Hmmm, could it be left wing media?

I don't usually care about such things but this article about research that strengthens the argument for evolution just seems such an obvious attack on faith in a Creator.

Using DNA samples from ethnically diverse populations, they identified a collection of variations in each gene that occurred with unusually high frequency. In fact, the variations were so common they couldn't be accidental mutations but instead were probably due to natural selection, where genetic changes that are favorable to a species quickly gain a foothold and begin to spread, the researchers report.

Lahn offers an analogy: Medieval monks would copy manuscripts and each copy would inevitably contain errors — accidental mutations. Years later, a ruler declares one of those copies the definitive manuscript, and a rush is on to make many copies of that version — so whatever changes from the original are in this presumed important copy become widely disseminated.

-By LAURAN NEERGAARD, AP Medical Writer

It's amazing to me that the random analogy Lahn selected out of his large, evolving brain just also happened to demonstrate the invalidity of canon writings. Just coincidence, I'm sure. I'm a Christian who also happens to accept the possibility that I Am ("I Am" = the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the God commonly worshipped by Christians) created us and allows humans to adapt over time (although I don't subscribe to the belief that all species came from the same species source), however I just think that the very analogy this person used to try to dumb down his research to the common folk demonstrates that, in fact, the object of this research is to disprove the existence of the Creator.

Of course, the very statement

the variations were so common they couldn't be accidental mutations but instead were probably due to natural selection,

could make the sly reader ask such questions as "if they are not 'accidental mutations', does that mean they are mutations which occur by intelligent design?" or "doesn't the term 'natural selection' imply that nature has been created with some set of rules, by which nature can then select?".

I've come to the conclusion that you can't argue a non-believer into believing. However, I still think that the source of creation is an important question that we should address. I think we sometimes get caught up in our religious world with other religious people that have variances on our faith, but have a commonality in the root of our faith. What then happens to the people that lack that root belief in any type of God? In the process of becoming a believer, any nonbeliever must address the creation question within himself. Once a nonbeliever, sees the possibility of a Creator, then the love of God becomes quickly and clearly evident.

E