Where does the Iceman Evidence Lead?
Posted on July 25, 2007
Filed Under Worldview |
Hiking high in the Ötztal Alps in 1991, a German couple discovered a mummified body as it slowly appeared from a melting glacier. The Iceman, as he came to be known, has been identified as a possible shepherd from circa 3000 BC, one of the oldest mummified human beings on record.
Since his discovery, the scientific world has been working feverously to find out who he is and why he ended up encased in ice so high up in the Alps. Ötzi, as he is affectionately called, has been studied from one end to the other, from isotopes in his teeth to pollen in his colon. DNA samples and a host of other scientific findings have enabled us to pin-point a lot of details: where he was from, what he had been eating, health issues he suffered from, even the route he took before he died (based upon varying pollen traces). But it was a recent x-ray that turned the case into something deeply mysterious and even sinister.
Ötzi, it appears, was murdered.
The x-ray shows an arrowhead buried beneath his left shoulder blade. A follow-on high-definition CT-scan revealed that the arrow had pierced the subclavian artery and Ötzi had bled to death moments later. Of further interest, DNA samples show that Ötzi had contact with blood from four other people: one on his knife, two on his arrows, and the fourth on his goatskin coat. Additionally, he had a long gash on his right hand and bruises around his rib cage.
Hmmmmm. What had dear Ötzi gotten himself into?
All of this is fascinating to me, but my purpose for bringing it up is to call our attention to the intuitive conclusion that poor Ötzi’s death was not accidental. There was an intelligent cause behind his demise. Why do we conclude that?
Because there was an arrowhead lodged in his body.
But think about this. How do we know that an arrowhead is more than just a rock? Why don’t we conclude that Ötzi was just minding his own business when a random rock flew through the air, maybe because of a high-altitude tornado or an errant throw by an evolving baseball-wannabe squirrel, striking him in the back? Why do we conclude that an intelligent creature most likely shaped the rock into a pointy weapon, affixed it to a shaft, took aim with a bow and summarily dispatched our friend Ötzi?
The reason is because we recognize the effects of intelligent causes, like arrowheads, and we examine them through scientific studies.
Why, then, is Intelligent Design called non-science? Why does the U.S. National Academy of Sciences declare that Intelligent Design is not scientific and the National Science Teacher’s Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science label it “pseudoscience”? Others have called it “junk science.” Why?
Science is behind a lot of efforts to determine if an effect was produced by an intelligent cause. Insurance investigators use science to determine if a fire was accidental or an arsonist was involved. Criminal investigators use science to confirm or deny homicide. A look at SETI’s website (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) shows that they fully believe their work is a “scientific” endeavor—searching through the constant noise of space for some hint of intelligence. How will they recognize an intelligent effect when they see (or hear) it? What kind of intelligence might it be? SETI doesn’t know, but it believes that it is using real science to hopefully one day discover some effect that they could scientifically say was caused by something intelligent, though that intelligent cause may be totally different from anything we know on earth.
If all of this is science, then why isn’t it science to look at DNA and follow the evidence to conclude that something intelligent designed it rather than the random forces of evolution? Why is it “junk science” to examine the flaggellan motor or the blood clotting mechanism or numerous other systems that have no testable means for proving how they could have evolved and speculate that an intelligent designer or transcendent force beyond our material world was involved in their design and creation?
Why are scientific endeavors that point to anything other than a Creator, even strange and unknown aliens in the deepest parts of space, embraced as science, but Intelligent Design, no matter how “scientific” its methods are, is dismissed with hostility? As we speak, Intelligent Design is being systematically banned from more and more academic institutions–eliminated from any open or honest discussions.
It almost makes me think that someone is trying to hide something from students lest they ponder facts and arguments outside the “approved” answers. Let’s follow the evidence. If it leads to an intelligent cause, why suppress it?
(By the way, I don’t really believe that squirrels can throw rocks that hard.)
P.S. You can read more about Ötzi at the National Geographic website: http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0707/feature2/index.html. The first photo comes from: http://www.mummytombs.com/otzi/photos.htm; the second from: http://www.hominides.com/html/ancetres/otzi.htm
Comments
45 Responses to “Where does the Iceman Evidence Lead?”
Leave a Reply
Comments are moderated and will not appear on deltackett.com until they've been approved. While we are eager to facilitate conversation by publishing most comments, we may withhold one from time to time if we deem it offensive, vulgar, overly personal, cynical, disrespectful, irrelevant, redundant or unnecessarily contentious. While we encourage you not to make others' misspellings and grammatical mistakes an issue of debate, please do your best to double-check your spelling, use correct capitalization, and use proper grammar.
Dr. Del Tackett is president of the Focus on the Family Institute and Senior Vice President to Focus on the Family. He is also the architect and chief spokesperson for Focus on the Family's The Truth Project--a nationwide initiative designed to bring the Christian worldview to the body of Christ.
Subscribe in a reader
© 2008 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved.
Del,
At our church, we have a study hour between services on Sunday. We have had some wonderful classes dealing with how and in what ways science supports the bible and also how evolution has been propped up and reinforced with false data. In a recent class we viewed a DVD that discussed a pair of highly respected scientists that had literally “written the book” on cellular formation/evolution etc. This book was written during the 60s and 70s and became a mainstay text in universities nationwide if not worldwide. One of the authors/scientists was interviewed and he very honestly disclosed that recently, during a class, a student ask a very critical question that he just could not answer! I’ll try to paraphrase the question here: “If all cellular construction is DNA based, and the instruction set for the assembly of the DNA string is absolutely necessary for the formation of the cell, then, from where did the very first cell receive its instruction set?”
You have to envision this poor man and the absolute crestfallen look on his face as he retells this story. He had absolutely no answer! Personally, as a man of faith, I could not revel in his despondency. I found myself feeling very sorry for the man as it was obvious that his faith had been invested in his work and not our Creator! His work (whether intentional or not) was intended to explain away our Creator, to discredit and deny His existence!
Man’s sinful nature seems to drive him into deep denial regarding the truth of creation. Many in the secular academia actively despise the idea of being responsible to a higher power. To acknowledge a creator would force them to subjugate themselves and their behavior to a higher authority. No real scientific debate on this is allowed as they subconsciously know that they cannot win the argument. They are much more comfortable hearing only what they want to hear!
2 Timothy 4:3 (NIV) For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
A personal note to a good friend: Thanks Mark, for leading our classes! You do a great job!!!
Dan…
I reposted this blog onto my forum (with credit to where it came from) and it has started another annoying discussion with some atheists on my forum.
I just don’t get it, no matter how much what is said makes sense or how much evidence you present to someone, they will always find something to discredit whatever you say.
I even got one of the ateheists on my forum to read the book “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist” by Norman Geisler, which is full of evidence and still they try to point out anything they can to not accept it as truth. (Even though they don’t believe in truth…)
Anyway, I think it really is amazing the forensic evidence that we can use to discover things such as how a person might have died when he died hundreds of years ago.
I enjoy the blogs that you post, keep it up!
The truth of the statement that ‘figures don’t lie, but liars figure’ has been born out many times in my experience. You have to know what a person’s agenda is, i.e., what conclusion he wants the data to support before you can asses its credibility. Secular humanists don’t want there to be a transcendent, creator God. So they are willing to cook the scientific books to support their position. Here’s a quote from Ravi Zacharias’ book “Jesus Among Other Gods” which he attributes to Thomas Nagel, professor of philosophy at NYU, that demonstrates their anti-God bias: “I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t that I don’t believe in God and naturally, hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.” That’s the basic reason why they suppress the unmistakable evidence of intelligent design: they “don’t want there to be a God.”
The comparison between the plausibility of the iceman being shot and the entire universe being instantly formed by magic is beyond ridiculous. One event is mundane and commonplace, the other singular and unthinkably grand. Unlike the iceman for which we may have no evidence beyond the arrowhead, there is over 100 years of solid, research-based evidence for evolution. It is readily available to anyone with the patience to look.
If there were decent scientific evidence for ID, scientists would be eager to make a name for themselves by getting it published. In the world of science, blogs, DVDs, vanity books and church-sponsored debates don’t mean a thing. Experiments do. You want ID to be accepted? Here’s what real scientists go through: 1)Form a testable hypothesis 2) Design an experiment to test it 3) Conduct the experiment 4) Honestly interpret the results 5) Publish the results in a respected journal if a peer of experts deems your methods and conclusions valid 5) Allow others to reproduce your results 6) Defend your conclusions at scientific conferences. Repeat for, say, ten years. After all that, and more, you may still wait for years for general acceptance.
Where is ID in this process? Not even to step 1. Instead of going through all that work, they try to circumvent to process by creating their own pseudo-journals and “scientific” organizations to escape scrutiny. They pitch their ideas in the safety of the church where their unscientific audience laps it up.
Charley,
I respectfully notice that you have missed the arrow head, bruised ribs, DNA point entirely. Dr. Tackett’s use of the Iceman’s discovery was merely to highlight the scientific methods that were used to learn all that could be learned about him. How information, gleaned scientifically “from the evidence”, made it easy to put together some basic knowledge of the Iceman’s last few days alive. The science was done well. It was a very artful way of laying a foundation for a later contrast as to how quickly scientific evidence is ignored when it comes to the subject of intelligent design or for that matter the science (yes I said science…) of creationism.
There are many scientists who believe in ID in some form and use fully scientific methods to weigh the evidence of intelligent design and creationism. You’ll notice that I mention ID and creationism separately. The ID people try to separate themselves from creationism because they know that including God in the equation will make their mission much more difficult. It is my belief that they exclude God at their own peril. But that’s another subject for another day… The scientific study of DNA screams for a creator as mentioned in my first posting. There is very strong scientific evidence that the the genetic information needed to form a single cell is so complex as to make the idea of a cell spontaneously forming as likely as a watch, forming it’s own parts without any outside help, and then assembling itself and winding its own stem. In other words, even after “billions” of years, it would still be statistically impossible.
There is a great deal of scientific evidence supporting creationism. In fact I would dare to say the evidence is “Universal”. It’s all around us….
There are very credible scientists working on this evidence using the methods you outlined in your post. The secular academia and media would have us believe that those doing this research are religious rubes that will bend the rules and the information to make the outcome fit their beliefs. The same could be said for the secular scientists and they do this by ignoring the huge holes in their theory (or should I say faith) of evolution and other secular idols. They do this to keep themselves comfortable with the idea that there is no God; and that they (man) are supreme and hence, need to answer to no one but themselves. I would call it the religion of Humanism.
When we have our classes at church we discuss everything. We look for the Truth through a biblical lens because we believe that God can’t lie. He loves us too much to do so, even if He could. And think about it, as our Creator and the supreme intelligence, why would He need to?
There’s still hope in that recent polls say that 86% of Americans believe in God and about 66% believe that God made them. Not scientific proof of anything, but there’s room for hope… God’s Truth will prevail in the long term…
Here are a couple of the many websites out there that support the “science” of creationism: http://www.answersingenesis.org/ http://www.icr.org/
You’ll find nothing “pseudo” about the scientists at these organizations. And yes, we do feel secure in the fellowship of our church, seeking knowledge from a biblical perspective, while “lapping” at the trough of His Truth!
God bless you Charley!
Dan…
Lee Strobel’s book, The Case for a Creator, forever settles the question about real science and real integrity when it comes to the question of Intelligent Design. Anyone with any doubts should read the interviews of dozens of the most highly credentialed scientists and the evidence that unmistakably points to a Grand Designer. Unfortunately, pride will keep many from honestly assessing the evidence.
I am fascinated and pleased that there are secularists like Charley out there, reading your blog. He introduces two very important points. First, Neither side of this debate should demean the other’s capacity to reason. The comparison of the iceman was not lost on me, but it is clearly a cute distraction for Charley. Second, the problem with both sides of the origins debate is that neither has the scientific method at its foundation. Each is based on premise. On the one hand, there is no god necessary for the origin of life. On the other hand, God is the author of life. Both sides use their own interpretations of “evidence” to make their respective points, but their conclusions stand based upon their pre-existing world views. My challenge to all is to approach the subject with an open mind. If God is truth, and he is all powerful, then he needs no defense from me. If he is not real, then no attacks against him bear any meaning. Let’s put away our daggers and seek the truth without supposition.
I would challange those following the religion of atheism to honestly admit that theirs is, in fact, a religion. It cannot be ‘proven’ any more than theism or deism can be ‘proven’ using scientific methodology. However, as in any hypothesis-evidence-testing-conclusion methodology, the hypothesis of the God defined and illucidated in the Holy Bible has such an enormous and constantly growing abundance of evidentiary support that to deny it is tantamount to simple rejection of evidence. On the other hand, the religious system promoting the hypothesis of Darwinian Evolution seems to me to be blindly bent on using their platform to demand belief against evidence. This smacks of simple censorship through bullyism rather than any honest effort to seek TRUTH.
Sometimes issues become cloudy as we complicate them for various reasons of our own. The evolution/ID debate is one of those issues. Let’s cut to the chase; secular scientists have a tough problem in explaining the information contained in the DNA molecule. The point is not that we need to “test” anything, anymore than we would need to “test” the mountain side at Mt. Rushmore to determine how the faces were carved into the mountain. Were the faces carved by men or by natural erosion? Let’s test it! You can test that question if you want to - but the rest of us will move on. We simply know from our human experience that where there is information, there is intelligent cause. This is obvious.
The evolution/ID debate has turned into one of religious faith. Since many secular scientists have no answer to ID, they can only seek to discredit it. They often do this by trading what is obvious for that which is silly, resting on their secular authority. Today’s secular science community is much akin to yesterday’s church; holding unquestionable authority, and attacking any contrary points of view as being “heretical.” Worldview is the key. It’s hard for anyone to consider that the very foundation of their belief system might be wrong. This, of course, militates against the very foundations of science, by rejecting obvious evidence in favor of methodology (the scientific method.) The fact is that not everything must be tested to be accepted as being true. The scientific method is incapable of addressing every possible question we might have. Unfortunately, intelligent design raises some of those questions.
So, we’re left with what we have; existing evidence that must be dealt with. Truth doesn’t necessarily rest on what can be proven; we show this every day in courts of law. Truth can’t always be had beyond a shadow of a doubt either. I can’t scientifically “prove” that I love my wife - but I do. My love can be demonstrated, but not scientifically “proven.” What we can do is take what we have (in this case the information contained in DNA) compare it to what we already know (that information implies design), and conclude that there is indeed an intelligent cause for life. Let’s admit that there are truths in life that are independent of science. Let’s admit that science has nothing to say about the origin of life. At the same time, let’s recognize that information, in any form, cannot exist without intelligent cause.
Intelligent Design is fully scientific. It takes advantage of the same tools we use in other scientific fields such as archeology, astronomy, and even some of the origin sciences as Dr. Tackett pointed out. To cling to the notion that ID is somehow a religious argument, and is consequently irrelevant, is reckless and not very “scientific” at all. Let’s stop kidding ourselves. Let’s start following the truth wherever it may lead. Let’s be real scientists, put aside our personal convictions, and get on with it.
Mike
Charley conveniently ignores an important fact about the question of origins (also known as “teleology”). The truth is that NO theory of origins, strictly and properly speaking, can EVER be fully “scientific”, quote-unquote. This is because the scientific method, as Charley properly documents, is based on the formulation of hypotheses that are themselves dependent upon the gathering of empirical data that in turn comes from observable, repeatable phenomena. Since the origin of the universe was not observed by any human being, and since said origin cannot be repeated, then obviously ANY theory that purports to explain the origin of the universe is NOT fully “scientific”.
That said, what we CAN do is to collect empirical data from our current vantage point in space-time, and from that data construct models that we believe will more or less explain the data that we collect. These models CAN be rigorously tested to see which of them (if any) better explains the data we gather about the phenomena which we can observe today. It is from this starting point that we can quite logically infer an Intelligent Designer—or not. Nothing could in truth be more truly “scientific” than the intellectual exercise I just described.
Unfortunately for Charley and for secular humanist naturalists everywhere, they have already decided a priori that there is no conceivable explanation for the existence of the universe that includes any extra-natural phenomena of any kind. This obvious bias is itself profoundly unscientific, but it is perfectly consistent with an atheist worldview. Thus—cart before the horse—ID and creationism must be pseudoscience and junk science because they are inconsistent with a closed system of naturalistic, atheistic causes and effects, and with a definition of “science” that is based on such pre-existing philosophical assumptions.
Thus, as C. S. Lewis said in his book “Miracles”, the first issue to be settled is the issue of naturalism, which is first of all a question that is philosophical, then historical, and then scientific. But until and unless people like Charley are willing to reconsider their base definition of what constitutes “science”—until and unless they are willing to call their basic worldview into question—I don’t know that there is much to be gained through debate, no matter how well and truly we might frame that debate. But, we do our part and leave the rest to God.
The only proof of the validity of evolution or ID is a personal one that will be shown/proven once an individual “crosses the bar.” Unfortunately, there has been little communication between the individual who has found out and those who have remained behind. Thus, it remains a personal discovery. Both ‘theories’ of the beginning cannot be proven. Believers on both sides of the issue evoke faith to justify their conclusions. As a Christian, I do have a problem with evolution, however. No one has ever explained satisfactorily what rocks evolved from.
I think the two most important questions anyone can ask are “Is there a God?” and “If so, what is his nature?” More ramifications as to how we will live our lives come out of these two questions than any others.
Isn’t it interesting that Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule and Nobel Prize winner, when asked many years later, knowing everything he did, how life began on earth, his answer was that some kind of aliens must have brought life to earth using some kind of space travel technology? Isn’t it also interesting that Francis Crick described himself as not believing in God and having “a strong inclination towards atheism”?
I think Aldous Huxley (as well as others like previously mentioned Thomas Nagel) at least have the honesty to admit man’s bias in these matters. In his book “Ends and Means” Huxley writes “I want this world not to have meaning, because it frees me to my own erotic and political desires”.
The human heart is selfish and desires autonomy. The more we can be honest about this, the more progress we can make in our search for truth.
Regarding the many statements above on 8/7/2007.
The watch: Obviously made by intelegent people. Each piece created seperatley by intelegent people.
The Universe: Evolved? How can one say that the watch was made by intelegence, and then turn around and say the World, Universe, Humanity, occured by happenstance? I find this very difficult to believe and confusing.
If the evolutionist want to continue their truth finding, how far are they willing to go and find the truth out in space or any where else for that matter? My answer is for the “space” theory or anything else, well, it will take a long time.
As for the watch maker(s) well it’s very simple INTELEGENT DESIGNE. This didn’t take me a “minute” to ponder and figure this out. Yes I can research when and where this idea occured, and I would come down to a sound and intelegent answer. It seems to me some just “Can’t Handle The TRUTH”. Their search will be in vain if they continue down the path of evolution or any other path except One… The only Truth, The Creater of all things, GOD.
Amen, Dr. Tackett!!!!
Dan Hagan: What is the name of that DVD/Series? I want to do a class like that for our church and it sounds like a great tool. So important to innoculate our youth against the disease of doubting our Creator that is rampant in academic institutions. Thanks, if you can furnish the info, my email is mikeBforJesus@yahoo.com.
I also want to thank you for your gentle responses about scientist stumped by the “first DNA” question, as well as to charlie on this blog. I occasionally read a website by a believer who is obviously a well-researched, intelligent scholar, but who handles the Truth like a tomahawk. He tends to teach the Truth in sarcasm and condescension rather than love.
Charlie: It sounds like the scientific method you require for validation of ID is one usable for “operational” science. This method is not usable for “origin” science. The former can use experiment for testing and repetition to confirm, while the latter can only anlayze and interpret evidence to formulate a theory.
Additionally, I am glad to see you perusing blog(s) like this, since it seems to indicate God’s existence, authority and love are still an unresolved issue with you. Please settle it soon, since time is fleeting. Those for whom I am seriously concerned are the ones who have decided by faith in His nonexistence.
In Jesus,
mike b.
A very important part of the problem with getting ID recognized as real science is revealed in a November 2005 CNN article about the Kansas Board of Education: “In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.”
“Natural explanations”, as opposed to “supernatural explanations”. In other words, by and large the secular scientific community uses a concept of “science” that *by definition* excludes any possibility of an intelligent designer that operated outside of known natural means. *That’s* a huge problem, and shameful bias. No real scientific progress will be made in this arena until people are willing to search for TRUTH, and not just “truth” that fits into a certain restrictive definition.
Being a Ph.D. biochemist (the study of chemical processes within living organisms), I find it simply amazing how anyone can deny the existence of God or even question His existence. I marvel daily at the complexity of life and how God has designed such elegantly “simple” chemical factories in every living organism that allows it to live. Bungling scientist (and we are all bungling compared to God’s knowledge) devote our entire professional careers trying to understand or mimic one small chemical process required for life and yet many times are blind to the majesty of God’s creation in it’s entirety.
Darwin (gasp, did someone actual mention his name) actually first started his studies in medicine (dropped out) and then progressed onto theology (dropped out) before becoming a 22-year old “traveling companion” for Captain FitzRoy on the now famous (or is it infamous) second voyage of the HMS Beagle. The lack of any formal training in science led Darwin to misinterpret his own observations. Darwin’s own observations were of microevolution in which small changes within a species allows the recipient of the change some type of benefit. For example, during the dry season, birds that develop stiffer, stronger bills have an advantage when it comes to breaking open hard-coated nuts and seeds. This is not macroevolution, or transmutation, in which a fish is some how transformed into a chicken through a collective mutational process. And that in a nutshell is the whole shortcoming of the entire evolution theory. Evolution is, was, and will always be nothing more than a theory that will one day be proven wrong once the collective scientific community has God lift the blindfold so that they may see the real truth.
Many of you have introduced your struggle with the “intelligent” members of our society and its senselessness. I have concluded that we are describing the conflict between theories and not scientific evidence. Basically, it is a conflict between the social definition of faith and religion.
By this I mean to imply that the current “Intelligentsia” as defined by the old Soviet system (mental and cultural workers) and not that of a famous radio talk show host, implies that anything that does not agree with science is not science and therefore subject to “faith”.
I have been arguing with these people for years only to conclude that the atheists and intelligentsia of the West are a religion. For example, there are numerous scientific journal articles that point to the unexplained and unanswerable “holes” in Darwinian theories. Yet, these stalwart’s of that science choose to stand on their belief (faith) that the holes (links) just have not been discovered. The sad thing is that a number of the scientist who once championed many of the theories to fill in those holes have back away. I like the recent evidence that the “Grand Canyon of the Northwest” known as the Scab Lands was not formed over millions of years but over 20 or so severe floods over about 15,000 years.
Ergo, I have concluded and have been challenging the intelligensia on The History Channel and Discovery Channel to explain their religion and not their science. When challenged that their faith in science and denunciation of a god (let alone the God) is in actuality a religion, they become angry and make one of two arguments that basically state that religion is the faith in a deity and science is “not a religion”. Society has defined religion as the worship of a deity. Yet, the text definition of a religion is: “religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people” Wikipedia. Similar definitions are used by Webster’s et.al..
Last week I heard Dr. Kennedy make the same claim that Darwinism is a religion.
Therefore it can be argued that religion is a set of beliefs and practices in things that are not physically apparent. Isn’t that what society uses as the definition of faith? Why will a child leap from the wall into her father’s arms? Faith tells us that he will not let us get hurt. However, let him drop us just once so that we experience the pain and we are very reluctant to make that leap of faith again. Modern scientific discovery is simply based in a faith that our knowledge and judgments will lead to the conclusion we hypothesized (desired or hope). Those of us of faith are comfortable with the Apostle Paul; Hebrews 11:1-3 “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.”
Friends I see the challenge is not in proving our belief in intelligent design or creationism as a valid theory. Rather, it is in establishing the argument that atheism and Darwinism are a religion unto themselves. Once we have proven that those statements of faith are a religion, then we can argue on an equal playing field as to how the “holes” in those theories are best filled.
Until then we must support those scientist (such as Dr. Tackett) at the forefront of this battle. We “weekend warriors” must be careful not to harm the Word by making foolish arguments. The argument with the “scientist” must remain in their realm for our introduction of “religious concepts” will be discarded as nonsense. I suggest we invite other great biblical scientist such as Dr. Kennedy to help formulate our arguments.
Great discussion!
Dave
First of all, I’d like to address Charley’s concerns by saying that I come from a very liberal background. Before becoming a Christian, my favorite channel was the Discovery channel as I love documentaries and expanding my knowledge.
What suprised me upon becoming a Christian was that I didn’t have to check my brain at the door. I was struck by the sheer volume of references in the books by Christian authors such as Hank Hanagraff, Lee Stroebel, and David Barton. I was also taken aback by all the facts I had never been exposed to by the mainstream media.
Second of all, I appreciate groups like Focus on the Family for the loving way they present the facts. It is never a Christians intent to just prove someone wrong or to discredit them in some way. I truly believe in the God of the Bible and that even my ability to believe comes from God. The facts in the world around me only secure that belief. I pray that people like Charley can see this someday and have the hope that comes from a faith rooted in truth.
May I just share some general comments about how to determine truth. I am an airline pilot and I will use a few examples from my pilot experiences to demonstrate these principles.
First, let me define the term “belief”. A belief is something we maintain to be true but can NOT prove. Before I take off I believe that I will get to my destination safely. My passengers get on board with that same belief. If anyone has a different belief they won’t get on the plane (unless they want to commit suicide).
While a belief can’t be proven, there are 2 things we can do with any belief:
1) provide supporting evidence
2) check for contradictory evidence.
Before I takeoff I do a preflight of the airplane. I check to see that there is enough fuel, the weather is good, the plane is in working order, etc. As long as everything checks out my belief is still valid. It still does not prove it, but it gives it support. (Likewise, I would be stupid to just walk up to a plane and takeoff without doing a preflight. That would be stupid. But yet many people adopt beliefs and never “preflight” them. They don’t check for supporting evidence.)
Most importantly, I check for contradictory evidence. One piece of contradictory evidence invalidates my belief. For example, if the engine is missing, it doesn’t matter if everything else works. Or if there isn’t enough fuel. One thing wrong makes the belief invalid.
Anyone who honestly seeks truth will take time to check for these two things. But those who only want to believe a certain way will close off the examination of evidence by one or both of the following methods:
1) silence the message (not allow some, or all, evidence to be considered)
2) discredit the messenger.
For example, if a passenger saw something unusual on the wing that he thought might be a problem I could close my mind to that evidence or dismiss it as only coming from a passenger, and what do they know about airplanes anyway.
No, as a pilot I want to be open to any evidence presented to me from anyone at any time because I want to determine the truth about my flight as accurately as possible before we take off. There is a truth about the flight, that either:
1) we will get there safely, or
2) we will NOT get there safely.
Notice that false beliefs employ the methods of above: they will try to silence any criticism or evidence that does not support their view and/or they will try to label the messenger as unqualified to speak on the subject.
By the way, supporting evidence still does not PROVE a belief, it still may be in error. But it is foolish to adopt beliefs that are not supported by evidence, and we need to make a proper evaluation of the evidence.
Likewise, the lack of contradictory evidence does not PROVE a belief. There may still be something wrong with my airplane that I don’t know about. But IF we have evidence that seems to contradict my belief, then I need to evaluate that evidence to see if it is important enough to cause a problem.
The key is to be open to all evidence, and examine it carefully. Anytime a side is dismissed or left out of the debate we can’t find the real truth.
This is the core behind the creation debate. Look carefully at those who deny ID and you will see that they simply dismiss the evidence or discredit the messenger (it’s unscientific).
Mike B,
Thank you for your comments. I can assure everyone that there was never anything in my posts that were intended to be harsh or showing condescension.
I’ve emailed the leader of our church class and have invited him to respond to your query directly in this weblog; or to send me the information and I’ll post it here personally.
As we seek the Truth…
In Christ,
Dan…
Del,
This is a fine exposure of the two-facedness found in ID opponents. It seems to me like getting them to nail down where Design leaves off and randomness begins is akin to proverbially nailing Jell-O to the wall.
Keep up the good work. This is great ammunition for my students as they confront the challenges thrown up to them in articulating a sound reason for what they believe. Exposing the inconsistencies of ID detractors in this way is greatly appreciated.
rick
Charley writes: “If there were decent scientific evidence for ID, scientists would be eager to make a name for themselves by getting it published.”
Al: Although the human tendency to desire to receive credit for witty, insightful, erudite thinking, speaking and writing is nearly universal, in my experience that tendency seems quite muted in the authors listed at the following URL, whose publications are neither miniscule nor any less noteworthy than those submitted to other ‘mainstream’ scientific sources. You will be able to note an extensive list of publications and forums where the criteria demanded by Charley are met.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science
Although it may not be acknowledged by the scientific community who dismiss ID out of hand, it is nearly impossible for someone who is known to espouse or defer to Intelligent Design to have an article or research that is favorable to ID published in the phalanx of refereed, peer-reviewed journals such as Nature, the Journal of the American Medical Association and Scientific American, because they are dismissed out of hand as ‘unscientific’ by the scientific establishment. The point being, the challenge offered by Charley cannot be reasonably fulfilled because the scientific search for truth has been abandoned in lieu of the favored ’scientific result’–evolution is the sufficient cause and explanation for all we observe.
On the other hand–
Charley writes: …Experiments do. You want ID to be accepted? Here’s what real scientists go through: 1) Form a testable hypothesis 2) Design an experiment to test it 3) Conduct the experiment 4) Honestly interpret the results 5) Publish the results in a respected journal if a peer of experts deems your methods and conclusions valid 5) Allow others to reproduce your results 6) Defend your conclusions at scientific conferences. Repeat for, say, ten years. After all that, and more, you may still wait for years for general acceptance.
Where is ID in this process? Not even to step 1. Instead of going through all that work, they try to circumvent to process by creating their own pseudo-journals and “scientific” organizations to escape scrutiny. They pitch their ideas in the safety of the church where their unscientific audience laps it up.
Al: If I might offer up a question Charley, where do you think Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory falls along the line of inquiry you outlined for ‘real scientists?’ As has already been mentioned on this blog, the scientific method cannot be used by ‘real scientists’ or proponents of ID to do any of the required steps when looking for explanations for the origin of the universe or the origin of life, since no one knows the original conditions and they wouldn’t be amenable to repetition in any event. Both ’sides’ have the same difficulty in attempting to use the ’scientific method’–it’s not an appropriate paradigm. Since a conjectured ‘testable hypothesis’ is not possible in the traditional scientific sense, neither is there any way to design or conduct a testable experiment to falsify the hypothesis. Now I think Charley knows the limitations of the scientific method as well as any of us, but proponents of ID are often vilified by the erecting of straw men, as is the case here. To cast aspersions on the integrity of scientists who happen to believe that ID presents an inescapable conclusion from the same evidence that ‘real scientists’ are faced with is disingenuous at best. I will restrain myself from detailing any of the numerous occurrances of actual fraud within the community of ‘real scientists’ in their ’support of evolution.’
All of us on this blog have a sufficient degree of intellectual prowess to recognize that this isn’t a fair fight nor should we expect it to be, since the theory of evolution at its inception and continuing to this day, has as its central premise that all of nature is explanable through natural or materialistic causes. When the possibility of a non-natural (supernatural or superintelligent agent) is excluded from the possible outcomes of inquiry, and we are continuously accused of ‘try(ing) to circumvent to process by creating their own pseudo-journals and “scientific” organizations to escape scrutiny,’ I’m reminded of Shakespeare’s appropriate observation: “…doth protest too much, methinks.” If credible, logical, rational thought is not allowed to question to status quo, the current ’scientific consensus’ is in no better condition than those who condemned Galileo in the 17th century. Even if there was no research being done and published by proponents of ID, any theory other than evolution is required to sustain the onslaught of questions of logic and rationale regarding its validity.
To Charley,
Two words for you, “missing link”. Now don’t write them off too quickly. “Missing link” implies a couple of things, one that something is missing, so there goes your scientific proof, no proof = no science in your own words so evolution is as fraudulent as Intelligent Design or Creationism is to you. And secondly that, “Missing Link” implies that you expect something to be where it is not, so now you are using your faith and assuming that a Link is missing, notice there is no proof that it is missing, just your faith that it should be there based on your “scientific” experiments. So think on these things, then decide where you want to put your faith…God or man?
I for one thinks it’s high time that we Christians stop settling for the lessor position of Intelligent Design, and get back to espousing the “Truth” of the Bible - creation!
There are many good creation-based ministries with great resources that demonstrate the scientific evidences that point to the creation story, as told especially in the book of Genesis as well as throughout the Bible.
Just two of these ministries are Dr. Kent Hovind’s Creation Science Evangelism (CSE - http://www.drdino.com/) and Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis (AiG - http://www.answersingenesis.org/).
Both of these web sites have a lot of free articles (especially AiG - they have a TON of articles and even attempt to answer current scientific news from a creation perspective). They also have a lot of resources for purchase - including some good videos (DVDs) that can make great evangelistism tools (as well as the other resources).
A very good article that discusses the differences between “Operational science” and “Origin science” and how both evolutionist Scientists and creation Scientists view the same evidence with two different sets of presuppositions (worldviews) is, “Science or the Bible?” at AiG (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/science-or-the-bible).
Another good article from AiG is, “Can creationists be “real” scientists?” (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/can-creationists-be-real-scientists).
AiG also publishes a list of scientists (past and current) who believe in Creation: http://www.answersingenesis.org/go/scientist-bios
Some other good DVD resources to use for further study and/or even for some evolutionists you know (or even those individuals who are confused by the whole debate) are:
* Unlocking The Mystery Of Life
* Icons of Evolution
* The Case For A Creator
* The Privileged Planet
I hope some of this is helpful! There’s LOTS of good information out there. Please get the word out!
The wonder and amazement that surrounds us everyday should “testify to the truth” of God’s Creation. Those of us who are analytical in nature tend to “over do it” and forget the beauty
of nature that is all about us. My ego tends to get in the way when I can not figure out the outcome of a situation as I believe that it should be; or is that pride?
How satisfying it is to know that I do not have all the answers and that I should not! (Wow, I just admitted it.)
At the risk of over-simplification; I did have to go to someone else to teach me to use a computer.
He was not the creator of the computer…he must have learned from someone else…and so on.
If one is to learn the “Truth” then why not go to the “Truth” maker?
Thank you Dr. Tackett, for the enlightenment of
“the Truth Project” of which our group is almost finished studying. It is my belief that all seekers of the truth, no matter what “faith” they profess, should participate in the project.
I do second Mr. Adler’s comments…Amen.
Charlie, u claim there is over 100 years of evidence for evolution, yet u fail to state anything?
Have they found the missing link yet? Why are gorillas not evolving into humans? Why are humans not evolving into something else?
The single, greatest piece of evidence against evolution is that we don’t see it happening. U want people to believe in evolution, then show me evidence of it happening. Fact is, u can’t.
Also, the THEORY of evolution is just that– a theory. There is no proof for it. So there is step one.
Step two, form an experiment to test it, oh wait evolution does not happen so how do we test that which cannot happen?
Step 3: test it? see previous step.
Step 4: honestly interpret the results? When one is on an agenda to prove something, they will automatically interpret something to fit their theory in spite of any and all evidence to the contrary.
Soooo the scientific system of testing theories u stated can’t even be used for evolution.
Geez some poeple will believe anything as long as they don’t have to believe in God.
—joemann
This has REALLY been a great blog, loved the repsponses too. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read blogs or articles discussing “sensitive” issues (ie: evolution, sexual prefrences, etc) and there is almost no intelligent posts from either side of the the issue. This has been almost the complete opposite, and why not? God says “seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened”. We shouldn’t, and don’t have to, belittle people and beat them on the head with the Bible about creationism. No, God is good and weather we want him to or not, he WILL show his work and who he is. There will be millions of people who will not believe what He reveals to them in their personal life, but in the end, all will be revealed and no one will be able to resist and deny Him or The Truth.
Now maybe I’m being to pessimistic about this, but I believe that ‘God’ and ‘ID’ will never be accepted in scientific circles, at least the major ones. Yes I said “never”. This world, since it’s creation, has been slowly spiriling downward. Sin has corrupted it, and only when God brings down the new heaven and new earth will it’s spiriling stop. We are still to fight the good fight, and run without growing tired, but in all honesty, God and His absolute truths will not be accepted in any major soceity/cirlce/culture/industy/etc., in fact God has been, and will continue to be, taken out of those things. Inevetibly this world is seeking, desiring, and even lusting after a ‘God-less’ world. One where His followers are completely silenced, or better: non-existant, and one where sin completely rules supreme. I doubt God would ever let that happen without rapturing His followers first, and then letting man have what man has been asking for since Cain and Able: living in a world that man himself has molded and shaped.
I, myself like many of you however, still seek truth no matter how much of it I get. There is enough truth in this world to fill our brains several times over, so I know God will never fill me completely. And besides, I just love how fun it is to seek after Him, including his all-knowing mind. Knowing truths of His just fills my heart with joy, and how amazing it is that a simple man like me, can even fathom some of His awesome truths.
So to the sinner and the redeemed, the believer and non-believer, saved and unsaved I say this: keep seeking, keep searching, and simply FOLLOW TRUTH wherever it leads.
Be blessed
~Mikey
I am learning that whatever evidence we provide for God and His creation, many will not believe because their world view wont allow them to, I am learning how to use pressuppositional [sic?]apologetics so I can show them where their beliefs result in, despair, and then offer evidence from the Bible to strike their conscience,and offer hope. Just read a good book called “Ask them why”
I have a question maybe someone can help me with, I have a video series by a brother about creation and evolution, the material is good, but the author is now in prison, he had a different view on paying taxes, well any way, should I no longer show his videos? or has his testimony been squashed now to make his work ineffective, people may see him as a hypocrite.
Many are quoting good authors, I would like to add the works of Norman Geisler [sic?]to that list, also apologetics.com thanks, Jim
Another Great Web Site that promotes ID from a Literal, Biblical, Christian perspective is
reasons.org
The home page for the Christian Apologetics Group “Reasons to Believe”.
This organization is run by Scientists who have a deep love of Christ and believe true science, correctly interpreted corroborates the Bible, not contradicts: Many great books and articles to choose from. This information is an incredible witnessing tool to young people and those with a Science Education background.
Quoted from Charley: 5) Allow others to reproduce your results.
My questions:
Has someone actually reproduced evolution and shown it to be fact? And if so, how did they do it, since evolution is assumed to have taken place over billions of years?
Personally one reason, among many that I believe in an intelligent Creator is that we can not reproduce that which is found in nature. Sure as human beings we can create many imitations, but they are just that and there is always a difference between the real thing and an imitation.
I mean no disrepect, but it is a simple fact; we as humans can not reproduce that which is created by God.
This research is very interesting, even to a layman like myself. How can we push the content for the liberal newspapers to read and utilize?
I for one thinks it’s high time that we Christians stop settling for the lessor position of Intelligent Design, and get back to espousing the “Truth” of the Bible - creation!
There are many good creation-based ministries with great resources that demonstrate the scientific evidences that point to the creation story, as told especially in the book of Genesis as well as throughout the Bible.
Just two of these ministries are Dr. Kent Hovind’s Creation Science Evangelism (CSE - http://www.drdino.com/) and Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis (AiG - http://www.answersingenesis.org/).
Both of these web sites have a lot of free articles (especially AiG - they have a TON of articles and even attempt to answer current scientific news from a creation perspective). They also have a lot of resources for purchase - including some good videos (DVDs) that can make great evangelistism tools (as well as the other resources).
A very good article that discusses the differences between “Operational science” and “Origin science” and how both evolutionist Scientists and creation Scientists view the same evidence with two different sets of presuppositions (worldviews) is, “Science or the Bible?” at AiG (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/science-or-the-bible).
Another good article from AiG is, “Can creationists be “real” scientists?” (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/can-creationists-be-real-scientists).
AiG also publishes a list of scientists (past and current) who believe in Creation: http://www.answersingenesis.org/go/scientist-bios
Some other good DVD resources to use for further study and/or even for some evolutionists you know (or even those individuals who are confused by the whole debate) are:
* Unlocking The Mystery Of Life
* Icons of Evolution
* The Case For A Creator
* The Privileged Planet
I hope some of this is helpful! There’s LOTS of good information out there. Please get the word out!
interesting top story on foxnews.com re:evolution and how the theory continues to fall apart.
I think while most of us can see how bankrupt Darwinian Theory is, some of the arguments posted here might not resonate with hard line secular scientific types. Most evolutionary scientists will dismiss out of hand any argument that seeks to meld the origin of life arguments, with any argument that addresses evolutionary theory, citing that evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the origin of life. We know that in reality, that isn’t so, since the implications of Darwinian naturalism are obvious with regard to the questions of the origin of life. Even so, most evolutionary scientists will baulk at the connection.
While it’s true that not long ago there would be no problem associating abiogenesis and macro evolutionary theory, today most proponents of Darwin’s theory are seeking to disassociate themselves from his observations altogether in favor of the modern “evolved” position that evolutionary theory speaks to nothing but change.
Given this, any meaningful discussions are almost impossible to have, because accepted terms change, and what were once commonly agreed upon concepts are no longer agreed upon. I’m becoming convinced that the only real example of evolutionary theory is in the theory itself. I’m not making these comments to be rude or disrespectful, but I think it can be shown that the arguments made here comparing mainstream secular science to a religious belief system are valid.
With that said, I think the most powerful evidence against naturalism in all of its forms is the information problem posed by ID. The problem for the naturalistic scientist is this: no matter how much we claim that natural forces “formed” life as we know it, the initial blueprint had to exist. No amount of shaping or guiding would help if the clay didn’t already exist. This is the problem. Scientists will have to show more than just “change.” They will have to show how the stuff that is being “changed” came into a state of being that even allows itself to be changed in the first place. Darwin’s theory is utterly bankrupt, and for good reason. The truth needs to be told.
Still, we need to be aware that precisely because science is a faith based system to many, we need to aproach them with kindness, and with a gentle heart. We don’t appreciate it when we’re attacked by those who don’t understand or know our Lord. The same goes for some scientists we witness to, who have given not only their intelects, but their hearts over to what they belive to be true. All we can do is present Christ to them, and let the Holy Spirit take if from there.
Blessings,
Mike
I have only scanned these short articles, but didn’t see anything on Answers In Genesis, regarding the reason for why we see such. www.answersingenesis.org is a good website to go to for answers as well. I highly reccomend it for all who will seek out the Truth.
All should realize that Sin entered the world when Adam bit into the fruit, and Eve talked him into it, after being decieved by Satan, or the serpent if you prefer.
This evidence of the body being found with wounds that were deadly, only goes to show you that Sin has had it’s affect of death in the physical sense too.
We will have to face this until we die ourselves, and the only effective way to fight against it, is to be able to admit our need of Christ Jesus into our lives and pray and ask Him for forgiveness for our sins, what ever they may be, Pride is the key one among selfisheness, greed, power, lust, and the ego wanting it’s own way no matter what the case may be.
When we are willing to do that, then we have given our lives over to Jesus, and He will work in our lives to help us overcome the Sin that devastates the world. But we must be committed to living lives that are honorable to HIM. That means a change of lifestyle for many, and a change of committement from that of the world’s goals, to those that are Honorable to God, i.e. following His Will, instead of our own.
That can be learned through Bible Study, Church attendance where the Truth is taught, and prayer to Him in all things that you have need of as well as praying for others.
Sin will not be abolished, until Satan, the Devil, and the false Prophet have all been thrown into the Lake of Fire. That is the REALITY of it all.
Read in Genesis regarding the first sin, in the early chapters, and read in Revelation in the New Testement, the last book of the Bible regarding the final death of sin which takes place when all is over come.
If you try to read without believing in God, then you may not be able to understand it, that’s why it is so important to read it as a Christian with faith in God and asking Him to help you understand His Word. He will be happy to enlighten you to do so.
But it will take time to comprehend what He wants you to understand. Sin unconfessed blocks understanding, and pride will not let you understand His word, so humble your hearts, confess your sins, and ask Him believing that He died on the cross for your sins, and will forgive you for them. Then you can know His Peace is Eternal, and give you Eternal life .
We don’t know why this iceman died, only how he was killed, what did he do to deserve death? Only the Lord can answer that question. Blessings, T.C.
John Walker, M.D.’s comment (above)is very valid. I would like to suggest a book called “Why I Still Believe” –available through Ravi Zacharias’ website. He discusses this very point–that both scientists and creationists go into their testing methods with a “bias”. Everyone has them. It is the one who can empty himself of bias and agendas that will discover the truth.
In the 3rd letter (response) to this Blog, a statement is made: ‘figures don’t lie, but liars figure’. To that I add: “Figures and Facts don’t lie, but liars figure and distort fact”.
Thank you for helping me to be a better witness to others.
God Bless,
Judy
The concept of Life having evolved by undirected chance, natural selection and the survival of the fittest, from basic chemicals, has a bunch of problems. Let me offer a few.
1. There is no such thing as CODE that has come into being without intelligent input.
2. The very nature of CODE is, that it is a type of language that can be used by an intelligent agent to describe and define an object or idea that the CODE does not even resemble.
3. All living things are directed in their development by a CODE that we have come to know as DNA. It is comprised of 4 compounds (abreviated as A, C, T, and G) that are organized in specific sequences just like the letters in an encyclopedia are arranged in specific sequences to communicate specific ideas. These specific sequences direct the construction of all the proteins and other compounds that make Life possible.
4. The simplest single celled organisms have between 5,000 and 5 million “letters” in their CODES. More complex creatures have millions and even billions of “letters” in their Genetic CODES. We Humans have about 3.3 billion “letters” in our CODE.
5. Secular scientists tell us that the Universe is about 13.7 billion years old. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Life on Earth has been evolving from base chemicals for about the last 2.5 to 3 billion years.
6. But . . . There have been less than about 374 quadrillion seconds since the beginning of Time 15 billion years ago.
7. If one considers a very short piece of Genetic type of CODE, only 30 items long, (not thousands or millions or billions of items long as is common) one discovers that there are over 1,152 quadrillion possible combinations of just these 30 items. (consisting of 4 basic building blocks as in Genetic CODE)
8. When, then, has there been enough time for all the complexity of LIFE to have self assembled by random chance, natural selection and the survival of the fittest?
9. Evolution must by definition, accumulate useful sequences generation by generation. The discussion above offers a second by second rate for making improvements.
10. Therefore it seems vanishingly impossible for the CODE that governs the development of the present millions of different types of creatures, to have self-assembled in the short time available, (we are told, 2.5 to 3 billion years) without the direction of an Intelligent Designer.
Great discussion, but we are talking about how science is perceived in the social concept.
Most, in fact, the majority of Americans and the West don’t care about science or the science behind scientific theory, hypothesis, or proof. Those were subjects in school that took too much effort and ergo were put on the need-to-know to-pass-the-test basis only.
Most Americans and the West don’t give figs about faith, theirs or others. Most believe what they believe because some authoritative figure told them so. The majority cannot give a satisfactory answer as to why they believe what they believe. Most Americans will become and angry and defensive when challenged and most will wave off an opposition to their belief. Even if as Christ stated to Thomas in exasperation: they can only believe that they see.
I believe the greatest harm done by the Darwinist was in the application to what is identified as “Social Darwinism”. A concept that was dismissed by most sociologist by the 1960s. Yet, if we look at our discussion here and how we see it being played out in the journals and textbooks, then we can see that our debate is not about fact or scientific evidence, rather, it is in the arena of “Social Beliefs”.
Christ was put to death not because of evidence that warranted death, but because he challenged the social beliefs of His day. Most of us could argue circles around those that “poo-poo” ID or Creationism with scientific evidence, yet… people will believe that they believe society wants them to believe.
As a psychologist, I deal with false and abhorrent beliefs everyday. The scientific community has successfully argued Pilate’s response to Jesus’ statement: “What is truth” for 2000 years. What is truth, but what we believe that we saw. Most refuse to examine what is perceived and most refuse to change their minds.
Could it be that we have been arguing without Christ and thereby arguing with the wrong argument. How id Mao persuade nine hundred million people that his view of power was correct? How did Doktor Joseph Goebbels persuade 70 million Germans that Nazism was correct? They attacked the social psyche of the most impressionable and created a lie into a “perceived truth”.
The truth is that the scientific evidence does not support Darwinism. The truth is that scientific evidence does support “species specific adaptation” to their environment over time, evolution. The truth is that for those of us of faith, the logical conclusion supports creation by intelligent design. An intelligence would allow for species to adapt to their environment. For others, some of whom have devote faith in Christ, the evidence is clear that our physical universe is beyond simple Biblical definition.
What is the real battle here? Creation v scientific evidence v intelligent design?
DAN HAGAN, thanks. And I mentioned the brutal apologetics website publisher in CONTRAST to the loving, respectful way you share the truth.
DANA CANNON: I submit that no one can actually start with a neutral point of view on this issue. We interpret the physical evidence of origins through the lens of an a priori assumption that God created all, or the universe is explanable through natural processes alone.
Richard Sauder (August 14) has taken Intelligent Design to the next important scientific level: information theory.
DNA Demands Intelligence because DNA is Digitally Encoded Information!
ALL natural information and all natural processes (that which does not find its source in human intelligence) are “analog” - with one exception.
All known digitally encoded information in the entire world can be sourced to human intelligence - with one exception. The single exception in both instances is DNA.
Actually part of the DNA string in every living thing is literally translated into a base 20 digital code as well. Just like any know human language a relatively small percentage of all possible amino acid strings form proteins. Protein folding is an enormous subject.
I am using “analog” to refer to all information that is not presented in discrete “bits”. Or to use another analogy consider the difference between photography and digital photography. One is a continuum. The other is made up of discrete “bits”. But even digital information must be divided into at least two sets. The Man in the Moon seems to me to be analogous to the old funny papers. Look at the old funnies in a microscope or the Man in the Moon through even binoculars and the image disappears. These are digital simulations formed by “pixels”, but are not digital codes.
The language of DNA is in fact digitally encoded information (base 4). This blog is written in a base 26 digital code. You can paint a picture (analog), but to describe it takes a coded language.
DNA contains the digitally encoded instructions to create all of the necessary components of every distinct cell. It contains detailed instructions for the sequential construction of every living thing on this earth from conception through every phase of life until the point of death. It contains the control codes that choreograph all THREE DIMENSIONAL cell division such that no normal part of any living thing is out of balance. It describes the CONSTRUCTION and INTEGRATION of all organs. It describes the functions of all organic processes (e.g. chlorophyll production, kidney function, and blood clotting to name a few). In short it describes every aspect of every living things, be it plant, animal, or man.
(Isn’t it “fortuitous” that plants utilize the same amino acid code as animals and man? Otherwise there would be no food.)
The human cell is more complex than an entire factory with the added complexity that it is self replicating. The instructions for self replication must also be contained within the digital information of the DNA.
If nothing else, the word “cancer” defines cells in which the control codes are somehow turned off. I.e. why is it that a human conception results in the perfectly choreographed 7 lb. (give or take) body of a baby rather than a 7 lb. cancerous mass? I have read that fetal cells actually grow at the rate of cancer, but are precisely controlled.
So - for all of the Charlie’s in the world - and all of the scientists who fear to gaze upon the face of God - here is a scientific proposal.
Given a spontaneously generated alphabet soup (I understand that amino acids and nucleotides have been in some sense spontaneously generated in the scientific test tube - we shall set aside the obvious input of human intelligence) describe in detail the steps necessary to set up an experiment by which it could be scientifically demonstrated that sufficient meaningful “sentences” of amino acids - or nucleotides (chicken or egg, right?) could be generated such that some form of LIVING CELL would (at minimum) spontaneously form itself within some membrane with the capacity to SUSTAIN its continuous mechanistic functions, REPAIR any damage, FEED itself so as to duplicate all of its protein machinery and digital information, ORGANIZE all of this duplicated machinery and digitally encoded information on opposite sides of the membrane, PINCH its membrane in the middle and so DIVIDE into two separate functional - and thereby living - cells.
One of the unspoken subtleties of the whole spontaneous generation thing is the statistical probability that the first spontaneously generated cell, or even colony of cells would actually have survived the dynamic “primordial stew”! Ecosystems in the scientifically observable world are rather delicate.
This would, of course, have to be part of this scientific experiment.
In the mean time perhaps we can suspend this blog for BILLIONS and BILLIONS of . . . .
As Richard indicated there is no such thing as a NATURAL CODE. If you had 3 billion nucleotides there is nothing in the CHEMICAL sequence by which you could predict with certainty what the next nucleotide would be without human intelligence referencing the information contained in the CODED sequence.
By the way, there are three billion seconds in 95 years. By comparison, three billion nucleotides is an awful lot of code.
Unfortunately we understand so little of what is coded that some scientists have postulated “junk DNA”. I would suggest that when the dust settles there will not be a single nucleotide in the DNA of any living thing that will not be found to have some distinguishable meaning.
Dr. Tackett, I was submitting a response to your blog on “The Iceman.” I pushed the enter button unintentionally and submitted the entry before it was completed. I would like to complete my entry, if you don’t mind.
I will try to start over again in the paragraph below. Please disregard the first attempt.
Yours in Christ,
Bob Diamond
……………………….
Dr. Tackett, I am a pharmacist. Pharmacists have a strong background in physics and biochemistry. While I was a freshman in college in the early sixties, the relationship between DNA/RNA and life was just becoming known. The first time I gazed at the double-helix structure; and, realized the interdependency of it all, my faith – that my instructors had been trying so hard to undermine — was renewed with a vigor that has not diminished in over forty years.
I recently completed the “Truth Project.” I can truly say that it has profoundly strengthened my ability to “… know what I know.” And, to be a much stronger witness to what God has been doing in my life.
I have been struggling with the proposition as to why educated men continue to ignore the evidence of God that is seen all over the universe. God, in his inimitable way, showed me – in the middle of that struggle – Job 40:8b.
8 “Would you condemn me to justify yourself?” Job 40:8 (NIV)
This verse indicates to me that men will condemn God, in order to justify themselves.
It can’t get much simpler and to the point.
Thank you, God, for showing me this.
I wanted to share this with you Dr. Tackett; and, to thank you for the “Truth Project.”
Yours in His service,
Bob Diamond
DiamondRN@aol.com
I completely enjoy the informative exchange here in a wonderful spirit. Lets consider how we cannot convince an unbeliever to change his mind through typical SCIENCE. Because he cannot for it is spiritually discerned. 1st Cor. 2:7 Only knowledge of Gods Law (Ten Commandments)can change them. We must appeal to their conSCIENCE through the knowledge of sin (admitting to breaking the Law). Seeing their soon coming judgment and need for a Savior with repentance. The true battle is realized where the Law is compared in 2nd Cor. 10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
2Cor. 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Then and only then will they be broken (true conviction)from their self-sin. Because the recognition of Doctrine of judgment to come is the power by which men are to be aroused. Another gospel will only make false converts that will soon fall away. Just as many humanists were once Christians.