IS BELIEF IN A CREATOR REASONABLE?

Is it Really "Junk"? 

Biologists have long held that DNA is a recipe for the manufacture of proteins and nothing else. However, in time, it became evident that only about 2 percent of the genome consists of code for proteins. What is the purpose  of the other 98 percent of DNA?  This mystery DNA was "immediately assumed to be evolutionary junk," observed John S. Mattick, profession of Molecular Biology at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia.

The scientist who is credited with coining the term "junk' DNA' was evolutionist Susumu Ohno. In his paper "So Much 'Junk' DNA in Our Genome," he wrote that the remaining sequences of DNA "are the remains of nature's experiments which failed.  The earth is strewn with fossil remains of extinct species; is it a wonder that our genome too is filled with the remains of  extinct genes?" 

How did the concept of "junk" DNA affect the study of genetics?  Molecular biologist Wojciech Makalowski says that such thinking "repelled mainstream researchers from studying non-coding [junk] DNA," with the exception  of a small number of scientist, who "at the risk of being ridiculed, explore unpopular territories. Because of them, the view of junk DNA . . .began to change in the early 1900's. " Now, he adds, biologists generally regard was called  junk "as a genomic treasure."

In Mattick's opinion, the junk-DNA theory is a classic example of scientific tradition "derailing  objective analysis of the facts."  The failure to recognize the full implications of this, he says, "may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology."  Clearly, truth in science needs to be determined on the basis of evidence, not by popular vote.  That being the case what does recent evidence reveal about the role of  "junk" DNA? 

Next time: IS BELIEF IN A CREATOR REASONABLE? -What the "Junk" Does 

From the Awake! magazine