Yale university professor renounces Darwinism!

But what does he believe now instead?

by Matthew Cserhati and Robert Carter

Professor David Hillel Gelernter is a writer, artist and professor of computer science at Yale University. He is a senior fellow in Jewish thought at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem and was also a member of the American Enterprise Institute and the National Endowment for the Arts. He is also chief scientist at Mirror Worlds Technologies. He has published widely in numerous newspapers and written several books. Professor Gelernter has caused quite a buzz recently by publicly renouncing his “faith” in Darwinism, which he describes as a “replacement religion” for troubled souls who desperately need one instead of God.1

…what I have seen in their behavior intellectually and at colleges across the West is nothing approaching free speech on this topic. It’s a bitter, fundamental, angry, outraged rejection [of intelligent design], which comes nowhere near scientific or intellectual discussion. I’ve seen that happen again and again.

Gelernter says that he was swayed by the scientific evidence into abandoning the materialistic theory of Darwinism. Interestingly, most of the evidence that changed his mind falls into three categories of science: natural selection, genetic mutations, and the fossil record, which are three of the five top pieces of evidence that college students use to justify their belief in evolution. Interestingly, our Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels covers these three subjects in depth (chapters 1, 2, and 4, respectively). Notable Intelligent Design (ID) publications which influenced Gelernter’s about-face include Darwin’s Doubt, by Stephen C. Meyer, The Deniable Darwin, by David Berlinski, and Debating Darwin’s Doubt, edited by David Klinghoffer

Some of the arguments that convinced Gelernter

The following are some of the arguments that Gelernter believes discredit Darwinism, taken from his online review of the three previously mentioned works by ID authors.2

The origin of life

Mathematics is the bane of evolution. Probability, specifically, tells us that believing in evolution is akin to believing in miracles. For example, there are only approximately 50,000 known protein families,3 but certain proteins are essential for all forms of life. Most proteins are composed of hundreds to thousands of amino acids. Let’s pick one of these proteins and say that only 150 of the amino acids are necessary for it to work. What is the probability that this one, short protein would evolve in the primordial soup? You can think of the amino acids in a protein like beads on a string. Each position along the string can hold any of the 20 amino acids. Thus, there are 20150 ≈ 10195 possible proteins of this length. This number is much, much larger than the estimated 1080 atoms in the universe.

But bacteria need more than one protein. I published some calculations in 2015 that estimated the probability of a “simple” bacterium evolving with only the very basic essential proteins. The probability of a bacterium evolving from the chemical soup with a mere 1,340 proteins was 10–167,500. We can’t even represent that number with words. That’s smaller than 1 chance in a trillion trillions, and even that is nowhere close. In other words, there is virtually no chance that life evolved; it had to be created. This short exercise gives us the idea of how futile chemical evolution is, and this is only the beginning of probability calculations.

Developmental mutations

Figure 1. The Antennapedia mutation, which involves the mutation of a so-called homeobox gene, causing legs to form in the place of antennae on the head of a fruit fly.

Mutations that affect the later stages of the development of an organism achieve only small adjustments in the organism, affecting only local structures. Examples include mutations that influence the density of fur, the shape of a bird’s beak, or the color of a flower. Such mutations occur frequently and are often not detrimental. In contrast, there are no known mutations which occur very early on during embryonic development. These would fundamentally affect the body plan. From everything we have seen, such mutations are always lethal, leading to a premature death, usually before the organism is even born. At best, they produce a monstrous organism that is inviable in the wild, such as the antennapedia mutation that produces legs in the place of antennae in fruit flies (figure 1). Yet these are the kinds of mutations which are necessary for large-scale evolutionary changes, such as transforming invertebrates into vertebrates. This field of “evo-devo” (short for evolutionary development) has been looking into this for decades, but they have drawn a blank. Tinkering with the fundamental building blocks of living organisms only produces catastrophic results, so evolution can’t even get started. This is where Darwin failed. He noticed changes. But his mechanism for change cannot get over the hurdle of genetics, a field he knew nothing about.

The fossil record

Darwinism is a step-by-step process, yet we see a striking variety of organisms suddenly appearing on the scene during what is called the Cambrian explosion. During a short window of only “a few million years” all major animal groups suddenly appear in the fossil record without any predecessors. This means that life appeared very suddenly on Earth—it makes much more sense if life was instantaneously created, as the Bible says.

The reception in insecure secular academia

Although not completely ostracized by all parties for his change of beliefs (perhaps due to his prestige and his not being a biologist), Gelernter describes the extreme anger and hostility that evolutionists have for anyone who denies their worldview. The reason ‘rational’ scientists, who supposedly apply nothing but impassioned logic to their work, transform into fist-shaking, angry people is, as Gelernter says, that evolution goes beyond science and serves as the basis of their atheistic worldview. According to Gelernter, “You take your life in your hands to challenge it intellectually. They will destroy you if you challenge it.”1 Furthermore, “…what I have seen in their behavior intellectually and at colleges across the West is nothing approaching free speech on this topic. It’s a bitter, fundamental, angry, outraged rejection [of intelligent design], which comes nowhere near scientific or intellectual discussion. I’ve seen that happen again and again.” 1

www.claremont.org

Cartoon depiction of Darwin’s “Two Commandments of Evolution”: Mutations and Natural Selection.

Gelernter also views ID as a viable scientific theory capable of replacing Darwinism. It should not be rejected out of hand in a bigoted manner by evolutionists. He states that design is the most obvious explanation for the complexity of life and says that Darwinism was formulated to explain how seemingly designed organisms assembled themselves by evolution. According to Gelernter, the question of intelligent design, “…is one of the most important intellectual issues of modern times, and every thinking person has the right and duty to judge for himself.”2

Evolution does not have a monopoly over theories of origins, and academia is not the exclusive playground of atheists. Such monolithic thinking on the part of secularists kills critical thinking.

What does Gelernter believe now instead of Darwinism?

Based on his rejection of Darwinism, is Gelernter now a biblical creationist? What does he believe now that he has rejected evolution?

It does not automatically follow that, just because someone gives up Darwinism, they become a biblical creationist. According to Gelernter, he still claims that evolution is a beautiful and brilliant scientific theory, because it can explain large processes in the history of life with a simple mechanism, natural selection. He thinks that the legacy of Darwinism will never truly disappear and that only a Darwinist “heresy” will take its place. At the same time, even though Gelernter admits that living organisms show evidence for intelligent design, he claims that the world is a mess, and that humans are prone to do evil. If left to him, Gelernter would fail the intelligent designer for making such a world. Gelernter doesn’t go the extra mile to accept biblical creation (oddly despite his Jewish roots), because he thinks that the two creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are contradictory. However, we have already dealt with this alleged contradiction in detail.

But Gelernter contradicts himself. How can he fail the intelligent designer who created this world, yet at the same time call evolution a beautiful theory? This is because, according to evolution, nature is ‘red in tooth and claw’. It is all about selfish struggle; the stronger species crushes the weaker species. Death is a necessary element in the endless process of struggle, suffering, and extinction.

As opposed to evolution, the Bible calls death the last enemy (1Cor. 15:26). God is a God of the living and not of the dead. This is why Jesus Christ rose from the grave, conquering death. Death and suffering were never part of God’s original, good design. God is not an ogre to use suffering and death to create life. How opposite life is from death! God did not use evolution to create.

Conclusion: the insufficiency of Intelligent Design

Sadly, the evidentialist approach of the ID movement does not often bear much fruit. We have written much about ID before (our position statement on ID is available here).

… the big problem is that those ID proponents who happen to be Christians are not necessarily attempting to prove a distinctly Christian brand of theism. It would thus make much more sense to deal with Christianity and theism as a unit, and not two separate issues.

As Christians, we should preach the full Gospel. If we convince a person that evolution is inviable, we must also replace this defunct worldview with something else which better explains the origin and meaning of life. Many proponents of ID even believe in a form of guided or ‘theistic’ evolution. The ID movement notoriously tends to leave the Bible out of their discussions, by design. But what do we gain if we prove the existence of a “god”, who may turn out to be Zeus or Allah in some peoples’ minds? Indeed, not all members of the ID community, or the flagship of ID, the Discovery Center, are professing evangelicals. One famous ID advocate (Jonathan Wells) is well-known for being a member of the Unification Church of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon (a.k.a. the “Moonies”), which most evangelicals consider a cult. ID is not enough for saving faith. Rather, we need special revelation–the Bible. As mentioned previously Gelernter doesn’t even believe that the Old Testament is fully historical. In comparison, when we look at the conversion of the famous atheist Anthony Flew to theism in 2004, we also see that Flew ended up as a deist. Flew did not believe in the Trinity or the Resurrection of Christ. Rather he believed in what he describes as Aristotle’s God, a philosophical, rationalistic type of God.

ID attempts to deal with theism first, then Christianity later. However, the big problem is that those ID proponents who happen to be Christians are not necessarily attempting to prove a distinctly Christian brand of theism. It would thus make much more sense to deal with Christianity and theism as a unit, and not two separate issues. ID proponents are in effect appealing to human reason alone to build their case, which is the same method atheists use. What is worrisome is that if their starting point is outside the Bible, their endpoint might also well be the same, as Van Til noted.4 Clearly, we must base our thinking on the Bible as the sole highest authority (Sola Scriptura).

According to Psalm 19:1:

“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.”

There is ample evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible. We can trust the eye-witness accounts of the Bible. His Word is enough for us (2 Timothy 3:16-17) to guide us unto all truth (John 16:13), not just a partial truth. Thus, while we applaud Professor Gelernter for his bold stance in rejecting Darwin, we plead with him to take the next logical step and accept that Jesus Christ, the Creator of the world, is also his Saviour.

Original article found here: CMI 

References and notes

1. Kabbany, J., Famed Yale computer science professor quits believing Darwin’s theories. thecollegefix.com/famed-yale-computer-science-professor-quits-believing-darwins-theories, 30 July, 2019. 
2. Gelernter, D. Giving Up Darwin. claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin, 1 May, 2019. 
3. Orengo, C.A., Thornton, J.M., Protein families and their evolution—a structural perspective, Annu Rev Biochem. 74:867–900, 2005. 
4. Van Til, C., The Defense of the Faith, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Phillipsburg, NJ, 1967, pp. 114–122. 

Read More

Frank Turek responding to a question about Hell.

Read More

Robert Jastrow and God

By Dennis Edwards

Robert Jastrow (1925–2008) was a disciple of Edwin Hubble, the famous American astronomer whose interpretation of the red shift in light from distant galaxies gave rise to the Big Bang Theory. After Hubble died, Jastrow continued with much of his work. He later wrote a book titled God and the Astronomers (W.W. Norton, 1978). In an interview about his faith, or lack of it, he makes an interesting observation. He starts by talking about the implications of Hubble’s red shift:

"If you reverse the motion, the outward motions of the stars and galaxies, and go backwards in time, they come closer and closer together. Finally they reach a point where they are nearly infinite in density and temperature, and further than that you cannot go. So, there’s a beginning, a point in time from which it all started. That’s a remarkable thing. It has a strong theological flavor to it, which intrigued me, because I am an agnostic. But if there was a beginning, a moment of creation of the universe, then there was a creator. But a creator is not compatible with agnosticism. I found that point so interesting, that I felt a strong compulsion to share it with others.

"That’s why I wrote the book. Just like I can’t believe there was a creator, I can’t believe that this all happened by chance, which implies, there was a creator. So you see, I am in a completely hopeless bind and I have stayed there. Again, I find it hard to believe that this is all a matter of atoms and molecules. So, I try to fit into my concept of the world the conclusion that there is a larger force of some kind which we can call God, or whatever. But I can’t accept that, because I’m a materialist in philosophy. I believe the world consists entirely of material substances (and no supernatural causes). When you specify those substances and the laws of how they interact, you have done it all. Nothing more needs to be said.

"That’s what science tells me. I have been a scientist all my life. But I find it unsatisfactory; in fact, it makes me uneasy. I feel I am missing something. But I will not find out what I am missing within my lifetime."1

What an honest, yet sad confession. Here he is facing his last years of life and Jastrow senses that his materialistic worldview has fallen short. He’s apprehensive. He’s unsatisfied and wondering if he’s gotten it wrong. He senses that there has to be more, but his intellectual pride, his lifetime of holding to a materialistic belief system forces him to deny the apparent truth of a Creator. Sadly, he confesses he will go to his grave before he finds the answer.

One artist has drawn an image of an atheist scientist climbing the mountain of knowledge. When he arrives at the top he surprisingly finds theologians sitting there already. The famous scientist Isaac Newton came to a different conclusion than Jastrow. Newton wrote:

"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."

Isaac Newton was a great scientist, but he was also a great Christian and studied the Bible as much as he did science.

Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, wrote something very similar to Newton. He said:

"So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful agent, that, of the infinite numbers of men who have existed through all time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to a unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent universe."2

We see Jefferson, not known as a religious man, but as a Rationalist or Deist, as they were called, also came to the same conclusion as Newton as a result of the “irresistible evidences.”

Even Albert Einstein, not known for faith, said in a 1929 interview:

"We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations."

Einstein thus came to the conclusion from viewing the evidences that there must be a “God” or “mysterious force” that is controlling the universe. Einstein's ideas were more in line with Spinoza's pantheism or the Buddhist cosmic energy, than the Christian-Judeaic God of the Bible, but never the less sound much like arguments used by the Intelligent Design movement. 

Aerospace engineer Wernher von Braun, who helped put America on the moon, said it a bit differently:

"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 experiences with science led me to God. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?"3

Some people miss the door of salvation by so little, the distance of their heart to their head. Their pride and unbelief cause them to reject the truth of the gospel. As the apostle Peter so aptly put it: “While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.”4 They become in bondage to their worldly philosophies, which appeared to be the path to freedom, only to fall into the hands of another tyrant demanding unfailing obedience even unto death.

Jastrow’s materialistic philosophy promised him freedom from Christianity’s “archaic” beliefs. But then, at the end of his life, when he senses he could very well be wrong about the whole thing, Jastrow is imprisoned by the philosophy that had promised him liberty. He could not escape its materialistic grasp, as much as he would have liked to. What a sad ending. But Jesus promises a way of escape. We don’t need to go to the grave wondering what is true. When we seek Jesus with all our heart, mind, and soul, He answers. “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”5 “If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.”6

(Watch the documentary The Privileged Planet here.)

1 The Privileged Planet, documentary, directed by Lad Allen (Illustra Media, 2004), DVD, http://www.theprivilegedplanet.com/scientists.php. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Yv57I7dOcA

2 Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, April 11, 1828.

3 From a letter to the California State Board of Education, September 14, 1972.

4 2 Peter 2:19.

5 John 8:32.

6 John 8:36.

Read More

Robert Jastrow e Deus

Dennis Edwards 

Robert Jastrow (1925–2008) foi discípulo de Edwin Hubble, o famoso astrónomo americano, cuja interpretação do red shift (desvio vermelho) relativo à luz de galáxias distantes originou a Teoria do Big Bang. Após a morte de Hubble, Jastrow deu continuidade ao seu trabalho. Posteriormente escreveu o livro God and the Astronomers (W.W. Norton, 1978 — Deus e os Astrônomos, em tradução livre). Em uma entrevista falando da sua fé — ou falta de fé — ele faz uma observação interessante ao mencionar as implicações do desvio vermelho observado por Hubble:

"Invertendo-se o movimento, os movimentos externos das estrelas e galáxias, e retrocedendo no tempo, ficarão cada vez mais próximos. Por fim alcançam um ponto em que são quase infinitos em densidade e temperatura, e é o máximo que se consegue alcançar. Concluímos que existe um início, um ponto no tempo em que tudo começa. Isso é notável, e tem um forte traço teológico que me intriga, porque sou agnóstico. Mas se existiu um início, um momento em que o universo foi criado, então houve um criador. Mas o criador não é compatível com o agnosticismo. Achei interessante essa questão e tive uma forte vontade de compartilhar isso com outros.

"Por isso escrevi este livro. Se por um lado não consigo crer na existência de um criador, por outro também não consigo crer que tudo aconteceu por um processo randômico, o que então implica na existência de um criador. Foi assim que entrei em um beco sem saída e ali fiquei. Repito, tenho dificuldade em acreditar que tudo é só uma questão de átomos e moléculas. Por essa razão tento encaixar no meu conceito de mundo, a conclusão de que existe algum tipo de força maior que denominamos Deus, ou seja o que for. Mas não consigo aceitar isso, porque a minha filosofia é materialista. Eu acredito que o mundo consiste de substâncias materiais (e não de causas sobrenaturais). Quando se especifica essas substâncias e as leis sob as quais atuam, morre o assunto. Não é preciso dizer mais nada.

"É assim que a Ciência explica. Eu sempre fui um cientista. Mas não fico satisfeito com essa explicação. Na verdade, fico inquieto; parece que falta algo. Mas sei que não descobrirei o que não consigo explicar durante a minha vida aqui na terra." [1]

“Para o cientista que viveu por sua fé no poder da razão, a história termina como um pesadelo. Ele escalou as montanhas da ignorância, está prestes a conquistar o pico mais alto; quando se coloca sobre o rock final, é recebido por um bando de teólogos que estão lá há séculos. ” Robert Jastrow

Dennis Edwards:

Certamente uma honesta, ainda que triste, admissão. No fim da vida, Jastrow sente que a sua visão materialista do mundo deixou a desejar. Apreensivo e insatisfeito, indaga-se sobre a possibilidade de estar enganado. Sente que tem que existir mais, porém o seu orgulho intelectual, todos os seus anos acreditando num sistema materialista o fazem negar a aparente verdade da existência de um Criador. Infelizmente, ele admite que morrerá sem saber a resposta.

O famoso cientista Isaac Newton chegou a uma conclusão diferente. Ele escreveu:

A maravilhosa disposição e harmonia do universo com sois, planetas e cometas só pode ter tido origem segundo o plano e o domínio de um Ser que tudo sabe e tudo pode. … Este Ser reina sobre tudo, não como a alma do mundo, mas como Senhor de tudo e todos; e por causa disso deve ser chamando Senhor Deus, ou Senhor do Universo.

Isaac Newton foi um grande cientista e também um grande cristão; dedicou-se ao estudo da Bíblia tanto quanto ao da Ciência.

Thomas Jefferson, o terceiro presidente dos Estados Unidos, fez uma afirmação semelhante:

As evidências de um agente inteligente e poderoso são tão contundentes que, dentre o número infinito de seres humanos que já viveu em todas as eras, eles acreditaram, na proporção de pelo menos um milhão para cada um descrente, na hipótese da preexistência de um criador eterno, em vez de um universo que se auto-criou.[2]

Jefferson, que não era conhecido por sua religiosidade, chegou à mesma conclusão que Newton, com base em “evidências irresistíveis”.

Até mesmo Albert Einstein, que não tinha fama de ser um homem de fé, declarou em uma entrevista em 1929:

Estamos na posição de uma criança pequena ao entrar em uma grande biblioteca cujas paredes estão cobertas por prateleiras cheias de livros em diferentes idiomas. A criança sabe que os livros foram escritos por alguém, mas não sabe quem ou como. Não entende os idiomas nos quais foram escritos. Ela observa uma ordem na disposição dos livros, uma sequência para ela misteriosa e incompreensível que ela consegue apenas vagamente imaginar. Para mim essa é a atitude da mente humana, até mesmo da pessoa mais importante e culta, a respeito de Deus. Vemos um universo maravilhosamente coordenado, regido por leis definidas, mas temos apenas uma leve compreensão delas. As nossas limitações mentais não compreendem a força misteriosa que governa as constelações.

Einstein, portanto, chegou à mesma conclusão diante das evidências, de que deve existir um “Deus”, ou “uma força misteriosa” que rege o universo.

O engenheiro aeroespacial Wernher von Braun, que liderou o programa aeroespacial americano que levou o homem à Lua, expressou-se de uma forma um pouco diferente:

Para mim, a noção de uma criação é inconcebível sem admitir-se a necessidade de um desenho. Não se pode ter contato com a lei e a ordem do universo sem concluir a existência de um plano e um propósito por trás de tudo. …Minhas experiências no campo da Ciência me levaram a Deus. Desafiam a Ciência para provar a existência de Deus. Mas será realmente necessário acender uma vela para ver o sol?[3]

Algumas pessoas deixam de passar pela porta da Salvação por muito pouco — a distância do seu coração às suas mentes. O orgulho e a incredulidade as fazem rejeitar a verdade do Evangelho. O apóstolo Pedro definiu muito bem quando disse: “Prometendo-lhes liberdade, sendo eles mesmos servos da corrupção. Porque de quem alguém é vencido, do tal faz-se também servo.”[4] Tornam-se cativos de suas filosofias mundanas, aparentemente o caminho para a liberdade, e caem nas mãos de um tirano que demanda obediência total, até à morte.

A visão materialista de Jastrow prometeu-lhe liberdade das crenças “arcaicas” do cristianismo. No final da vida, porém, ele percebeu que poderia estar enganado a respeito disso. Jastrow tornou-se cativo da filosofia que lhe prometeu liberdade. Por mais que tivesse preferido o contrário, não conseguiu escapar de suas garras materialistas. Que triste final! Mas Jesus prometeu uma saída. Não precisamos morrer ignorantes da verdade. Quando buscamos Jesus de todo o coração, toda a alma e todo o nosso entendimento, Ele responde. “E conhecereis a verdade, e a verdade vos libertará”.[5]“Aquele que o Filho libertou é verdadeiramente livre.”[6] (Ver documentário link abaixo ou clique aqui)

[1] The Privileged Planet, documentário dirigido por Lad Allen (Illustra Media, 2004), DVD, http://www.theprivilegedplanet.com/scientists.php. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Yv57I7dOcA
[2] Thomas Jefferson para John Adams, 11 de abril de 1828.
[3] Carta endereçada à Secretaria Estadual de Educação do estado da Califórnia, 14 de setembro de 1972.
[4] 2 Pedro 2:19.
[5] João 8:32.
[6] João 8:36.

Read More

He'll Understand and Say Well Done!

Read More

Cat Stevens - Morning Has Broken

Read More

Seekers - I Know I'll Never Find Another You

Read More

Donovan - Catch the Wind

Read More

Job: When the Righteous Suffer - John Piper (Part 1)

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