Veritasphobia

Aiden wrote,

I’m actually going back and forth with an evolutionist and we’re finally getting to the real issue: the invention of brand new genetic information. I’ve asked this evolutionist to give me the mechanism and observable examples. Maybe you can help. Here is the reply: “ok [sic], so I don’t know all the mechanisms for evolution but I will explain the ones I know. The first is a mutation where 1 amino acid changes into another this can add genetic information because alot [sic] of the DNA is actually just not used, a mutation can change an unused part of DNA to actually code a new protein, this changes the way the cell functions. The second method i [sic] know of is transposition of dna [sic], a sequence of dna [sic] is moved or copied during reproduction again, this can create new proteins because the different position of DNA strands will create different shapes. As for a case where we’ve seen this happen, you have the case of rhe [sic] the fish in the hudson [sic] river which are not resistant to toxic water, elephants in africa [sic] are beginning to lose therw [sic] tusks to avoid poachers or even just the flu evolving to have a different antigen each year so we’re no longer immune to it” The evolutionist’s English isn’t good but that’s alright. What would be your response?

Sadly, our response was incomplete and missed the point. We replied,

Changing one amino acid is like changing one letter in a word. The newly formed word probably won't be found in an English dictionary. Even if the new word does have a definition, it still doesn't contain any information because it doesn’t transfer knowledge from a source to a destination. A series of random dots and dashes might create a word in Morse Code, but the word would not mean anything. Changing a single bit in a computer program will probably cause the program to fail--it won't add functional capability. Copying functional DNA from one part of a gene to another part, or from one species to another, might result in a useful improvement. This is what genetic engineers ("Gene Jockeys") do. But, they do it on purpose because they have reason to believe it will provide a desired benefit. They don't do it by accident. Furthermore, simply cobbling together existing useful genes doesn't solve the problem of where the useful genes came from in the first place. I am highly doubtful of the elephant example--but if true, it doesn't solve the problem. Losing the information to make tusks does not answer the question of where the genetic information to make tusks came from in the first place. If true, losing tusks is an example of devolution--not evolution. As we are seeing now with COVID-19, some people die from it, but most people don't. Some fish might not suffer as much from pollution as others do. That's simply variation--not evolution.

Upon further reflection, we should have said more about the claim, “a lot of the DNA is actually just not used, a mutation can change an unused part of DNA to actually code a new protein, this changes the way the cell functions.” Once upon a time, scientists thought most of the genome was “junk DNA” which had no use. It turned out that the junk DNA actually was useful—but scientists didn’t know what it did. Junk DNA was actually evidence of ignorance of the scientists, not evidence of useless DNA created by chance (or the incompetence of a not-so-intelligent designer).

If there actually were some unused sections of DNA, adding useful DNA there would only solve half of the problem. The cell mechanism that reads the information in the DNA would not read that part of the DNA because it would not expect to find any information there, and would not know what to do with it. It would be like sticking a vinyl record in a CD player. There is music on the vinyl—but the CD player doesn’t know how to read it.

Information is the transfer of knowledge from a source to a destination using a transmission method understood by both the source and the destination. Правда! (Our Russian readers know that’s the truth! We are sorry most of you won’t get the joke; but the point is that Russian isn’t an information transfer method we both understand.)

Emotional Manipulation

Our logical refutation of the folly of random changes producing new genetic information missed the most important point. An underlying theme of this month’s newsletter has been that when logic fails, unscrupulous people resort to emotional bullying.

There is no scientific evidence that elephants in Africa are beginning to lose their tusks to avoid poachers—but the evolutionist who wrote to Aiden believes it. Fear that elephants may go extinct someday has an emotional foundation.

Thinking that random changes to the DNA molecule will add new functionality is like thinking that randomly adding a flat screen to a radio will turn it into a TV set, or like changing an instruction in a computer program from Multiply to Subtract will make the program work better. Since there is no rational reason to believe these things, there must be an irrational reason.

If you have had many discussions with an evolutionist, you will no doubt have been personally attacked. If you don’t believe in evolution, you will be called stupid. You will be called a liar. You will be called “anti-science.”

We didn’t mention it in this month’s feature article, but if you present statistical data that shows (in your area of the country) the risk of catching the COVID-19 virus is too small to justify closing many businesses, you will be accused of not caring about people dying. Closing certain businesses was a purely emotional response based on fear.

Biology professors who have seen what happened to their colleagues who expressed doubt about the validity of the theory of evolution will naturally be afraid to take a public stand against evolutionary nonsense. Students who can’t be convinced of the theory of evolution by logic can be made to accept it through fear of getting a bad grade, or fear of ridicule.

Presenting scientific data to Aiden’s evolutionist won’t change his mind if he is afraid to accept the truth.

Danger is Real. Fear is Not.

This finally brings us to the title of this essay. Veritasphobia is fear of the truth.

There is a difference between fear and danger. Recognition of danger leads to prudent decisions; but not all fear is based on actual danger. There is no danger that the monster under your bed will get you while you sleep, no matter how much fear you feel. Danger is a rational recognition of an actual threat. Fear is irrational. Therefore, decisions based on fear are irrational, and seldom are wise.

Belief in the theory of evolution is a symptom of veritasphobia. If you accept the theory of evolution because you are afraid other people will make fun of you and call you stupid, that’s the first step to letting people manipulate your entire life through emotional blackmail. That’s some of the collateral damage resulting from the way evolution is taught in public schools.

Aiden’s evolutionist said, “I don’t know all the mechanisms for evolution but I will explain the ones I know.” In truth, he didn’t know any mechanisms. Despite the fact he didn’t really know any mechanisms, he felt compelled to share the propaganda he had been told. Since there isn’t a logical reason for him to do that, there must be an emotional reason.

It is impossible to convince an evolutionist to admit he is wrong using logic if logic isn’t the reason he believes it. There are a few cases where someone has accepted evolution without question because he really hasn’t thought much about it. When shown the science against evolution, he will reject it immediately—but those cases are rare. In most cases, especially those cases where someone initiates the discussion in an attempt to get you to accept evolution, logic doesn’t matter—it’s all about emotion, and that emotion is usually fear.

It could be fear of ridicule. It could be fear of losing a job. It could be fear of God. In these cases you can’t convince an evolutionist to change his mind using logic. You need to find out what the evolutionist is afraid of, and address the fear before presenting the science against evolution.

More importantly, you need to recognize when someone is using fear to try to control you.

Quick links to
Science Against Evolution Home Page	Back issues of Disclosure (our newsletter)
Web Site of the Month	Topical Index