The view that man is simply the result of chance evolutionary events gives government moral permission to attempt to mold and shape its citizens to some desired outcome of those in authority. Other views of man, such as the classical position that he is a created being in the image of God with certain Creator granted rights, set limits on the amount of meddling the state can do to the human psyche. Those in power might find this view inconvenient to their goals, thus it is not surprising that the bias of government sponsored “science” is to discuss the evidence favoring macroevolution, but not that opposing it.

In the same way that evolution can give those in power a justification to concoct grand designs to shape their neighbor’s form and mind, global warming can give them a justification for grand designs for their neighbor’s property, industry and habits.

As with evolution, advocates for big centralized government are not neutral seekers of truth.

One set of outcomes is much preferable to them.

They want man-made global warming to at least appear to be a real threat because it justifies their efforts to centralize power over your life and property. It is not surprising that a balanced view of the evidence on these two issue must come from outside of the central authorities.

Nevertheless, we can still get hints of the truth when government-funded researchers attempt to discover exactly how nature originated life or obtained the new genetic information needed for an organism to developa simultaneous series of changes needed in order for a complex new structure to emerge and enhance fitness.

In the origin of lifescenario for example, the idea of unaided emergence of life is so improbable that there are only two ideas with any support. One is that DNA and RNA emerged first and later developed a way to metabolize, the other is that the metabolism came first and DNA and RNA came along to support it. Those who hold to the view that metabolism came first base their view on the demonstrated impossibility of DNA and RNA emerging from a pre-biotic soup.

Those who hold to the RNA world hypothesis have now retaliated. A team led by Mauro Santos, researcher of the Department of Genetics and Microbiology at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona decided to put the “metabolism first” idea to the test. They conducted an experiment on the ability of chemicals to evolve a metabolism without DNA and RNA there to help. The result was that they discovered a strict limit to the “evolution” of the system. That is, some early chemicalreactions similar to some steps in the process occur, but after that the reactions start degrading and going opposite to the desired direction. Life could not evolve from a metabolism first scenario.

It seems the proponents of each of the two schools of thought have invalidated the hypothesis of the other through experiment. What is left is the theory of intelligent design. That is to say, life did not originate by chance, but rather through the work of an intelligent Creator.

If the world goes on long enough, I am persuaded that macro-evolution will one day be proven to be just as phony as man-made global warming is being shown to be right now. Both false ideas are being pushed with piles of taxpayer dollars by the supporters of our out-of-control central governments. These people have hijacked pure science and turned it into a political tool to justify their rapacious desire to accumulate more and more control and power.

Opinion, Pages 4 on 01/13/2010