Search This Blog

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Priming the pump for draining Darwinism from science...

Atheism versus Christianity.   A battle of worldviews.   Darwinism versus Creationism.  Still a battle of worldviews.   Theistic Evolution versus Young Earth Creationism?  Worldviews.   Evidence is evidence but the presuppositions you bring to the table tend to determine your opinion of the meal served.   We shall make an effort to identify ways to separate worldview from science and to emphasize that science does NOT belong to Darwinists.  If you are a Darwinist, you are a person of faith.   You cannot test your hypothesis or at least any time you have tested it you have experienced failure.   To combat this you have twisted the process of speciation and labeled it as evolution.   But variation within kind is a design feature of the organism and cannot account for new information entering the genome.


It is difficult to separate the science from the religion in the realm of origins.  All scientists who work in the fields of operational science have a worldview, but whether they believe in evolution or not does not usually impact their work.  When it does, science suffers.   For instance you will not find many scientific disciplines that require students to read any of Darwin's books.   Astronomy and Astrophysics and Nuclear Physicists and various other disciplines take no notice of Darwin whatsoever.   Despite the party line continually parroted by the ruling paradigm, Darwinism is not of any use in operational science.   Even Population Geneticists use Mendelian-style creation-friendly operational science to predict/control populations and change within kind.

Since you are reading this, you are therefore alive.   "Alive" is not something we can weigh and it is not possible to assign a material or natural source for life since none have ever been found nor has life been able to be quantified as a substance or measured as a source.   Nevertheless living beings have millions of neurons and multiple millions of tiny electric charges pass through our bodies as the brain and the cells communicate.   The electric charges in and of themselves are not life but if life departs the impulses cease.   No one will deny that you must certainly be alive but you will not find a scientist who can show you "life" or explain a naturalistic materialistic cause for life.  But please keep breathing or you will quickly experience what it is not!



The Law of Biogenesis says that life comes from life and that each kind produces more of its kind.  Darwinists do not believe this, however, and spend millions of dollars and millions of man hours trying to disprove what science proved by peer-reviewed trials and tests over the course of several years some 150 years ago.   I do not blame Darwinists for this since they are walking by faith and not by sight.

The most vigorous of Darwinists are not only humanists but usually beyond agnostic and often beyond atheistic and are, in fact, atheopathic.  An underlying hatred for God and the concept of God has driven men to ignore common sense and reasoning to build a fantasy we call Darwinism out of whole cloth.   Richard Dawkins obviously has more than a simple distaste for God and there are plenty like him, high priests of Darwin, who wear the label of scientist but are in fact no more than preachers for atheopathic humanism who, if given the power, will punish unbelievers by denying them grades or tenure or jobs within the scientific and academic community. 

You are reading this because you are a human being.   Only people can read.  You are also a molecular machine made up of billions of smaller molecular machines that are all operating and are all in existence because of the instructions contained within your DNA.  ATP synthase machines are  The secret to DNA is that it is a marvelous container for information.  It is estimated that the human brain could contain the information written in 11 million books, but try to imagine how much information is contained in your DNA?  2 terabytes?  30 terabytes?  Scientists cannot actually determine this precisely.

One thing for sure, whereas Moby may think we are full of stars, what we really are is an eternal self contained within a molecular machines which is composed of manifold millions of smaller molecular machines and all operations going on within being governed by the software written in code placed within DNA.











The problem is that information can only be quantified by container.  It has no material form and cannot be directly measured.  The quantity and quality of information can only be deduced by what it accomplishes. 

Your body has around 100 trillion cells.  Most of them are more complex than the largest factory you have ever seen and busier besides.  Your brain has over 13 billion cells alone.  Brain facts.  Even secular sites will concede that our structure is remarkably complex and yet simply counting cells does not begin to tell the tale.



Protein synthesis interactive toy




DNA is not simply a coding mechanism, it is a set of instructions that direct the organism throughout the life of the organism, from conception to death.   Most of your cells contain all the DNA required to code for your entire body for your entire life but somehow each cell is programmed to do its particular part in the being that is you, including making the proteins that the "toy" greatly oversimplifies.

Frogs also have DNA but frogs grow differently than we do, behave differently and generally speaking do not resemble us in very many ways.   Yet they are vertebrates like we are and there are many scientists who actually believe that a frog-like animal is one of your ancestors.  

Now here is where we find Darwinism has been harmful to science:  Biology!  The Darwinist concepts of vestigal organs and "junk" DNA, both now disproven, were hindrances to advances in medicine and no doubt contributed to countless deaths.  Even now geneticists are finding that DNA is more complex than we suspected and that much of the mysteries of DNA and RNA are as yet unexplained.   One thing for sure, the more we learn about DNA, the more we realize that it is intricately complex.  This is absolutely terrible news for Darwinists.  But then again, perhaps as more information about life and information is discovered, we will find that there are just a few vestigal Darwinists.


\

Can you really imagine that complex processes like these were created when a bolt of lighting hit a mud puddle? Is that a scientific point of view? Or does it make sense that a supernatural God designed life and the material world to work together and operate in ways we are still just beginning to comprehend.



Take it away, Calvin!

Lost in translation

The genetic information code points to an intelligent source

Published: 6 May 2010(GMT+10)
Photo stock.xchng
What good are instructions if no one is receiving them?
‘What good are instructions if no one is receiving them?’ 

The Kingston Trio song “Desert Pete” reached its peak Billboard position (# 33) in 1963. The tune described a traveler in the desert that encounters an old water pump and a baking powder tin with a note in it. The writer of the note explains that buried underneath the sand he has placed a jar with water in it, and if the traveler primes the pump with its contents, they will be able to have all the water they desire. He warns however;
Now there’s just enough to prime it with
so don’tcha go drinkin’ first
You just pour it in and pump like mad,
buddy, you’ll quench your thirst … ”
This amusing tune speaks of loving your neighbor in a practical way (one person taking the time to leave the water jar) and also of confidence in your fellow man (the other man’s step of faith by trusting that the instructions left are correct and that the water will not be wasted unnecessarily).

Send and receive

But what if the traveler was unable to read the note (either because they were of a different culture or simply illiterate)? What good would the information have been without someone that could understand it?
Obviously in any form of communication (whether Braille, Morse code, spoken language etc) there must first be a transmitter and then a receiver that understands the specific code used or else the communication is useless, literally “lost” in translation. If Desert Pete’s traveler had been Chinese (and didn’t understand English) he might have perished!

Origin of a code

Atheistic evolutionists are committed to a materialistic origin of life. As such, there should be no non-material quantity to the universe. However, modern science shows us that the study of biology is largely a study of information science, as all living things contain vast libraries of information in the form of a genetic code (DNA).

So committed evolutionists must believe (for the origin of life to have occurred naturalistically) that a code system originated by chance, with no outside intelligence. But experimental science has shown this is false. Information is non-material; it is a metaphysical entity, and has only been observed to be derived from an intelligent source. An example can be demonstrated simply.


… in any form of communication … there must first be a transmitter and then a receiver that understands the specific code used or else the communication is useless, literally ‘lost’ in translation. 

Pretend I take a piece of chalk and write a message on a blackboard; “Hi, my name is Cal”. If I asked you “Where did the information come from?” would you say “From the chalk”? If I were to rub the message off the board and show you the chalk on my hand would you say there is any information in it? No.
Obviously information was carried on the material of the chalk (because of the arrangement) but chalk has no inherent information content. The information can be traced back to the mind (me) that formulated the message, not the matter (calcium carbonate). Similarly, DNA is comprised of sugar, phosphates and bases, but the matter that it is made of does not contain the information, the arrangement of it does.


So information is 1) metaphysical (it is not a part of the matter it is carried on) and 2) only ever been observed to be created by intelligence. This is a huge challenge to the atheistic paradigm, and many atheistic evolutionists committed to their faith are aware of the challenge and trying desperately to solve it.
“To stem the growing swell of Intelligent Design intrusions, it is imperative that we provide stand-alone natural process evidence of non trivial self-organization at the edge of chaos. We must demonstrate on sound scientific grounds the formal capabilities of naturally-occurring physicodynamic complexity.”1
This evolutionary author (DL Abel) has identified what he calls the “null hypothesis” to naturalism,2 shown below.




Can we falsify any of the following null hypotheses?

Neither spontaneous combinatorial complexity nor “The Edge of Chaos” can generate:

  1. Mathematical logic
  2. Algorithmic optimization
  3. Cybernetic programming
  4. Computational halting
  5. Integrated circuits
  6. Organization (e.g., homeostatic metabolism far from equilibrium)
  7. Material symbol systems (e.g., genetics)
  8. Any goal-oriented bona fide system
  9. Language
  10. Formal function of any kind
  11. Utilitarian work
But he admits the more honest we are about current discoveries within living things, the further away from naturalistic explanations we get;
“ … science has an obligation to be honest about what the entire body of evidence clearly suggests. We cannot just keep endlessly labelling abundant evidence of formal prescription in nature “apparent”. The fact of purposeful programming at multiple layers gets more “apparent” with each new issue of virtually every molecular biology journal.”3
So the ever increasing accumulation of observable evidence is going in the wrong direction! All living things operate and replicate using vast quantities of coded information which is stored, read, transcribed and translated. All of these processes shout out purposeful, intelligent sophisticated programming (far more advanced than any technology we’ve yet conceived), not blind, purposeless, naturalistic processes.
Aside from the fact that no one has observed a code system spontaneously generating, it is even beyond our imagination to concoct a story of how matter could formulate a code. So, far from the average lay person’s belief that scientists have the origin of life figured out, the honest scientists who understand the problem are admitting that they don’t know at all.
“At the same time, we have spent much of the last century arguing to the lay community that we have proved the current biological paradigm. Unfortunately, very few in the scientific community seem critical of this indiscretion. One would think that if all this evidence is so abundant, it would be quick and easy to falsify the null hypothesis put forward above.”4
The faith needed to believe that a code system spontaneously came into being is far fetched, but the concept that ‘matter’ developed a ‘mind’ capable of understanding it goes beyond faith and into the realm of fantasy. 

But the problem is even more dire than most people know. Not only must the committed materialist believe that a code system spontaneously generated, they must also believe that a translation device specific to that exact code must also have “evolved” through natural causes! (The coded information in the DNA of living things is only useful when translated and expressed in specific structures and functions).

This is truly a dizzying prospect, as not only is the process of translation itself (in all of our experience) another activity that can always be traced back to an intelligent source,5 but what is the chance (in the infinite amount of “translators” that might have evolved) for it to be the exact one that matched the code that evolved?
It’s like the note in Desert Pete. Even if the note could have written itself somehow, what good is the note if there were no one to understand it? What good are instructions if no one is receiving them? The faith needed to believe that a code system spontaneously came into being is far fetched, but the concept that “matter” developed a “mind” capable of understanding it goes beyond faith and into the realm of fantasy.

A step of faith

Faith in Jesus Christ is based on trust in God’s word. The Bible is a credible message given to us from the past from one who foresaw our needs and cares and wants the best for us. It has not, as some critics say, been lost in translation, but a message that has been faithfully passed on for hundreds of years. However, it is not a blind leap, but an intelligent step forward based on evidence and logic.

Belief in atheistic evolution is a blind faith. It is a belief based in non-observed, unproven scientific processes, while philosophically denying hope, purpose, justice or ultimate meaning to life.
The explorer in this life faces the same options as the desert traveler. Live a life full of short term gratification (drink the water in the jar) or enjoy the full life of abundance (put your faith in an unseen source). The results of non-belief lead to ultimate ruin, but the step of faith leads to eternal life.
As Pete says;
“You’ve got to prime the pump, you must have faith and believe
You’ve got to give of yourself ’fore you’re worthy to receive
Drink all the water you can hold, wash your face, cool your feet
Leave the bottle full for others, thank you kindly, Desert Pete”

Readers’ comments:

Graham P., New Zealand, 6 May 2010
Great piece. I had a discussion with an engineer last week, and made the same point: the dna coded information isn’t material, so how could naturalistic evolution explain it? The engineer had no response.

Cal Smith responds:
Hi Graham, thank you for your email.
Yes, information as an entity is an incredible problem for evolutionists to explain, and this certainly isn’t a God of the gaps type of argument (“we don’t know so God must have done it”). We do know where information comes from (an intelligent mind). So the more sophisticated the information the more sophisticated the mind that created it must be.

I have never seen this question answered by an evolutionist personally. If you would like to learn more about information theory I suggest Dr Werner Gitt’s book “In the beginning was information” available on our website.
Blessings,
Cal Smith
Creation Ministries International

R.R., Canada, 6 May 2010
Aside from the fact that no one has observed a code system spontaneously generating, it is even beyond our imagination to concoct a story of how matter could formulate a code.
I have heard Carl W. make allowances for the possibility of information gain in the (nylon bug?). I don’t know a lot about this but I’m curious to know if that admission is compatible with the above statement.
Editor: Here is the article about nylon digestion. It has nothing to do with the origin of the genetic code, which this article is about, because the genetic code already exists in the bacteria.

Jim G., United States, 7 May 2010
There’s one other piece to this that makes it even more difficult. You correctly note that both transmission and reception of DNS’s information must be explained. However, they also must have evolved AT THE SAME TIME.

The object doing the understanding would be useless (and thus selected against) without the information, and the information would be useless (and thus selected against) without the capacity to understand it.
And, going just one step further: The VERY FIRST life form in the evolutionary tree must have included both the transmission capability and the reception capability. The species encompassing any entity that had one without the other would have gone extinct at the same instant as it died!

Further reading

References

  1. Abel, D.L., The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity, International Journal of Molecular Sciences 10:247–291, 9 January 2009 | doi:10.3390/ijms10010247 Return to text.
  2. Return to text.
  3. Same as 1 (italics in original). Return to text.
  4. Same as 1 Return to text.
  5. Even though non living computers can translate information, that process can only happen because of the programming of translation software by intelligent designers. Return to text.



    5 comments:

    Jon Woolf said...

    Still just allegations and unfounded claims, Radar. Why can't you actually show us any science behind your attacks on evolution? It's really not all that hard, you know. Here, I'll even show you how it's done.

    In other posts you've claimed that fossils are sorted, not by their geological age, but by "the level at which creatures lived at the time, their ability to escape initial flood events, and also sorting by weight and size and specific gravity..."

    This is, as any first-year geology student knows, quite thoroughly false.

    "My original method of tracing the Strata by the organized Fossils imbedded is thus reduced to a science not difficult to learn. Ever since the first account of this discovery was circulated in 1799 it has been closely investigated by my scientific acquaintance in the vicinity of Bath; some of whom search quarries of different Strata in that district with as much certainty of finding the Fossils of the respective rocks as if they were on the shelves of their cabinets. By this new method of searching for organized Fossils with the regularity with which they are imbedded in such a variety of Strata, many new species have been discovered. The Geologist is thus enabled to fix the locality of those previously found; to direct the attentive investigator in his pursuits; and to find in all former cabinets and catalogues numerous proofs of accuracy in this mode of identifying the Strata."

    This writer is talking about the concept that modern geologists call "index fossils:" the fact that strata can be identified and correlated across ... well, really the entire planet, by identifying certain fossils that occur within those strata and nowhere else in the entire geologic column. The existence of index fossils makes nonsense of the claim that fossils are only sorted by "weight and size and specific gravity," because many index fossils are the same size and shape and mass as other index fossils, but they never occur together.

    The kicker? The above passage comes from Stratigraphical System of Organized Fossils by William M. Smith, published in 1817 -- forty years before Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species. Smith and his colleagues of the time already knew that the rock record was incompatible with a Flood scenario. His writing sparkles with respect for the Creator, yet nowhere so much as mentions the biblical account of Genesis. In short, Radar, your claim that the Noahic Flood is the best explanation for the fossil record was known to be wrong two hundred years ago.

    radar said...

    No, it means that William Smith was wrong and that Darwin and Lyell and Hutton were wrong. It does not matter in what order they may have been wrong.

    It is also likely that most first year geology students are wrong because they have been taught by Darwinist priest to believe lies and claptrap. Special testing with flumes has proven that such sorting does happen. Real observational science shows us that the sedimentary rock layers are consistent with a world-wide flood event. Any other idea is preposterous.

    The problems with index fossils are easily seen. First, they are an example of circular reasoning. One dates the fossils by the rock layer and then goes forth dating the rock layers by the fossils. Second, the dates themselves are based entirely upon assumptions and those assumptions are not testable by observational science. We cannot warm up the Way-Back Machine to see exactly when the rocks were formed.

    I hope you do not claim that ATP molecular machines and that the mechanisms operating within the cell as presented by the animations I borrowed from SECULAR sources are wrong?

    But then you think such remarkably complex operations just *poofed* into existence so I suppose you may well believe just about anything.

    radar said...

    Jon, science and humanism are not synonymous. You are greatly mistaken when you begin passing off Darwinism as science, since it is a collection of completely impossible coincidences joined to hundreds of just-so stories that come with no evidence but rather the arrogant braggadocio of tyranny.

    The NCSE and the naturalistic rulers of science and academia have made all secular scientists bow down to the idol of Darwin in order to be employed, to work in their fields of study, to publish papers, to receive grant money and to have intellectual freedom to study and research and ask questions.

    Why is there a NCSE? Why would the Darwinists have an organization designed to stamp out creationism and intelligent design in classrooms and elsewhere? If creationism was nonsense, one would think that academics and scientists would welcome the input in order to point out the error of creationist ways and move forward from there.

    But the NCSE is censoring teachers and scientists because they fear truth. Just as the Soviet Union sought to stifle all dissent, so does the NCSE do now. Darwinists are afraid to have their pet hypothesis questioned because they do not have the requisite answers. Thousands of scientists can crank out thousands of paragraphs of propaganda, but when you get down to observation and testing Darwinism falls apart. When people carefully study the premises of Darwinism, they will see that it is quite illogical and certainly not based on fact. Darwinism is a faith.

    Jon Woolf said...

    Why, Radar, you actually answered! I am impressed!

    I'd be more impressed if you had answered with an intelligently-designed argument, though.

    "Real observational science shows us that the sedimentary rock layers are consistent with a world-wide flood event."

    Except where it isn't -- such as fossiliferous LIPs, which you still haven't attempted to explain.

    "First, they are an example of circular reasoning. One dates the fossils by the rock layer and then goes forth dating the rock layers by the fossils."

    Nope.

    Stratigraphic correlation, whether by index fossils or by other unique features, only assigns relative ages: older, younger, the same age as. One needs something else to assign absolute ages of "X number of years ago." Something like drift-rate dating, or paleomagnetics, or electron spin resonance, or any of the twenty or so different methods of radiometric dating that have been defined.

    "Second, the dates themselves are based entirely upon assumptions and those assumptions are not testable by observational science."

    Except for the times that they are ... which is often enough to make sensible folk trust them. For example, the observed correlation between drift-rate dating and radiometric dating in Pacific island chains. Or the advanced argon-argon test that successfully dated material known to be from the Vesuvius eruption of 79 AD, which buried the Roman cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum.

    Jon Woolf said...

    "Why would the Darwinists have an organization designed to stamp out creationism and intelligent design in classrooms and elsewhere?"

    Because creationism is anti-scientific nonsense. It has no place in any scientific discussion. It should be even less welcome in classrooms, filled with young impressionable minds that don't yet know how to tell fact from fiction and truth from cynical attempts at manipulation and domination.

    "If creationism was nonsense, one would think that academics and scientists would welcome the input in order to point out the error of creationist ways and move forward from there."

    They've tried. Over and over and over again. It doesn't do any good, because of people like you -- so full of creationist nonsense that no contrary information can get through your mental walls.

    Why won't you address the question of LIPs, Radar?

    Why won't you address the subject of the no-young-isotopes phenomenon?

    Why won't you acknowledge the fact that ichthyosaurs never occur in the same strata with dolphins, despite being of similar size, shape, mass, and buoyancy, and thus indistinguishable by simple water sorting?

    Why won't you even give an accurate description of evolutionary theory?