Blue eyes a ‘young’ phenomenon
A recent Fox News article brought out some interesting news about people with blue eyes, namely, that blue-eyed people must share a common ancestor within a relatively recent time period. Here’s a perfect example of a scientific discovery that can fit nicely within a “creation science” perspective.
Please read the article before continuing on with this commentary. You can find it at:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327070,00.html
First of all, we have to be able to decipher what is true science versus what falls under the category “assumptions.” I think a certain number of facts can be established from the evidence.
Fact: Certain people have blue eyes.
Fact: A difference in the OAC2 gene causes this.
"… a genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a 'switch,' which literally 'turned off' the ability to produce brown eyes." All people with blue eyes (at least those examined so far) have this mutated gene.
The person who originally had the “mutation” did not have blue eyes. The trait was passed on and inherited by grandchildren or great-grandchildren.
Most of the science here has to do with basic genetics.
Here are the assumptions that would be difficult to test:
1. The first blue-eyed person lived 6,000-10,000 years ago.
2. That the gene is actually a “mutation.”
Other assumptions:
3. The conventional scientific scheme calls this the “Neolithic” or “New stone-age” period. (Comment: I think it could be easily established that various “periods” of technology overlap. Just because one person is working in stone, doesn’t mean that another in some other discovered or undiscovered part of the world couldn’t have been working in bronze or iron.)
Let’s put some of the same data in a “creation” perspective.
1. One person 6,000-10,000 years ago having the blue-eyed gene easily fits within a young- earth time frame, if that is actually the case. (But, still, 6,000-10,000 for the origin of blue eyes is an assumption).
2. The origin of the gene may well be a mutation, but is it possible that this was “coded-for,” and, therefore, already part of the genetic possibilities within Adam and Eve? (Creationists may already be saying that this trait truly is a mutation, so my thought here could be at odds with them). Or, if we accept the “mutation” idea at face value, this could have already been part of the genetic code within “Noah’s family” or within the generations shortly thereafter.
3. The idea of close genetic relationships (marriages to cousins as stated in the article) is not out of line with the intermarriages that would have had to occur in the early created earth and after the Flood.
Really, none of the information in the article contradicts a young-earth perspective (except perhaps the comments about the “Neolithic Age” which really are the writer’s interpretations and NOT the FACTUAL evidence).
Here is just another case where one can use the SAME EVIDENCE and come to a different conclusion. One doesn’t at all have to throw science out the window to think within the creation perspective. One only needs to see if there are other possible interpretations of the EVIDENCE.
Editor's Note: This commentary reproduced with the permission of guest contributor, Chris Truelsen. Truelsen is a graduate of Purdue University. He received his M.Div. from Concordia Seminary, St. Louis in 2001. He is Associate Pastor of St. John's Lutheran Church in Lanesville, IN. Chris enjoys writing and blogging as a hobby, and has also written material for the online version of "Higher Things," a Lutheran publication. Chris is the sole writer for the website: TheMuseAndTheScribe.com
Leave a Reply