Why Scientists Still Believe That the Universe Had a Beginning
Sunday, April 12, 2026
Friday, November 20, 2020
Thursday, April 23, 2020
Tuesday, August 20, 2019
The Information in DNA is Best Explained by a Creator
By Dennis Edwards
Our bodies not only have irreducibly complex biological machines at work in each and every cell, but each cell has a DNA molecule which holds the information needed for the cell to reproduce itself, repair itself, etc. The DNA is an information code, the computer code of the cell. Where did the information, the computer code we find in the DNA molecule come from? "There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.”[1] Therefore, where does the information in the DNA come from?
Dr. Stephen Meyer, a proponent of the Intelligent Design hypothesis, has written extensively on the subject. In his book, The Signature in the Cell, he deals with the problem that specified information, the kind we find in DNA - which is purposeful, gives to the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. He writes,
“Our uniform experience affirms that specified information – whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulation experimente – always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind and not a strictly material process. So the discovery of the specified digital information in the DNA molecule provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a roll in the origin of DNA. Indeed, whenever we find specified information and we know the causal story of how that information arose, we always find that it arose from an intelligent source. It follows that the best, most causally adequet explanation for the origin of the specified, digitally encoded information in DNA is that it too had an intelligent source. Intelligent Design best explains the DNA enigma.”[2]
Nobel laureate and biochemist E.C. Komfield had a similar thought on the complexity within the cell when he observed the biological machines at work. He wrote,
“While laboring among the intricacies and definately minute particles in a laboritory, I frequently have been overwhelmed by a sense of the infinite wisdom of God…One is rather amazed that a mechanism of such intricacy could ever function properly at all…The simplist man-made mechanism requires a planner and a maker; how a mechanism ten times more involved and intricate can be conceived as self-constructed and self-developed is completely beyond me.”
Astronomer and mathematician Fred Hoyle who framed mathematically the Steady-State model of the universe and studied the mathematical probabilities of life forming randomly from non-life made the following comment:
“There is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on earth. Indeed, Francis Crick, who shared the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the structure of DNA, is one biophysicist who finds this theory unconvincing. So why do biologists indulge in unsubstantiated fantasies in order to deny what is so patently obvious, that 200,000 amino acid chains, and hence life, did not appear by chance. The answer lies in a Theory developed over a century ago, which sought to explain the development of life as an inevitable product of the purely local natural process. Its author, Charles Darwin, hesitated to challenge the Church´s doctrine on the creation, and publicly at least did not trace the implications of his ideas back to their bearing on the origin of life. However, he privately suggested that life itself may have been produced in “some warm little pond,” and to this day his followers have sought to explain the origin of terrestrial life in terms of a process of chemical evolution from the primordial soup. But, as we have seen, this theory simply does not fit the facts.”[3]
With the help of his university students, Hoyle calculated the probability of life forming from non-life from some unknown natural process. He concluded,
“The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 zeros after it. (Probability scientists consider one to a number with 50 zeros after it impossible, so thosands of zeros would dimish impossible beyond our ability to imagine.- Dennis) It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole General Theory of Evolution. There was no primordial soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must, therefore, have been the product of purposeful intelligence.”[4]
The leaders of today’s scientific community are aware of these difficulties. Because of Hoyle’s vociferous attacks against the idea of life forming from non-life spontaneously, he was denied a Nobel Prize, though he was one of the most prominant astronomers and mathematicians of his time. So why do scientists ignore the obvious? A Professor of Genetics for many years at Harvard University, Richard Lewontin, candidly reveals the secret.
“We take the side of evolutionary science (that life came form non-life spontaneously) in spite of the patent absurdities of some of its constructs, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just so stories, because we have a prior committment to materialism, and that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.”[5]
In other words, it is their pior belief system and committment to only materialistic explanations that force the scientists to reject supernational explanations even though the physical evidence is best explained by metaphysical means. They do not want a Divine foot in the door of scholastic thinking. Students would not be so quick to abandom faith and believe the unsubstaniated evolutionary stories.
Albert Einstein himself touched on Intelligent Design seen in the universe when he wrote the following:
“A scientist’s religious feelings take the form of raptuous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”[6]
Some 300 years earlier Sir Isaac Newton came to a similar conclusion, but went a bit further along in his thinking, which led him to the God of the Bible and not just a "Universal Consciousness."
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being…This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world (as the New Age philosophies teach – Dennis), but as Lord over all; and on account of His dominion He is wont to be called Lord God, or Universal Ruler.”[7]
From the DNA, to the biologically complex machines, to the harmony of natural law, to the movement of the celestial bodies themselves, all the evidence points to a Divine Creator God of superior intelligence. God is the best explanation for the information in the DNA molecule and God is the best explanation for the world we see and live in.
If you would like to read my online book Where is America in Bible Prophecy? click on the title.
Tuesday, September 5, 2017
Albert Einstein's belief in Intelligent Design!
Dennis Edwards
Albert Einstein rejected Judaism and traditional Christian churchianity, but he was serious scientist willing to accept where the evidence led and change his mind when he was wrong. At one point, he was a believer in the "Steady State Universe" developed by Fredrick Hoyle the British mathematician and astronomer. This idea started with the assumption that the universe was static and had always existed, that it had no beginning. However, after a famous solar eclipse in the beginning of the 20th century, scientists were able to prove through observation that light was effected by gravity. This fact led to the development of the "Big Bang" theory, so named by Fred Hoyle whose theory it overthrew. Einstein stated that it would have been a bigger error to cling to an idea that was shown to be wrong, than to have believed the idea in the first place.
However, Einstein's work in the mathematics and physics led him to a deep conviction that the universe was not the result of random processes. He said, "We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. [Here he is alluding to the different scientific equations that we use to describe the various forces of nature that we find, such as: gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, the speed of light, the chemical equations of the elements, etc. Einstein continues.] The child knows someone must have written these books. It does not know how. [In other words, Someone must have written the various laws of science - which, following his line of thought, should have led him to a personal Divine Being. But his prejudice against Judaism and organised Churchianity, led him to reject that hypothesis and procure belief in a type of impersonal universal force. He goes on to continue his thought.] It (the child) does not understand the languages in which they (the books) are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand those laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."[1]
Werner Von Braun, the German Aerospace Engineer which helped the USA develop the rockets that enabled the launching of America into space, said something very similar to Einstein. He said, "For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all...My experience with science led me to God. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we light a candle to see the sun?"[2]
Some 2,800 earlier than Lincoln, in the Book of Psalms found in the Hebrew Bible, we find these words in a Jewish hymn. "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day they speak, night unto night they reveal knowledge. There is no land or language where their voice is not heard."[6] The psalmist is eluding to the magnificent celestial bodies that cause us to stand in awe and ponder our significance in lieu of their awesomeness.
Have you come to the right conclusions? Are your biases against the organised religious system of today causing you to reject the intelligent and powerful Being who created the universe? Maybe you need to have another think. When asked to criticize the validity of the New Testament and agree with the conclusions of a skeptic regarding Christianity, Einstein surprisingly responded: "I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene....No one can read the Gospels [found in the New Testament] without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."[9]
Notes
[1] Einstein, Albert;
[2] Von Braun, Werner;
[3] Newton, Isaac; The Principles;
[4] Jefferson, Thomas;[5] Lincoln, Abraham;
[6] Psalm 19, Hebrew and Christian Bible
[7] Einstein, Albert; The World as I See It.
[8] Einstein, Albert; [9] Einstein, Albert;
Monday, January 13, 2014
Albert Einstein on Jesus of Nazareth
Albert Einstein’s mental prowess made him an icon for the disciplines of Science. As a Jew, Einstein had distinct views on Jesus, the New Testament, and the Church. Below is a clip of an interview from the Saturday Evening Post, October 26, 1929: “
To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?
"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."
Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus?
"Emil Ludwig’s Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot [a witty remark]."
You accept the historical existence of Jesus?
"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life...No man can deny the fact that Jesus existed and that his sayings are beautiful.”
In a letter to the Episcopal Bishop Edward R. Wells in 1945, Einstein wrote concerning the behavior of the Christian Church during the Holocaust.
“Being a lover of freedom… I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks. Only the church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing the truth. I never had any special interest in the church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly”~BaltimoreEvening Sun, April 13, 1979.
This is one Jew’s view of Jesus. I am aware there are many views of Jesus in the Jewish world. Some despise Him, some admire Him from a far, some secretly believe, and some radically follow Him.
It seems that Einstein was “almost persuaded” to believe in Jesus as King Agrippa in the book of Acts. Maybe he was a secret believer of sorts, accepting the message of the New Testament without accepting formal Christian Churchianity.
