Another Headache for Darwin

In 2008 Vladimir ShCherbak published information his book “The Codes of Life” with a chapter entitled “The Arithmetical Origin of the Genetic Code”.  (Biosemiotics Volume 1, 2008, pp 153-185 –

The discoveries covered in this are yet another wonderful refutation of Darwinism.

Of course, we know beforehand that the Darwinians will deny these clear implications, as they always do when any discovery challenges their secular humanism-based theory.  That’s because Darwinism is materialism’s origins myth.

For example shCherbak writes,

“There seems to be but one conclusion: the genetic code is itself a unique structure of arithmetical syntax. The arithmetical syntax is separated from natural events by the unbridgeable gap between the fundamental laws of nature and the abstract codes of the human mind (Barbieri, 2005). Chemical evolution, no matter how long it took, could not possibly have stumbled on the arithmetical language and initialized the decimalization of the genetic code. Physics and chemistry can neither make such abstractions nor fit the genetic code out with them.”

“The zero is the supreme abstraction of arithmetic. Its use by any alphabet, including the genetic code, can be an indicator of artificiality.”

“First, a general and the most forcible argument: it has been found that the genetic code is governed directly by the arithmetical symbol of zero. This striking fact is verified simultaneously by several independent orderlinesses – logical, arithmetical, and semantical… Incidentally, such an acting zero alone might be sufficient to assume an artificial nature of the genetic code.”

Zero is indeed an abstraction, as is the decimal point.  Only minds can entertain abstractions. Nature, being mindless, cannot therefore create or use abstract data like this. Abstractions don’t exist in nature’s matter and energy.

Indeed, the very definition of the word abstract is as follows:

1. thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances: an abstract idea.
2. expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance, as justice, poverty,  and speed.
3. theoretical; not applied or practical: abstract science.
4. difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract speculations.

8. an idea or term considered apart from some material basis or object.
9. an abstract work of art.

Note: removed unrelated definitions (related to arts)

Abstractions are only and always conceptual, requiring a mind.  Thus Nature, DNA and life as a whole, cannot know or understand abstract concepts like zero and the decimal point.  Matter and energy alone cannot abstract.

The obvious conclusion of the existence of abstraction being used in the genetic code is a proof – not mere evidence – that the genetic code was created by a mind, an intelligence.

ShCherbak states this very clearly in his statement- that I repeat for emphasis, “Incidentally, such an acting zero alone might be sufficient to assume an artificial nature of the genetic code.

An “artificial origin” is the same as “intelligently designed”.

There is no other source for abstraction but mind and only mind can understand it.

Is this thus the end of Darwinism?

Well the truth is that Darwinism died many years ago with the discovery of the genetic code itself.  How so? Code is a symbol system.  Codes do not write themselves. Codes are conventions of symbols contrived to represent something other than themselves.  Algorithms cannot create themselves. No random process can create algorithmic symbol systems. Algorithms, being instructions and how to do something – like make a blueberry pie or build car –  require a mind.

As Dr. David Abel explains,

“Not even Descriptive semantic information is achievable by inanimate physicodynamics (Pattee, 1972, 1995, 2001). Measuring initial conditions in any experiment and plugging those measurements appropriately into equations (e.g., physical “laws”) is formal, not physical. Cybernetic programming choices and mathematical manipulations are also formal.

The specific term PI originated out of a need to qualify the kind of information being addressed in peer-reviewed scientific literature. Shannon measured only probabilistic combinatorial uncertainty. Uncertainty is not information. It is widely recognized that even reduced uncertainty (“R,” poorly termed “mutual entropy”) fails to adequately describe and measure intuitive information. Intuitive information entails syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Syntax deals with symbol sequence, various symbol associations, and related arbitrary rules of grouping. Semantics deals with the meanings represented within any symbol system. Pragmatics addresses the formal function of messages conveyed using that symbol system.” –

More information and several articles one should read to grasp the concepts discussed can be found here.

Again Abel notes,

“No one has ever observed PI flow in reverse direction from inanimate physicodynamics to the formal side of the ravine—the land of bona fide formal pragmatic “control.” The GS Principle states that selection for potential function must occur at the molecular-genetic level of nucleotide selection and sequencing, prior to organismic existence (Abel, 2009b, d).

Differential survival/reproduction of already-programmed living organisms (natural selection) is not sufficient to explain molecular evolution or life-origin (Abel, 2009b). Life must be organized into existence and managed by prescriptive information found in both genetic and epigenetic regulatory mechanisms. The environment possesses no ability to program linear, digital folding instructions into the primary structure of biosequences and biomessages.

The environment also provides no ability to generate Hamming block codes (e.g. triplet codons that preclude noise pollution through a 3-to-1 symbol representation of each amino acid) (Abel and Trevors, 2006a, 2007). The environment cannot decode or translate from one arbitrary language into another. The codon table is arbitrary and physicodynamically indeterminate. No physicochemical connection exists between resortable nucleotides, groups of nucleotides, and the amino acid that each triplet codon represents. Although instantiated into a material symbol system, the prescriptive information of genetic and epigenetic control is fundamentally formal, not physical.”

What he is saying, for those not used to the terms of reference and concepts of the laws and nature of information, is that Darwinism cannot be true because matter + energy, random mutations + “selection” (a mere filter) cannot create abstractions like codes and symbol systems.  It just doesn’t happen. No more than your rose bush can do arithmetic.  Math is abstract in itself, nature knows nothing out it.

Therefore this arithmetical nature of the genetic code, with its zero and decimal, its algorithmic information, cannot be natural. This is a defeater for Darwinian evolution – period.

The current generation of elder Darwinian fundamentalists will probably never accept these obvious facts since it counters their whole worldview and makes them nervous and insecure.  That’s why the Darwinistas are so enraged, loud and adamantly resistant.  They are the new inquisition. It’s about religion for them, not science, whether they confess this “sin” or not.

This was revealed by one of their own, who at least was honest enough to admit it. Richard Lewontin,

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.  It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.  Moreover the materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

‘Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies, because they believe that small lies can serve big truths.’ – Lewontin, R.C., The Inferiority Complex, New York Review of Books, 22 October 1981, p. 13.

Well we can take his word for it, right? Well um … if you can trust a scientist that tells you that he lies!   This is nevertheless a very strange statement. He says the materialism is absolute, and we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. But atheism has no absolutes. Curiouser and curiouser.

The Darwinists only logical response to this is to claim some version of panspermia, an extra-terrestrial origin for DNA.  But that only pushes the problem back one step, for then we need to ask, “How did they get here?” Now, supposing that the ETs themselves are DNA based will only leave us with the same question of the origin of life.

It will of course take a long time before these perfectly logical conclusions are accepted – perhaps the next generation of students of biology and other related domains will accept the truth. I fear that we’ll have to wait till this generation dies off.

charles-darwin-headache 😉

On the Problem of Evil & Suffering

Atheists often argue against the existence of God, and specifically an almighty and good God on the basis of the existence of evil and suffering in the universe.   The argument goes something like this:

God is all-powerful, loving, and perfect.
A perfect, good God would create a universe that was perfect (e.g., no evil and suffering).
The universe is not perfect but contains evil and suffering.
Therefore, God does not exist.

Basically, it’s always some form of the Epicurean paradox.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”- Epicurus

So in short, either God is not good, or not all-powerful or he does not exist, because if he did exist then surely he could stop all the suffering. The atheist then concludes that both the idea of a bad God and the idea of a limited God make no sense, therefore God must not exist. Variations on this ages old theme exist but that is the gist of it.

So how does one answer this type of objection?

Most apologists go into lengthy arguments concerning why a good and almighty God could and does allow evil & suffering in the world.  They will usually get into the biblical fall of Lucifer and of man to explain how such evils and sufferings came to be.

That’s all well and good. But forget all that for now. There is a much simpler way to demonstrate why this argument is flawed.

First you must see that in a universe with no God, there cannot be any absolute moral values. Most atheists admit this. For example:

“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3)no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.” -William B. Provine, atheist professor of biology at Cornell University

“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.”Richard Dawkins, –Out of Eden, page 133

“If there is no God, everything is permitted.” – Jean Paul Sartre on Ivan Karamazov – Fyodor Dostoevski’s character

“Morality is no more … than an adaptation, and as such has the same status as such things as teeth and eyes and noses. . . . [M]orality is a creation of the genes”. – Michael Ruse

“Nature has no concern for good or bad, right or wrong. . . . We cannot get behind ethics.” – Naturalist Simon Blackburn

Evolutionary biologist E. O. Wilson said that morality is just a survival mechanism. Ethics, he claims,

“is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate,” and “the way our biology enforces its ends is by making us think that there is an objective higher code to which we are all subject.”

Now how does one refute the atheist argument against God based on evil & suffering?

Easy.  Without God, there is no good or evil.
The atheist high priests, quoted above say so.

The goes the ball game for the atheist objector. The atheist shoots himself in the foot with such arguing against God based on “there is so much evil”.  For such an argument becomes too obviously wrong given that “no God = no evil”. So how does the atheist argue against God based on something that does not and cannot exist in his own worldview? Contradiction much? Indeed.

Suffering becomes a mere amoral, purposeless event in a cold uncaring cosmos. Or as Dawkins put it, a blind, pitiless, indifferent universe. Suffering, but without God suffering is neither evil nor good nor “bad”, since godd and bad only exist as humans illusions.

Thus we see how the atheist in using the existence of evil and suffering to refute the existence of God is unwittingly assuming the existence of God in the very argument itself.

Therefore, how can one claim God doesn’t exist while admitting the existence of evil? If there is no God how does one define evil?  Indeed, how does one claim that suffering is “wrong” in a universe without God?

One might even state,

“Evil exists.  Therefore God exists. God defines ultimate good. Evil is all that is contrary to that good. No God, no evil”

The fact that all men everywhere and at all times have recognized the existence of evil, demonstrates the existence of a transcendent moral law, else, evil does not exist. Things simply are what they are – neither right nor wrong; neither evil or good.

Without an absolute law giver, there can be no such thing as evil or good and since atheists, as shown above, really do admit that without God there is no real good or evil, how can they then contradict themselves by claiming God doesn’t exist based on it? Intellectual blindness, that’s how.

Thus the atheists using this argument, show a rather stunning lack of perception.  But in this case it is a lack of perception of their own arguments logical implications and flaws! To argue against God based on the existence of evil is to argue for God based on the existence of moral right and wrong. So when atheists use the old “problem of pain and evil” argument they are unwittingly admitting of a transcendent Law that defines evil by the existence of absolute good – which is the ONLY way evil can be defined!

C.S. Lewis wrote,

“Truth and falsehood are opposed; but truth is the norm not of truth only but of falsehood also.”
–The Allegory of Love

Indeed, without God (ultimate truth) there is no reason to call anything at all “evil”.

Thus the whole “evil and suffering” based argument falls apart under its own underlying assumptions. This argument actually does more to uphold the existence of God than it can ever do to refute it.  Sadly, most atheists do not and will not see this, such is the hardness of their hearts.