DNA

[xot]

Newsweek International, Feb 24th, 2003 page 39 "Truth, Beauty and the Double Helix" says:

The average museumgoer...probably knows that humans and chimpanzees differ by only a handful of genes.

The implication is that this scientific fact is evidence we are closely related to monkeys and this, in turn, reinforces the theories of evolution.

Assuming that our genetic makeup is really very close, how does this fit in with creationism? What is the fallacy in the previous statement?

[Dr. John Nay]

First, the assumption that the genetic makeup is really "very close", may be a fallacy. (Link - Answers In Genesis, "Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity? Not any more" by David A. DeWitt, Ph.D., Department of Biology, Liberty University)

Whether humans and chimps are close genetically or not does not demonstrate the necessity for a common ancester. Humans and bananas share approximately 50% of the same genes (Creation Magazine, 24, pp. 10-12, 2002). Does this make make half banana? I believe any commonality lies in the fact of having a common Creator. To accept the DNA molecule as being the result (effect) of time & chance (cause) is beyond my understanding.

I believe that it is important to understand that "evidence" is relative to the credibility (or faith) one puts in the source of the information coupled with ones' personal world view.

I propose that all humans "...walk by faith" (2 Corinthians 5:7), as we are not omniscient beings and thereby determine what is or is not true based upon where we have placed our faith. However, I do not believe that truth is relative to ones' perception and do believe that a finite (in knowledge) being can determine beyond a reasonable doubt absolute truth.