The American Spectator

Again, these recent conclusions stem from hard, verifiable, empirical facts, from the undeniable mathematics of probability theory and statistics on which all of science and acceptable scientific method are founded, as well as our recent understanding of cosmology, physics and quantum mechanics, biology, biochemistry, genetics, and the fossil records themselves — these are not vain imaginings or egocentric interpretations of the data.(2) Although the debate rages on, the astute scientific evidence now amassed and rigorously analyzed has become increasingly difficult to refute. The results vividly illustrate that life and the directed order manifested therein cannot simply stem from a series of random or chance occurrences, or gradually evolve as has hitherto been imagined. But, if not by random means, then how?

At first blush, the axiom seems true that greater or more complex things are built upon the foundation of the simpler or lesser developed. As far as degrees of physical complexities in the natural world are concerned, this notion seems to hold true. In other words, simple things are generally the foundation of the more complex. Indeed, all of Nature seems to testify to this fact. But, this does not appear wholly true when it comes to examining the origins of directions from which those complexities and particular morphologies (body form and structure) are derived. Recent comparative genetic research on some of the first single-cell organisms with nuclei known on our planet indicate that they held within them far more genetic information than was necessary for their life alone, having information needed to encode for vision, appendages, digestive systems, etc., things obviously needed by all the higher life forms but having no conceivable worth for these organisms themselves.

Now, why would prehistoric single-cell life forms hold within their relatively simple shapes specific genetic blueprints for things which not only were superfluous to their own forms (i.e., they were of no immediate or evolutionary use in the traditional sense) but were much more sophisticated than any morphological and biological life-function of which they were immediately capable? But more importantly, how did these organisms come by such an astoundingly complex library of genetic instructions above and beyond their own respective genealogical means and cellular ancestral familial trees? These genetic encodings were comparatively encyclopedic, highly organized, specific directions for growth of body systems and functions (such as for vision, etc.) that could not have possibly been randomly generated from their physical non-nuclei predecessors. In other words, how could such sophistication have been originally derived if these were the first known recorded forms of eukaryotic life with nuclei containing genetic material? Indeed, there was neither the time nor the ancestral predecessor available for such genetic sophistication to have randomly evolved on its own. From where or from what lineage did this level of sophistication and design come? And why, if it was not used by these single-cell organisms originally, did these more complicated encoding patterns and genetic blueprints nonetheless remain protected and conserved within them without degradation or decay of genetic integrity when it obviously had no reasonable immediate use for its survival and propagation? These facts, in themselves, invalidate the underpinnings and basis of known Darwinian theory, random development, and Natural Selection between phyla.

Moreover and quite amazingly, these genetic instructions, which are still found within similar single-cell organisms of today, are even more extensive and complicated than that which we hold within our own DNA! Why do these lower life forms inexplicably hold relatively more composite DNA — at least 100 times more — than higher life forms? Indeed, we are slowly learning how inextricably connected our physical bodies are with the directed order of all nature; that our physical bodies are dependent upon the ubiquitous order and metered sophistication that exists within all life around us. (Please note, that we are not talking here about the spirit of man, the neshama (in Hebrew) or spiritual soul, just the “dust” or vessel in which man’s spirit is placed).

Yet, notwithstanding that the physical and biochemical order existing for single-cell amoebae and simple plants can be found within more complex forms of life, and that within man’s physical body there can be seen similar biochemical systems, the sophistication of such a reoccurring patterns or genetic blueprints (i.e., the predisposed sophisticated DNA codes) appear literally preexisting, and again, could not have possibly developed serendipitously from lower forms of life. Thus, the directions and template for our resultant physical complexities were seemingly and arguably already pre-seeded, as it were — the complete set of encoding instructions for life may very well have been a created part of all physical life from the beginning, such not having been randomly perpetuated or possibly come to by chance. And if this is so, such an unfolding of the developmental order of life having its roots in the possibility of preexisting patterns suggests the likelihood of a premeditated design and purpose (i.e., a Creator) for the subsequent generations of physical and biological order. And this idea is no longer considered outlandish in the scientific community. I, for one, see no disparity between the Bible’s commentary on the Creation and what science is now, at long last, discovering. Indeed, even Nobel laureates are suggesting theories of directed panspermia, or that life on earth was deliberately seeded from somewhere else in the cosmos. In other words, we are finding that there existed a track already present for the developing train of life to run upon, a predisposing direction specifically intended toward life from the very onset of creation, the power of which appeared inculcated within the first instance of space-time and the Creation itself.

Now, here’s the crux of it: (1) Since all life around us cannot possibly be derived by chance or from a series of random reactions with inanimate matter, there not being enough time or matter in the universe for a series of random events to have aspired to the degree and level of complexity of life we witness, and (2), since the simplest forms of earliest life have been found to contain levels of sophistication in design and genetic direction that could not have possibly been derived from anything before them, for nothing before them existed of the same nature, then life must have taken its cue and direction from some point behind all of this; some intentional design and purpose had to have been pre-initiated, without which life simply could not have come to be. Accordingly (la piece de resistance), where there is substantial evidence of preexisting order, there must exist a significant, intelligent, and intentional purpose behind it, especially when in the absence of spontaneous, randomly evolved possibilities.

These are plausible arguments based on “science,” or more accurately the accumulated scientific evidence derived from the scientific method over a host of disciplines. They are not ad hoc, drawn from some cherry-picking, egocentric need to be right. I hope this is not too much science for your readers.

1. Parenthetically, it has been suggested that the best estimated age our universe being some 15.75 billion years is literally identical to the Bible’s six days of creation; these very “times” being one and the same periods when factoring in Einstein’s General Law of Relativity of space-time, and the expansion rate of the universe estimated to be of the factor of 10^12 or a one-trillion-to-one space-time difference since the inception of creation until today as derived from the changes in red-shift of Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR). For those interested, the factors of relative space-time frames of reference are shown to be really quite easy to calculate: Simply divide ~15.75 billion years by the universe’s estimated rate of space-time expansion of 1012 which equates to ~.01643, and then multiply by 365.25 days (please note, the “.25” is to correct for leap year variance; ¼ day for each year, or 1 day every 4 years) which is approximately equal to six 24-hour days (i.e., ~15.75 billion/1012 x 365.25 days/yr @ 6.0010 real 24-hour days). Therefore, in real scientifically adjusted relative space-times, the relative age of the universe is 6 days (as sequentially outlined in Genesis) plus the approximate 6,000 years since the creation of Adam.

p>2. For a particularly candid, thorough, and enlightening review of these findings please see the work of M.I.T. Doctoral Graduate & Israeli Physicist, Gerald L, Schroeder, Ph.D., The Science of God , Broadway Books, New York, 1998. br> — Dr. Gregory C.D. Young , Ph.D./D.Phil. (Oxon.), Neuroscientist br> Asheville, North Carolina /p> p> SPACE LEMON br> Re: Jed Babbin’s Houston, You Have a Problem : /p>

Whilst it is always entertaining to see Secretary Jed Babbin seek out new life and new civilizations, like all commentators who have weighed in on the Space Shuttle he forgets its most profound problem — it’s nearly 25 years old.

Few automobiles work as well after 25 years as they do upon release — why should Space Shuttles work upon different principles?

Even if his understanding of Einstein might be a little ropey, however, his sentiments are not. To abandon the quest for knowledge of the physical universe for its own sake would put the West (i.e. America) on the same intellectual level as Islamic medievalists. Eventually, we would need to end up re-discovering old principles, such as — would you buy a used Space Shuttle from this conservative pundit?

p>Live long and prosper. br> — Martin Kelly br> Glasgow, Scotland /p>