Please note that links will take you directly to the source. AiG is not responsible for content on the news websites to which we refer.

1. The Scientist: “What if Humans were Designed to Last?”

It’s an intriguing question, asked by The Scientist magazine: “What if humans were designed to last?” Explaining in the first paragraph that “Charles Darwin, when drafting his theory of evolution, presented imperfections in humans’ anatomic structures and functions as the strongest evidence for his theory,” the authors wonder how a designed human would look different:

Evolution has given humans a beautifully orchestrated set of genetic programs to carry most of us through to sexual maturity [… y]et, if the molecular, cellular, and genetic machinery used to conceive, develop, and operate a human were designed rather than the result of evolution, humans would be different and life would look different.

The authors, then, in no uncertain terms, are looking at these questions through the “lens” of evolutionism; that is, accepting that evolution has failed to build the immortal human, but believing that humans can, potentially, engineer the human body someday into (hypothetical) immortality. Contributing scientists suggest solutions for brain aging, tooth aging, and so forth. In addition, the old canard about the mis-wired eye is brought up (scientist Bruce Carnes refers to “well known engineering flubs in the eye”).

What happens, though, if we look at the mortal and imperfect human body through the lens of biblical thought? We see that the human body was created exactly as God intended it: “very good” (see Genesis 1:27–31). But we also see that in Genesis 3, a great tragedy befell the human race when Adam and Eve sinned, and as a result, the Curse entered the formerly perfect world. And, in blatant opposition to the article in The Scientist, the Genesis account shows that death came to perfectly designed humanity as a result of sin (see Genesis 2:17). The shortcomings of our present world do not show a lack of design; indeed, the “legacy” of design remains and shines through in spite of the Curse (see Romans 1:20). Rather, the shortcomings of this world remind us daily of the penalty for sin: physical and spiritual death—and the need for a Savior.

2. Newswise: “Scientists Read Rocks’ History With Unprecedented Precision”

This article starts off by revealing a commonly forgotten fact of geologic dating: “Assigning dates to the events in the life of a rock […] has long challenged geologists, as the events themselves can confound evidence of the past.” Although many laypeople think of radiometric dating as unquestionably reliable, the truth is, many of the “ages” such dating methods suggest are contentious and contradictory. And, of course, no ages are actually given, but rather merely isotope levels. (For more on this topic, see our Radiometric Dating Q&A and recent RATE research.)

“But now,” the article asserts, “University of Massachusetts Amherst scientists are able to pin dates to geologic processes with unprecedented precision.” How?

[R]esearchers discovered that nature has a version of an airplane’s black box, in the form of a little-known mineral called monazite. [… M]onazite contains uranium and thorium—elements that decay to lead over a predictable length of time—allowing scientists to read the ratios of these elements like a clock.

In reality, the clock analogy is less accurate than the candle analogy. Although scientists may claim that such elements as uranium and thorium decay “over a predictable length of time,” they cannot prove that these decay rates have never changed; after all, such decay rates have only been recorded by scientists within the last century. Nor can they know for sure the original amount or ratio of these elements. If the rates of decay have rapidly decreased in recent millennia, such age estimations would be in significant error. Recent data from the RATE project shows the opposite—that rapid decay took place in the past. It is fascinating how this ground-breaking research has been ignored for the most part by those that believe in long ages. Yet long-age scientists accept the constancy of decay rates because of their a priori acceptance of uniformitarianism: that present observations are the key to understanding the past. This is incompatible with the Bible, which gives us the starting point (and ending point!) of the history of the universe.

In other words, radiometric dates are ultimately based on assumptions—unbiblical assumptions.

3. National Geographic News: “Interspecies Sex: Evolution’s Hidden Secret?”

James Owen, in a National Geographic News story, explains how a growing number of “hybrid species” have been observed in the wild. (Such hybrid species are the offspring of two distinct animal species, such as a lion and a tiger (see Ligers and wholphins? What next?). Noting that the process is common in plants, Owen explains, “This evolutionary process […] has long been considered extremely rare among animals.” But what is considered an evolutionary process is actually an important testament to the original created kinds.

The Bible indicates that God created the original animals “after their kind”—and accordingly reproduce within these respective kinds from Genesis 7:2–3 where respective kinds have a male and female. For example, dogs would give birth to dogs, elephants would give birth to elephants, and so forth. In fact, there’s an entire subdivision of creation science, called baraminology, that is devoted to categorizing the created kinds.

Over the millennia since the Curse, information in the genomes of animals has steadily decreased via natural selection causing speciation, such that in many cases, it is said that several separate species exist within what would be considered one biblical kind. For example, rather than one “deer” kind, we have over two dozen deer species. These inflated numbers are frequently used by Bible critics who claim Noah couldn’t have fit “millions of species” on the Ark, and thus the Bible cannot be trusted or read literally.

Reading about such interbreeding species, however, is a reminder that the original kinds incorporated many of today’s species. Noah’s Ark would have had sufficient room for representatives of each kind, and those representatives contained the genetic information to repopulate the earth, leading to the species we see today.

4. Wilkes-Barre (Pennsylvania) Times-Leader: “Exhibit considers Nazi quest for master race”

A new exhibit at the Andy Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, examines eugenics in mid-century Germany and other countries, including Norway, Spain, Brazil, Japan, and the U.S. Titled “Deadly Medicine: Creating the Master Race,” the exhibit uses hundreds of photographs, video segments, and artifacts to spotlight the topic.

What does this have to do with creation and evolution? The article points out that the exhibit will “trace eugenics’ development as a perversion of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution to its Nazi justification for genocide.” The article also points out that Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton coined the term “eugenics.” So, what is the (incomplete) story of such Darwinian eugenics as applied in Nazi Germany?

Beginning in 1939, the Nazis began euthanizing infants and children with physical and mental defects. More than 5,000 were killed between 1939 and 1945 through overdose, starvation and gassing. Between 1940 and 1941, some 70,000 institutionalized adults, largely non-Jewish Germans, were killed.

Sadly, and although most modern evolutionists distance themselves from such ideas, eugenics and “social Darwinism” are direct logical corollaries of naturalistic Darwinism. For more on this topic, see “Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust”, the Communism and Nazism Q&A , the Racism Q&A , and the section “How have evolutionary ideas influenced the eugenics movement?” in our Morality and Ethics Q&A.

5. Newsweek: “Beyond Stones & Bones”

This week’s Newsweek examines how “[t]he new science of the brain and DNA is rewriting the history of human origins.” Rewriting, indeed—but, as you might expect, the rewriting both contradicts earlier evolutionary beliefs and requires unbiblical assumptions! For our full treatment of this story, see “New science can’t save an old farce.” After reading our take on “molecular clocks” in that article, you can apply it to “High on Speciation,” another news story this week that deals with the same “new science” of evolution.

6. The Cincinnati Enquirer: “Creation Museum growing”

They say all publicity is good publicity; still, impartial, accurate coverage is much more appreciated than controversy and name-calling (which often surrounds Answers in Genesis). In this article, Ryan Clark of The Enquirer offers up the latest on our Creation Museum, set to open in just under two months and a half. We’re expecting at least 250,000 visitors during our first year and counting on people like you to help us meet or exceed that estimate, so plan your visit now!

Remember, if you see a news story that might merit some attention, let us know about it! And thanks to all of our readers who have submitted great news tips to us. If you didn’t catch last week’s News to Note, why not take a look at it now? See you next week!

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.