David Hume and Intelligent Design

David Hume, the famous Scottish philosopher and author who is often quoted in debates on whether or not miracles exist, atheism vs theism etc. had much to say on the issue of whether there was evidence of an Intelligent Designer behind the existence of the universe.

Continue reading

Atheism, Darwinism and denial of reality

Richard Dawkins wrote in his book “The Blind Watchmaker”,

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

The argument needs to be restated more honestly like, “It looks designed, but my metaphysics says it can’t be ’cause there’s no designer. Therefore, chance and necessity, evolution, must have done it”. Evolution of the gaps.

This kind of argumentation is everywhere to be found in the atheistic Darwinian literature.

So what do they do to sound “scientific” while actually promoting mere foolishness? Easy. They invent another just-so story style argument.  They accuse the IDists or creationists  of “arguing from ignorance” or arguing from incredulity.  But, accusing an opponent of a logical fallacy is not an argument in itself. So that gives no advance to them at all in supporting the stories with evidence.

This tactic usually sounds something like this, “We don’t really have a clue how this could possibly happen and certainly no god is needed therefore here’s a story… perhaps this and perhaps that and um, if you don’t swallow the story I just made up well you’re just being ignorant and incredulous” – intellectual, psychological extortion.  Then they will cite some evolutionary study that shows some minor piece of adaptation and claim its a major proof.

So is the IDist really arguing from ignorance or incredulity? Of course not. Whether he realizes it or not he is in fact arguing from physics and more precisely from a form of statistical mechanics.  See my short article here.

Back to Dawkins’ statement, a quick and simple analysis:

  • How does Dawkins know this? A: He doesn’t. It’s fantasy passing as science.
  • It’s pure metaphysical presumption. Dawkins assumes there is no designer and then, without any thought of actually proving it, makes a bold but empty declaration, a bare unfounded assertion.
  • If anything object or system with a function looks like it was designed for a purpose, why should one assume it was not? That isn’t science, that is metaphysics [religion] and in Dawkins’ case, wishful thinking. And it’s bad science at that.
  • Why is something that has a function that accomplishes a distinct AND useful result not to be assumed to have a purpose and therefore a design? There is no valid reason.  Indeed, neither do we ever see any offered.

Thus we see that Dawkins, while a master story teller, is a very poor logician or thinker. So what does he, and his many disciples, do when confronted with the facts of this? Well they all begin the “shake a rubber chicken” dance, while blindfolded, chanting, “I see no proof of God!”.

It gets worse believe it or not. From no less than DNA discovery Nobel laureate Francis Crick:

“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” – Francis Crick

Gee, I wonder why biologists must keep this in mind. Isn’t it obvious that he would never have said this if the design was not so conspicuous that it intrinsically contradicts the biologist’s Darwinian indoctrination?  If anything is clear then that much is clear.

This is exactly the same “do not go where the evidence leads if it doesn’t support materialism” mentality of Dawkins’ “designoids”.

Indeed, why on earth invent “designoids” if the appearance of design is not so overwhelming?  The implications of his needing to invent designoids are obvious. Yet overwhelming as it may be, it cannot be real design because the metaphysics of these men requires it!  Their religion requires denial of it, else they must convert to something other than materialism; and heaven forbid the poor souls from having to man up and do that! My goodness, it would ruin their entire false sense of security in atheism. It would also ruin their careers as professional atheist evangelists.

That’s the real vain religion for ya. That’s blind faith. The great atheist god Nothing, is supreme in their minds.

Hume was not an atheist

David Hume,  the 18th century Scottish philosopher, historian etc., is often thought of and quoted from as though he were an atheist, whereas he was in fact a proponent of Intelligent Design and a deist.

Here are some quotes from his writings that demonstrate this:

“Wherever I see Order, I infer from Experience that there, there hath been Design and Contrivance. And the same Principle which leads me into this Inference, when I contemplate a Building, regular and beautiful in its whole Frame and Structure; the same Principle obliges me to infer an infinitely perfect Architect, from the infinite Art and Contrivance which is display’d in the whole Fabrick of the Universe.” (Hume, A Letter From a Gentleman to His Friend in Edinburgh).

“The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent Author; and no rational enquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion.” (Hume 1956, 21).

“Were men led into the apprehension of invisible, intelligent Power by a contemplation of the works of nature, they could never possibly entertain any conception but of one single Being, who bestowed existence and order on this vast machine, and adjusted all its parts, according to one regular plan or connected system. …All things in the universe are evidently of a piece. Every thing is adjusted to every thing. One design prevails throughout the whole. And this uniformity leads the mind to acknowledge one Author.” (Hume, The Natural History of Religion (1757)

“The order of the universe proves an omnipotent Mind.” (Hume 1978; Treatise, 633n).

I rest my case.

Recommended reading

Here’s a short list of books I highly recommend for those seeking clarification and knowledge on the Design vs Darwinism and on the atheism vs theism subjects.  These are books that favor theism and Design inferences.

Genetic Entropy – John Sanford

The Edge of Evolution – Michael Behe

Signature in the Cell – Stephen Myer

Billions of Missing Links – Geoffery Simmons

The Probability of God – Stephen Unwin

Slaughter of the Dissidents – Jerry Bergman

From Darwin to Hitler – Richard Wiekart

Intelligent Design or Evolution – Stuart Pullen

God’s Undertaker – John Lennox

There is a no God – Anthony Flew

Mere Christianity – C.S. Lewis

The Abolition of Man – C.S. Lewis

The Problem of Pain – C.S. Lewis

God in the D ock – C.S. Lewis

Evolution, a Theory in Crisis – Michael Denton

Nature’s Destiny – Michael Denton

… more to come …

Is Intelligent design based on religion?

In the debate over whether intelligent design is science or not we often hear  the complaint – rather an accusation – that ID is religion not science. Then typically, a whole host of accusations that science and religion are incompatible or that science does not allow any supernatural explanations, follows.

So is ID religion or based on religion?

Well, the real question is not just is ID religion but also is Darwinism religion? Curiously enough Darwinism under analysis turns out to be far more religious and religion based than ID! Darwin was a materialist seeking to rid science of God [see “The Darwin Myth”]. His Origin is full of speculations based on religious arguments, as is the greater part of the Darwinian literature. How so? Well, when you read any statement of the kind “God wouldn’t have done it like that” or “an intelligent being would never have made it like that”, that is religion not science.

But what is ID really? Science or religion. If one makes the ubiquitous Darwinian error of equivocating ID with creationism then of course one will necessarily think it is religion.  But once one removes the fuzzy, foggy errors of Darwinian attempts at confounding ID with creationism, the fog begins to clear. The fallacy of equivocation is removed and one can see more clearly.

Intelligent Design is based on empirical evidence garnered from observation coupled with common sense (good reasoning) and the laws of logic and evidence.

Simple comparison of the basic elements of ID theory with creationism reveals the facts:

  • Creationism is based on a holy book – either the bible or the Qu’ran generally speaking
    ID does use any reference to any holy book at all
  • Creationism claims a specific God is the designer
    ID does not claim any god or gods as the designer(s)
  • Creationism seeks to coincide the holy book with science
    ID seeks to coincide the data with logical inferences based on abductive reasoning

Those differences alone create a significant disjunction between creationism and ID.

Furthermore, whether most, some or all IDists were also creationists is completely irrelevant. They may be Christians or Muslims or whatever, yet that in itself has no bearing on the evidence, the data and the logic involved.  No more so than a Darwinian scientists views ought to be confounded with atheism because the scientist happens to be such.

In other words, the particular state of the observers’ personal beliefs has nothing to do with whether his scientific claims are justified or not! This lesson Darwinists refuse to learn and for the sole reason that it allows them continue in their perpetual attempts to confound the public mind in order to save their materialism from disaster, thus upending their whole world view and deeply disturbing their sense of security.

Now, Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence believed in ID. In fact he insisted that it was based on the plain evidence of nature, not religion.  In his letter to John Adams on April 11, 1823, he declared:

I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition. (my bold )

Jefferson’s design inference was clearly based anything but religion. What was his basis then?

The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organised as man or mammoth, the mineral substances, their generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms. (my bold)

Empirical data from nature itself thus provided the design  inference that Jefferson accepted.

Jefferson, as a man who was rather hostile toward traditional Christianity can hardly be accused of promoting fundamentalism of any kind nor of pleading for some religious basis for the design inference.

Today, many, following Jefferson’s method of logical inference, have come to the same or similar conclusions about “life the universe and everything” requiring an ultimate designer.
However in the Darwinian fundamentalist community no such suite is allowed, for as professor Lewontin stated without even blushing,

“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.”
And even worse:
“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.”

Obviously we have here a salient declaration of religion. The religion of the materialist, the atheist.

So whose “science” is really religion? ID or Darwinism?

All scientific observations and conclusions may have metaphysical and thus religious implications. Implications are not the science itself. Darwinism has many metaphysical, religious implications.  So does ID. So does the Big Bang theory.

It amazes me to see how so many of the general public have been suckered into believing that scientists are somehow the real “saints” leading humanity to utopia, when in fact we have a confession of glaring dishonesty on the part on one world renown geneticist admitting that scientists lie!

This begs the question: So why should I trust a materialist scientists on anything at all? And the answer is of course, I shouldn’t. Not before examining the complete evidence as far as possible, seeking signs of motives and following the money trail. “Fortune and glory”, said Indiana Jones.

In all human history the great majority of mankind have logically made the design inference.

However, since the post-modern era of generalized claims that there is no God, no real good or evil, no absolute truth, many of the badly highly educated have deemed themselves in a position to simply deny reality, as atheists always do, and boldly claim that since there is no God Darwinism MUST be true.

Thankfully, once again, those who possess at least some degree of lucidity see that that itself is a religious argument not a scientific one!

Besides the fact that claiming, “there is no God”, is a logically unsupportable religious affirmation, the consequential Darwinian dogma that follows is also just another religious statement.

Darwinism is thus far more religious than any ID theory out there.

The spider and the wasp

The wasp known as hymenoepimecis argyraphaga is a parasitoid that uses the spider Plesiometa argyra as a host for its egg and larva.  This wasp somehow modifies the spider’s web building pattern to make a web specifically to support the wasp’s cocoon without breaking under rain and wind conditions.

As with other predator/host symbiotic or parasitic relationships in nature, the adult female wasp of this species paralyzes the spider and lays an egg on its abdomen.  The egg hatches into a larva which sucks the spider’s blood through small holes, while the spider goes on, apparently unconscious of its condition or the presence of an intruder.  The spider goes through its usual life building webs and catching insects for the next one to two weeks.

When the larva is ready to pupate, it injects a chemical into the spider.  This chemical somehow causes the spider to build a completely different web pattern.  Once constructed the spider  then sits motionless in the middle of this web.  The wasp larva then molts,  it kills the spider with a poison and then sucks its body empty. It then discards the carcass and builds a cocoon that hangs from the middle of the web the spider has just built.  After a while the larva pupates inside the cocoon and then emerges as a wasp to mate and begin this somewhat gruesome (to humans anyway) behavior cycle over again.

Thus the larva appears to be able to induce very specific behavioral responses in the spider.

This apparent “mind-control” is probably achieved with a chemical secreted by the larvae. What that chemical is or how it works is not yet known. It has also been shown that if larvae are removed on the last day,  just before the spider is killed, the spider will often recover after a few days of spinning the abnormal web.

Now the obvious question for Darwinists is, “How did this evolve in a step by step process of random mutations and selection?”

The answer? There is no answer. And there’s no answer because it is simply not possible.  There are far too many simultaneous and beneficial mutation/selection events necessary.

Here is just a very short sample of things that need consideration:
Both wasp and spider (or their ancestors) have to co-exist simultaneously
For the wasp to reproduce it must already possess the mechanisms related to its manipulation of the spider
The behavior of the wasp implies algorithmic information stored in its brain
The wasp has to evolve an injection system (secretory sys.)
The wasp larva has to evolve a literal behavioral program by which it is going to feed off the spider without killing it right off
The larva has to evolve the ability to manufacture the correct web spinning modifier chemical
The larva has to evolve a system capable of passing that chemical to its prey in the correct quantity
The larva has to have the most amazing bit of luck in the universe for that chemical to be able to modify the spiders genetic web construction program

There are so many intermediate steps required just for the above short list that it is mind bogglingly foolish to pretend that all this just came about as a mere unguided accident.

Indeed, the very facts that this wasp “knows” exactly what to do, that its larvae “know” when to feed or not, when and how to inject the web modifier, wait until the new web is built, then produce the correct venom to kill the host at the correct time etc etc. is uncanny in itself and inexplicable in Darwinian terms.

So how does Darwinism explain such creatures?  There are thousands of such symbiotic relationships among living things! So how do they explain such wonders of obvious design and intent?

The same way it explains everything else – with a just-so story!  But such stories only reveal the vivid imaginations Darwinists discover in themselves when they can’t really explain something under their own dogma.  Such stories are always incredibly naive, far too short (as to the number of steps required to evolve such mechanisms) and worst of all these stories are not founded on any clear empirical evidence at all – just pure invention. Sometimes they present a vague comparison to some other similar instance that itself is not explained either!

When reading through some of the just-so stories published in supposedly “serious” scientific journals, one is lead to wonder how such trash can pass peer review. However we already know how; the peers are also staunch Darwinists with either -like a fool- have very poor ability to reason logically or are just as duped by story telling as the author is.

I could just as easily present the case of  the emerald cockroach wasp, ampulex compressa, and its cockroach brain stinging that allows it to control the movement of the host. The female penetrates the exact point in a cockroach’s brain to disable its escape reflex!  The evolution of such by the Darwinian mechanism once again implies too many remarkable coincidences for it to be unplanned.

So how do Darwinists respond to this kind of evidence against their theory when trying to avoid another just-so story? They will say that this is an argument from incredulity. A very common response these days since there is more and more such evidence being weighed against Darwinism. Unfortunately for them this is not an incredulity argument. This is in fact an argument from statistical mechanics. The mechanics involved demonstrate such a high level of integration and are so improbable – based on mathematics not incredulity- that the probability of such relations and mechanisms arising by the dual gods of Darwinism “chance” and “necessity”, is near zero.

There are far too many examples of mutually dependent relations in nature to list them or demonstrate why such are such robust refuters of the Darwinian illusion. I suggest those interested look up the many available articles on the web.

Is true science Methodological Naturalism?

The following is a typical comment one hears from materialists when defining science:

If we think they originated as s supernatural event, outside the purview of science, then we cannot study the phenomenon. However, if we think they originated as the result of natural events,: chemistry, physics, and contingency, then we can study the matter and learn things in the process, even if we are wrong in our basic assumption.

This is bad reasoning based on either ignorance, mere incredulity or both.  It also precludes all  phenomena deemed as supra-natural from the “purview of science” a priori.

The 1st phrase implies that Newton, Pascal, Maxwell, and several 100s of other historically acclaimed scientists, that founded so-called “modern” science, could not have founded modern science! This is of course pure prejudice at work.
They were nevertheless virtually ALL staunch creationists who clearly believed the “originated as a supernatural event” view of life and the universe.

Bishop Robert Grosseteste, a reform-minded cleric of the 13th century, is the first man known to have explicitly spelled out the scientific method. His methodology was made world-famous by his pupil, the friar Roger Bacon. Both predicted that application of their methods would result in the systematic acquisition of knowledge–a result which followed.  Bacon especially enumerated the results, which included submarines and flying machines.

So the greatest scientists in past history, all creationists of some sort, did not believe the materialist definition of science!
How then can the atheists claim, as they ubiquitously do, that creationism or even mere intelligent design (which leaves the question of God and holy books out of the issues) will lead to the ruin of science when in fact all the great scientists that led us to where we are today were themselves creationists?! Utterly ridiculous.

I smell a rotten egg in the materialist mindset.

All across the world today we see fanatical Darwinian fundamentalist running around screaming that creationism would kill “real” science. Yet they never stop to explain how that would be possible given that the majority of historical scientists, including the inventors of the scientific method, were all creationists. Worse, the populations subjected to such fanaticism seem to be too dull to see through such an inane and perfectly illogical claim!

Therefore, how utterly ridiculous is any statement that implies they were in fact unscientific! Yet atheists do this all the time and the worst is that they often succeed in convincing others through the use of sophistry and a slight-of-hand conflating and equivocating of terms and definitions, as they do, to confuse those who do not want to think for themselves.

This is just another distortion promulgated in the new atheist propaganda, ubiquitous in the halls of academia these days and now forced as an a  priori qualification of all science!! So who gave them the right to define science anyway? No one.

The truth is that the origin of any phenomenon can be conceived of and therefore examined in some way -no matter what the perceived nature of that origin.
To say it cannot be is simply to claim that we do not have the right tools -yet, or worse, that we’re already assuming no such tools will ever exist.

Thus the materialist view assumes both too much and too little:
Too much of whatever “super-nature” really means.
Too little of how such could eventually be studied.
It lacks both imagination and realism, not to mention humility.

“Outside the purview of science”?
By this the atheist means outside of Methodological Naturalism. That much is clear, yet that much is also mere bias based on metaphysical assumptions about the universe and not on any factual necessity and that, to continue, is mere religion.

One can only laugh or cry that “science” has been defined in such a way as to deliberately interdict anything we don’t really understand yet! But that in itself is anti-science!

What is the purview of science, really?

Within this context let’s test the matter with the following question:

Suppose life really was designed by a or many intelligent being(s)?
Q: Could you, under your definition of  science, detect this?
A: If it cannot (as you claim) then it is lame, inefficient, insufficient and can never lead to the facts!

If “life, the  universe and everything” really was planned, designed and created, and your definition of science prohibits all but matter and energy then your science can never discover the truth that it was in fact designed!
In such a case your science is indefensibly and indeed irrationally exclusionary.

If your idea of science thus, a priori, excludes all possibility of any extra-, hyper- or supra- “natural” (as we understand natural) existences, then you’re applying a irrational limitation to your ability to understand origins – i.e. you’ve already shot yourself in the head and can never discover the fact.

In most cases materialists, that use this biased and indeed twisted version of science,  think they’ve shot their opponents in the head. In fact, they’ve merely debilitated their own prejudiced view of  science irrationally.  In not limiting the abilities of research to nothing but matter and energy, the true scientist, open to teleology,  has also left all possibilities open to discovery rather than forcing all discovery into a small box of materialist metaphysical dogma. The latter which purely religious and not scientific at all.

This methodological naturalism is a crippled  and prejudiced view of the “purview of science” as all the founders of modern science and indeed the scientific method (1st elaborated by creationists)

Here I cite Thaxton on the scientific method:

Method of Abductive Inference

Reasoning from experience and linking cause to effect developed over several centuries and became a recognized scientific method of causal inference. It has been a part of science since the Scientific Revolution, which culminated in the great synthesis of Isaac Newton in the seventeenth century. Over the course of the development of modern experimental science, Western culture learned to rely on sensory experience to gain knowledge about natural phenomena. By following experience scientists learned to infer causes from effects, i.e., to work backward from the character of the effects to the cause.

A cause is that necessary and sufficient condition that alone can give rise to the occurrence of a given event. And it does not matter if the cause is natural or intelligent. In the words of David Hume, who gave a formal analysis of this approach, “From causes which appear similar we expect similar effects.” (Emphasis his.) Later in the same book he added, “the same rule holds, whether the cause assigned be brute unconscious matter, or a rational intelligent being.”

The inferential methods we usually learn in school are deductive, i.e., inference from the general to the particular, and inductive, i.e., inference from the particular to the general. There has always been a third method of inference, though not clearly described and formally analyzed until the 1870s, this being abductive, i.e., inference from experience. The method of abductive inference is particularly important in the historical sciences, reasoning backward from phenomena to the cause.

This description of the scientific method is just and open and using such will allow scientists to discover and reason without the straitjacket restraints with which the materialist masters would enslave all scientific research.

It is in fact the abductive method that allows science to discover intelligent causes in any domain and not merely the domains of forensics.

I conclude with a quote from Werner Von Braun,

“While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. To be forced to believe only one conclusion–that everything in the universe happened by chance –would violate the very objectivity of science itself.”
“The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction.” “It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom.” -Werner Von Braun, Ph.D., the father of the NASA space Program, in an open letter to the California State Board of Education on September 14, 1972.


Darwinism vs Facts

I was once challenged by a self-confessed atheist Darwinist in this way:

Are you holding back then?  Do you have some ground breaking evidence that shows that evolution is false?   I’m sure the the scientific community would love to hear about it.

Here is my initial response:

Information: For this entry we’re talking about biologically meaningful information, or semantic information or more specifically still biosemiotics. Shannon information is useful in biology as well but not at the level required for ID. That is, both descriptive info and prescriptive info.

Complexity: Here ID refers to specified complexity – and this is not an IDist invention – it was first used by Leslie Orgel. Complexity alone is insufficient. A long string of random letters for example is complex but not specified. A string of letters from a Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified.

Here I quote Dr David L. Abel; The Origin of Life Science Foundation:

Semantic (meaningful) information has two subsets: Descriptive and Prescriptive. Prescriptive Information (PI) instructs or directly produces nontrivial formal function (Abel, 2009a). Merely describing a computer chip does not prescribe or produce that chip. Thus mere description needs to be dichotomized from prescription. Computationally halting cybernetic programs and linguistic instructions are examples of Prescriptive Information. “Prescriptive Information (PI) either tells us what choices to make, or it is a recordation of wise choices already made.” (Abel, 2009a)

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.

DNA strings are formed through the selection of one of four nucleotides at each locus in a string. These programming choices at quaternary decision nodes in DNA sequences must be made prior to the existence of any selectable phenotypic fitness (The GS Principle, (Abel, 2009b). Natural selection cannot explain the programming of genetic PI that precedes and prescribes organismic existence.

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.

If you understood that then you’ll realize that the above facts already by themselves refute Darwinism at the most fundamental level – encoded meaningful information.

Douglas Axe, for example, comments on the recent and controversial experiments by Durrett and Schmidt that supposedly contradict Behe’s Edge of Evolution:

By way of analogy, you might easily cause your favorite software to crash by changing a bit or two in the compiled executable file, but you can’t possibly convert it into something altogether different (and equally useful) by such a simple change, or even by a series of such changes with each version improving on the prior one. To get a substantially new piece of software, you would need to substantially re-engineer the original code knowing that your work wouldn’t pay off until it’s finished. Darwinism just doesn’t have the patience for this.

Furthermore, returning to the first question, it seems that even humble binding-site conversions are typically beyond the reach of Darwinian evolution. Durrett and Schmidt conclude that “this type of change would take >100 million years” in a human line [1], which is problematic in view of the fact that the entire history of primates is thought to be shorter than that [3].

Might the prospects be less bleak for more prolific species with shorter generation times? As it turns out, even there Darwinism appears to be teetering on the brink of collapse. Choosing fruit flies as a favorable organism, Durrett and Schmidt calculate that what is impossible in humans would take only “a few million years” in these insects. To get that figure, however, they had to assume that the damage caused buy the first mutation has a negligible effect on fitness. In other words, they had to leap from “the mutation need not be lethal” to (in effect) ‘the mutation causes no significant harm’. That’s a big leap.

What happens if we instead assume a small but significant cost—say, a 5% reduction in fitness? By their math it would then take around 400 million years for the binding-site switch to prove its benefit (if it had one) by becoming fully established in the fruit fly population. [4] By way of comparison, the whole insect class—the most diverse animal group on the planet—is thought to have come into existence well within that time frame. [5]

Do you see the problem? On the one hand we’re supposed to believe that the Darwinian mechanism converted a proto-insect into a stunning array of radically different life forms (termites, beetles, ants, wasps, bees, dragonflies, stick insects, aphids, fleas, flies, mantises, cockroaches, moths, butterflies, etc., each group with its own diversity) well within the space of 400 million years. But on the other hand, when we actually do the math we find that a single insignificant conversion of binding sites would reasonably be expected to consume all of that time.

The contrast could hardly be more stark: The Darwinian story hopes to explain all the remarkable transformations within 400 million years, but the math shows that it actually explains no remarkable transformation in that time.

If that doesn’t call for a serious rethink, it’s hard to imagine what would.

But it gets a lot worse.

Axe also, experimentally not theoretically (with site directed mutagenesis experiments on a 150-residue protein-folding domain within a B-lactamase enzyme) estimated that the probability of finding a functional protein among the possible amino acid sequences corresponding to a 150-residue protein is similarly 1 in 10^77!

If the universe is indeed some 13.7 billion years and since using the Plank length (smallest possible distance) which is 10^-33 centimeters, and the Plank time (number of possible events per sec.) which is 10^43 and then the number of elementary particles in the universe which is estimated to be 10^80 – calculating the number of possible events in the universe since the Big Bang gives ~10^139. That’s using Dembski’s very conservative calculation.

Other scientists have given much smaller results like University of Pittsburgh physicist Bret van der Sande’s estimate of the probabilistic resources available in the universe at 10^92 – a much less favorable number for the supposed evolutionary time frame than Dembski’s. Worse of course is that this is the number that applies since the beginning of the universe – not the beginning of Earth!

MIT computer scientist Seth Lloyd has calculated that the most bit operations the universe could have performed in its history (assuming the entire universe were given over to this single-minded task) is 10^120, meaning that a specific bit operation with an improbability significantly greater than 1 chance in 10^120 will likely never occur by chance. None of these probabilistic resources is sufficient to render the chance hypothesis plausible. Dembski’s calculation is the most conservative and gives chance its “best chance” to succeed. But even his calculation confirms the implausibility of the chance hypothesis, whether chance is invoked to explain the information necessary to build a single protein or the information necessary to build the suite of proteins needed to service a minimally complex cell.

The probability of producing a single 150-amino-acid functional protein by chance stands at about 1 in about 10^164 (when including P for the requirements for having only peptide bonds and only L-amino acids) – “L-amino acids” dominate on earth, etc. “If you mix up chirality, a protein’s properties change enormously. Life couldn’t operate with just random mixtures of stuff,” – Ronald Breslow, Ph.D., University Professor, Columbia University).
Chirality: The term chiral is used to describe an object that is non-superposable on its mirror image. The concept of handedness – right, left
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_%28chemistry%29 – section on biology

Thus, for each functional sequence of 150 amino acids, there are at least 10^164 other possible nonfunctional sequences of the same length. Therefore, to have a good (i.e., better than 50-50) chance of producing a single functional protein of this length by chance, a random process would have to generate (or sample) more than half of the 10^164 nonfunctional sequences corresponding to each functional sequence of that length. Unfortunately, that number vastly exceeds the most optimistic estimate of the probabilistic resources of the entire universe – that is the number of events that could have occurred since the beginning of its existence.

To see this, notice again that to have a better than 50-50 chance of generating a functional protein by chance, more than half of the 10^164 sequences would have to be produced. Now compare that number (0.5 x l0^164) to the maximum number of opportunities – 10^139 – for that event to occur in the history of the universe. Notice that the first number (.5 x 10^164) exceeds the second (10^139).

There is a better chance of pinpointing a single specific atom within the entire universe, entirely by luck, than the single functional 150 amino acid protein arriving by the same! And that’s a small protein.
The above is partly from Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell
Remember that the above numbers are estimates since no one knows the exact age age of the universe, the earth and probabilities are often subject to other unknown variables. But the above calculations only apply to getting a single functional protein! Not a fully functional cell! Not even DNA.

Even if the odds are much better than this, they are still so bad as to merit a verdict against Darwinism’s chance and selection hypothesis! In Darwinism everything is super easy for evolution! Even if the final numbers are orders of magnitude off, their implications are still so far beyond the realm of reasonable expectations as to warrant a complete abandon of the whole chemical origin of life scheme.

Furthermore, if the origin of life is physically impossible by chance and necessity then what are the chances that the same processes could cause the evolution of some ancient ‘self-replicator’ into more than 10 million highly specified, well adapted life forms? The answer is that the chances for that are not much better at all!

Add genetic entropy to the problem and you’ll understand why neo Darwinism is a waste of time and a real science stopper.
The facts, yes facts, about genetic entropy are devastating to NDE.  If the primary mechanism of mutations + selection is shown to be inadequate then the whole NDE is undone.  And this has already been shown to a degree requiring a negative verdict!  Mutations, the prime source of genetic variation, are largely near neutral (very slightly deleterious), many are deleterious (some fatal) and some, but very rare are beneficial.

Atheist Sir F. Hoyle commented on this problem:

“I am convinced it is this almost trivial simplicity that explains why the Darwinian theory is so widely accepted, why it has penetrated through the educational system so completely. As one student text puts it, `The theory is a two-step process. First variation must exist in a population. Second, the fittest members of the population have a selective advantage and are more likely to transmit their genes to the next generation.’ But what if individuals with a good gene A carry a bad gene B. having the larger value of |s|. Does the bad gene not carry the good one down to disaster? What of the situation that bad mutations must enormously exceed good ones in number? … The essential problem for the Darwinian theory in its twentieth century form is how to cope with this continuing flood of adverse mutations, a far cry indeed from the trite problem of only the single mutation in (1.1). Supposing a favourable mutation to occur among the avalanche of unfavourable ones, how is the favourable mutation to advance against the downward pressure of the others?” (Hoyle, F., “Mathematics of Evolution,” [1987]

and  again…

“Two points of principle are worth emphasis. The first is that the usually supposed logical inevitability of the theory of evolution by natural selection is quite incorrect. There is no inevitability, just the reverse. It is only when the present asexual model is changed to the sophisticated model of sexual reproduction accompanied by crossover that the theory can be made to work, even in the limited degree to be discussed …. This presents an insuperable problem for the notion that life arose out of an abiological organic soup through the development of a primitive replicating system. A primitive replicating system could not have copied itself with anything like the fidelity of present-day systems …. With only poor copying fidelity, a primitive system could carry little genetic information without L [the mutation rate] becoming unbearably large, and how a primitive system could then improve its fidelity and also evolve into a sexual system with crossover beggars the imagination.” (Hoyle, F., “Mathematics of Evolution,” [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999

Renown geneticist Dr. John Sandford’s recent work in this area is also highly revealing.  Here  is what he said on the endeavor itself (my bold):

Late in my career, I did something which for a Cornell professor would seem unthinkable. I began to question the Primary Axiom [neo Darwinism]. I did this with great fear and trepidation. By doing this, I knew I would be at odds with the most “sacred cow” of modern academia. Among other things, it might even result in my expulsion from the academic world.    Although I had achieved considerable success and notoriety within my own particular specialty (applied genetics), it would mean I would have to be stepping out of the safety of my own little niche. I would have to begin to explore some very big things, including aspects of theoretical genetics which I had always accepted by faith alone. I felt compelled to do all this, but I must confess I fully expected to simply hit a brick wall. To my own amazement, I gradually realized that the seemingly “great and unassailable fortress” which has been built up around the primary axiom is really a house of cards. The Primary Axiom is actually an extremely vulnerable theory, in fact it is essentially indefensible. Its apparent invincibility derives mostly from bluster, smoke, and mirrors. A large part of what keeps the Axiom standing is an almost mystical faith, which the true-believers have in the omnipotence of natural selection. Furthermore, I began to see that this deep-seated faith in natural selection was typically coupled with a degree of ideological commitment which can only be described as religious. I started to realize (again with trepidation) that I might be offending a lot of people’s religion!

To question the Primary Axiom required me to re-examine virtually everything I thought I knew about genetics. This was probably the most difficult intellectual endeavor of my life. Deeply entrenched thought pattern only change very slowly (and I must add — painfully). What I eventually experienced was a complete overthrow of my previous understandings. Several years of personal struggle resulted in a new understanding, and a very strong conviction that the Primary Axiom was most definitely wrong. More importantly, I became convinced that the Axiom could be shown to be wrong to any reasonable and open-minded individual. This realization was exhilarating, but again frightening. I realized that I had a moral obligation to openly challenge this most sacred of cows. In doing this, I realized I would earn for myself the most intense disdain of most of my colleagues in academia not to mention very intense opposition and anger from other high places.

In his book, which I will not attempt to quote extensively, he notes:

One of the most astounding recent findings in the world of genetics is that the human mutation rate (just within our reproductive cells) is at least 100 nucleotide substitutions (misspellings) per person per generation (Kondrashov, 2002). Other geneticists would place this number at 175 (Nachman and Crowell, 2000). These high numbers are now widely accepted within the genetics community. Furthermore, Dr. Kondrashov, the author of the most definitive publication, has indicated to me that 100 was only his lower estimate — he believes the actual rate of point mutations (misspellings) per person may be as high as 300 (personal communication). Even the lower estimate, 100, is an amazing number, with profound implications. When an earlier study revealed that the human mutation rate might be as high as 30, the highly distinguished author of that study, concluded that such a number would have profound implications for evolutionary theory (Neel et al. 1986).

Moreover, there are strong theoretical reasons for believing there is no truly neutral nucleotide position. By its very existence, a nucleotide position takes up space, affects spacing between other sites, and affects such things as regional nucleotide composition, DNA folding and nucleosome binding. If a nucleotide carries absolutely zero information, it is then by definition slightly deleterious – as it slows cell replication and wastes energy. Just as there are really no truly beneficial neutral letters in a encyclopedia, there are probably no truly neutral nucleotide sites in the genome. Therefore there is no way to change any given site, without some biological effect – no matter how subtle. Therefore, while most sites are probably “nearly neutral”, very few, if any, should be absolutely neutral.   – Dr. John Sanford, Cornell geneticist, Genetic Entropy The most recent paper on mutation rates is this : http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090827/full/news.2009.864.html – which basically confirms the 100-200 figure.

And so much for “junk DNA”:

The ENCODE consortium’s major findings include the discovery that the majority of DNA in the human genome is transcribed into functional molecules, called RNA, and that these transcripts extensively overlap one another. This broad pattern of transcription challenges the long-standing view that the human genome consists of a relatively small set of discrete genes, along with a vast amount of so-called junk DNA that is not biologically active.

Also – You still must account for semantic information in biological systems. And it is that information, along with the complex algorithms that process it, that makes Darwinism unfeasible.
Materialism, by very definition, cannot account for the existence of semantic information in living things. That kind of information absolutely requires intelligence – no exceptions exist.

I have repeated this next fact over and over again and never gotten any refutation other than mere denial!  – Code, by definition, implies intelligence and the genetic code is real code, mathematically identical to that of language, computer codes etc. all of which can only arise by intelligent convention of symbologies.

The fact that the genetic code is real code and not merely analogous to code is another devastating fact against NDE.
Moreover the genome contains meta information and there is now evidence of meta-programming as well.
Meta info is information on information and we now know the genome contains such structures. But meta information cannot arise without knowledge of the original information.

Meta programming is even more solid evidence of intelligence at work.

We now know that in yeast DNA alone there are more than 300 nano machines at work performing various tasks in the cell, many of which are performed concurrently. Yet concurrency in info processing systems cannot arise without pre-knowledge of tasks requiring coordinated action!

Stuart Pullen in his book Intelligent Design or Evolution (available for reading on line, rightly calls this information “molecular knowledge”.
Read his book to see why a chance and necessity OOL hypothesis is utterly impossible.  It is also viewable here.
His mathematical analysis of the chance – necessity scenario is utterly devastating to any chance OOL hypothesis and thus could be equally devastating to the Darwinian evolution of life hypothesis merely by applying the sample principles to complex bio machines.

In short the nature of cellular information systems in the genome literally rules out chance and necessity for any viable origin theory. An intelligence HAD to be intimately involved in its formation and function.

Worse still for NDE, we now know that the genome contains many poly-poly0functional and thus constrained sequences. But this poly-functionality really stretches the credibility of any chance + necessity hypothesis of ever having any chance at all of success!
In any poly-functional-constrained system, undoing – by random mutation – any one function necessarily undoes the whole.

As Sanford states,

This “complex interwoven (poly-fuctional) network” throughout the entire DNA code makes the human genome severely poly-constrained to random mutations (Sanford; Genetic Entropy, 2005; page 141). This means the DNA code is now much more severely limited in its chance of ever having a hypothetical beneficial mutation since almost the entire DNA code is now proven to be intimately connected to many other parts of the DNA code. Thus even though a random mutation to DNA may be able to change one part of an organism for the better, it is now proven much more likely to harm many other parts of the organism that depend on that one particular part being as it originally was. Since evolution was forced, by the established proof of Mendelian genetics, to no longer view the whole organism as to what natural selection works upon, but to view the whole organism as a multiple independent collection of genes that can be selected or discarded as natural selection sees fit, this “complex interwoven network” finding is extremely bad news, if not absolutely crushing, for the “Junk DNA” population genetics scenario of evolution (modern neo-Darwinian synthesis) developed by Haldane, Fisher and Wright (page 52 and 53: Genetic Entropy: Sanford 2005

One of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century was Kurt Godel.

The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components. The complexity of the living things has to be present within the material [from which they are derived] or in the laws [governing their formation] -Kurt Gödel

We could also add the implications of self correction mechanisms within the genome as further evidence of design since no correction can be made to any complex system without knowledge of its correct system state and thus no such mechanism can arise randomly.
I won’t get into apoptosis and the rest here but you can read my post on Programmed Cell Death.

ID is a necessity in OOL (origin of life) and OOS (origin of species) explanations. The only thing we can reliably say of Darwinian mechanisms is that adaptation and variation occur – but only in a limited way – within the “kind”.
Now, since evolutionists are always asking what taxonomic category the biblical kind is here is my own answer: The “kind” probably corresponds best with the taxonomic ‘family’.
I.E. – No lizard to dog, frog to prince, bacteria to banana, banana to monkey, Darwinist to squid, etc. is even possible given the above humongous improbabilities.

Programmed Cell Death

Cells have built-in error correction and repair mechanisms. Such mechanisms cannot be accounted for by any Darwinian hypothesis since error detection implies knowledge. Knowledge of correct system state and planning of appropriate repair measures.

Here’s one problem with the Darwinian “it just evolved” hypothesis :
Q: How can a repair mechanism arise without pre-knowledge of correct system state?
A: It cannot. Not when the damage caused interrupts and corrective facilities are this specifically complex

Implication? DNA had to be designed by an intelligent agent.

In software development, programmers build what we call “exception trapping” mechanisms.
Such mechanisms ‘watch’ a given function progress and trap errors (exceptional system events) when detected. The trapping code then directs program flow either to analysis functions and correctional code or if the error is minor simply continue processing after the code block that failed (caused the exception) and may possibly alert the user to a faulty input situation.

DNA has it’s own special codes for detecting and ‘catching’ the exceptions that occur. Triggered by a diverse range of cell signals.

Neo Darwinian evolution (NDE) cannot explain the existence of such built-in functions.

Worse (for NDE) : Not only is there repair of damage available to the cell’s system but there is even a last resort “correction” (but not repaired) measure called apoptosis – pre-programmed cell death! Apoptosis  is “a type of cell death in which the cell uses specialized cellular machinery to kill itself; a cell suicide mechanism that enables metazoans to control cell number and eliminate cells that threaten the animal’s survival” (also plays a role in preventing cancer). Its a key process in multicellular organisms.

This too is not explicable under NDE.

So, in a more engineering like term we can look at this process as something like a control-feedback loop. Such ‘loops’ exist in many places in the cell; like the circadian oscillator (Paely’s watch!) – “a clockwork mechanism that controls these global rhythms of transcription, chromosomal topology, and cell division.”

Well then, the evolutionary ancestor to that was what?

Darwinism utterly fails to predict sophisticated repair mechanisms like these. Only pre-knowledge of correct system state can foresee and then construct code sequences that operate repairs to or destruction of faulty parts in a complex machine.

DNA is such a machine.

True but Deadly

Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once looked at Darwinism and it’s logical conclusions and did not like what he saw.  In “On the Use and Abuse of History for Life” (1873), Nietzsche panged at the consequences he foresaw:

If the doctrines of sovereign Becoming, of the liquidity of all…species, of the lack of any cardinal distinction between man and animal — doctrines which I consider true but deadly — are foisted on people for another generation with the frenzied instruction which is now customary, then it should take no one by surprise if people destroy themselves in egotistical trifles and misery, ossifying themselves in their self-absorption, initially falling apart and ceasing to be a people. Then, in place of this condition, perhaps systems of individual egotism, alliances for the systematic larcenous exploitation of those non-members of the alliance and similar creations of utilitarian nastiness will step forward onto the future scene.

While he may have correctly seen the inevitable consequences of Darwinian logic, taken to its logical conclusions, he nevertheless considered that doctrine ‘deadly’.  And he was right. Every time in the last 150 years (since Darwin’s OOS) that someone has seen those logical conclusions and decided to put them into practice ‘deadly’ and disastrous results have been witnessed.

As we can easily see in Richard Weikart’s book, “From Darwin to Hitler” World Was II was started because some men, backed and supported by the scientific elite of their time, believed that man should put Darwin’s ideas into social practice. Not only did this result in the holocaust but in the systematic slaughter of tens of thousands of mentally ill and physically deformed persons in Germany.In the description of Weikart’s latest book Hitler’s ethic was also see that:

Hitler was inspired by evolutionary ethics to pursue the utopian project of biologically improving the human race. This ethic underlay or influenced almost every major feature of Nazi policy: eugenics (i.e., measures to improve human heredity, including compulsory sterilization), euthanasia, racism, population expansion, offensive warfare, and racial extermination.

So Nietzsche’s “true but deadly” comment turns out to be true.

This necessarily requires of us that we answer the question – is it really true?

Thankfully, and in spite of the modern neo Darwinists persistent refusal to acknowledge these facts, we can now state with distinct, and yes scientific, authority that no, it isn’t true.

We know that evolution, as per “changes in allele frequencies over time” and as per “variation and adaptation” is true.
But over the time since Origin of Species, we still have no empirical evidence whatsoever that evolution is capable of doing anything more than the above, and that within the taxonomic family.

The only speciation events observable in the lab or the field are always within the family.  There are no examples of speciation as per a radical new change from one family into a completely different family – and that in spite of the hysterical ravings of such fanatical atheists as Richard Dawkins et al.

We now have Lenski’s 40,0000 generations of E. coli.  All that has been observed is minor adaptation.  They are still E. coli and not jelly fish.  Nor is there any reason to think they will ever become anything else.

Lenski’s experiments, if they demonstrate anything at all, show what Michael Behe calls the “edge of evolution” i.e. the limits of what random mutations and natural selection can accomplish.

The RNA world is a dead duck, mutations are notoriously negative in any organism and built-in error detection and correction mechanisms in the cell abound to assure as that neo Darwinism is also a dead duck. For, how can the very mechanisms which ensure a certain stability in cells and keep species in their respective families, also be the means by which they are mutated out of their own families!? It just doesn’t ring true.

So why do Darwinists persist in promoting it as though it were the ultimate truth?  But in their ill reasoning view it HAS to be true even if it is deadly!  As absolute materialists nothing else CAN be true!
As Harvard geneticist R. Lewontin stated so succinctly,

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.

Curiously Lewontin also admited another rather frightening view when he said,

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.

So he at least, and supposedly many other scientists, blatantly lies? Is this not a strange statement? Scientists lie to your face and Lewontin condescends to give you  the benefit of the doubt of your stupidity by telling you that they lie? Yet are you still so willing to believe them!?  Hard to believe.  Why should anyone believe what the elite materialist scientists then tell us?

Thankfully not all scientists, and hopefully not all materialist (atheist) scientists lie to the public as easily as Lewontin.
But is this lying not also a part of the logic of Darwinism?  Indeed is it is.  For under Darwinism as Nietzsche saw clearly, there is no foundation for ethics, free will or morality of any kind other than a mere collective [or imposed] consent to any currently useful moral standard. A standard that can be changed upon any whim at all by the deciders.

Under such a baseless morality, anything goes.  This is nihilism.  The end of Darwinian thought is nihilism.  And that means that you have no more value than a worm with whom you allegedly share a common evolutionary heritage.

So why did Nietzsche and so many others nevertheless accept this nihilistic world view? Well Nietzsche was in love with his own sister and that clearly doesn’t fly with Judeo/Christian values; so, to remove the sting of conscience from such desires and willings Nietzsche with many thousands of others saw (and see) in materialist Darwinism a clear road out of all traditional taboos and the guilt of conscience and self-restraint that comes with it.

In other words, the real underlying reasons why many Darwinist remain incapable of abandoning their view is religious [metaphysical] and not scientific at all.

Darwinism has become a cult for many.  It MUST be true because there is no God or if there is he has nothing to care of his creation.

But Darwinism and its underlying, metaphysical materialist constructs are not true and can now be empirically demonstrated as such through legitimate design detection methods, statistical mechanics and the laws of probability, and indeed, lab and field experiments involving tens of thousands of generations wherein the opportunity for macro evolution abounds but none is ever observed.

However, as long as neo-Darwinism is continued to be promoted in public academia and the mass media, it will indeed remain deadly, no matter how untrue.