The Primary Axiom is False

We’re on the radio in Boston (WROL 950 am) each weekday at 10:05pm. Boston is a major hub of medical and biological research, so today’s topic is especially pertinent to our Boston audience.

Retired Cornell genetics professor, researcher and inventor, Dr. John Sanford wrote Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome.

Dr John Sanford, A Cornell University Professor for more than 25 years, John has been semi-retired since 1998. His Ph.D. was in plant breeding and plant genetics. While a professor at Cornell, John has trained graduate students and conducted genetic research at the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station in Geneva, NY. During this time, John bred new crop varieties using conventional breeding and then became heavily involved in the newly-emerging field of plant genetic engineering. John has published over 80 scientific publications and has been granted over 30 patents. His most significant scientific contributions involve three inventions, the biolistic (“gene gun”) process, pathogen-derived resistance, and genetic immunization. A large fraction of the transgenic crops (in terms of numbers and acreage) grown in the world today were genetically engineered using the gene gun technology developed by John and his collaborators. John also started two biotech enterprises derived from his research, Biolistics, Inc., and Sanford Scientific, Inc. John still holds a position at Cornell (Courtesy Associate Professor), but has largely retired from Cornell and has started a small non-profit organization, Feed My Sheep Foundation.

A scientific convert to six-day creation, his groundbreaking new book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome demonstrates why human DNA is inexorably deteriorating at an alarming rate, thus cannot be millions of years old.

 
Dr. Sanford is interviewed in Plant geneticist: ‘Darwinian evolution is impossible’

John defines ‘The Primary Axiom’ as ‘man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection’ and explains that this belief goes unchallenged in academia. He believed it for most of his career until he seriously investigated the details. He now states that it is not only false, but provably false. Furthermore, he refers to this belief as ‘insidious’ and notes that realizing The Prime Axiom is false would profoundly affect how millions of people view themselves and the world.

Physicist Dr. John Hartnett, in a recent blog, Why believe in God in an age of science? commented on the disastrous effects of a belief in evolution:

At the 109th meeting of the Texas Academy of Science at Lamar University, Dr. Eric R. Pianka, a University of Texas ecology and lizard expert, was named the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist. Pianka then gave a speech saying people are ruining the planet and advocating the elimination of 90 percent of Earth’s population by airborne Ebola virus. He was not saying that scientists should make it airborne but that he looked forward to the day it evolved to be airborne. He said:

“We’ve got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that.”

I saw this on a video, and the at least 300 strong audience then gave him a standing ovation. See Doomsday glee.

In regards to “What is man?” on this planet earth, Oxford professor Peter Atkins says “just a bit of slime on the planet” and Richard Dawkins says “we live in a universe which has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”

With those kinds of ideas it is no wonder that these Oxford professors have this view of man. Really, evolution is a record of death and bloodshed, the strong over the weak and this process having continued for millions, even billions of years. I am not saying there are not morally good atheists, but because of these evolutionary ideas, ultimately the atheist, the evolutionist, has no basis for morality.

Look at the case of the Finland Jokela High School massacre where an eighteen year old Pekka-Eric Auvinen shoots 8 people (five boys, two girls and the female school principal), then kills himself in a rampage that stunned peaceful Finland. This occurred November 2007 in Tuusula municipality, north of Helsinki.

Pekka-Erik Auvinen

 
The shooter posted a message on YouTube before he committed the heinous act. It is entitled “Jokela High School Massacre – 11/7/2007” and was posted by a user called Sturmgeist89.

“I am prepared to fight and die for my cause,

I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection.

HUMANITY IS OVERRATED! Human life is not sacred. Humans are just a species among other animals and world does not exist only for humans… The faster human race is wiped out from this planet, the better… no one should be left alive..”

 

Ideas have consequences!

False beliefs continue to lead people to disastrous actions. Some professing Christians have committed atrocities, but when they did so their actions were contrary to the teachings of Christ. He said to “love your enemies” and “love your neighbor as yourself.” However, He also said to “Love God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind” and it is often this very teaching that self-centered man refuses to obey.

One thought on “The Primary Axiom is False”

  1. Dr. Sanford’s book goes straight to the lynchpin of evolutionary theory…..the mechanism by which it is supposed to operate (mutations run through the sieve of natural selection). In doing so, he obliterates any scientific credibility to the theory, which he calls “the primary axiom”.

    First, he dispels the convenient notion that evolutionists unwittingly forward, that natural selection can be invested with any sort of purpose or goal. Saying that it does have these properties introduces a logical inconsistency into the philosophically naturalistic framework.

    Second, he demonstrates in a clear manner with the analogy of an assembly line (mutation = copying error)(selection = differential copying), that point mutations tend to be deleterious and too nearly neutral to be selected. Mutations work upon individual nucleotide markers while natural selection is supposed to select for phenotype characteristics (which are scales of magnitude greater than the scope of genetic mutations). This makes nucleotide point mutations invisible to natural selection. Furthermore, the accumulation of nearly neutral harmful mutations vastly outweigh any rare occurrence of a hypothetical beneficial mutation (which is nearly neutral and thus unselectable). Consequently, the genome will inevitably break down over time. This not only refutes the Darwinian macro flux of the genome, but shows that it cannot even be maintained.

    The book also covers many other scientific criticisms that refute mutation/natural selection as a valid mechanism for macro-evolution (of which we have zero evidence of anyways). One of the most intriguing to me is poly-constrained messages. For recent discoveries in genetics have shown that the information is not purely linear, but comprises of overlapping codes, and even three dimensional coding. If a point mutation tends to scramble/make less intelligible the information in a linear message, it has a greater effect in a poly-constrained message. Because, that one change will effect multiple messages. So, even if one message is benefited by the point mutation (extremely rare to be generous), the other messages would be negatively impacted. This would only have a harmful effect on the overall fitness of the organism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Anti-Spam Quiz: