The Controversial Views of Isaac Newton with James Tour & Kees Roos

Read More

Does It Really Matter Who Wins?

 You might want to click on the CC icon and activate the subtitles in English

Read More

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.

Notes:

[1] Gitt, Werner; In the Beginning Was Information; pg.107
[2] Meyer, Stephen C.; Signature in the Cell.
[3] Hoyle, Fred: “The Intelligent Universe;” 1983; p.23.
[4] Hoyle, Fred; “Evolution from Space,” 1884
[5] Lewontin, Richard.
[6] Einstein, Albert; “The World as I See It.”
[7] Newton, Isaac.

Read More

Quotations from Isaac Newton

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, but as Lord over all; and on account of His dominion, He is wont to be called Lord God, or Universal Ruler. 

He who thinks half-heartedly will not believe in God, but he who really thinks has to believe in God.

We accept the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever. 

Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.

The Supreme God exists necessarily, and by the same necessity, He exits always and everywhere.

Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

Read More

What did the Old Testament Prophet Daniel and Isaac Newton have in common?

Chapter 4-The Daniel - Isaac Newton Connection

By Dennis Edwards

Isaac Newton, who lived from 1642-1727, is known as one of the world’s greatest scientists. But not many people know he was fascinated with the Book of Daniel. He was a devout Christian, and Bible scholar who studied the Old Testament in the original Hebrew.

He said, “I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.”[1]

He also wrote,

Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.[2]

The Columbia History of the World tells us,

At the end of his days he (Newton) spent more time studying and writing about the prophecies in the Book of Daniel than he did in charting the heavens.[3]

Newton himself made a prophecy about the end time. He said,

About the times of the End, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of much clamor and opposition.[4]

Maybe that is what is happening today. In the Creationist movement we find a body of men insisting on the literal interpretation of the Bible, specifically Genesis, which the modernistic theologians and secular scholars have reduced to myth. The Creationists are receiving much opposition from liberal theologians, secular scholars and scientists. All of whom have accepted millions of years and the Theory of Evolution to be true. Whether or not the Creationists will turn their eyes to the attention of prophecy, I do not know. One thing I do know is that prophecy is not something we can figure out with our own understanding; it is something that God reveals or opens up to our understanding.

29 The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.[5]

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit.[6]

Daniel, himself, was even puzzled by some of the prophecies he received. In fact, in the last chapter, after having a vision and receiving a prophecy, Daniel says,

8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.[7] 

If we go back earlier in the chapter we find a similar declaration from the Lord:

4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. [8]

Try as they might neither Daniel nor Isaac Newton could properly understand the Daniel prophecies. I believe we today have better understanding of the Daniel prophecies than Daniel and Isaac Newton, because we are closer in time to the fulfillment of those end-time events. Nevertheless, it behooves us to study the scriptures diligently like those in the city of Berea of whom Paul spoke,

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. [9]

Please do not take my word for it. Get out your Bible, read, study, fast and pray and ask God to open up his word to you.

18 Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.[10]


Footnotes:

[1] J.H.Tiner, Isaac Newton – Inventor, Scientist, and Teacher, Mon Media, Milford (Michigan), 1975
[2] ibid
[3] John Arthur Garraty & Peter Gay, Columbia History of the World, Dorset Press, 1972
[4] http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/135106.Isaac_Newton
[5] Deuteronomy 29:29
[6] 1Corinthians 2:9,10
[7] Daniel 12:8-9
[8] Daniel 12:4
[9] Acts 17:11
[10] Psalm 119:18

Read More

Two Men Who Changed the World!

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      By Dennis Edwards:

On February 12th, 1809 two men were born who would change the course of history. Abraham Lincoln was one of them. He once said, “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 heavens and say, there is no God.”[1] He also made a comment about the Bible: “In regards to this great book (the Bible), I have but to say it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Savior gave the world was communicated through this book. But for it we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man´s welfare, here, and hereafter, are found portrayed in it.”[2] We all remember Lincoln as President during the American Civil War and his famous Gettysburg address and the emancipation of the slaves.

But born the same day as he, in Shrewsbury, England was another man, who´s life and writings have had a far greater affect on mankind than that of Lincoln. This man once wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”[3] He also said, “The mystery of the beginning of all things is insolvable by us; and I for one must be content to remain agnostic.”[4] Charles Darwin who´s Origins of the Species has had a greater impact on modern man than perhaps any other idea. His theory has affected every aspect of our thinking including education, psychology, sociology, science, history, political science, economics, philosophy and religion. Charles´ book was published in 1859. In it, he presented his idea of the descent of life from a common ancestor, the idea that all life goes back to a common origin.

                                                                                                                                                              The General Theory of Evolution or “molecules to man” evolution is the idea that life formed spontaneously about 3.5 billion years ago. Slowly by the process of natural selection, together with beneficial mutations, the first living cell eventually evolved into all the different life forms that we see alive today. Darwin was famous for suggesting that natural selection or nature acting upon a living organism would act like a selective breeder.

Even though Edwin Blythe wrote about natural selection earlier in 1831, it is Darwin who has received the credit. The truth is that nature does act upon organisms and cause them to change. For example: look at a pack of wolves. In the pack, some wolves have short hair, some medium and some long. Some wolves have thick hair, some thin and some in between. If the wolves migrate into a colder climate, natures affect on the pack would be to favor those with the longer and thicker hair. The wolves with shorter or thinner hair would be selected against. In time, the shorter/thinner hair wolves would die out, leaving just the long/thicker haired ones. Natural selection is this process and it does happen.

However, Darwin assumed natural selection had creative power. He saw that another “species” could be developed slightly different from the original one. Thus, he postulated that with enough time, millions of years, for example, a completely new animal type could evolve. A bear or a wolf could eventually evolve into a whale given enough time. Time became the master of the plot.

Darwin´s idea, oddly enough, was quite quickly accepted by the religious community. Many churches and religious leaders had already accepted Charles Lyell´s idea of millions of years and the uniformitarian interpretation of geology. James Hutton back in 1788 had published his book The Theory of the Earth reinterpreting the geological column into millions of years instead of the traditional Biblical 6000 years. In 1830 Lyell had published his Principles of Geology convincingly arguing in favor of Hutton´s reinterpretation of the geologic record. Lyell´s mantra was to get Moses out of science.

Up until that time, scientist had generally interpreted the geological evidence in terms of the creation and the flood. Kepler, Newton, Pastuer and Mendel, to name a few, were all creationists. In 1658 Archbishop James Ussher´s Annals of the World had been published and traced the history of the world back to the flood and then to creation on the 23rd of October 4004 BC. The flood was believed to have occurred some 1650 years later in 2350 BC. Most scientists, until the 1800´s, had believed in a rational God who had created a rational world for us to live in. Therefore, by the careful studying of life and of nature, one could discover the how and the why to the way God had done things. As the famous early scientist and astronomer Johann Kepler said about his research, “I was merely thinking God´s thoughts after Him.”[5]

The religious community was already accepting the ideas of millions of years. In 1855, four years before the publishing of Charles book, we find that even the famous evangelist Charles Spurgeon had succumbed to the idea of millions of years. “Can any man tell me when the beginning was? Years ago we thought the beginning of the world was when Adam came upon it. But we have discovered that thousands of years before that God was preparing chaotic matter to make it a fit abode for man, putting races of creatures upon it, who might die and leave behind the marks of his handiwork and marvelous skill, before he tried his hand on man.”[6]

Once you deny the authority of God´s word you are left with believing man´s word over God´s word. Since the Garden of Eden, the enemy´s method has been to try to get God´s people to doubt God´s word. “And the serpent said unto the woman, ´Has God said?´”[7] Doubting the truth of God´s word led to Eve´s and Adam’s ultimate disobedience. By accepting the millions of years of Hutton and Lyell, by accepting Darwin´s General Theory of Evolution, modern man has eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and has been deceived. As Michael Denton Australian biologists and agnostic wrote in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis in 1985, “Today it is perhaps the Darwinian view of nature more than any other that is responsible for the agnostic and skeptical outlook of the twentieth century.”[8]

Even though there was no proof in the fossil record in 1859, Charles postulated that later generations would find the missing fossil links to prove his theory. However, the links have never been found.

Scientists know today that neither natural selection nor beneficial mutation can add new genetic information to the genome. Dr. Jonathan Wells, molecular biologist has said, “There is no evidence that DNA can provide the sorts of variation needed for evolution. There is no evidence for beneficial mutations at the level of macroevolution, but there is also no evidence at the level of what is commonly regarded as microevolution.”[9] Therefore, “molecules to man” evolution doesn’t have a mechanism. Rather than reveal the truth to the general public, the evolutionary scientists try to cover up the facts. As they themselves have admitted, “we cannot allow one divine foot in the door.”[10] Even though the scientists know evolution has no mechanism, they hold to the theory because the only other viable possibly is divine creation. To them, creation is intolerable.

But don’t dinosaurs and fossils prove the earth is millions of year’s old, one may ask? All the dinosaur’s bones prove is that dinosaurs once existed and have become extinct. The bones do not come with labels and dates on them. What most people do not understand is that every scientist has preconceived ideas. Scientists are not neutral. Why is there such a difference in opinion between the evolution scientist and creation scientist? Either one can be highly decorated scientifically, yet both will interpret the evidence, the fossils, differently. The reason is they have different mindsets and their mindsets, or belief systems, cause them to interpret fossils or geological events differently.

One might also ask about carbon dating and radiometric dating. Haven´t these proven the earth is millions or even billions of years old? Remember, evidence is always interpreted. Creation scientists have good answers to these questions which we do not have room to discuss now. But there are good logical scientific answers. Remember, science is done by fallible men and women who always start their science with assumptions. Depending on their assumptions, they come up with different conclusions. In his book The Young Earth, Dr. John Morris goes over many of the physical evidences that seem to indicate that the a young earth perspective makes better sense than a "millions of years" perspective.[11]

I believe, we can trust God´s Word, always, over man´s word. Even though you may be intimidated by the scientific jargon and reasoning, God has an answer. Creation scientists and apologetics are doing all they can to get the tools to you so you can answer questions about science, evolution and faith. With a little study and research, you will soon be able to defend the faith, as Peter has admonished us to do. “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts (you´ll need to spend time with the Lord): and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.”[12] God bless you as you “study to show yourself approved unto God, rightly dividing the word of truth.”[13] Amen!

More information about the creation/evolution debate can be found at these websites: Creation Ministries International at www.creation.com or Answers in Genesis at www.answersingenesis.org or the Institute for Creation Research at www.icr.org or www.creationtoday.org .

Footnotes:

1. Lincoln, Abraham; http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/131220-i-can-see-how-it-might-be-possible-for-a.
2. Lincoln, Abraham; http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/392563-in-regards-to-this-great-book-the-bible-i-have
3. Darwin, Charles; The Origins of the Species, 1859; http://www.bartleby.com/11/6005.html
4. Darwin, Charles; Life and Letters; http://www.millthorpeschool.co.uk/departments/re/Y10%20Powerpoints/Christian%20beliefs%20about%20God.pdf
5. Kepler, Johann; 1571-1630, http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Johannes_Kepler
6. Spurgeon, Charles; C.H. Spurgeon, “Election,” The New Park Street Pulpit 1-from 1855-56 sermons (1990): 318.
7. Genesis 3:1
8. Denton, Dr. Michael; Evolution: A Theory in Crisis; http://www.exampleofgrace.net/evolution-is-a-false-relgion.php
9. Wells, Dr. Jonathan; The Design of Life, 2008; with William Demski..
10. Lewontin, Prof. Richard; Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds - Page 81, by Philip E. Johnson, 1997.
11. Morris, Dr. John, The Young Earth, Master Books, 2007. or see the following link: http://www.temcat.com/L-4-Topical-Library/Creation/TheYoung-Earth.pdf
12. 1Peter 3:15
13. 2Timothy 2:15

Read More