"Junk" DNA?
Junk DNA? This expression has always bothered me. Scientists coined the term to describe the genetic “wasteland” within the human genome, or book of life, which consists of long uncharted stretches of DNA for which there is no known functionWhy not “mystery DNA” or “uncharted DNA”? Why junk? I want to suggest two reasons. One, there is a tacit arrogance associated with the worldview that asserts that science will give us all the answers. After all, scientific discovery has been impressive to date. Dare I say, we have gotten a little puffed up? We encounter stretches of DNA for which we have no explanation and presto, it must be junk because it does not appear to do anything.
A second reason, I think, is because the term “junk” fits nicely with the evolutionary paradigm. After all, a mechanism that is unguided and *blind* will produce junk, right?
If the evolutionary model of life’s development is correct, then “junk” DNA will indeed turn out to be junk after all. If the intelligent design model of life’s development is correct, then it will turn out that “junk” DNA will actually have a purpose after all. As scientists explore the uncharted sections of the human genome, we can add data points and watch the trend line to see which model corresponds to reality.
Permit me to submit one data point. Researchers at Harvard Medical School recently announced a new discovery. They discovered a new class of gene in the “junky” section of the genome. It turns out that this gene does not produce a protein or enzyme like other genes do. Its job is regulation. When it is turned ON, it regulates its neighboring gene. Suddenly researchers realize that a whole new class of genes exists. This paradigm shift will cause them to go back and take a fresh look at the “junk” stretches to see how many of these types of genes exist.
My prediction is that this pattern will repeat itself over and over until there is precious little junk left. Let’s watch the trend line on this closely and evaluate which worldview offers us a true picture of reality: naturalism or theism?
Let me be clear about one thing. I love science. It is naturalism that I find troubling because of its truncated view of reality.
In the meantime, I wish we could coin a new phrase besides “junk” DNA. Better yet, I wish scientists would take a more humble approach as they explore the complexity and beauty of life at its tiniest level.
1 Comments:
I agree Regis. The theistic framework stimulates research, not discourages it. It is analagous to a design engineer trying to reverse engineer a competitor's product. The design engineer would assume there is no junk in the design and try to understand the function of each component.
Biologists who are theists, likewise, approach study of the genome with an eagerness to understand how each aspect of the genetic strand works. Anyone who thinks ID is a big science stopper misses this obvious point.
Post a Comment
<< Home