PReSS • 230 LAnDmARK DRiVe • montGomeRY, AL 36117

any inspired apostle or prophet in the first cen-tury apply Old Testament prophecies to them. This certainly makes Jesus’ resurrection unique.

Third, Jesus’ resurrection is more significant than any other because He Himself prophesied numerous times that He would rise from the dead, even foretelling the exact day on which it would occur (read Matthew 12:40; 16:21; 17:22-23; cf. Mark 8:31-32; Luke 9:22). Jesus’ prophecies were so widely known that, after Jesus’ death, His enemies requested that Pilate place a guard at the tomb, saying, “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’ Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day…” (Matthew 27:63-64). They knew exactly what Jesus had said He would do, and they did everything in their power to stop it. Where are the prophecies from the widow’s son of Zarephath? Did he prophesy of his resurrection prior to his death? Or what about the son of the Shunammite woman whom Elisha raised from the dead? Where are his personal prophecies? Truly, no one who rose from the dead except Jesus prophesied about his or her own resurrection. Certainly, no one ever prophesied about the exact day on which he or she would rise from the dead, save Jesus. This prophecy makes His resurrection a significant event. He overcame death, just as He predicted. He did exactly what he said He was going to do, on the exact day He said He would do it.

Finally, and perhaps most important, the signif-icance of Jesus’ resurrection is seen in the fact that He was the first to rise from the dead never to die again. All others who previously were raised from the dead died again and are among those who “sleep” and continue to wait for the bodily resurrection. Only Jesus has truly conquered death. Only His resurrection was followed by eternal life, rather

than another physical death. Skeptics have argued that “it’s the Resurrection, per se, that matters, not the fact that Jesus never died again.” However, the inspired apostles said otherwise. Paul actu-ally linked the two together, saying, God “raised Him from the dead, no more to return to cor-ruption.… He whom God raised saw no cor-ruption” (Acts 13:34,37). Paul also impressed upon the minds of the Christians in Rome how Jesus, “having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him” (Romans 6:9; cf. Revelation 1:17-18). As so often is the case, skeptics comment on the Bible without really knowing what the Bible says. To say, that “it’s the Resurrection, per se, that mat-ters, not the fact that Jesus never died again,” is to deny (or ignore) what the apostles and proph-ets actually stated.

Jesus’ resurrection is significant—more so than any other resurrection ever to have taken place. Only Jesus’ resurrection was verbalized by inspired men as proof of His deity. Only Jesus’ resurrection was prophesied in the Old Testament. Only Jesus foretold of the precise day on which He would rise from the grave—and then fulfilled that prediction. And, only Jesus rose never to die again. Thank God for the resurrection of His Son!

Apologetics Press Tract Series

For information, contact Apologetics Press

230 Landmark Drive, Montgomery, AL 36117

Phone: 1-800-234-8558; Fax: 1-800-234-2882

E-mail: mail@ApologeticsPress.org

Order tracts directly at: www.ApologeticsPress.orgResurrection?

What’s So

Importantabout

Resurrection?

ImportantaboutJesus’

What's So Important About Jesus' Resurrection.indd 2 12/11/2008 9:53:55 AM

HowCan

a

LovingGod

PunishPeople

Another example of testing for intelligence would be that of the IQ (Intelligent Quotient) test designed to measure intelligence scientifically. Countless tests have been designed to assess the amount of intelligence possessed by individuals. Web sites that discuss such testing often use words and terms for their tests such as

“scientifically valid,” “intelligence testing,” “developed by Ph.D.s,” etc. (see “IQtest Home Page”). From such admissions, it can be inferred that intelligence is measurable and testable. If a person could take the different aspects of IQ tests that verify intelligence and apply them to things that are studied in the natural world, then intelligence could be tested and verified. In essence, that is exactly what has been evaluated in intelligent design books such as Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box (1996) and William Dembski’s Intelligent Design (1999).

W.R. Thompson, in his introduction to the 1956 edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species, stated it perfect-ly when he said:

It is…right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable. This situation where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by suppression of criticism and elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science (p. xxii).

In truth, proponents of evolution know that it cannot withstand open criticism. Furthermore, they know that evolution cannot be tested nor is it any more scientific than intelligent design; in fact, it is less so. Therefore, in order for them to keep it ensconced in textbooks, they must suppress criticism of it and not allow its varied and numerous flaws to be considered critically. The situation that has arisen due to this irrational adherence to evolution is nothing short of “abnormal and undesirable in science.” The next time someone demands that evolution is testable, ask for the experimental evidence that confirms that life came from non-life and observe the tell-tale silence that speaks the truth.

ReferencesBehe, Michael J. (1996), Darwin’s Black Box: Biochemical

Challenge to Evolution (New York: The Free Press).

Butt, Kyle (2005), “The SETI Project, Falling ‘Floppy Discs,’ and A Major Missed Implication,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/361

Dembski, William A. (1999), Intelligent Design: Bridge Between Science and Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).

Gendall, Michael (2005), “Religious Course Stresses Mythology,” [On-line], URL: http://badgerherald.com/news/2005/11/29/religious_course_str.php.

Hoffman, Jonathan (2005), “Scientific Theories More Than Guesses,” [On-line], URL: http://www.alligator.org/pt2/051129column.php.

IQtest Home Page (2005), [On-line], URL: http://www.iqtest.com/.

Kirk, David (1975), Biology Today (New York: Random House).

Moe, Martin A. (1981), “Genes on Ice,” Science Digest, 89[11]:36,95, December.

Thomas, Laurel (2005), “UNLV Teachers Dismiss ‘Design’ Theory,” [On-line], URL: http://unlvrebelyell.com/article.php?ID=880.

Thompson, Bert (1989), “The Bible and the Laws of Science: The Law of Biogenesis,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2004.

Thompson, W.R. (1956), “Introduction,” Origin of Species by Charles Darwin (New York: Dutton).

Wald, George (1963), Biological Science: An Inquiry Into Life (New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World).

Apologetics Press Tract Series

For information, contact Apologetics Press

230 Landmark Drive, Montgomery, AL 36117

Phone: 1-800-234-8558; Fax: 1-800-234-2882

E-mail: mail@ApologeticsPress.org

Order tracts directly at: www.ApologeticsPress.org

Evoluiton Intelligent Design and Testability.indd 2 12/11/2008 11:28:00 AM

May 2009 Reason & Revelation 29(5):40

Over the years, as the work at Apologetics Press has grown, we have striven to introduce products that could be used to present Bible teaching in a wide variety of instructional settings. Few of our products have proven to be as popular a teaching tool as the Apologetics Press Tract Series. The tremendous value of Bible tracts has been demonstrated repeatedly through the years. Tracts offer the average person an opportunity to grasp the truth of a basic Bible doctrine quickly and easily. A.P. has specialized in providing people with assistance on specific topics that fall within the purview of Christian apologetics and Christian evidences. Consider the recent remark of a preacher from Andalusia, Alabama:

I appreciate very much the materials that A.P. continues to produce and publish. Three years ago, I began studying with a young woman.... She was as close to an agnostic as I have ever experienced personally. She had been swayed by the many multi-million-dollar programs that media uses to promote evolution and attack the Bible. I used A.P.’s tracts to dismantle her convictions and build faith in the Bible and its doctrines. She obeyed the Gospel after almost a year and half of studying.In recent months, we have been working diligently to give

the Apologetics Press Tract Series a much-needed overhaul by refurbishing its appearance, adding new titles, and generally improving quality. Twenty new tracts are now ready. As more tracts are completed, we believe this new Series will be one which our readers and customers will appreciate. New titles include: “How Can a Loving God Punish People Eternally?” “Could Humans Have Lived With Dinosaurs?”

“The Predicted Messiah,” “Peter’s Denials and the Rooster Crowing,” “Archaeology and the Bible,” “Hearing God in the 21st Century,” “Man and the Age of the Earth,” “Evolution, Intelligent Design, and Testability,” “Understanding the Bible,” “Are the Resurrection Accounts Contradictory?”

“The Unity of the Bible,” “Faith Founded on Facts,” etc. These tracts are valuable teaching aids that can be stuffed in envelopes with payments of bills each month, sent or given to a friend you are trying to reach with the Gospel, left with someone in a hospital or convalescent home, and even left on your table at a restaurant.

We currently are working on several additional tracts that will be added to the series in the coming months (we will alert you to their availability as soon as they are published). [I might add that we also have five of our tracts available in the Russian language.]

In keeping with our goal of making available materials that are as affordable as possible, we have priced the tracts at only 20¢ per tract, or $18/100, or $170/1,000 (titles may be mixed to achieve the best pricing). See the center spread for more details. Also, see our new 2009/2010 catalog for a complete listing of tract titles. You also may phone our offices toll-free at 800/234-8558, or visit our Web site at www.ApologeticsPress.org. If we may be of assistance to you with tracts, or any of our other products and services, please let us know and we will be happy to help. We are here to serve, and genuinely appreciate your interest in our work.

Dave Miller

New tracts for adults