What Scientists Won’t Admit About the Origin of Life with Dinesh D'Souza...
Saturday, February 8, 2025
Sunday, January 26, 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.
Wednesday, April 3, 2019
Thursday, July 20, 2017
No One Understands Chemical Evolution - Not One!
Consider what Dr. James Tour, Professor of Chemistry at Rice University, has to say about life's origins. He also teaches Computer Science, Materials Science, & Nano-Engineering. He is one of the world's leading experts in synthetic chemistry - the science of designing complex molecules. This is from a lecture at the University of Waterloo in 2016.
"Abiogenesis is the prebiotic process wherein life, such as a cell, arises from non-living simple organic compounds: carbohydrates, nuclear acids, lipids, proteins, and amino acids. All this is needed before evolution can begin. We have no idea how molecules that compose living systems could have been devised such that they would work in concert to fulfill biology's functions. We have no idea how the basic set of molecules, carbohydrates, nucleic acid, lipid, and proteins, were made and how they could have coupled in proper sequences, and then transformed into ordered assemblies until there was the construction of a complex biological system, and eventually to that first cell. Nobody has any idea on how this was done when using the know mechanisms of chemical science.Those that say that they understand are wholly uninformed regarding chemical synthesis. Those that say this is all worked out, they know nothing: nothing about chemical synthesis. Nothing!From a chemical perspective, neither I nor any of my colleagues can fathom a prebiotic molecule route to construction of a complex system. We cannot even figure out the prebiotic routes to the basic building blocks of life: carbohydrates, nucleic acids, lipids, and proteins. Chemists are collectively bewildered. Hence, I say that no chemist understands prebiotic synthesis of the requisite building blocks, let alone assembly into a complex system. I've asked all my colleagues, National Academy members, Nobel Prize winners. I sit with them in our offices. Nobody understands this. So if your professors say, ´It's all worked out.` your teachers say, ´It's all worked out,` they don't know what they are talking about. It is not worked out. You cannot just refer this to somebody else. They don't know what they are talking about."
