A law does not determine the form and the being of a creature. It is the other way around. Laws are formulated by a designer, to preserve and discipline the existence, the movements, the symbiotic relationships, and survival of integral extant things.
Nature has laws, and laws did not create nature but the Creator of nature predetermined its laws.
THE ROMANS 11:24 (RSV)
For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree.
Scientific knowledge nowadays, have realized the potential harm that can be caused by harsh human intervention in nature. Notice the emphasis of these products on non-GMO, for example.
The Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT) has been writing about the dangers of GMO foods. (Ref: http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers).GMO stands for genetically modified organism defined in the dictionary as “the result of a laboratory process where genes from the DNA of one species are extracted and artificially forced into the genes of an unrelated plant or animal. The foreign genes may come from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or even humans.”
Are they safe?
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) doesn’t think so. The Academy reported that “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. The AAEM asked physicians to advise patients to avoid GM foods.
Before the FDA decided to allow GMOs into food without labeling, FDA scientists had repeatedly warned that GM foods can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged long-term safety studies, but were ignored.
The report said some of the findings of the AAEM include: (1)Thousands of sheep, buffalo, and goats in India died after grazing on Bt cotton plants; (2) Mice eating GM corn for the long term had fewer, and smaller, babies; (3) More than half the babies of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks, and were smaller;
-(4)Testicle cells of mice and rats on a GM soy change significantly; (5) By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies;(6) Rodents fed GM corn and soy showed immune system responses and signs of toxicity; (7) Cooked GM soy contains as much as 7-times the amount of a known soy allergen;
-(8)Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced; (9)The stomach lining of rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive cell growth, a condition that may lead to cancer. Studies showed organ lesions, altered liver and pancreas cells, changed enzyme levels, etc.
As seen in the report, interventions in the studies involved Bt cotton plants, corn, soy, and potatoes. The report further said –
Unlike safety evaluations for drugs, there are no human clinical trials of GM foods. The only published human feeding experiment revealed that the genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function. This means that long after we stop eating GM foods, we may still have their GM proteins produced continuously inside us.
Implications for interventions point to super diseases, but that is not all. The point is that such diseases are not within easy control of man. Studies hypothesize on GM corn, for example, and lay down the problem: turning intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories. Here is the last part of the report –
If the antibiotic gene inserted into most GM crops were to transfer, it could create super diseases, resistant to antibiotics. If the gene that creates Bt-toxin in GM corn were to transfer, it might turn our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories. Although no studies have evaluated if antibiotic or Bt-toxin genes transfer, that is one of the key problems. The safety assessments are too superficial to even identify most of the potential dangers from GMOs.
What does the Bible say?
Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle engender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee.
The injunction is not to mix! And when there is an injunction, there is a purpose – to the best of man.
Nature is governed by laws but nature has not the capacity to formulate the law of nature. How can something that will exist, before its existence determine the law it will follow during its existence? Someone superior in knowledge and strength, someone above nature, a supernatural, called in the Bible “God,” ordained the laws of nature.
Obviously, the interdependence of living creatures upon each other is formulated by a Designer. It is absurd to think or hypothesize, for example, that evolution or natural selection formulated the symbiotic benefits being derived by humans from the billions of bacteria that thrive within human alimentary canal! It is purposed by the Designer of life. No way could it be otherwise.
My eyes are located in a place where they can be most efficient to serve their purpose: to see. It was placed by the Intelligent Designer at the front because the most convenient way of mobility is to look forward where you are heading to. And if you want to see what is at the back, you can simply turn around easily, or you can use a mirror or a camera! How awkward it would be if the eyes of an atheist were placed at the back of his head. That’s laughable but it’s a possibility – without an Intelligent Designer!
He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?
Even the foolish godless Charles Darwin admits that it is absurd to think that the complexity of the functions of the human eye could have been formed by natural selection! (Ref: Charles Darwin, “On the Origin of Species, Chapter 6 – Difficulties on Theory, p.80)
ORGANS OF EXTREME PERFECTION AND COMPLICATION.
To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.
Mathematical exactness cannot be determined by mutation and evolution. Mutation, as science knows it, is a kind of accidental mishap. How can it be logically and scientifically possible that the billion cells in the human body have exactly 46 chromosomes each – if there is no designer? Take note that with the exception of the sperm cell of a male person having only 23 chromosomes and the egg cell of a female person also having the same number, the combinations are necessary to make up 46 chromosomes that will start a new cell life – an exact one half coming from the father and an exact one half coming from the mate, having the exact number, and exact codes of information to pass on character traits to the offspring.
Some warm little pond, natural selection, survival of the fittest elimination of the unfit, or the whole idea of evolution cannot put all these things together with mathematical preciseness! The following are excerpts from LiveScience.com (Ref: http://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html) –
In the first edition of “The Origin of Species” in 1859, Charles Darwin speculated about how natural selection could cause a land mammal to turn into a whale. As a hypothetical example, Darwin used North American black bears, which were known to catch insects by swimming in the water with their mouths open:
“I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale,” he speculated.
The idea didn’t go over very well with the public. Darwin was so embarrassed by the ridicule he received that the swimming-bear passage was removed from later editions of the book.
Here is that part from Darwin –
Random mutations resulted in at least one whale having its nostrils placed farther back on its head. Those animals with this adaptation would have been better suited to a marine lifestyle, since they would not have had to completely surface to breathe. Such animals would have been more successful and had more offspring. In later generations, more mutations occurred, moving the nose farther back on the head.
Other body parts of early whales also changed. Front legs became flippers. Back legs disappeared. Their bodies became more streamlined and they developed tail flukes to better propel themselves through water.
The term random mutation is unacceptable to a real scientific mind! At the same time it is squarely unbiblical!
I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.
Scientifically, all living things have DNA and genes – unknown to Darwin – that protect and preserve a definite species! God meant living things to produce its kind perpetually.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
The phrases “after his kind,” and “after their kind,” means a definite species for every living thing. Findings in the Cambrian explosion prove this account in the Bible that most species existed simultaneously at the same time and not through natural selection. This denies the foolish idea of evolution. Notice the following in Darwin’s writings –
“If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory to descent with slow modification though natural selection.” (Ref: Charles R. Darwin, ”The Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life’ A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 302).
“To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. …Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian is very great… The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” (Ref: Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 1872, pp. 316-317) –
While it is true that mutation happens among living things, random mutation is likely impossible in the vast periods of time that have passed. The perpetuation of a particular species is dictated and preserved in the DNA. So pollution, radiation, and harmful chemicals that may cause mutations are not as common and extant in the distant past when allegedly evolution started as it is nowadays! More so, random mutation! Hence, 23 plus 23 equals 46 cannot be a formula determined by random mutation. I must emphasize that even the godless Darwin said that “It is absurd to think that the human eye is formed by natural selection!” Darwin is much, much, much, much, much better in thinking than atheists of today!
The condition recorded in the Bible after creation is: Situation is very good!
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
There were no harmful man-made chemicals, no intermittent radiation in the environment caused by man’s invention such as microwaves, cellular phones, electrical appliances, etcetera, which can be possible causes of random mutation, why? Because the situation is very good!
This is Part 5 of Possibilities and Impossibilities in the Bible.
More to come, God willing.