Feeds:
Posts
Comments

http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/943775f4d634596e

Yockey, Hubert P.  1977.  ”A Calculation of the Probability of
Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory” _Journal of
Theoretical Biology_ 67:377-398.  Yockey is/was with the
Army Pulse Radiation Facility, Aberdeen Proving Ground,
Maryland, USA.  On 382, 383:
     In general, the more complex the pattern the longer the
     message describing it.  In the limit of complexity when
     there is no discernable pattern, that is, when the sequence is
     ”aperiodic” one must specify each symbol in turn
     indefinitely.  Such a message is just as long as the sequence
     it describes.  This idea does not depend on the origin of a
     sequence.  ….  We now realize that the sequences with the
     longest algorithms have the largest entropy [this isn't a
     reference to thermodynamic entropy] and are the most
     complex.  Therefore they also have the largest information
     content.  A random sequence is the most complex of all
     since we cannot predict its future behavior on the basis of
     past performance.

Definitions

“order” (low or no information content), seen in a crystal  
Yockey, Hubert P.  1974.  ”An Application of Information
Theory to the Central Dogma and the Sequence Hypothesis”
_Journal of Theoretical Biology_ 46:369-406.  On 374:
     Once we know the nature of a crystal the arrangement of
     the atoms carries no information at all….

Yockey, Hubert P.  1977.  ”A Calculation of the Probability of
Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory” _Journal of
Theoretical Biology_ 67:377-398.  On 383:
     When these ideas are applied to consideration of the origin
     of life we realize that we need an explanation not of the
     generation of order but rather of complexity.  Crystals are
     ordered; informational biomolecules are “aperiodic” as
     Schroedinger (1955) has said and therefore are complex.  A
     pursuit of the generation of order will end in
     crystallography not in biology.

“complexity” (high information content), seen in an
arrangement of letters spelling out Longfellow’s poems,
arrangement of letters spelling out a recipe for making
pound cake, arrangement of nucleotides spelling out a
recipe for making a human, arrangement of nucleotides
spelling out a recipe for making a salamander, as well as:
arrangements of letters, musical notes, the numbers 0-9,
nucleotides, and amino acids that had been generated by a
random letter/note/number/nucleotide/amino acid
generator.
All these arrangements display a high information content
and therefore have “complexity.”

“meaning-or-utility-laden complexity” and
“random complexity”

Yockey, Hubert P.  1974.  ”An Application of Information
Theory to the Central Dogma and the Sequence Hypothesis”
_Journal of Theoretical Biology_ 46:369-406.  On 371:
     The vast majority of the sequences in the ensemble of all
     sequences of length _N_, of letters of a written language
     have no assigned meaning or specificity.  The same is true
     of sequences of digits zero through nine and of musical
     notes.  However, embedded in the ensemble of all such
     sequences are, say, a play by Sophocles, the lost works of
     Aristotle, the numbers {pie} and e.  The ensemble of all
     musical notes contains Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony.  It
     also contains… forms of random noise.  By the same token
     the protein sequences of length _N_, which carry
     specificity, are embedded in the ensemble of all amino
     acids sequences of length _N_.  Those sequences which
     carry specificity are a tiny fraction of the ensemble.

My claim is that whenever we see “meaning-or-utility-laden
complexity,” we can reasonably conclude that intelligence/mind
was responsible for the origination of that
meaning-or-utility-laden complexity (MOUL complexity).

A summary of the above:

          info-wise,                             info-wise,
    complexity (high info content)      order (low or 0 info content)
             /\                
          /     \
        /         \                  
      /             \                
    /                 \              
MOUL complexity      random complexity

^—————^   ^______________________________________________^
_only_ appears w/       usually appears via non-intelligence-directed
input of intelligence   means, “usually” because intelligence has been
                        known to on occasion make

examples: Beethoven’s    examples of “random           examples of  
5th, Sophocles’ plays,   complexity”: random noise;    ”order”: crystals;
nucleotide sequences     arrangement of letters,       arrangement of
coding for a human       numbers, amino acids, or      letters reading
and for a salamander.    nucleotides produced by a     “AAAAAA…” or
Whenever we see          random generator of such;     “BTBTBTBTBT…”
MOUL complexity,         arrangement of rocks in about
we infer that            1 cubic meter worth of gravel
intelligence was
involved in the
appearance of that
MOUL complexity.

more Yockey:
1991 John Horgan; 1999 Paul Davies, 1992 Hubert Yockey, & 1968
Michael Polanyi:  [Davies]“life cannot be
‘written into’ the laws of physics” presently known

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design: 6 Bones of Contention

Discovery Institute’s, Casey Luskin got a fair hearing here.

The Dark Side of Darwin’s Legacy

But how can we teach Darwin (in schools) and also teach that humans are somehow exceptional in the natural world? Wasn’t his great breakthrough to show that humans, like all animals, share a common origin?
I think we have to decide what status we are going to give to the human race. Most of the world’s religions hold that human life is sacred and special in some way. In teaching our common descent with animals, we also have to examine what is special about human beings, and why they deserve to be treated differently and granted certain rights.

All things considered, do you believe Darwin was a great luminary in the path of human progress?
… What has the theory of evolution done for the practical benefit of humanity? It’s helped our understanding of ourselves, yet compared to, say, the discovery of penicillin or the invention of the World Wide Web, I wonder why Darwin occupies this position at the pinnacle of esteem. I can only imagine he has been put there by a vast public relations exercise.

You’re willing to deny God’s omniscience and Divine providence in order to support Miller’s completely unfounded theological view (completely at odds with the teaching of the Church). Again, God is omniscient. Nothing can happen without his knowledge or will.

And biologist Kenneth Miller of Brown University, author of the popular book Finding Darwin’s God (which is used in many Christian colleges), insists that evolution is an undirected process, flatly denying that God guided the evolutionary process to achieve any particular result—including the development of human beings. Indeed, Miller insists that “mankind’s appearance on this planet was not preordained, that we are here… as an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out.” [Finding Darwin’s God (1999), p. 272]

This is obviously and completely false. Again, he says that mankind was not pre-ordained by God, but that human beings arose by an accident (that God was not involved in, that God was not aware of, that God did not direct). This denies the direct creation of man by God — it denies the de fide teaching that every human soul is created directly by God. He claims that man was an accident — happening without God willing or intending it.

Miller does say that God knew that the undirected process of evolution was so wonderful it would create some sort of rational creature capable of praising Him eventually. But what that something would be was radically undetermined. How undetermined? At a 2007 conference, Miller admitted that evolution could have produced “a big-brained dinosaur” or a “mollusk with exceptional mental capabilities” rather than human beings. [Quoted in Darwin Day, p. 226]
http://www.discovery.org/a/10121

Again, Miller claims that God only knew that some kind of creature would be created — but He didn’t know that man would emerge. This is not only heretical, it is blasphemous. Miller believes in an ignorant god. This is not the true God — all-knowing, all-powerful, possessing all perfections. It is an ignorant god that didn’t know what evolution would produce. The worship of a false god is idolatry. And that’s what we have here.

We can take a look at this quote from Miller’s biology textbook:

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed.. D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

From a review of Leonard Susskind’s The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design with the author’s words quoted:

Susskind says, “By now most string theorists have realized that, although their theory may be correct, their aspirations were incorrect. The theory itself is demanding to be seen as a theory of diversity, not uniqueness.” (pg 274) Susskind thinks that this is something of `religious’ importance because he thinks that if there exists a mind-bogglingly huge enough number of universes (10 to the 500th power and growing), then inevitably ours, however unique or special it may seem to those of us who contemplate its apparently fine-tuned laws, is just a `run of the mill’ inevitability. He believes that such an ensemble construction can make the world a safer place for non-theists and for philosophical materialism generally: “If String Theory itself is wrong, perhaps because it is mathematically inconsistent, it will fall by the wayside and, with it, the String Theory Landscape. But if that does happen, then as things stand now, we would be left with no other rational explanation for the illusion of a designed universe.” (pg 355) He suggests that “many scientists” do not live up to their “moral” duty and calling, by sufficiently resisting the possibility that our universe is as special as it has come to be seen since the “cosmic coincidences” began to be catalogued in the 1980s. His persistent metaphysical insistence is that the appearance of design MUST be an “illusion.” Of course, when one begins with this metaphysical demand, it is virtually inevitable that one concludes with it too. What Susskind seems unable to notice, is that, theologically speaking, he’s just mashing his face against a wall. Indeed the `megaverse’ conjecture is of significant interest to theologians (who have never had any reason to doubt God’s interest in diversity), but while it may stimulate theological discussions, it hardly puts the theologian out of business! In this regard, the theological conception of a First Cause of causes is (obviously) mathematically scalar, and the big question “why is our world special” would simply give way to a now bigger question, “why a huge ensemble of worlds perhaps infinitely diverse?” As Aristotle and Leibniz asked, “why is their something . . .” Any argument in which design and purpose could be said to have been eliminated by string/brane theory’s “megaverse”, seems naïve and is easily enough sacked. If Susskind intended to wax theological, he should have taken a couple of minutes to investigate his topic. For reasons cited above, the subtitle that has been affixed to this title is misleading, whether Susskind understands that it is or not.

The subtitle of the book points to Intelligent Design, calling it an “illusion”. This is an indirect admission that the universe “appears to be designed”. Mr. Susskin goes on to say that if his theory (unsupported by observations of “other universes”) is wrong — then there is no rational argument against the Intelligent Design proposal.

I find this an amazing concession about the strength of Intelligent Design ideas. Mr. Susskind admits that there is presently no rational defense against ID theory, with the exception of his own theory, which itself could “fall apart”.

Beyond this, as the reviewer states above, the proposal of a huge number of universes or perhaps an infinite number does not solve very much scientifically or philosophically. We would be stuck with the unknown origin of those universes, as well as the many problems that follow from an infinite string of self-generating universes.

I’d put it this way, if the multiverse/string theory is the best defense available against ID theory, then that is a very strong statement in itself. It certainly says a lot about any scientist who dismisses ID theory as if it is some kind of joke. It also leads to some important questions about why scientists like Mr. Susskind, after admitting that ID is consistent with the obvious appearance of design in the universe (which he calls “an illusion”), do not investigate the evidence on the existence of God with an open mind.

He reluctantly and indirectly admits that the existence of God (supreme, purposeful intelligence directing/designing the universe) is relevant. Why not leave that as one rational possibility and then seek out the evidence given to support it?

Is there more evidence that God exists than there is direct, observed evidence of a multiverse? That’s an important question, especially for a scientist who claims that his own theory is the only possible argument against Intelligent Design theory.

More on the concept of cosmological fine-tuning:

There has been considerable debate lately in the physics community over an idea called the “anthropic cosmological principle” (Barrow and Tipler, 1986; Barrow, 2002; Susskind, 2003). According to this idea, the universe is made just right for life to occur. As one author puts it, “The universe must be suitable for life, otherwise we would not be here to wonder about it” (Overbye, 2003). There are numerous features and mathematical constants in the equations of physics and cosmology which do not seem predictable by any known theory, and which seem to be miraculously tuned to allow life. Any slight deviation from these settings would be disastrous, causing things like stars to collapse and atoms to evaporate. One of the most striking examples of the anthropic principle is the cosmological constant, a number that measures the amount of cosmic repulsion caused by the energy in empty space (Carroll and Press 1992). As predicted by quantum theory, empty space should be brimming with this energy. In fact, recent discoveries have shown that cosmic repulsion is indeed present and seems to be helping in the expansion of the universe. However, the observed cosmological constant (lambda) is perhaps as much as 1,000 times lower than its estimated value (Weinberg, 1989; Carroll and Press, 1992). So why is the cosmological constant what it is? Why is it different from that expected based upon mathematical formulas? It is at this point that people invoke the anthropic principle.

The anthropic principle is often used as a religious argument for special creation with reasoning like this, “The reason our universe is so peculiar and well-fitted to life is because the Creator wanted (willed) it to be that way for the formation of life.” Dr. Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate from the University of Texas, puts it like this. “A person is dealt a royal flush in a poker tournament. It may be chance, but on the other hand, the organizer of the tournament may be our friend” (Overbye, 2003; Susskind, 2003).

Jerome Goddard – Journal of the Mississippi Academy of Sciences, July 2005

But the end to the Darwinian devastation is not yet. Gradualism by chance selection is ruled out also by the need for simultaneous and coordinated modifications in all the structures of the organism, not simply in one bone or muscle or tendon. Georges Cuvier, a nineteenth-century French naturalist, had already seen that animals could not gradually change one part (organ, muscle, or bone) independently of all the others. Speaking only of the limbs of meat-eating animals, Cuvier wrote: “[so] that the claws may seize the prey, they must have a certain mobility in the talons, a certain strength in the nails, whence will result determinate formations in all the claws, and the necessary distribution of muscles and tendons.” He goes on and shows how the turning of the forearm would require “special formations of the bones . . . thus affecting the shoulder-blade and its structure and the legs and other muscles.” The chances of all this happening at once are unimaginably impossible.

To top it all, Michael Behe, using his expertise in biochemistry, writes of what he calls irreducible complexity on the molecular level. By this terminology he means “a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition non-functional.” In his best-selling book, Darwin’s Black Box, Behe presents with great detail several examples on the molecular level that show in a compelling manner why gradualism could not possibly work. It is to Darwin’s credit that he openly admitted that his theory about the origin of species would “absolutely break down” if what is now called irreducible complexity were shown to be true. “If it could be demonstrated”, said Darwin, “that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Well, it has been so demonstrated clearly and convincingly.

What is likewise clear is that if macroevolution has occurred, science will have to come up with a far better explanation of how it happened than we have in Darwin’s effort. At the moment we find many statements but no credible explanatory evidence, together with rigid repetitions of disproved and dated ideas. There is nothing persuasive on the scene. What we do find in our world is an overwhelming display of evidence pointing to beauty, artistry, design … and an Artist. That this Designer has worked through a developing process in the physical cosmos seems clear. How he has operated and continues to operate in the living kingdoms still awaits additional enlightenment.

Structural Order. Teleology is order in activity, and is therefore called dynamic order. But

there is also the order of structure. Structural order ; is the harmonious arrangement of diverse integral parts in one pattern or configuration. Thus the frond of a fern or palm has leaflets or blades, arranged along the stern in a recognizable pattern. Structural order is characterized by symmetry and proportion. Symmetry is the repetition of some feature, as in the similarity of two leaflets on opposite sides of the stem, or the two eyes of an animal. Proportion is the gradation of a feature or character according to a more or less fixed ratio; thus in the frond the row of leaflets on either side of the stem is arranged in gradually diminishing sizes from the base to the tip. Structural order is observable in the wings of a bird, in a snowflake, in a frost- flower on a window-pane. In fact, a most interesting study is the examination of natural objects, even with a microscope, to discover their intricate and amazing structures. Moreover, X-rays disclose a structure in the very atoms themselves.

It is true that structure is often suitable for useful activity, still it can be recognized without our knowing its utility. Hence, structural order, apart from dynamic order, furnishes independent evidence for intelligence. But since the formation of the arguments the same in both cases, we combine the evidence from both sources to one set of proofs. And although we recognize purposive activity from its useful results, which we contend could not be attained unless intended, structural order is recognized by merely noting its symmetry and proportion, without our being required to know its purpose. It must not be thought, however, that structural order is necessarily immobile and unchangeable. The structure of an organism changes in its progress from the germ state to that of maturity; and when the organism dies, the same matter is taken up by ether organisms to be formed into other structures. Included under structure are the arrangement and shading of colors, as in flowers, butterflies and practically all animals. We may even extend the term to graceful motion; and, on the authority of musicians, to the very bird songs, which, to be truly musical, must have harmonious “structure.”

Many things, when taken on a large scale, as mountains and the stars, have no symmetry or proportion. By reason of their immensity and their inherent mystery, they can only be denominated as sublime and as transcending the status of mere patterns. Nevertheless, on a small scale, the very crystals of granite and the atoms which are known to exist in the stars, have a minute and intricate structural order. Order cannot be explained by_chance

much less can its repetition and continuance be so explained. The only alternative is intelligence. And whether that Intelligence created the world, or merely arranged and operates it, to reject His existence is to dethrone reason.

Thesis 2. The material universe displays purposive finality and structural order, for which the ultimate reason must be sought in a supramundane intelligent cause.

 

Part 1. Intelligence is required

All grant that there is marvelous order in nature, that countless specimens of natural objects exhibit an in an intricate structure, and act and interact in such a way as to preserve and develop a highly ordered universe. But such order can be explained only on the ground that some intelligence intended it.

The minor. a) There is no other sufficient cause, as is acknowledged by the conviction of all mankind in much simpler effects. Let a man but discover on some lone island a crude tomahawk or a sundial, and no amount of argument will persuade him that these things were the product of unreasoning nature. The human mind recognizes an

essential connection between fitness and intention.

Our experience also warrants the conviction that a highly complicated order cannot result

otherwise than from intelligent selection and arrangement of the parts. We cannot so much as lay a tile floor in a simple pattern of alternate colors unless we be allowed to see the color of each tile, and thus recognize its fitness for its particular place. The same is true of the construction of the simplest implement or machine. One may construct a photographic camera which with proper adjustment will focus an object before it, but he cannot secure this effect without intelligent selection and arrangement of the materials to that end. Yet every eye regularly represents what is before it, even the most shifting scenes. And if the ordered performances of the eye are worthy of years of study, what shall we say of the order throughout the universe from atom to solar system?

(c) Moreover, the order in the universe does not happen just once,—as might be said of a still picture.

There is constant change in every instant of time, and always there is order preserved in all the mutations and developments. To attempt to explain such progressive results, achieved by astounding coordination and cooperation of the constituent elements, without having recourse to an intelligent cause is to stultify the human mind.

(d) The appeal to the inexorable necessity of the world processes merely distracts the attention from the thing to be explained, namely, that they are ordered processes whatever their necessity.

The intelligence is supramundane

Argument. The material universe gives evidence of intelligence as the cause of its order. But this cause is not the world itself. Therefore it is extramundane.

The major was proved in part one.

The minor. The natural objects under discussion do recognize ends as such themselves, and consequently are not themselves intelligent. Man, in his deliberate acts is indeed exempted from the discussion; but no one holds that man is accountable for the world’s order.

Noit. Ths!Jtre that the Ajhthcrld’ a is absolutel infinite but t proves that 11e is superor to the world an Ininct from it, and omnipotent at least to the extent that He is more powerful than all the forces of. the material universe, since He established them and put them in order.

Difficulties.

The end does not exist until the action is done, But what does not exist until the action is done cannot be a motive for the action.

Reply. The end is not obtained in external fact until the action is done, I grant; the end does not exist in the mind as something intended before the action is done, I. deny.

2. The world is ruled by chance. An oak, e.g., will produce thousands of acorns in vain compared to the few that may grow into other oaks.

Reply. Even granting that none of the acorns ever grow into an oak, it is clear that they are fitted to do so, and hence manifest finality; the oak is thus producing by the thousands, concrete arguments for our thesis. Moreover the acorns are serviceable as food for animals and for enriching the soil for further vegetation; they are fit not only for the bonun sibi, but bonum allius as well. This inter-service of the parts of

the universe gives us still more overwhelming evidence of finality. And even confining our consideration to the primary end of propagation of the species, the tremendous insistence of nature that nothing shall thwart that end is emphasized by the prolific profusion of seeds. If we, furthermore, turn our attention to structure, we see that the intricate pattern of each acorn requires a marvelous Artist. To the parsimonious such profusion may seem a useless waste, but since it is all ultimately for man’s enlightenment, it my easily be justified on the sole ground of manifesting to man the liberality of the Creator.

3. In living beings there are many rudimentary organs are entirely useless; e.g.. the vermiform appendix, the eyes of the mole, the muscles for moving the human ear, etc. Reply. We might grant that these structures have no purpose whatsoever, and never had any, nor ever will have, without in the least infringing the argument for finality. There is so overpowering an abundance of evidence for purpose that we do not need these few remnants as though they were Indispensable to the argument. Were we proving that the Author of nature is infinitely wise, we might, perhaps, be called upon to explain some such apparent discrepancies. The objection attempts to ignore the point at issue, which is not whether God be absolutely infinite in His wisdom and whether in such case He might produce apparently useless things; he question is whether He is endowed with intelligence or entirely without it. As a matter of fact the manifest order of the world is too great for us ever to sound the depths of the Intelligence responsible for it. The more we investigate the more astoundingly the marvels of order open to our view. The fact that we have not yet discovered the purpose of a natural object is no sign that it has none. Even now the medical profession is discovering purposes of the appendix. Also the uniformity of structural design is evidence of intelligence in the Maker, just as the aptitude to reproduce at structure is an evidence of finality in the natural agent

4. Science follows the principle of closed causality, i.e. not to seek outside the world for an explanation of things in the world. But such a principle excludes an extramundane causes of the world’s order.

Reply. The scope of physical science is to discover the integral parts of bodies and to formulate laws of their activities; hence it is not called upon to give any explanation beyond that such and such is the nature of their bodies. Science takes nature as dataum, but if it be true science it does not condemn the philosophical attempt to explain nature. On the contrary scientific investigation supplies philosohpy with abundant data from which to reason to an extramundane cause of the world’s order. Thus science, whether willingly or not, becomes an ancilla philosophiae.

5. Out of all the combinations possible to chance the present world order is one. Therefore that order may be due to chance.

Reply.. When we consider that there is order in each single atom, and molecule, and crystal, and cell, and organ, and organism, and in the interrelation of all the various classes of beings, and that there is cooperation to a refined degree among all the forms of energy, and when we reflect on the countless constituents of the material world, we begin to see how futile is the appeal to chance. But that is not all; the world is in a condition of constant change, and has been so, according to science, for millions of years. The astounding chance which the objection postulates for any given instant of that time must be repeated all over again in that infinitesimal fraction of the world’s duration; for order is preserved throughout the continuous change. Such an occurrence is mathematically and metaphysically impossible. The idea of its happening by chance even once makes the mind reel …

6. Given a certain amount of matter, equipped with certain forces, and granted that the matter thus diversified he distributed in the proper ratio and collocation, then all the physical and chemical processes which we recognize as world result necessarily. But what results necessarily does not require intelligence. Therefore world-processes do not require intelligence.

Reply. If what results is disorder, I grant that it does not require intelligence. If what results is an ordered series of events. then, that it does not require intelligence, I deny. The objection, in fact, fails on four counts. (a) it supplies that finality does not omit the natural agent_to act

That supposition is false. For, as we have seen, finality does not exclude necessity in the activity of the immediate material agent. (b) The objection is silent on the exact point at issue, which is not that the forces act and interact with necessity, but that they do so in such a way that a very complicated and highly ordered universe results and continues unceasingly to result and develop. This is the fact that ways stares us in the face, and from which the clamor about necessity (which no one denies) can never distract our attention. Necessity is irrelevant: it can be present in activities that produce disorder, as in the wreck of a railway train; it can be present in activities that produce order, as in the smoothly operating machine. Necessity in activity is not opposed to finality, it is opposed to freedom. But wherever there is order whether in free or necessary actions, intelligence alone can be responsible for the order. So much for the explanation of the distinction given at the beginning of our reply. Furthermore, (c) reason cannot grant the postulate that plants and animals, and even the intellect of man, are, as the objection supposes, purely the results of physico-chernical forces. Finally, (d) the postulate begs the question, for it implies that matter with its forces and arrangement is unproduced and self-evident, that it not only acts necessarily but exists necessarily, that it is a se, or in other words the absolutely ultimate reality, and that therefore no further explanation of world-order can possibly be found. To ask that we grant such a postulate is tantamount to asking that we

grant the conclusion of the argument before the argument begins.

7. Nature is a machine. But a machine needs no intelligence.

Reply. Nature is more than a mere machine. Even a machine, however, needs an intelligent builder, and usually an intelligent operator.

8. In storms, earthquakes and other cataclysms, as well as in the case of monstrosites, physical defects, death and other evils, the forces of nature produce disorder rather than order.

Reply. The immediate and obvious effects may be disorder and to that extent may fail to offer any evidence for our thesis. For all that, the remote effects are frequently a good to nature in general, and can be made to serve a beneficial purpose at least in the moral life of man.

9. Many things in nature are abhorrent, as pain, parasites, the struggle for existence. But these things cannot be considered as intended by a wise and beneficent Creator.

Reply. The examples cited give evidence of intelligence, whether pleasant or not. Our task here is to show that the Author of the world is intelligent. We leave to theodicy the vindication of His wisdom and goodness.

Ancient Penguin DNA Raises Doubts About Accuracy Of Genetic Dating Techniques

Penguins that died 44,000 years ago in Antarctica have provided extraordinary frozen DNA samples that challenge the accuracy of traditional genetic aging measurements, and suggest those approaches have been routinely underestimating the age of many specimens by 200 to 600 percent.

The findings raise doubts about the accuracy of many evolutionary rates based on conventional types of genetic analysis.

 The observations in this report appear to be fundamental and should extend to most animal species,” he added. “We believe that traditional DNA dating techniques are fundamentally flawed, and that the rates of evolution are in fact much faster than conventional technologies have led us to believe.”

Older Posts »