La información del ADN se explica mejor mediante un Creador.

Dennis Edwards

¿De dónde proviene la información del ADN? Opción uno: De un proceso material puramente no dirigido, no guiado y sin propósito. Opción dos: Es producto de algún tipo de inteligencia creadora.

Nuestros cuerpos no solo poseen máquinas biológicas irreductiblemente complejas que operan en cada célula, sino que cada célula tiene una molécula de ADN que contiene la información necesaria para que la célula se reproduzca, se repare, etc. El ADN es un código de información, el código informático de la célula. ¿De dónde proviene la información, el código informático que encontramos en la molécula de ADN? El científico de la información Dr. Werner Gitt, en su libro "En el principio era la información", nos dice:

"No existe ninguna ley de la naturaleza conocida, ningún proceso conocido ni ninguna secuencia de eventos conocida que pueda causar que la información se origine por sí misma en la materia". [1]

Por lo tanto, ¿de dónde proviene la información del ADN?

El Dr. Stephen Meyer, defensor de la hipótesis del Diseño Inteligente, ha escrito extensamente sobre el tema. En su libro «La firma en la célula», aborda el problema que la información específica, como la que encontramos en el ADN —específica y con un propósito definido—, plantea a la teoría darwiniana de la evolución. Escribe:

«Nuestra experiencia uniforme confirma que la información específica —ya sea inscrita en jeroglíficos, escrita en un libro, codificada en una señal de radio o producida en un experimento de simulación— siempre surge de una fuente inteligente, de una mente y no de un proceso estrictamente material. Por lo tanto, el descubrimiento de la información digital específica en la molécula de ADN proporciona sólidos fundamentos para inferir que la inteligencia desempeñó un papel en el origen del ADN. De hecho, siempre que encontramos información específica y conocemos la historia causal de cómo surgió, descubrimos que provino de una fuente inteligente. De ello se deduce que la mejor explicación, la más adecuada desde el punto de vista causal, para el origen de la información específica codificada digitalmente en el ADN es que también tuvo una fuente inteligente. El diseño inteligente explica mejor el enigma del ADN».[2]

La información codificada en la molécula de ADN apunta decisivamente a una fuente inteligente, no a un proceso natural sin dirección. El premio Nobel y bioquímico E.C. Kornfeld (1919-2012) tuvo una reflexión similar sobre la complejidad celular al observar los mecanismos biológicos que operan en su interior. Escribió:

«Mientras trabajaba entre las complejidades y las diminutas partículas en un laboratorio, con frecuencia me he sentido abrumado por la infinita sabiduría de Dios… Resulta asombroso que un mecanismo de tal complejidad pueda funcionar correctamente… El mecanismo más simple creado por el hombre requiere un planificador y un constructor; cómo un mecanismo diez veces más complejo y elaborado puede concebirse como autoconstruido y autodesarrollado es algo que me resulta completamente incomprensible».

El astrofísico y matemático Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), quien formuló matemáticamente el modelo de estado estacionario del universo y estudió las probabilidades matemáticas de que la vida se originara aleatoriamente a partir de materia inerte, hizo los siguientes comentarios en su libro El universo inteligente:

“No existe ni una pizca de evidencia objetiva que respalde la hipótesis de que la vida comenzó en una sopa orgánica aquí en la Tierra. De hecho, Francis Crick, quien compartió el Premio Nobel por el descubrimiento de la estructura del ADN, es uno de los biofísicos que considera esta teoría poco convincente. Entonces, ¿por qué los biólogos se entregan a fantasías sin fundamento para negar lo que es tan evidente: que 200.000 cadenas de aminoácidos, y por ende la vida, no surgieron por casualidad? La respuesta reside en una teoría desarrollada hace más de un siglo, que buscaba explicar el desarrollo de la vida como un producto inevitable de un proceso natural puramente local. Su autor, Charles Darwin, dudó en desafiar la doctrina de la Iglesia sobre la creación y, al menos públicamente, no analizó las implicaciones”. Sus ideas se relacionaban con el origen de la vida. Sin embargo, en privado sugirió que la vida misma pudo haberse originado en «algún pequeño estanque cálido», y hasta el día de hoy sus seguidores han intentado explicar el origen de la vida terrestre mediante un proceso de evolución química a partir de la sopa primordial. Pero, como hemos visto, esta teoría simplemente no se ajusta a los hechos.[3]

En Ingeniería y Ciencia, escribió:

«Una interpretación lógica de los hechos sugiere que una superinteligencia ha intervenido en la física, así como en la química y la biología, y que no existen fuerzas ciegas en la naturaleza de las que valga la pena hablar. Las cifras que se derivan de los hechos me parecen tan abrumadoras que hacen que esta conclusión sea prácticamente incuestionable».[4]

Con la ayuda de sus estudiantes universitarios, Hoyle calculó la probabilidad de que la vida se formara a partir de materia inerte mediante algún proceso natural desconocido. En su libro Evolución desde el espacio, concluyó:

“La probabilidad de que se forme vida a partir de materia inanimada es de uno entre un número con 40 000 ceros. (Los científicos de probabilidad consideran imposible que uno entre un número con 50 ceros sea imposible, por lo que miles de ceros serían...)

Basta con enterrar a Darwin y a toda la Teoría General de la Evolución. No existió una sopa primordial, ni en este planeta ni en ningún otro, y si los orígenes de la vida no fueron aleatorios, debieron ser, por lo tanto, producto de una inteligencia con propósito.[4]

Debemos admitir que la probabilidad de que la vida surja por casualidad mediante la evolución es la misma que la de sacar un seis en los dados cinco millones de veces seguidas.

Seamos científicamente honestos: la probabilidad de que la vida adquiera cada vez mayor complejidad y organización por casualidad es la misma que la de que un tornado arrase un desguace y, al otro lado, se forme un Boeing 747.

Los líderes de la comunidad científica actual son conscientes de estas dificultades. Debido a los vehementes ataques de Hoyle contra la idea de que la vida se origine espontáneamente a partir de la materia inerte, se le negó el Premio Nobel, a pesar de ser uno de los astrofísicos y matemáticos más destacados de su época. Entonces, ¿por qué los científicos ignoran lo evidente? Richard Lewontin (1929-2021), profesor de Genética durante muchos años en la Universidad de Harvard, revela con franqueza el secreto.

«Nos aferramos a la ciencia evolutiva (que la vida surgió espontáneamente de la materia inerte) a pesar de las evidentes absurdidades de algunas de sus construcciones, a pesar de la tolerancia de la comunidad científica hacia explicaciones sin fundamento, porque tenemos un compromiso previo con el materialismo, y ese materialismo es absoluto, pues no podemos permitir que intervenga lo divino».[6]

En otras palabras, es su sistema de creencias previo y su compromiso con las explicaciones exclusivamente materialistas lo que obliga a los científicos a rechazar las explicaciones sobrenaturales, incluso cuando la evidencia física se explica mejor por medios metafísicos. No quieren una explicación divina. Esto les abriría las puertas al pensamiento académico. Los estudiantes no abandonarían tan fácilmente su fe y creerían en las teorías evolucionistas sin fundamento. Richard Dawkins coincidió con esta opinión y afirmó:

«Aunque no existiera evidencia real a favor de la teoría darwiniana, estaríamos justificados al preferirla sobre todas las teorías rivales».

En lo que respecta a la ciencia moderna, lo sobrenatural no existe y no debe considerarse en una teoría científica. Dios está fuera del alcance de la ciencia y no puede considerarse como un mecanismo en la búsqueda de los orígenes. Incluso si los datos parecen apuntar a una causa metafísica o sobrenatural, los científicos se inclinarán por una causa natural sin fundamento, porque no quieren permitir que lo divino entre en juego. Su castillo de naipes podría hacerse evidente para todos y derrumbarse rápidamente.

Sin embargo, el propio Albert Einstein (1879-1955) abordó la idea del Diseño Inteligente en el universo cuando escribió lo siguiente:

«Los sentimientos religiosos de un científico toman la forma de un asombro extasiado ante la armonía de las leyes naturales, que revela una inteligencia de tal superioridad que, comparada con ella, todo el pensamiento y la acción sistemáticos de los seres humanos son un reflejo completamente insignificante».[7]

«Todo aquel que se involucra seriamente en la búsqueda de la ciencia se convence de que un espíritu se manifiesta en las leyes del universo: un espíritu inmensamente superior al del hombre». y ante la cual, con nuestras modestas capacidades, debemos sentirnos humildes.

Unos 300 años antes, Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727) llegó a una conclusión similar, pero profundizó un poco más en su pensamiento, lo que lo llevó al Dios de la Biblia y no solo a la "Conciencia Universal" de Einstein, que este último había tomado del filósofo Spinoza (1632-1677). Newton, considerado el científico más grande de todos los tiempos en 2005 por la Real Sociedad de Londres para el Mejoramiento del Conocimiento Natural, escribió:

"Este bellísimo sistema del sol, los planetas y los cometas solo pudo provenir del consejo y el dominio de un Ser inteligente y poderoso... Este Ser gobierna todas las cosas, no como el alma del mundo (como enseñan las filosofías de la Nueva Era y las orientales – Dennis), sino como Señor de todo; Y debido a su dominio, se le suele llamar Señor Dios o Soberano Universal.[8]

Desde el ADN hasta las complejas máquinas biológicas, pasando por la armonía de las leyes naturales y el movimiento de los cuerpos celestes, toda la evidencia apunta a un Dios Creador Divino de inteligencia superior. Dios es la mejor explicación para la información contenida en la molécula de ADN y la mejor explicación para el mundo que vemos y en el que vivimos.

Como escribió el salmista: «Los cielos cuentan la gloria de Dios, y el firmamento anuncia la obra de sus manos» (Salmo 19:1). «Te alabaré, porque soy una creación admirable; maravillosas son tus obras, y esto lo sabe muy bien mi alma» (Salmo 139:14). El apóstol Pablo concluyó de manera similar: «Porque sus atributos invisibles, su eterno poder y su naturaleza divina, se han percibido claramente desde la creación del mundo, en las cosas que han sido creadas». Así pues, no tienen excusa (Romanos 1:21).

Notas [1] 

Notes
[1] Gitt, Werner; In the Beginning Was Information; pg.107, 1994.

[1] Gitt, Werner; En el principio era la información; pág. 107, 1994.

[2] Meyer, Stephen; Signature in the Cell, 2009.

[2] Meyer, Stephen; La firma en la célula, 2009.

[3] Hoyle, Fred; The Intelligent Universe; 1983; p.23.

[3] Hoyle, Fred; El universo inteligente; 1983; pág. 23.

[4] Hoyle, Fred; Engineering and Science, 1981, p8-12.

[4] Hoyle, Fred; Ingeniería y ciencia, 1981, págs. 8-12.
[5] Hoyle, Fred; Evolution from Space, 1984.

[5] Hoyle, Fred; Evolución desde el espacio, 1984.
[6] Lewontin, Richard; Billions and Billions of Demons, 1997, p.97.

[6] Lewontin, Richard; Miles de millones de demonios, 1997, pág. 97.
[7] Einstein, Albert; The World as I See It, 1922.

[7] Einstein, Albert; El mundo como yo lo veo, 1922.
[8] Newton, Isaac. The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, 1687.

[8] Newton, Isaac. Los Principia: Principios matemáticos de la filosofía natural, 1687.

Read More

A Informação no ADN é Melhor Explicada por um Criador.

 

Como é que o ADN aponta para a existência de um Criador?

Dennis Edwards

De onde vem a informação contida no ADN? Opção Um: De um processo material puramente não dirigido, não orientado e sem propósito. Opção Dois: É produto de algum tipo de inteligência projetista.

Os nossos corpos não só possuem máquinas biológicas irremediavelmente complexas em funcionamento em cada célula, como cada célula possui uma molécula de ADN que contém a informação necessária para a célula se reproduzir, reparar, etc. O ADN é um código de informação, o código informático da célula. De onde veio a informação, o código informático que encontramos na molécula de ADN? O cientista da informação Dr. Werner Gitt, no seu livro "No Princípio Era a Informação", afirma:

"Não existe nenhuma lei da natureza conhecida, nenhum processo conhecido e nenhuma sequência de acontecimentos conhecida que possa fazer com que a informação tenha origem espontânea na matéria." [1]

Portanto, de onde vem a informação contida no ADN?

O Dr. Stephen Meyer, um defensor da hipótese do Design Inteligente, tem escrito extensivamente sobre o tema. No seu livro, A Assinatura na Célula, aborda o problema que a informação específica, do tipo que encontramos no ADN – que é específica e propositada – apresenta para a Teoria Darwiniana da Evolução. Ele escreve:

“A nossa experiência uniforme afirma que a informação específica – seja inscrita em hieróglifos, escrita num livro, codificada num sinal de rádio ou produzida numa experiência de simulação – surge sempre de uma fonte inteligente, de uma mente e não de um processo estritamente material. Assim, a descoberta da informação digital específica na molécula de ADN fornece fortes indícios para inferir que a inteligência desempenhou um papel na origem do ADN. De facto, sempre que encontramos informação específica e conhecemos a história causal de como essa informação surgiu, descobrimos sempre que surgiu de uma fonte inteligente. Daqui resulta que a melhor explicação, a mais adequada do ponto de vista causal, para a origem da informação específica codificada digitalmente no ADN é que esta também teve uma fonte inteligente.

A informação codificada na molécula de ADN aponta decisivamente para uma fonte inteligente, e não para um processo natural não dirigido. O laureado com o Prémio Nobel e bioquímico E.C. Kornfeld (1919-2012) teve uma reflexão semelhante sobre a complexidade dentro da célula, ao observar as máquinas biológicas em funcionamento. Ele escreveu:

“Ao trabalhar no meio das complexidades e das partículas extremamente minúsculas num laboratório, senti-me frequentemente tomado por uma sensação da infinita sabedoria de Deus… É surpreendente que um mecanismo de tamanha complexidade possa funcionar adequadamente… O mecanismo mais simples criado pelo homem requer um planeador e um construtor; como um mecanismo dez vezes mais complexo e intrincado pode ser concebido como autoconstruído e autodesenvolvido é algo que me escapa completamente.”

O astrofísico e matemático Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), que formulou matematicamente o modelo do estado estacionário do universo e estudou as probabilidades matemáticas de a vida se formar aleatoriamente a partir da não-vida, fez os seguintes comentários no seu livro "O Universo Inteligente":

"Não há um pingo de evidência objectiva que sustente a hipótese de que a vida começou numa sopa orgânica aqui na Terra. De facto, Francis Crick, que partilhou o Prémio Nobel pela descoberta da estrutura do ADN, é um dos biofísicos que considera esta teoria pouco convincente. Então, porque é que os biólogos se entregam a fantasias infundadas para negar o que é tão patentemente óbvio: que 200 mil cadeias de aminoácidos, e consequentemente a vida, não surgiram por acaso? A resposta reside numa teoria desenvolvida há mais de um século, que procurava explicar o desenvolvimento da vida como um produto inevitável de um processo natural puramente local. O seu autor, Charles Darwin, hesitou em desafiar a doutrina da Igreja sobre a criação e, pelo menos publicamente, não explorou as implicações da sua teoria." ideias relacionadas com a sua influência na origem da vida. No entanto, sugeriu em particular que a própria vida poderia ter surgido em “algum pequeno lago quente”, e ainda hoje os seus seguidores procuram explicar a origem da vida terrestre em termos de um processo de evolução química a partir da sopa primordial. Mas, como vimos, esta teoria simplesmente não se ajusta aos factos.”[3]

Em Engenharia e Ciência, escreveu:

“Uma interpretação de senso comum dos factos sugere que uma superinteligência interferiu na física, bem como na química e na biologia, e que não existem forças cegas dignas de menção na natureza. Os números que se calculam a partir dos factos parecem-me tão esmagadores que tornam esta conclusão praticamente incontestável.”[4]

Com a ajuda dos seus estudantes universitários, Hoyle calculou a probabilidade de a vida se formar a partir da não-vida através de algum processo natural desconhecido. No seu livro "Evolução a partir do Espaço", concluiu:

"A probabilidade da formação da vida a partir de matéria inanimada é de um para um número seguido de 40.000 zeros. (Os cientistas da probabilidade consideram impossível uma probabilidade de um para um número seguido de 50 zeros, pelo que seriam necessários milhares de zeros para determinar a probabilidade exacta.)" Basta enterrar Darwin e toda a Teoria Geral da Evolução. Não houve sopa primordial, nem neste planeta nem em qualquer outro, e se o início da vida não foi aleatório, então deve ter sido produto de uma inteligência intencional.”[4]

“Agora devemos admitir que a probabilidade de a vida surgir por acaso, através da evolução, é a mesma probabilidade de tirar seis num dado 5 milhões de vezes consecutivas.”

“Sejamos cientificamente honestos connosco próprios: a probabilidade de a vida surgir com uma complexidade e organização cada vez maiores por acaso é a mesma probabilidade de um tornado atravessar um ferro-velho e formar, do outro lado, um Boeing 747.”

“ Os líderes da comunidade científica atual estão conscientes destas dificuldades. Devido aos veementes ataques de Hoyle contra a ideia de que a vida se formou espontaneamente a partir da não-vida, não recebeu o Prémio Nobel, embora fosse um dos astrofísicos e matemáticos mais proeminentes do seu tempo. Então, porque é que os cientistas ignoram o óbvio? Richard Lewontin (1929-2021), professor de genética durante muitos anos na Universidade de Harvard, revela o segredo com franqueza.

“Nós posicionamo-nos ao lado da ciência evolucionista (que a vida surgiu espontaneamente da não-vida) apesar dos absurdos patentes de algumas das suas construções, apesar da tolerância da comunidade científica a explicações simplistas e sem fundamento, porque temos um compromisso prévio com o materialismo, e esse materialismo é absoluto, pois não podemos permitir a entrada de uma intervenção divina.”[6]

Por outras palavras, é o seu sistema de crenças prévio e o compromisso com explicações exclusivamente materialistas que obrigam os cientistas a rejeitar as explicações sobrenaturais, mesmo que as provas físicas sejam melhor explicadas por meios metafísicos. Não querem uma intervenção divina. do pensamento académico. Os estudantes não abandonariam tão facilmente a sua fé e acreditariam nas histórias evolucionistas sem fundamento. Richard Dawkins concordou e disse:

“Mesmo que não existissem provas concretas a favor da teoria darwiniana, ainda assim estaríamos justificados em preferi-la a todas as teorias rivais.”

No que diz respeito à ciência moderna, o sobrenatural não existe nem deve ser considerado numa teoria científica. Deus está fora de questão para a ciência e não pode ser considerado como um mecanismo na busca das origens. Mesmo que os dados pareçam apontar para uma causa metafísica ou sobrenatural, os cientistas curvar-se-ão perante uma causa natural não comprovada, porque não querem dar a entender que o Divino pode entrar. O seu castelo de cartas poderia tornar-se óbvio para todos e desmoronar rapidamente.

No entanto, o próprio Albert Einstein (1879-1955) abordou a ideia do Design Inteligente observado no universo quando escreveu o seguinte:

“Os sentimentos religiosos de um cientista assumem a forma de um êxtase de admiração pela harmonia das leis naturais, que revela uma inteligência de tal superioridade que, comparada com ela, todo o pensamento e acção sistemáticos dos seres humanos são um reflexo absolutamente insignificante.”[7]

“Todos os que se dedicam seriamente à busca da ciência convencem-se de que um espírito se manifesta nas leis do universo — um espírito vastamente superior ao do homem, e um espírito que se revela à face da Terra.” "Do qual, com os nossos modestos poderes, nos devemos sentir humildes".

Cerca de 300 anos antes, Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727) chegou a uma conclusão semelhante, mas foi um pouco mais longe no seu raciocínio, o que o levou ao Deus da Bíblia e não apenas à "Consciência Universal" de Einstein, que Einstein tinha extraído do filósofo Espinosa (1632-1677). Newton, considerado o maior cientista de todos os tempos em 2005 pela Royal Society de Londres para o Aprimoramento do Conhecimento Natural, escreveu:

"Este belíssimo sistema do sol, planetas e cometas só poderia proceder do conselho e domínio de um Ser inteligente e poderoso... Este Ser governa todas as coisas, não como a alma do mundo (como ensinam as filosofias da Nova Era e do Oriente – Dennis), mas como Senhor sobre tudo; E, por causa do Seu domínio, Ele costuma ser chamado de Senhor Deus ou Governante Universal.”[8]

Do ADN às máquinas biologicamente complexas, da harmonia das leis naturais ao movimento dos próprios corpos celestes, todas as evidências apontam para um Deus Criador Divino de inteligência superior. Deus é a melhor explicação para a informação contida na molécula de ADN e Deus é a melhor explicação para o mundo que vemos e no qual vivemos.

Como escreveu o salmista: “Os céus declaram a glória de Deus; o firmamento anuncia as obras das suas mãos” (Salmo 19:1). “Eu te louvarei, porque de um modo assombroso e maravilhoso me fizeste; maravilhosas são as tuas obras, e a minha alma o sabe muito bem” (Salmo 139:14). O apóstolo Paulo concluiu de forma semelhante: “Pois os seus atributos invisíveis, o seu eterno poder e a sua natureza divina, têm sido claramente vistos desde a criação do mundo, sendo percebidos pelas coisas que foram criadas.” Por isso, não têm desculpa", Romanos 1:21.

Notas

[1] Gitt, Werner; In the Beginning Was Information; pg.107, 1994.

[1] Gitt, Werner; No Princípio Era a Informação; pág. 107, 1994.
[2] Meyer, Stephen; Signature in the Cell, 2009.

[2] Meyer, Stephen; Assinatura na Célula, 2009.
[3] Hoyle, Fred; The Intelligent Universe; 1983; p.23.

[3] Hoyle, Fred; O Universo Inteligente; 1983; pág. 23.
[4] Hoyle, Fred; Engineering and Science, 1981, p8-12.

[4] Hoyle, Fred; Engenharia e Ciência, 1981, págs. 8-12.
[5] Hoyle, Fred; Evolution from Space, 1984.

[5] Hoyle, Fred; Evolução a partir do Espaço, 1984.
[6] Lewontin, Richard; Billions and Billions of Demons, 1997, p.97.

[6] Lewontin, Richard; Mil Milhões de Demónios, 1997, pág. 97.
[7] Einstein, Albert; The World as I See It, 1922.

[7] Einstein, Albert; O Mundo Como Eu o Vejo, 1922.
[8] Newton, Isaac. The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, 1687.

[8] Newton, Isaac. Os Principia: Princípios Matemáticos da Filosofia Natural, 1687.

Read More

The Signature in the Cell - Stephen Meyer

Read More

Intelligent Design Explained: Why Life Looks Designed...Because It Is

Read More

The BANNED Interview with Albert Einstein: We Were Created by a Higher Power

Einstein doesn't want to call it the God of the Bible, but rather a Pantheistic "Force" or "Spirit." Isaac Newton , on the other hand, said that it wasn't just a force, but an intelligent Being, the Lord Creator. If so, that Creator deserves our respect, obedience. and love. 

Read More

How DNA Exposes the Limits of Darwin’s Theory

Read More

Scientists Are Changing Their Minds (EVIDENCE For God!)

Read More

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]

Of course these men were not the first to come to this conclusion. Isaac Newton who discovered the law of gravity and is considered by many as the greatest of the early scientists said, "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. [Here we see Newton coming to the conclusion of a personal God. However, he did not embrace churchianity of his day.] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world,[Here we see Newton refuting the Greek and Eastern concept of "God" being the impersonal force of the natural world.], but as Lord over all; and on account of His dominion He is wont to be called Lord God, or Universal Ruler."[3]

Following Newton, we can read from the writings of Thomas Jefferson on his thoughts relating to this topic. Again, Jefferson was not a traditional believer in the "God" of the Bible and rejected the miracles recorded therein. However, he comes to the same conclusion as Newton. He wrote, "So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent [He could have been reading Newton.] that, of the infinite numbers of men who have existed through all time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million to one, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a Creator, rather than in that of a self-existent universe."[4]

Sometime later, Abraham Lincoln made the following declaration: "I can see how it is possible for a man to look down upon the earth and be an atheist, but I cannot conceive how he could look up into the heaven and say, 'There is no God.'"[5]

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.

Einstein would draw the same conclusion. He wrote, "Scientist's religious feelings take the form of rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with all systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."[7] He also said,"Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble."[8] 

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]

Have you given the real Jesus, found in the pages of the Gospels a fair chance? Or have you rejected him because of the religious system of today and of the past? Please, take another look. Put aside your prejudice against Christianity and read Jesus for himself. Read his own words found in the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I assure you, if you take the time to investigate Jesus with an open and honest heart, you will be surprised at what you find.

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;

Read More

STEPHEN HAWKING ADMITS INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS ‘HIGHLY PROBABLE’

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/stephen-hawkins-admits-intelligent-design-is-highly-probable/
March 8th, 2015 | by Bob Flanagan
ASTROPHYSICS
FacebookTwitter3.8k


The English theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, surprised the scientific community last week when he announced during a speech at the University of Cambridge that he believed that “some form of intelligence” was actually behind the creation of the Universe.

Presenting himself before students at the University of Cambridge, the world-famous scientist declared that his years of research on the creation of the cosmos have led him to isolate a strange scientific factor which he says is in many ways contrary to the universal laws of physics.

This strange phenomenon which he names the God factor, would be at the origin of the creation process and would have played a great role in determining the actual form of the Universe.

The world renown scientist admits the near death experience of his brother, who was clinically dead for 43 minutes after a heart attack last october, radically changed his view on the nature of human consciousness and the Universe as a whole

“My brother has always been a role model for me. His rational, cunning and no non-sense mind has shaped my personality into the person I am today and has led me into the study of the fascinating world of physics. But since his accident last October, he has come back a changed man” he recalled.

“He has told me of the existence of a sentient being, of another world we mortals are unaware of, he has told me of God” he told the crowd, visibly surprised at such affirmations.

“Modern science relies on the perception that consciousness lies within the human brain, but what my brother experienced during his clinical death, I cannot explain. Does consciousness lie outside of the human body? Is the human brain just a receptor, capable of receiving the “consciousness wave” as AM/FM radios receive radio waves? These are questions modern science has not yet answered and could redefine our view of the Universe and modern physics completely” he acknowledged.

“We were not expecting this” told the Head of the Department of Astrophysics, John Bairns. “I am simply baffled, I don’t know what to say” he told local reporters

“In my 40 years as a physicist, the thought of the Universe being “a living entity” never crossed my mind. I admit, Dr Hawking has given us much to ponder about” admitted Professor John Bairns, politely.

These declarations by the award-winning cosmologist have caused a great commotion in the scientific community, some even publicly admitting that “it was time for him to retire” and that “even great minds fall short in time”.

Stephen Hawking has since published a rebuttal to his critics, insisting that “Intelligent design” doesn’t in any way prove that God exists, but only that a “God-like force” played a role in the creation of our Universe, approximately 13.8 billion years ago.

Read More

Does DNA Point to a Designer?

http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=DNA1

THE LANGUAGE OF OUR CELLS

Was the language of DNA programmed by a designer–or by chance?

Consider for a moment the cathedral-like structure of a snowflake under a microscope. Look at the beauty. Look at the complexity. Look at the originality of each individual flake. Surely this is evidence for a grand designer in the universe.

Well, no, actually it’s not—no more so than the burned enchilada of a woman in Mexico that apparently revealed the image of Jesus (though in the photo it did kind of look like him).

Although crystalline forms of a snowflake are beautiful and impressive, designs of this type abound in nature, and natural processes can and do produce them.

Neo-Darwinists believe that natural selection and favorable mutations are the total explanation for the appearance of design in nature.

But what if complexity in nature is discovered that is not explainable by natural selection and chance mutations? What if, unlike our snowflake and enchilada examples, scientists discover a form of complexity that exceeds all human engineering and all sophisticated software programs? This raises an important question: How would we be able to detect intelligent design in nature if it actually exists?

OF CLOTHES DRYERS, MOUNT RUSHMORE, AND PRIME NUMBERS

The folks at SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) have done some thinking along the lines of what constitutes signs of intelligence. They are searching for extraterrestrial life, as opposed to God, but they have to deal with the same problem set. How would they recognize communication from outer space if they saw or heard it?

Some of their thinking is brought out in the movie Contact. In one scene, the character played by Jodie Foster spends the evening listening to her dryer (presumably Blockbuster was closed). But there is a method to her apparent madness. She is trying to train her ears so that she will be able to recognize intelligent radio signals from outer space, filtering out the zillion random signals produced by all manner of objects in the cosmos.

A clothes dryer produces a certain level of mechanical rhythm; its noise actually has a level of design, sort of like that of a snowflake. But that noise (especially when you have sneakers thumping around in there) represents a type of design that nonintelligence (that is, nature) can produce.

How can we tell the difference between design that occurs naturally and intelligent design?

Let’s say we’ve headed out to Vegas, and along the way, we come upon a bizarre rock formation. I say, “Hey, look at the erosion on that rock. It looks kind of like Richard Nixon when the Watergate tapes were made public.” You, on the other hand, think it looks like Vladimir Putin eating scrambled eggs. We agree to disagree, but we both note that the forces of erosion made something that looks a bit like a product of intelligent design.

Now, as we drive farther, we come to Mount Rushmore. Seeing it for the first time, I am amazed. I say, “Wow, look at the erosion on those rocks. It looks just like three presidents I recognize and some guy wearing glasses.” You rightly call me an idiot, not only because you know who Teddy Roosevelt is, but also because it is obvious by the way the stone is cut and the extraordinary degree of design that this is the product of intelligent craftsmen—ones who apparently have no fear of heights. But there must be a more scientific way to differentiate between these two levels of design: one that can be produced by nature and one that can’t.

Later on in the movie Contact, the scientists receive radio waves at the sequence of 1,126 beats and pauses. The sequence, they deduce, represents the prime numbers 2 through 101. It becomes doubtful that random radio waves could emit such a sequence, thus they presume they have made contact.

This is a more scientific way of differentiating between two different orders of design. It is commonly called CSI. This acronym has nothing to do with a popular TV show. It stands for “complex, specified information.”

CSI: THE UNIVERSE

Here is what you need to remember about CSI, or complex, specified information. Nature can generate information that is complex, and it can produce information that is specified, but it cannot do both.

The best way to understand this is to think of yourself as a computer programmer. (You might want to grab a large bag of potato chips and a six-pack of Coke to get into character.) I want you to write a program for the computer telling it to type random letters of the alphabet.

It should be fairly easy to write the program. Just instruct the computer to type keys at random and repeat the process infinitely. Now, occasionally the letters might make an interesting pattern, perhaps even type the word “Nixon” by accident, but it is clearly generating a design of complexity without any real specificity.

Now let’s switch it around. Let’s say I ask you to program the computer to type the word “the”. This is going to require specificity. You must specify, “Computer, type the letter ‘t,’ then ‘h,’ and then ‘e,’ and do this over and over again until your printer runs out of ink or your hard drive crashes.” This is specific, but it is not complex. You can program the computer in this case, like the previous one, with just a few lines of instructions.

Typing random letters or typing a simple word over and over is like the kind of design that natural processes can handle on their own.

Now let’s look at specified complexity. Let’s say I ask you to program the computer to write out a Harlequin romance novel and make the girl decide to dump the guy in the end. You would have to write a list of instructions for the computer larger than the book itself. You would have to specify, in the form of a command, every letter of every word.

Few people would have thought of Harlequin romances as specified complexity, but as you can see, they are. The commands to the computer are extremely complex and extremely specific. That’s the kind of detail we must demand if we are going to believe that there is intelligent design exhibited in the world.

PROBABLY INTELLIGENT

Seems simple enough, but at what point does something cross the threshold from the simple design found in nature to second-order design produced only by intelligence? Mathematician William Dembski illustrates the difference by having us visualize a rat trying to go through a maze.

In a simple maze, the rat can take one turn and escape from the maze. Even a dim-witted rat could take one turn and escape. But now imagine that the maze is extremely complex, possessing walls and requiring 100 precise turns to reach the point of escape. How likely is it that the little critter will quickly learn all the correct turns and escape? Impossible–unless we have one awfully bright rat.

So, when do we infer intelligence? According to mathematicians when the odds against an event occurring are 1 in 10150 or greater, it can’t be accidental.1 In order to grasp such an astronomical number, consider that the odds against winning a Power ball lottery with a single ticket is about 1 in 108. Or trying to pick a solitary atom from all the atoms in the universe would be 1 in 1080.

So, having cleared all that up, we come to the real question. Forgetting all the erosion and snowflake patterns, are there any examples of specified complexity found in nature pointing toward intelligent design? The short answer is yes. What follows, without getting into too much detail, is the longer answer. It uses the example of something each of us has heard something about: deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA.

A LITTLE STRAND CAN DO

DNA. That one complex molecule contains the complete blueprint for every cell in every living thing. In a sense DNA is like a recipe where common ingredients are used to make different dishes. Only, instead of tasty dishes, DNA instructs cells to make flowers, whales, chickens, or people. (Hmm…so chickens aren’t tasty dishes?)

The genius of DNA lies not only in its complex coded instructions for life but also in its incredibly well-designed architecture, which allows it to contain billions of detailed instructions within a microscopic molecule. The amount of DNA that would fit on a pinhead contains information equivalent to that of a stack of paperback books that would encircle the earth 5,000 times!2

Our complete blueprint is present in each of our thousand million million cells. Think of an enormous building with thousands upon thousands of rooms, where each room houses a complete set of blueprints for the entire structure. (If these analogies are getting a little sterile for you, then you might want to imagine a series of beach houses—and imagine yourself sitting in one.) However, instead of merely thousands of rooms, our bodies contain trillions of cells, each with a complete package of DNA instructions.3

Each strand of DNA in our bodies consists of three billion base pairs of genetic information. These base pairs form a chain, which constitutes the entire human genetic code. Today the entire human genome has been mapped out. Even though humans are closest to chimpanzees in DNA sequencing, there are still some 40 million differences. (Except maybe with my friend Bob.)4

YOUR CELLS ARE TALKING

But just what is DNA, and how does it work? Although scientists are only beginning to unravel its mysteries, they know that DNA works much like a coded language. Microsoft chairman Bill Gates (apparently sizing up the potential to patent it and make it a part of Windows) discloses, “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.”5

When we think of sophisticated computer programs, we immediately realize that their coded software was intentionally designed. Materialists believe that DNA originated without any such intentional process. But is it possible that natural causes alone engineered DNA?

Prior to microbiologists’ discovery of the incredibly complex language of DNA, materialists had believed its origin was explainable by natural means. However, design theorists have now applied the mathematical discipline of CSI to the question of whether DNA is the result of intelligent design or was accidental in its origin.

Historian and philosopher Stephen C. Meyer comments on the intelligence required for coded languages: “Our experience with information-intensive systems (especially codes and languages) indicates that such systems always come from an intelligent source.”6

In other words, like a code or language, DNA operates with specifically organized instructions. This is the CSI (complex, specified information) discussed earlier as the watermark of intelligent design.

When DNA directs the cell to make proteins, it first gives instructions to make amino acids. Then twenty different amino acids must precisely link up into a chain, folding into an exacting, irregular three-dimensional protein. The amino acids are like letters; their arrangement spells out the specific protein being made.

Proteins are truly amazing. MIT-trained scientist Dr. Gerald Schroeder explains,

Other than sex and blood cells, every cell in your body is making approximately two thousand proteins every second. A protein is a combination of three hundred to over a thousand amino acids. An adult human body is made of approximately seventy-five trillion cells. Every second of every minute of every day, your body and every body is organizing on the order of 150 thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand amino acids into carefully constructed chains of proteins. Every second; every minute; every day. The fabric from which we and all life are built is being continually rewoven at a most astoundingly rapid rate.7

LIFE IN A TEST TUBE?

In the 1950’s, Harold Urey, a professor at the University of Chicago challenged his students to create life in a test tube. One of his students who tried, Stanley Miller was jubilant, when after enormous efforts he produced a few amino acids…the building blocks of proteins.

It all appeared so promising, but what Miller didn’t understand then was that without DNA, those amino acids would never be able to form proteins…the stuff of life. The initial euphoria faded once further discoveries revealed life’s incredible complexity.

Professor J.P. Moreland compares laboratory results with the complexity required to generate life: “…if life can be likened to an encyclopedia in complexity and information, the best we have done is to synthesize a compound which carries the complexity and information of the word ME. The jump from ME to an encyclopedia is so far and speculative that the relevance of progress so far is questionable.”8

Meyer points out that the chemical codes directing the process attach themselves to the structure of the DNA molecule like letters on a chalkboard, but they do so without becoming organically involved with the board or the other letters. Therefore, he distinguishes the information content from the chemical bonding.

Furthermore, Meyer compares the sequencing of the amino acids to a language: “Amino acids alone do not make proteins, any more than letters alone make words, sentences or poetry.”9

The fact that the arrangement of the letters is not the result of chemical bonding has driven Meyer to conclude that, without intelligence, DNA would never be able to turn amino acids into proteins. He writes, “The chance of each amino acid finding the correct bond is one in twenty; the chance of one hundred amino acids hooking up to successfully make a functional protein is one in 1030.”10

And to survive, the protein chain must be contained within an intricate cellular architecture. That means that the odds against a protein being manufactured randomly are astronomical. It would be easier for a blindfolded person to find one special grain of sand hidden on one of the world’s beaches than to have a protein appear by chance.

WHERE DID IT COME FROM?

Such complexity is so improbable that Meyer believes the DNA code cannot be the product of undirected natural processes. Furthermore, he reasons that DNA coding exhibits creative intelligence beyond random chemical bonds.

Perhaps this is why every attempt to create life has failed. Cambridge Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology, Simon Conway Morris remarks on biologists’ efforts to replicate life in a test tube: “And yet, something is clearly missing: life cannot be created in the laboratory, nor is there any clear prospect of it happening.”11

How did a molecule with such complex coded instructions originate? What natural process triggered a smattering of organic chemicals to come together and form the incredibly sophisticated double helix? Schroeder remarks, “And here’s that enigma. … It shows its head in a dozen different ways, the problem of how the entire process originally got started.”12

Dembski, Meyer, and Schroeder are part of a growing number of scientists and mathematicians who have concluded that the DNA molecule is so complex that it couldn’t have spontaneously assembled itself.

In Probability 1, mathematician and evolutionist Amir Aczel summarizes the DNA dilemma: “Having surveyed the discovery of the structure of DNA … and having seen how DNA stores and manipulates tremendous amounts of information (3 billion separate bits for a human being) and uses the information to control life, we are left with one big question: What created DNA?”13

An increasing number of scientists in other fields are also admitting that DNA’s complexity is not explainable by mere chance. Theoretical physicist Paul Davies affirms in The 5th Miracle,

The peculiarity of biological complexity makes genes seem almost like impossible objects. …

I have come to the conclusion that no familiar law of nature could produce such a structure from incoherent chemicals with the inevitability that some scientists assert.14

Biologist Michael Behe comments on the dilemma facing scientists who are wedded to a purely materialistic account of the origin of life, “In the face of the enormous complexity that modern biochemistry has uncovered in the cell, the scientific community is paralyzed.”15

Agnostic Sir Fred Hoyle, when considering the enormous information requirement of life writes, “Were a refined theory available for estimating the information content of DNA it would, in our opinion, be immediately apparent from its overwhelming content that life could never have arisen on a miniscule planet like on Earth. It would be seen that, to match the information content of even the simplest cell, nothing less than the resources of the entire Universe are needed.”16

DNA BY DESIGN?

Scientists have been stunned by the overwhelming probability against DNA forming by chance. It is one thing for intelligent scientists to manipulate chemicals under laboratory conditions, and it is quite another to attribute the origin of DNA to random action. Even the most ardent materialists do not claim to have explained DNA’s origin.

Amir Aczel questions his own materialistic belief by admitting that DNA is too complex to have arisen from natural processes. In a reflective mode he asks,

Are we witnessing here something so wondrous, so fantastically complex, that it could not be chemistry or random interactions of elements, but something far beyond our understanding?17

DNA’s co-discoverer Francis Crick also considers DNA to be too complex to have arisen in a warm pond on early Earth. This highly regarded Nobel Prize–winning biologist concludes, “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to almost be a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”18

In spite of Crick’s assertion that DNA appears miraculous he remained a materialist and began looking to outer space for the origin of life. (panspermia).

Having acknowledged the impossibility of DNA to originate naturally, some scientists have shifted their focus to RNA. Several biologists believe that DNA emerged from RNA. However, microbiologists who have analyzed RNA now believe it too “could not have emerged straight from the prehistoric muck.”19

Not only is RNA prohibitively intricate, but it’s far more delicate than DNA, meaning it couldn’t cohere by itself even if it did come together by chance. Thus, the origin of life remains an unsolved riddle to scientists.

Aczel reasons that the complexity of DNA could not have arisen naturally on Earth, He asks, “Was it perhaps the power, thinking, and will of a supreme being that created this self-replicating basis of all life?”20 Like Crick, Aczel concludes that DNA must have arrived from outer space.

But according to Dembski, “Natural causes such as chance and law are incapable of producing CSI.”21 Since these laws apply throughout the universe, one shouldn’t hold his breath about finding Klingons on Planet Qo’noS in the Beta Quadrant–unless a designer made DNA based life elsewhere.

So how did life on Earth originate? Is intelligent design worthy of consideration? Not according to Dawkins, Eldridge, Mayr, and a host of other materialistic scientists who are convinced it is an enemy of science.

Yet other leading scientists are willing to objectively look at the evidence. And new scientific evidence has pushed intelligent design to the forefront of the debate on origins. Even many hardened atheists have considered the evidence and admit the implications of design.

Antony Flew is one materialist who led the charge against an intelligent designer. Recognized by many as the world’s leading atheist for the past fifty years, Flew wrote over thirty books arguing against a creator.

But this formidable atheist took an honest look at DNA, remarking,

What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together. The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of intelligence.22

Flew, who accepts Darwinian evolution, but doubts it can account for life’s origins, sees intelligent design as the best option to explain biological complexity. He made front page news when he renounced his atheism, remarking,

I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it…It now seems to me that the finding of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.23

Flew’s honesty is to be applauded, but materialists aren’t clapping. As the intelligent design movement gains momentum, many refuse to consider it as an option, dismissing it as “unscientific.” However, most thinking people want to hear the facts and draw their own conclusions. Like Flew, many who have honestly investigated the evidence, are in awe at what appears to be a super-intelligence behind life and all its intricate complexity.

ENDNOTES

1. William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 85.

2. Werner Gitt, “Dazzling Designs in Miniature,” Creation Ex Nihilo, December 1997–February 1998, 6.

3. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 1.

4. Nicholas Wade, “In Chimpanzee DNA, Signs of Y Chromosome’s Evolution,” New York Times, Sept. 1, 2005, A13.

5. William A. Dembski and James M. Kushiner, eds., Signs of Intelligence (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2001), 108.

6. Ibid., 115.

7. Gerald Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God (New York: Touchstone, 2001), 189.

8. Ibid.

9. J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City (Grand rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 221.

10. Larry Witham, By Design (San Francisco: Encounter, 2003), 147.

11. Simon Conway Morris, Life’s Solution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 46.

12. Schroeder, 192–193.

13. Amir D. Aczel, Probability 1 (New York: Harvest, 1998), 88.

14. Paul Davies, The 5th Miracle (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), 20.

15. Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: Touchstone, 1996), 185.

16. Sir Fred Hoyle, “The Information Content of Life,” The Universe Unfolding(Oxford: Clarendon Press, eds. Sir Hermann Bondi & Miranda Weston-Smith, 1998), 8.

17. Aczel, 88.

18. Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981), 88.

19. Nell Boyce, “Triumph of the Helix,” U. S. News & World Report, February 24/March 3, 2003, 41.

20. Aczel, 88.

21. William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design: the Bridge between Science and Theology(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity), 1999.

22. Antony Flew, quoted in video, “Has Science Discovered God?” Roy Abraham Varghese’s Institute for Metascientific Research in Garland, Texas, December, 2004.



23. Quoted in Gary Habermas, “My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism”: Interview with Antony Flew, Philosophia Christi, (Winter, 2005).

Read More