"Biologists have gone from thinking that they know what is going on in their subject to suddenly realising that they barely have a clue". You may be surprised to discover that this wasn't written by a young earth creationist, but rather by the science writer of the Economist magazine. They even go on to say, "It is beginning to dawn on biologists that they may have got it wrong". Now, if you're anything like me, and interact with people who have read a little Dawkins, and who claim that 'science has it all worked out', then this is useful material- but why is the Economistdemonstrating such scientific humility?
They have done it in response to an article recently published in the scientific journal, Nature. The article revealed the results of a major study into the precise workings of DNA: the double helix that holds the blueprint for life. Previously, we knew that DNA was made up of genes that produce the proteins we need to live. This is what we thought DNA was about- a gene machine. However, such genes only made up about 4% of DNA, the rest was considered 'junk'- which has prompted more than one commentator to suggest that even if God did create life, he wasn't particularly efficient.
However, the Naturestudy looked in detail at 1% of our whole DNA, and discovered that large tracks of DNA, far from being 'junk', are actually really important in regulating how our genes work. In particular, significant stretches of this so-called 'junk' DNA produce another molecule (RNA) that switches off and on our genes.
This revolution in our picture of DNA is so significant that we may have to change entirely what we think DNA is about. The Economistfront page called this, "Biology's Big Bang". But I think the better analogy is 'Biology’s Dark Matter'. Dark Matter is that stuff in the universe that we know almost nothing about, other than the fact that- together with Dark Energy- it makes up 95% of the universe. It would seem that the function of DNA is in a broadly similar camp.
So next time your Dawkins-reading-friend tells you that 'science has it all worked out', I suggest you point them in the direction of the Naturearticle, or even the Economistcommentary. (You might also draw their attention to this month's Scientific American, which highlights the fact that we still have no real idea how life began, and where the atheist author of the article calls Dawkins' account "fundamentally flawed"). In addition, to those who argue that God wasn't particularly efficient in creating DNA that was 96% 'junk', you may want to suggest that the only junk around was our limited understanding of what God had actually done.
Justin Thacker, Head of Theology, Evangelical Alliance
