Is God Speaking to You Today? Video 5 min

 Is God Speaking to You Today? - Apologetics Press

Please click on the link above and follow the path provided

John Calvin

 

The Philosophy of John Calvin

By Wayne Jackson

John Calvin was born in 1509 in a small village about fifty miles north of Paris. When he was fourteen years old, he went to Paris to study theology and philosophy.

For a while, he turned his attention to pursuing a law degree. But in 1534, he began work on his famous Institutes of the Christian Religion, which he completed the following year. He was only twenty-six at the time. This work was revised over a period of twenty-five years.

Calvin eventually died of tuberculosis in 1564 at the age of fifty-five.

Calvin’s Influence

John Calvin was tremendously influential in the Protestant world. He is generally credited with being the spiritual father of Prebyterianism and the Reformed Churches.

But Calvin had been significantly influenced by Augustine (354-430). One authority says that he “often read the Biblical text through the eyes of Augustine” (Westminster Dictionary of Church History, p. 148).

And so, while it is true that, to some degree, Calvin was a reformer, it is likewise the case that he carried a considerable amount of baggage from the Western (Roman) Church — that body which eventually evolved in to the Roman Catholic Church.

Calvin’s Philosophy

There is a passage from Calvin’s Institutes that vividly illustrates the attitude he entertained as to how the authority of the Scripture is to be considered. His jaded viewpoint is common in the religious community today.

The topic is baptism — particulary the mode. May the rite be administered by the sprinkling of water, or is the immersion of the whole person required?

Whether the person baptized is to be wholly immersed . . . or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either, according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptize means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church" (Institutes, 1975 ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, II, 524.)

There are several important points to consider in this revealing quotation.

A candid admission

First, Calvin concedes that the word “baptize” means immerse. This is telling testimony from an unbiased source who thinks the mode is immaterial.

The verb does signify “immerse,” as several texts, both in the Greek Old Testament and in the original New Testament, clearly reflect.

In numerous passages (cf. 2 Kgs. 5:14; Lk. 16:24; Jn. 13:26), the translators were not tempted to disguise the original meaning because their theological bias was not challenged.

And so, they rendered the original languages purely, rather then employing the camouflage of anglicizing, i.e., bringing the term from one language directly into another, with only slight letter modification.

What the primitive church practiced

Second, Calvin acknowledged that immersion “was the form used by the primitive Church.” This is very significant because it reveals what the early practice was as the church functioned under the oversight of inspired apostles.

Moreover, the reformer cited no example where doctrinal adjustment is permitted to accomodate “diversity of climates.” This reveals a very strong precedent in those days of no “heated” baptistries. There must be some reason why the ancient church insisted on immersion, even though that clearly was inconvenient on numerous occasions.

Free to innovate

Third, Calvin reveals much when he suggests that churches “should be at liberty” to ignore the meaning of the words of holy scripture, and flout the example of divinely inspired church leaders.

This flawed ideology is at the root of vast changes that have corrupted the religion of Jesus Christ. May we learn from this distressing episode.

Related Articles

• The Truth on Baptism Should Not Be “Watered Down”
• John Calvin and Grace
• A History of the Baptism Apostasy
• Does Archaeology Prove that Baptism May Be Administered by Sprinkling?
• Was Jesus Immersed in the Jordan River?
• The Holy Spirit “Illumination” Theory: A Critical Review
• The Baptist Church: An Historical Perspective
• The Emerging Church Movement—The New Face of Heresy
• Do We Have a Choice About Salvation?
• Calvinism and the Great Commission

Scripture References

Luke 16:24; John 13:26

Cite this article

Jackson, Wayne. "The Philosophy of John Calvin." ChristianCourier.com. Access date: September 9, 2021. https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/201-the-philosophy-of-john-calvin

Nature of Cain’s Sin

 

What Was the Nature of Cain’s Sin?

By Wayne Jackson

We were discussing Cain’s sacrifice in Genesis 4 in class recently, and some suggested that Cain’s “vegetable” offering was what God wanted, but Cain just did not give his “best.” My answer was that he and Abel should have offered the same thing (i.e., an animal sacrifice); however, I cannot prove that to be so.

Though there is no explicit explanation given in the Genesis narrative as to why God rejected Cain’s offering, it seems to me that the cumulative evidence in this case argues that Cain’s transgression consisted of more than just offering an inferior gift.

Here are my reasons.

Abel’s Gift Was More Excellent

While the adjective pleion (rendered “more excellent”) basically means greater either in quantity or quality, it can also denote that which is superior by reason of inward worth.

For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said that life is more than food. Life’s intrinsic greater value is in view.

There may be, therefore, a suggestion here that involves the nature of the gift offered (see below).

As in any case, however, the context of Hebrews 11:4 will have to determine the meaning of the word in that setting.

Abel’s Gift Was By Faith

When the expression “by faith” is employed in Hebrews 11:4ff with reference to the great characters of the Old Testament, it connotes the concept of obedience time and time again.

Verse eight explicitly says what the other passages imply, “By faith Abraham . . . obeyed.”

This principle becomes even more vivid when one compares the various examples of Hebrews 11 with their Old Testament background.

For instance, “By faith Noah . . . prepared an ark” (Heb. 11:7). As Moses shows in the Genesis narrative, this means he was strictly obedient to the divine instructions (Gen. 6:22).

To offer sacrifices by faith was to offer in harmony with sacred revelation (cf. Rom. 10:17), rather than the exercise of human “will-worship” (Col. 2:23).

The fact that these two brothers apparently brought their offerings at the same time may suggest that a heavenly instruction had been given. In view of the surrounding context, therefore, it appears that Cain’s sin was one of outright disobedience, not merely a weakness in giving that which was inferior.

Abel’s Gift Was Pleasing to God

The narrative in Genesis 4 leaves the impression that the type of offering made was the determining factor that brought God’s favor upon Abel, but not upon Cain.

Consider this. If the offering made was on account of sin (and the text does not explicitly say), then it would be reasonable to assume that a blood offering had been required (cf. Heb. 9:22). This could account for the Lord’s displeasure.

The comments of Professor Ralph Earle, in my judgment, are helpful here. He notes one idea regarding this matter:

Cain brought a bloodless offering, and thus offended Deity by posing as righteous and not in need of any sacrifice for sin. This theory has strong theological appeal. It assumes previous divine instruction as to what type of offering must be brought for making atonement for sin. There is indication that such a revelation had been given by the use of the verb form in Gen. 4:3 that can mean customary action (2003, 284).

Perhaps this is what the Hebrews writer alludes to in that God bore witness with respect to his gifts that Abel was “righteous.”

And so, while it may be the case that Abel’s offering was of better quality than his brother’s, it seems likely that there was a greater intensity of disobedience on Cain’s part than mere selfishness in offering a less valuable gift.

When Jude places Cain in a catalog of vile rebels, he seems to confirm our view of the character of Adam’s first child (Jude 11).

See also: Why Was Cain’s Sacrifice Rejected?

Related Articles

• Abel Still Speaks, But Are We Listening?
• Why Was Cain’s Sacrifice Rejected?
• The Blood of Christ Across the Centuries
• The Silence of the Scriptures: Permissive or Prohibitive?
• Did the Ancient Gentiles Have the Hope of Salvation?
• The Crimson Flow
• Was There Forgiveness Under the Law of Moses?
• The Righteousness of God Revealed
• The Christian Priesthood
• What Is Meant by “the Spirits of Just Men Made Perfect”?

Works Cited

• Earle, Ralph. 2003. Cain. Wycliffe Bible Dictionary. Charles F. Pfeiffer, Howard F. Vos, and John Rea, eds. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Scripture References

Genesis 4; Hebrews 11:4; Hebrews 11; Hebrews 11:7; Genesis 6:22; Romans 10:17; Colossians 2:23; Hebrews 9:22; Genesis 4:3; Jude 11

Cite this article

Jackson, Wayne. "What Was the Nature of Cain's Sin?" ChristianCourier.com. Access date: September 9, 2021. https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/268-what-was-the-nature-of-cains-sin

Amazing Consistency of Criticism Video short 3 and 1/2 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/amazing-consistency-of-criticism/ 

Please click on the link above and follow the path provided.  Thank you

Paul’s Final Prayers

 

One of Paul’s Final Prayers

By Wayne Jackson

Perhaps the most poignant of all Paul’s letters was 2nd Timothy – written from his last Roman imprisonment, and obviously not long before his death (cf. 4:6).This document thus is the concluding literary composition of the noble apostle.The letter embodies words of instruction and admonition for his young friend, Timothy – his “true child in faith” (1 Tim. 1:2). The message also contains an urgent appeal to Timothy to “come” to the apostle’s side as soon as possible (4:9).In addition, this epistle reveals much of the “heart” of the magnificent Paul.

There is a passage near the conclusion of this letter that has long intrigued me.

“At my first defense no one took my part, but all forsook me: may it not be laid to their account” (4:16).

What are the circumstances behind this puzzling statement? Is it possible that we may entertain the wish that some, who have not treated us as well as they should have, might nonetheless be recipients of Heaven’s favor? Let us explore this thought momentarily.

First, there is the matter of the historical context. What is meant by the phrase, “my first defense"? That is by no means a fully settled question. While a few have argued that the expression alludes to the apostle’s earlier, two-year confinement in Rome (Acts 28), most scholars are persuaded that the reference is to a preliminary trial in connection with his terminal imprisonment.

In A.D. 64, a week-long fire engulfed the Imperial city. The emperor Nero was rumored to have set the city ablaze to cover his own ineptness as an administrator. Reportedly, he maliciously laid the blame for the catastrophe upon the followers of Jesus, and Christianity became an “illicit religion. "Paul’s arrest is believed to have taken place a couple of years following these events.

It appears that the apostle had been brought to trial initially but was cleared of a preliminary charge. It is likely, however, that another allegation was pending, and that Paul was waiting for a second trial phase – from which he expected no deliverance. His looming fate seems fairly certain in his mind (4:6).

Additionally, it is clear that when the valiant soldier for Christ was brought before the authorities in the initial segment of his trial procedure, no one, in a position to help, was willing to stand with him. It may be that he had sent forth an appeal to brethren, to appear on his behalf as character witnesses, but, for fear of their lives perhaps, many had “turned away” from him (cf. 1:15; 4:16).

Where were those of the Roman church who had so joyously traveled out to meet the apostle when he first approached the seven-hill city (Acts 28:13-15)? Had many of these been martyred already? Certainly, no assistance could be expected from the “anti-Paul” faction in Rome (cf. Phil. 1:15ff).

Finally, the most amazing thing about this circumstance is Paul’s attitude with reference to those who “forsook” him – “may it not be laid to their account. "Clearly, he seems to be referring to the final settlement of human affairs at the day of Judgment (cf. 1:16-18). Amidst the mystery of this passage, a few facts seem plain.

1. Paul was not making a petition on behalf of the dead. Following death, there is no opportunity for one’s “account” to be altered.
2. While the verb (in the optative mood, thus a request) does constitute a prayerful petition, it is not feasible to suggest that the noble apostle was asking God to ignore the willful and arrogant disdain of divine law, pursued with no inclination of repentance, by apostate brethren. Such a view would disregard other passages of emphatic import (Lk. 17:3; Acts 8:22; 1 Jn. 5:16).
   
   Within this same context the apostle refers to Alexander, of whom he says, he “did me much evil. . . for he greatly withstood our words” (vv. 14-15). It seems rather apparent that this Alexander, whoever he was, did harm to Paul because he opposed the gospel. And of that situation the apostle simply says: “the Lord will render to him according to his works. "
3. The King James rendition, which makes this a wish, does not have the best textual support. On behalf of such a one there was no petition for mercy.
4. It seems that Paul considered the neglect in this instance as one of human weakness, rather than overt rebellion. Fear can cause one to panic under extreme conditions, and perhaps do that (or fail to do that) which might not be the case under less stressful circumstances. It does appear that in this situation the apostle sees the possibility that God will understand the human element and extend grace to those who might not have been as valiant as they could have been ideally.

One is inclined to recall David’s affirmation: “As a father shows compassion to his children, so the Lord shows compassion to those who fear him. For he knows our name; he remembers that we are dust” (Psa. 103:13-14). The words of Paul to Timothy, therefore, may not be merely a commentary upon the forgiving spirit of apostle, it also may underscore the mercy of the HIM who knows the true character of our hearts.

May God help us to do our best to be faithful and courageous. In addition, may we always trust him, being assured that he is a compassionate Father who will do what is right on man’s behalf in every case (Gen. 18:25).

Related Articles

• A Gracious Petition
• Paul’s Prayer for the Weak
• Some Character Traits of Paul, the Apostle
• Did Paul Pray for the Dead?
• Paul’s Two-Year Roman Imprisonment
• The Spirit of Generosity — A Study in Contrasts
• Psalm 69 – A Plea for God’s Deliverance
• Some Final Words from Paul
• May a Christian Address Christ in Praise or Prayer?
• Be Confident of Your Salvation – Studies in 1 John (Part 2)

Scripture References

1 Timothy 1:2; Acts 28; Acts 28:13-15; Philippians 1:15; Luke 17:3; Acts 8:22; 1 John 5:16; Psalm 103:13-14; Genesis 18:25

Cite this article

Jackson, Wayne. "One of Paul's Final Prayers." ChristianCourier.com. Access date: September 9, 2021. https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/820-one-of-pauls-final-pr

 

Problems for the Theory of Evolution

By Wayne Jackson

Occasionally, news articles come to our attention which contain data that really throw a “monkey wrench” into the theory of evolution. Let me mention three such items I noted a few years ago.

Mount Saint Helens

Evolutionary scientists date the earth at approximately 4.5 to 5 billion years old. Most folks are not aware that there is really no incontrovertible scientific proof to establish these fantastic dates. They are grounded in a series of assumptions that are based upon evolutionary premises. In other words, the “clock” is rigged to provide the “long ages” of earth’s history.

Why is this the case? Because, as everyone concedes, time is an absolutely essential ingredient in the Darwinian scheme. Dr. George Wald of Harvard called it the “hero of the plot.” Evolutionists need vast amounts of time for the millions of evolutionary changes to occur which would produce the amoebae-to-man phenomenon.

It has been demonstrated many times, however, that the “evolutionary clocks” are terribly flawed (see Jackson 2003). Here is a somewhat recent example.

Remember the Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption? It occurred on May 18, 1980. As a result of that catastrophe, a new lava dome was formed on the site.

Not long ago, the lava dome was dated by the radiometric method. Guess how old it turned out to be? It yielded a date of 2.8 million years! If that does not demonstrate that the “clock” is broken, then what would?

The fossil record of degeneration

Here is another interesting item. Tens of millions of fossils have been found beneath the surface of the earth that provide us with a veritable library of what life was like upon the ancient earth. And the record contains some surprising mysteries.

For instance, one of the foundation stones of the evolutionary theory is that of “natural selection.” This is the idea that in the struggle of life the stronger survive while the weaker are eliminated. This was Darwin’s “survival of the fittest.”

While there is some truth in the principle, it is taken much too far by the disciples of Darwin. If this has been the guiding factor in evolution, over vast periods of time, one would expect to find in the fossil record evidence of the increasing hardiness of the species as time passes.

Actually, just the opposite is true. The fossil record bears mute testimony to the fact of degeneration. Earth’s creatures were much more robust in the past than they now are.

For example, the January 2000 issue of National Geographic magazine reports the discovery of a huge depository of fossils in a large cave in Brazil. It contained, for instance, the skull of a spider monkey that was twice the size of modern spider monkeys. The fossil of a twenty-foot ground sloth was also discovered. These discoveries literally shout, “Digression!”—not progression.

Rapid fossil creation

It is commonly believed that fossils take vast ages to form; this, supposedly, is another of those “proofs” employed by novices to suggest an earth millions of years old.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense, of course, when you think about the fact that when animals die, they are usually consumed by other animals, or simply decay away.

But here is a bizarre news item: According to an article published on January 5, 2000, by the Reuters News Service, doctors in Taiwan recently performed surgery on a seventy-six-year-old woman. In her abdomen they discovered a fossilized fetus that had been conceived forty-six years ago.

The report asserted that only three such cases have been recorded in history. The tiny fetus (0.7 ounce) had solidified into a rock-like substance, hardened by calcium buildup.

The theory of evolution is so besieged with problems that it’s amazing it is so widely believed. But then, most people do not investigate. They simply believe what they are told—especially when it has the fumes of “science.”

Many scientists have a vested interest in pushing evolution. Why is that? Because the only other alternative is creation. And that, of course, points to God—and a responsibility to him.

So for them, that is simply out of the question.

Related Articles

• Five Questions About Evolution that Charles Darwin Can’t Answer
• Lessons from the La Brea Tar Pits
• Evaluating Evolution in Plain English
• Lessons from the Grand Canyon
• Those Missing Links
• Answering God’s Critic
• An Evolutionary Anomaly or “Barking Up the Wrong Tree”
• Ellen Goodman and Those Creationists
• Another Fossil Flub
• Skeletons in the Closet of Science

Works Cited

• Jackson, Wayne. 2003. Creation, Evolution, and the Age of the Earth. Christian Courier Publications: Stockton, CA.

Cite this article

Jackson, Wayne. "Problems for the Theory of Evolution." ChristianCourier.com. Access date: September 9, 2021. https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/147-p

Is the Bible True? Video 5 min

 Is the Bible True? - Apologetics Press

Please click on the link above and follow the path provided.  Thank you

"THERE IS NO GOD"!

 

AND YOU TELL ME "THERE IS NO GOD"!

The RNA World Hypothesis Explained and Unexplained
by Kathleen 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 University of Alabama at Birmingham and serves as Assistant Professor of Biology at Freed-Hardeman University.]

One of the goals within the discipline of biology is to define life. This goal, however, is no simple task. While we can have an intuitive 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 impossible. To circumvent this problem, scientists have defined life by stating characteristics shared by all life forms. To be considered “alive,” a system of molecules must possess each of these characteristics. Examples include (1) the ability to sense and respond to stimuli, (2) the ability to acquire and utilize materials for energy, (3) the ability to store genetic information in the form of DNA, and (4) the ability to self-replicate. 

All living organisms share these basic characteristics, and those systems of molecules which lack even one of these basic characteristics is not considered to be a living organism.

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the genetic material used by all living organisms 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 organism, maintaining the fingerprint and thus the identity of that organism.

The function of DNA as the genetic material 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 organism. They are known, appropriately, as the workhorses of a cell, because they carry out the vast majority of organismal tasks, including catalysis.

A catalyst is any substance capable of increasing the speed of a chemical reaction. Within each living organism on Earth, millions of chemical reactions take place every minute. The majority of these reactions are prompted by a very large group of protein catalysts known as enzymes. 

These enzyme-mediated chemical reactions range from those used to synthesize various metabolites to those used to break down ingested foods. By serving as enzyme catalysts, proteins play a crucial role in all living organisms. For without enzymes, organisms would be both unable to break down the food that they ingest and unable to make the necessary metabolites needed to sustain life.

While the vast majority of functional enzymes within living organisms are proteins, scientists have discovered that another group of molecules, known as ribonucleic acids (RNAs), are also capable of catalyzing some chemical reactions (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 offspring, 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). 

Furthermore, another group of RNAs, known as ribosomal RNAs (rRNAs), is used along with proteins to build the cellular structure known as the ribosome, which is the cellular location at which proteins are made. 

So, RNA plays several related roles in the process of protein production: (1) it carries the genetic code from DNA to the ribosome, (2) it helps form the structure of the ribosome, and (3) it functions in catalysis.

While there are a few other examples (reviewed in Fedor and Williamson, 2005), the catalytic properties of RNA are best seen in the ribosome. When proteins are synthesized by an organism’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 polypeptide 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 catalyst (Nissen, et al., 2000). This catalytic RNA has thus been termed a ribozyme.

Later it was discovered that yet another group of RNAs, the small nuclear RNAs (snRNA), were also capable of catalyzing a chemical reaction (Valadkhan and Manley, 2001). When produced by the cell, mRNA must undergo a series of maturation steps before it is fully functional 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 contains 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 regions, known as exons, must be linked or spliced back together. These “cut-and-paste” events occur within the cell’s nucleus 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 complexes have been dubbed small nuclear ribonucleoproteins or “snurps.” Interestingly, scientists found that not protein, but RNAs were responsible for catalyzing the chemical reactions that take place during these splicing events. RNAs were carrying out chemical reactions on other RNAs.

Scientists were very excited by these revolutionary findings. Now, they had a single type of molecule, RNA, that possessed 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 proteins. 

In 1986, Walter Gilbert coined the phrase “RNA World” and initiated what is now known as the RNA World Hypothesis (Gilbert, 1986). This hypothesis on the origin of life states simply that because RNA has the dual ability 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 widely accepted by evolutionists, because it provides an alleged solution to a long-recognized problem in evolutionary theory. Consider how proteins are made by a cell. 

First, DNA which holds the genetic 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 another 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 compared to translating the copy of the letter from one language into another. Nucleic acid (DNA and RNA) is changed into another molecule altogether: protein. This linear progression of DNA to RNA to protein is known in biology 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 replicated. So, while DNA stores the genetic code and can be replicated, it cannot perform any chemical reactions. And, while protein can perform chemical reactions, it cannot store genetic information. So, in evolutionary thinking, which came first—DNA or protein? Making the problem even more difficult, 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 process. 

So, what came first—the chicken or the egg? DNA or protein? Each relies upon the other. You should begin to see how RNA might solve this problem. If RNA can both store genetic information and catalyze chemical reactions, 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 plausible, a set of conditions must be created to favor the spontaneous formation of RNA molecules without the aid of a biological catalyst. 

This would have had to be the starting point for an RNA world. One necessary component for RNA formation would be a steady supply of nucleotides, the building blocks of RNA. Scientists speculate these nucleotides were created from other small molecules present, or were generated in space before arriving on earth. 

Ribose, the sugar used in RNA, is assumed to have arisen from formaldehyde via the formose reaction. The mystery of the addition of nucleotides onto a ribose backbone remains unsolved by scientists attempting 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-replication. After sustaining itself through several replications, the RNA would then need to gain the ability to create a barrier between the extraneous materials surrounding it, in order to isolate the beneficial products from those proving non-functional. Thus, a membrane 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 complicated to occur by mere chance.

In all known organisms living today, DNA and not RNA is the genetic material. DNA has advantages over RNA which make it a more suitable molecule to store the very important genetic code. 

First, DNA is a double-stranded molecule while RNA is single-stranded. 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 complimentary 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 total DNA strands or two identical double helices. RNA, however, is single-stranded. 

In order for it to be replicated, two sequential rounds of replication would be required. First, a complimentary strand would need to be synthesized from the original parental strand. Only then could that new complimentary strand be used to re-make the parental strand. 

As stated before, DNA and RNA differ in the sugar which makes up the molecule’s backbone. Deoxyribose, the sugar used in DNA, differs from ribose used in RNA, by lacking one organic functional group known as alcohol. The absence of this alcohol group greatly increases the stability of DNA over RNA. In ribonucleic acids, this–OH group is capable of initiating chemical reactions which favor breakdown of the RNA molecule. 

For these and other reasons, DNA is a much more stable and preferable genetic material. This is made obvious by the fact that all living organisms use DNA, not RNA, as their permanent storage medium of genetic information. It also indicates that RNA would be an unsuitable medium by which to initiate life.

Evolutionists would have us to believe that non-living elements and molecules joined together and developed increasing 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 disagreement exists among those in the evolutionary 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 billions of years could not provide mechanisms 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 nucleotide bases that form RNA (adenine, guanine, cytosine, and uracil) can be arranged in an exponential array of combinations and lengths. For an actual, functional protein to be coded, a precise 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 suggest that RNA is spontaneously being created and capable of forming pre-cellular life today. While some artificial ribozymes have been created in the laboratory (reviewed in Chen, et al., 2007), there are still significant holes in reproducing an RNA world to support the hypothesis. The ribozymes created artificially lack the abilities to sufficiently process themselves, and there is no evidence of them producing large quantities of advantageous nucleotide sequences. Moreover, no system has ever created cellular life. There is even significant debate among scientists over the conditions and constituents of a “prebiotic 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 impossibility of life originating from the reactions of non-living matter, it can be justified that RNA did not predate other biological molecules. 

All biological 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 created. The designer of this system must be the intelligent Designer, the God of the Bible.

REFERENCES
Alberts, Bruce, et al. (2002), Molecular Biology of the Cell (Oxford: Garland Science).

Chen, Xi, et al. (2007), “Ribozyme Catalysis 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 Autocyclization of the Ribosomal RNA Intervening Sequence of Tetrahymena,” Cell, 31(1):147-57.

Müller, U.F. (2006), “Re-creating an RNA World,” Cellular and Molecular Life Science, 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

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240140 - it was originally published in Reason & Revelation, 29[5]:37-39