Scientists begrudgingly joined Bible believers recently in stating that science now confirms that the chicken had to precede the egg. While those of us in the creationists’ camp have known for a long time that true science and religion are not mutually exclusive, it is nice to see that our friends in academia have finally caught up with us in the realm of the obvious. As it turns out, scientists have identified a protein found only in a chicken’s ovaries that is responsible for shell formation. Thus, the key to creating a new chicken is within the chicken itself, not without. Moreover, scientists have noted that other avian species have similar proteins within them that perform the same task. Thus, not just the chicken, but all fowl, preceded their offspring. Now, I suppose, comes the scramble to explain this truth away so that it does not point to a Creator or Intelligent Design.
Die-hard advocates of evolution were certainly not silent in their criticism of this finding, commenting on-line on the UK Daily Mail‘s Web Site, which had announced this discovery in an article, that the research was bogus and that the reporter writing the article was actually a shill for creationists. These “junior evolutionists” expressed their credulity in the evolutionary theory that all fowls actually evolved from reptiles in the first place thereby returning primacy to the egg. What passes for proof that such an amazing thing as this occurred? Fossils of reptiles with feathers? Yes, such do exist. Yet, how do they know that there weren’t simply feathered reptiles in Earth’s ancient past? After all, no one living today was there to observe these creatures in the flesh. Why do such fossils automatically preclude all other explanations just because such disdained explanations don’t agree with evolutionary bias?
Doesn’t Occam’s razor, embraced by both atheists and creationists, state that the theory with the fewest new assumptions is usually correct? (The layman’s definition of Occam’s razor is usually stated as ” the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.”) How then are we to explain a reptilian egg giving rise to a chicken without having to provide many new assumptions in regards to the chicken’s origin or how a reptile eventually became the parent of a chicken in the first place? How can a creature produce an offspring differing drastically from itself, even permitting it many eon to accomplish the task? If there were such transitional creatures between the reptile and the chicken, why can we not find their fossils buried within the recesses of the earth?
Ultimately, we can only say that evolutionists are just too chicken to admit that the chicken came first. Such an admission would go far to undermine their faith in the blind, meandering process that is the theory of macroevolution and their trust in its prophets such as Darwin and Dawkins!