The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Capitol Ideas
Print Email
Text Size

Capitol Ideas

Intelligent Design at the University Club

By from the May 2012 issue

Good things are happening beneath the media radar.

Stephen Meyer, the director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, spoke the other evening at a forum called “Socrates in the City.” Normally it’s in New York City, but tonight it was at the University Club in Washington, D.C. The founder, Eric Metaxas, gave a great introduction. He’s someone who doesn’t follow the intellectual herd.

The author of an influential book, Signature in the Cell, Meyer addressed the question, “Is there a scientific controversy about the theory of evolution?” He made a strong case that there is. A few days later, I also interviewed him about the prospects for intelligent design.

In his talk, inquiring how life first appeared from simpler pre-existing chemicals, Meyer emphasized the concept of biological information, which is embedded in DNA. Think of it as analogous to software code. Bill Gates said that “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” Software contains instructions that direct computers to accomplish various functions. Likewise, DNA contains instructions for the assembly of tiny machines called proteins, which perform vital functions within every cell.

In the 19th century the cell was thought to be simple. Darwin and his contemporaries had no way of knowing just how complex it is. Today it is compared to a high-tech factory. (Except it’s much more complex than that—factories can’t replicate themselves.)

So how did the information get into the DNA in the first place? Without it, the first cell wouldn’t have been constructed, and life would not have begun. In Expelled, when Ben Stein asked Richard Dawkins how life began, he said he had no idea. We still don’t.

Nucleotide bases along the spine of the DNA molecule—in effect the characters in the genetic text—direct the cell’s molecular machinery to link specific amino acids into proteins. If the sequence is incorrectly arranged the protein doesn’t get assembled. Watson and Crick described the double helical structure of DNA. But no one has yet explained the origin of the information it contains. “So that’s a huge stumbling block for evolutionary explanations of the origin of life,” Meyer said.

Just as computer code comes from programmers, so functional information comes from intelligence—from mind. Intelligence, or conscious activity, is the only known cause of the kind of sequence-specific, information-rich code that we see in biology. We infer that the ultimate origin of biological information is an intelligent agent, or agents. All other proposed explanations have failed.

Some think natural selection can get the job done. But as Meyer said, processes such as natural selection can’t take place until life is already up and running. Until we have a living and self-replicating cell, natural selection doesn’t enter the picture. Thus, it does nothing to explain how life first evolved from non-living chemicals.

Meyer also argued that biological evolutionary theory, which “attempts to explain how new forms of life evolved from simpler pre-existing forms,” faces formidable difficulties. In particular, the modern version of Darwin’s theory, neo-Darwinism, also has an information problem.

Mutations, or copying errors in the DNA, are analogous to copying errors in digital code, and they supposedly provide the grist for natural selection. But, Meyer said: “What we know from all codes and languages is that when specificity of sequence is a condition of function, random changes degrade function much faster than they come up with something new.”

He mentioned the Cambrian explosion—the geologically sudden appearance of most major animal forms. It’s a dramatic event in the history of life. Animals with new body plans—arthropods, brachiopods, chordates—appeared suddenly about 530 million years ago. Nothing resembling a precursor appears in the strata below the Cambrian.

So the same problem arises: What would it take to build one of those new body plans? You’d need a big instruction set, just for one body part. The trilobite had a compound, lens-focusing eye. “Each new cell for each new tissue had dedicated proteins,” Meyer said. “The proteins in turn need instructions to be built.”

The problem is comparable to opening a big combination lock. He asked the audience to imagine a bike lock with ten dials and ten digits per dial. Such a lock would have 10 billion possibilities with only one that works. But the protein alphabet has 20 possibilities at each site, and the average protein has about 300 amino acids in sequence.

A colleague of Meyer’s, Douglas Axe, formerly a researcher at Cambridge University and now with the Biologic Institute in Seattle, found that the ratio of functional to all possible sequences for a protein 150 amino acids in length is absurdly small (1 in 10 to the power of 74. “That search space is larger than the number of atoms in the Milky Way galaxy,” Meyer said. “It’s not remotely plausible that mutation and natural selection could produce one functional protein during the entire history of life on earth.”

Remember: Not just any old jumble of amino acids makes a protein. Chimps typing at keyboards will have to type for a very long time before they get an error-free, meaningful sentence of 150 characters. “We have a small needle in a huge haystack.” Neo-Darwinism has not solved this problem, Meyer said. “There’s a mathematical rigor to this which has not been a part of the so-called evolution-creation debate.”

Page: 1 2  

About the Author

Tom Bethell is a senior editor of The American Spectator and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity Through the Ages, and most recently Questioning Einstein: Is Relativity Necessary? (2009).

Letter to the Editor View all comments (121) |

Darin| 5.16.12 @ 6:35AM

Evolution as a theory to explain the origin of life is pure bunk. In over 150 years, there is zero evidence. None. There have been numerous attempts to manufacture evidence, but all have been shown to be frauds. And with the advances in science, technology, and the understanding of the vast complexity of biology, you really have to be dense to fall for the cult of origin-of-life evolution.

DTOM| 5.16.12 @ 7:24AM

There is a deep flaw in the DNA as software analogy. Software is a sequence of specific instructions that operates a machine, the microprocessor.

For the DNA as software analogy to be true to the complexity of the 'invention' of life problem, self-replicating software would have to invent itself AND the microprocessor.

Imagine the Sahara desert, all that sand, silicon, sitting there for billions of years and suddenly a clump of sand in the form of a microprocessor chip just jumps out and starts writing code and eventually writes code that self-replicates, self-replicates the code AND the microprocessor.

Okay. So if I believe that, then I am behaving rationally when I put my fallen out teeth under my pillow to get a quarter.

Ever hear about the engineer who got in an argument with God about evolution? The engineer argued 'It's simple!'

God responded, "Oh yeah, show Me!"

The engineer said "Fine, You watch. First, I gotta start with dirt. Where's some dirt?"

To which God replied, "Make your OWN dirt!"

The less you know, the easier it is to believe in evolution as the inventor of life. Which was Mr. Bethell's point, no?

Jack in Wi.| 5.16.12 @ 11:00AM

I find Mr. Bethel to be one of the best and most intelligent writers here. I can define atheism in 3 sentences. We come from nothing. We are here for no reason. We are going nowhere. With such an outlook is it no wonder that most of the world's people look to religion for some explanation, and hope?

Al Adab| 5.16.12 @ 2:03PM

Agree about Bethell. Noblest Triumph along with DeSotos' Mystery of Capital should be on the required reading list for any Conservative... or any voter for that matter, if we only could.

Kingofthenet| 5.16.12 @ 6:23PM

Man up and face reality, just because reality bites, doesn't give you a right to day dream of some fantasy land where everything is great.

byron| 5.16.12 @ 3:57PM

One step deeper. Matter/energy has the ability to be aware of itself. There is a "software" component to matter/energy. Where did this come from?

RCV| 5.16.12 @ 12:34PM

Darwinian evolution doesn't purport to explain the origin of life, only its diversity and development. What Meyers and others have correctly observed are the difficulties posed by the Cambrian explosion and the development of complex structures such as the eye, and the lively debate within the scientific community about whether natural selection as presently understood could account for such developments. It is a healthy and welcome debate. But it shouldn't be confused with Genesis literalism, which is far harder to reconcile with the scientific evidence.

BackToBasics| 5.16.12 @ 7:06PM

from your post - "Darwinian evolution doesn't purport to explain the origin of life"

Along those lines, I think the majority of scientists who believe in evolution make assumptions about it that tends to preclude a God who created life.

In their assumptions they also try to extrapolate backwards to possibilities of life's start with the major consensus being that it started as amino acids eventually bonded through external forces such as lightning or chemical catalysts to produce simple proteins. The honest scientists I've heard though do admit that this alone does not explain the origin of making something alive. But most of them still tend to disbelieve that "a God" had anything to do with it.

Appleby| 5.16.12 @ 7:13AM

It's past time we differentiated between a hypothesis and a theory, isn't it? Darwinism is a hypothesis, not that much different from Ancient Aliens or the Mormon theology that postulates the settlement of Earth by fugitives from the Planet Kolob (which oddly enough was a huge world orbiting a red star -- why would its refugees not choose a planet and star like the one they left? Star Trek people always do!) or Kal-El's appearance in Smallville.

Robert McClain | 5.16.12 @ 7:42AM

I am in the process of editing a novel for publication. I hit upon this article, having sought a number of facts to be brought out in conversation between two colleagues. I should like to use a bit of the information contained therein and would attribute Tom Bethell as the resource.

Keith| 5.16.12 @ 7:47AM

A few hardcore believers in evolution have even admitted that they didn't want to be confronted with their sin and therefore searched for something to assuage their guilt. Jesus shall be returning very soon and we must all consider which side of the throne we will be on as he explains everything that we need to know. To His right or left, with the sheep or the goats. Colossians 1: 16 and 17 ; Matthew 25 : 31 - 46.

Nate W| 5.16.12 @ 10:09AM

It's interesting to see many evolutionary-minded scientists going out of their way to NOT consider valid scientific theories simply because the Bible might allude to them. For example, I've read more than one article (usually in Smithsonian or Nat.Geo.) in which the author emphatically reminds us that this amazing discovery (usually a geological or biological anomaly) Does Not support intelligent design/a world-wide flood/anything-in-the-Bible.
In general (before the 21st century), the greatest scientific finds resulted from the scientist's view that God is behind nature, and because of that assurance, we can explore and understand it. Simply google "scientists who" and the top link is a list of some of the greatest scientists, and why their belief in God motivated them to investigate and postulate the way they did.
Are we becoming more stupid because we are refusing to consider God when looking into creation?

Mike Landry| 5.16.12 @ 9:01AM

Darwinism is based upon the best of cutting edge 19th century science.

DTOM| 5.16.12 @ 9:16AM

As is the entirety of Obama's socio-political belief system.

Don't Tread On Me!!!

Vern Crisler| 5.16.12 @ 10:55AM

In fact, the best science was with Virchow, who opposed Darwinism and Haeckel.

Joe| 5.16.12 @ 9:04AM

In the beginning was the word

Tina B| 5.16.12 @ 12:23PM

. . . the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . .

Very appropriate, Joe, thanks.

Pierre Legrand | 5.16.12 @ 3:26PM

Christians: In the beginning, there was God. And he created the world. Atheists: In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded.

Al Adab| 5.16.12 @ 9:29AM

There are indeed significant limits to the Darwinist/evolutionist theory. Life in all its complexity eludes a simple explanation. Clearly adaptation occurs, but speciation? Microbiology likewise raises many questions regarding the ultimate validity of Darwinist theory. Beyond organics, modern cosmology, particle physics and quantum theory all demonstrate a physical world stranger and more complex that we can imagine.

Grant Johnson| 5.16.12 @ 10:17AM

Comic fantasy author Terry Pratchett nicely summarized the prevailing scientific theory of cosmology while simultaneously pointing out its vacuity with this quote from "Lords and Ladies";
"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded."

Tina B| 5.16.12 @ 12:28PM

And what of the probable other worlds, unseen dimensions, spiritual in nature. . . Of course we cannot see or know it all. We are not God.

I love that there is so much more for us to know, once we get "there". I can't wait!

RCV| 5.16.12 @ 12:35PM

Well put, Al Adab!

Layne S| 5.16.12 @ 10:20AM

My favorite part of "Expelled" the movie was this exchange with Richard Dawkins:

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Now that, my friends, is FAITH!

Al Adab| 5.16.12 @ 12:42PM

If I understand that correctly he is saying, "Someone evolved and created the rest". That is indeed one huge leap of Faith.

michigander_sandusky| 5.16.12 @ 10:21AM

The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.
2 Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language
Where their voice is not heard.
(Psalm 19:1-3)

I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
(Psalm 139:14)

Tina B| 5.16.12 @ 12:30PM

Me too, oh Lord of all creation.

MikeBee| 5.16.12 @ 10:44AM

The closed-minded people of today are those who insist, even in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary, that Evolutionary theory explains the origin of physical things. They are the neo-Catholic Church, arguing against heliocentrism and condemning Galileo for following Science which supported heliocentrism. Evolutionists are true believers, ready to condemn anyone who follows Scientific method to any other conclusion.

I say, we should approach the world with an open mind. We should be ready to discover what we can about the world scientifically, and not be threatened by what we discover.

I also have an opinion about all this: I believe that, ultimately, we will find that Einstein was correct, that there exist more than one type of reality. Physical reality is merely one type of reality. I believe that we will discover that all physical reality IS DETERMINED BY another, higher type of intelligent reality, and that this higher reality is what we call today spiritual reality. We will discover that spiritual reality CAUSES physical reality to exist.

Tina B| 5.16.12 @ 12:33PM

I'm with ya, and I have no problem calling Him, "My Lord, and my God."

Al Adab| 5.16.12 @ 1:05PM

"Be still my soul, the winds and waves still know,
His voice who ruled them when he walked below."

Tina B| 5.16.12 @ 8:18PM

I love that Al Adab. Thank you.

Ann Onymous| 5.16.12 @ 11:07AM

For an agnostic's view of ID, see David Berlinski's book "The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays."

Kingofthenet| 5.16.12 @ 11:15AM

So I guess this article even did away with the veneer of it NOT being Creationism. Usually ID proponents will leave open the possibility of super Advanced 'Space Aliens' seeding Earth, just for show.Here is the problem, this is not science, we cannot test for a 'supernatural' explanation, it is a closed path, that end's with 'God did it'.
The Second problem is these pulled out of the air odds, nature does a HUGE amount of things that are INCREDIBLY complex as a matter of basic physics. A salt cube and snowflake comes to mind, do you know how hard to imagine that a snowflake will have an exact complex bilateral fractal shape?Or a salt cubes atoms will line up PERFECTLY in a cubic matrix....every time with no outside influence? proteins even form complex folded shapes on their own.

Vern Crisler| 5.16.12 @ 11:18AM

Claiming that "nature did it" is not science either. A salt cube and snowflake are informational dead ends. Don't confuse informational complexity with aesthetic complexity.

Kingofthenet| 5.16.12 @ 11:29AM

they aren't different things, viruses are good examples you can dry them out into crystals that are as dead as can be, put them on a shelf for 1000 years, and make them 'alive' again. In fact they straddle the line between life and inanimate objects quite interestingly.What about primitive non-men like Neanderthals, they clearly aren't modern humans, but they are intelligent beings, the bible is silent on what they were?

The Road Warrior| 5.16.12 @ 11:53AM

King,

Really? When did you dry out a virus and put it on a shelf for 1000 years?

Al Adab| 5.16.12 @ 12:38PM

King:
It is quite on thing to argue that evolution and Darwinism are inferior theories for explaining reality (if there is one) and quite another thing to suggest that those who so argue adopt creationism, as you understand it, to be the alternative. Ridiculing those who disagree with you doesn't make your case.

Kingofthenet| 5.16.12 @ 12:45PM

Well it's EITHER Space Aliens or some supernatural God? If not what is the third possibility for ID? The real test of a good theory(and theory is not the common use of the word) is if it can PREDICT what should happen, or what should be there. Evolution does this fantastically, some graduate students theorized IF evolution is correct, some particular previously unseen creature should have been present at a certain strata of the geologic record, so they went looking for it, and found it.

Al Adab| 5.16.12 @ 1:10PM

Prediction is indeed a good indicator. Since we are dealing with quantum reality, string theory maybe of Branes, the inability to predict, given uncertainty principle, leaves these theories as speculation. Reality either is or isn't, but how can we tell?

Not certain what your reference to the fossil record might be intended to convey, but while most species are long gone, there is no evidence for speciation in a Darwinist sense anywhere in the record. Perhaps better if we all just enjoy the Scotch with lunch and concern ourselves with questions we can answer.

Tim the Enchanter| 5.17.12 @ 3:29PM

Well then, that just begs the question: how did the Space Aliens come to be? Resorting to Space Aliens is just kicking the can down the road.

Vern Crisler| 5.16.12 @ 2:33PM

What makes you think Neanderthals weren't men? Haven't you kept up on the latest views of Neanderthals? The Bible is silent about a lot of things, but most creationist regard all these fossils as post-Flood. I don't think a virus is an informational dead end like crystals or snowflakes, but I've never heard of a virus changing into anything other than a virus.

Tina B| 5.16.12 @ 12:34PM

Well said.

Tina B| 5.16.12 @ 12:36PM

That was to Vern. I have never read anything well said by KOTN. Sincere is the best I can give him.

Truncheon| 5.16.12 @ 1:00PM

He has named himself "KingOfTheNet". I wouldn't expect much quality from someone whose chosen name is an adolescent taunt.

W| 5.16.12 @ 12:08PM

King
How did life start?

Kingofthenet| 5.16.12 @ 12:39PM

Well we know 'organic compounds' form naturally, while not life, they are the building blocks.

MikeBee| 5.16.12 @ 12:42PM

King,
ID has ALWAYS BEEN simply true Scientific Method at work. It is the Press and folks like yourself who have added all the other dimensions, like that ID is not science, but attempts at proof of the existence of a God.

ID does not discover that there are complex structures in physical Nature, as you seem to hint at above. The great discovery of ID is that, at the cellular and molecular level, everything has a cause. Nothing seems to be occurring at random. That's really where ID stands, right now. People like you and liberals in the Press need to stop bringing in all your "witch doctor" stories in an attempt to scare people into believing what you believe to be true. Simply look at the science involved, and keep an open mind about what the Scientific Method discovers.

You know, Galileo was correct that Heliocentrism was the way of our universe. Back then, though, people like you tried to scare others into ignoring the discoveries of the Scientific Method, and to hide his findings.

Wake up, King. Try having an open mind.

Bob Johnson| 5.16.12 @ 1:28PM

ID is not scientific. There are no experiments of ID in any peer reviewed journal. There is no hypothesis anyone has tested. It is merely a god of the gaps argument.

Schaef21| 5.16.12 @ 2:27PM

Hey Bob....

I can use science to prove the existence of a Creator. It goes like this:

One of these statements is true:

1. Matter/Energy do not exist.
2. Matter/Energy are eternal.
3. Matter/Energy spontaneously generated out of nothing.
4. Matter/Energy were created.

Option #1 is falsified by the Scientific Method.
Matter & Energy are observed everyday.

Option #2 is falsified by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which states (basically) that energy is running down and we will eventually have no usable energy left. At that point we will suffer “heat death”....the sun can not burn forever, it will eventually run out of fuel. If the universe were eternal, this would have happened already.

One more thing on this.... secular science is all-in on the Big Bang theory, admitting that there was a beginning and therefore the universe is not eternal.

Option #3 - Spontaneous generation is falsified by the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (By natural processes, energy cannot be created or destroyed), The Law of the Conservation of Matter (By natural processes, matter cannot be created or destroyed although it can change form) and the Law of Cause and Effect (every effect must have a greater and preexistent cause).

That leaves us with Option #4... that matter and energy were created. This does not violate any natural law and is the only available option we have left.

Natural law itself has falsified all the other options..... Naturalists, who believe only in nature and in nothing Supernatural have to ignore natural law to believe what they believe.

I've posited this on forums before. Once I had a poster tell me that there's a #5..... we don't know everything there is to know about matter and energy.

When I responded back that he was essentially giving me a "God of the gaps" argument he began with the ad hominems.

Rest assured there is a Creator. If you'd like to know Him I can help you with that.

Tina B| 5.16.12 @ 8:25PM

Schaef21, I believe you could. Help him with that, that is. You sound like you know Him. Talk to Him every day, do you? Me too. Cool, isn't it?

Schaef21| 5.17.12 @ 4:11PM

Hey Tina....

I believed all this evolution crud for 50 years of my life.... then the LORD decided that was enough. It sure doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny..... that's why its adherents resort to ad hominems.... they've got nothin' else.

Tina B| 5.18.12 @ 6:39AM

I too was what they call a theistic evolutionists. He straightened me out too. God bless you, my bro. (or sis)

MikeBee| 5.16.12 @ 4:41PM

Bob,
Just like a true believer who thought Galileo was wrong, you place your head willingly into the sand. Read, Bob. Read and find out as much as you can about ID, and stop forming opinions based upon what you hear in the newspapers. ID has been very well observed to exist in the world of cells and molecules, using Scientific Method. It has been tested, and found to be true. Biologists, in particular, already acknowledge its existence and veracity as scientific theory. I'm pasting entries from the Center for Science and Culture in Seattle, WA: (quotation marks are added by me)

"Is intelligent design the same as creationism?No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

"Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.

"Is intelligent design a scientific theory?Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed."

No god of the gaps, Bob. Simply science. Take your head out of the sand, and open your closed mind.

LiveFreeOrDie| 5.17.12 @ 10:02AM

"Usually ID proponents will leave open the possibility of super Advanced 'Space Aliens' seeding Earth...it is a closed path, that end's with 'God did it'."

No. Considering the possibility of aliens is not a closed path it's a loop. If true, then where did the aliens come from? You are right back where you started. It's a distraction from the theory and the quest for truth, much like your adolescent thoughts on this board.

mikhail silo| 5.16.12 @ 11:56AM

My late father, Viktor, thought and wrote extensively about intelligence and its role, if any, regarding evolution. This is a small sample from his notes.

By Viktor Silo

"When I discuss this subject, my very first question is: "Is there such a thing as Intelligent Design operating in the universe?"

My opponent invariably says "No." That's when I point out that all of us spend every day of our lives up to our noses in intelligent design: knives, forks, spoons, dishes, furniture, cars, buildings, computers, etc, etc, etc.

My opponent will then say, "Yes, but these designs are by human beings not nature."

This, really, is the heart of the problem: Our intelligence, which clearly exists in everyone, is, somehow, outside of nature. But, if our intelligence did not come from nature, then where did it come from? Is human nature outside of nature? It is readily admitted that our bodies are part of the evolutionary process. But our mind? Well, don't you know, it is part of our soul which is transcendent of nature.

Now, people don't come out and actually say this, but what else can one infer from their denial of the relevance of human intelligence to the debate? And if anti-I.D. people do allow that human intelligence is part of nature, they still end up trying to stifle discussion of the evolutionary antecedents of human intelligence. You see, discussing the evolutionary antecedents of human intelligence might lead to all sorts of uncomfortable questions about whether, and what, other organisms might have intelligence? Or: Did intelligence begin with life or did it precede life or, indeed, did it precede Creation? There is no room for these questions in Darwinian theory.

Let's begin our investigation with an examination of the unstated but implied claim that our intelligence is part of another order of existence: a supernatural world, if you will.

I have never accepted the idea of the supernatural, a place that is outside and above our natural world. This world, the natural world, is the only world. There are physical laws that govern it. Using these laws, I have investigated the idea of alternate universes and the following is part of what I have concluded.

If there is a supernatural world we cannot know it, it cannot know us and we can't, in any way interact with it. This is so, for a couple of reasons:

1. Such an interaction would violate The Law of Conservation of Energy which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed and
2. that the total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and that there is never any more or any less of it at any time.

The existence of a supernatural world would violate of The Law of Conservation of Energy in both of the only ways possible:
Case 1. If we acted on another world we would transfer energy to it: a loss.
Case 2. If another world acted on us it would transfer energy to us: a gain.

Also, you might remember one of the axioms from geometry: things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. If the supernatural acted on us and we acted on it in the same way, we would be equals. Then the claim that a supernatural world exists becomes a distinction without a difference.

Furthermore, if there was an interaction between a supernatural world and ours, it would violate Aristotle's Law of Identity, which demonstrates why things can be known.

The Law of Identity says "A" is "A". It says this without qualification. "A" is "A" and is only "A", all of the time. Things cannot "be" and "not be" at the same time. This means that things have a specific identity and because they have a specific identity they can be known

Therefore:
In case #1: "A" would then become "A" minus. A change in identity.
In case #2: "A" would become "A" plus. A change in identity.

In practical terms: Any interaction between our "natural" world and a "supernatural" world would result in the total energy supply of the universe being in constant flux.

The result of this would be that the changing nature of "cause and effect" would render the universe unknowable and systemically unworkable. Conclusion: There is no supernatural world."

My father went on to speculate that the universe preceeding the existence of matter consisted only of energy and that, while intelligence becomes manifest only after the creation of matter, it must have existed in latent form within energy itself. The rationale for this speculation was that he believed energy could not pass on to matter that which was not latent within it in the first place.

Further, he speculated that once intelligence became manifest it evolved as complex matter evolved and, in fact, was a driver in the evolution of complex forms of matter. Put another way, as ever more complex forms of matter evolved, it allowed intelligence to evolve.

Intelligence: pulling itself up by its own bootstraps, so to speak, designing and building complex life forms so that intelligence itself could evolve. To what end? He wrote on that, too, but I have already gone on too long.

Kingofthenet| 5.16.12 @ 12:35PM

this makes sense, Sun's are the basic building block, you can start with NOTHING other than hydrogen, and let the Sun's do the rest with Nuclear Fusion. Several Generations of Supernova's and you have MASSIVE amount s of matter to form planets, and new young Suns.Rules of Physics say some items combine readily and others repulse each other.Basic Chemistry+ Energy(Electrical?)=Life

JohnM| 5.16.12 @ 12:48PM

The natural laws of our material world may not apply to the supernatural world. I assume that's why the term supernatural was coined. So, using laws of identity or energy conservation is irrelevant. The Intelligent Designer would be able to interact supernaturally or in another method we have not yet comprehended.

Roy| 5.16.12 @ 2:14PM

"The result of this would be that the changing nature of "cause and effect" would render the universe unknowable and systemically unworkable. Conclusion: There is no supernatural world."

That does not follow.

mikhail silo| 5.16.12 @ 7:34PM

My father said:
"If there is a supernatural world we cannot know it, it cannot know us and we can't, in any way interact with it. This is so, for a couple of reasons."
Then he goes on to make his case.

You reject his case but without stating where you have a problem. Do you have a problem with his facts? Do you have a problem with his logic? You don't say.

BackToBasics| 5.17.12 @ 1:54AM

Your father's logic is good but he bases the logic on assumptions that he knows that the natural and supernatural cannot interact. He then goes on to say that the "super"natural cannot know or understand us. That is quite a leap. By definition, he cannot know much if anything about the supernatural so the assumptions that such interactions would create imbalances are only guesses on his part. Good logic but based on assumptions he cannot know or prove. His assumptions are really a clever way of taking a step of faith just as anyone else does, creationist or not.

mikhail silo| 5.17.12 @ 11:44AM

BTB

The actual statement my father made was:
"If there is a supernatural world we cannot know it, it cannot know us and we can't, in any way interact with it."

Again, if there is an error in fact or logic I would appreciate you pointing it out. There are no guesses here. He did not say that he knew anything about a supernatural world, in fact, he categorically denied that he could know anything about it.

He also went on to say:
"Conclusion: There is no supernatural world."

You are right in pointing out that the latter statement is incorrect. This was a mistake on my father's part - and mine for over looking it. It should have said:
"For all intents and purposes, we can conclude that there is no supernatural world."

But make no mistake, I regard the former statement as bulletproof.

I would ask you to re-read your response and then determine who is trying to be clever here?

BackToBasics| 5.17.12 @ 2:35PM

mikhail, I understand your use of the word bulletproof. The mistake you note, "Conclusion: There is no supernatural world," is where the faith entered the picture. being "natural" we always must come to a faith point.

By the very use of the 2 words, natural and supernatural, we operate at a disadvantage. The axiom you cite "may" not apply since we are not equal. For the sake of logic alone, I concede by the use of the word "may" that your father "could" be correct. But then again so "could" I be correct. Again, it is faith being exercised, either way.

We really do not know that the supernatural, being superior or at the very, very least different cannot know or interact with us. It is possible that there can be interaction with us possibly without our even knowing about it.

My use of the word "clever" is a compliment to your father. Please try to see it that way. I did not mean it as an attempt his part to mislead. I think he was truly sincere. It came to my mind because, from the natural-only perspective, his logic was so good I missed his "faith"-step until I read your post a second time.

There is an interesting verse in the Bible that is not a logical argument but more a description in practical terms of what happens when a person uses faith to believe in God; his faith becomes "substantiated." Yet the substantiation does not take place until faith in God is exercised. The rewards of this faith are many, but in this life nothing of value comes easily to us here. Sometimes I, along with everyone else, wish the "substantiation" were easier than that, but alas faith must be exercised in order to experience the joys and reality it brings.

Hebrews 11:1 - "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Tina B| 5.16.12 @ 12:51PM

Ya gotta wonder about someone that says, "you can start with nothing other than hydrogen, blah, blah, blah," with a straight face. Nothing. Other. Than. Whatever. Anything can come first. . . except an almighty and holy God. Anything. An extra-terrestrial, a gas, energy, matter, anything at all Except. . . . . . An Almighty and Holy God.

What is it with that reluctance? Is it just ignorance, or is it just plain evil?

Kingofthenet| 5.16.12 @ 5:35PM

Well Tina we KNOW the early universe had large amounts of Hydrogen, but science is less sure how much God was in the early universe.

BackToBasics| 5.16.12 @ 7:37PM

From what I read and what I've heard I think that when most people discuss whether they believe that God created the universe or not, they think of God and the universe in synonymous terms. They seem to think that since the universe is so huge that surely if God created it he is in it and through it and part of it. As a believer in creation myself, I am not saying that there is no truth to this but size and physicality is the wrong way to think about God creating the universe. I believe God created the universe. Yet that also means that he is "larger" than the universe. For a beleiver, the universe holds "evidence" of his handiwork. Most evolutionists would argue that the universe does not show this. Yet, belief in God comes down to a faith choice. Also, since evolution cannot know or even test for life's start for a number of reasons, the simplist one being that it happened in the past; belief in it is also a faith choice.

Such discussions can be interesting and even fun but it ultimately is a faith answer; either way!

Isaiah 40 : 12 - "Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span (of his hand), and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?"

Tina B| 5.16.12 @ 8:35PM

BackToBasics, you Have the basics down beautifully.

BackToBasics| 5.16.12 @ 11:47PM

Thank you, Tina B. At least in this one area, I've given it a fair amount of thought. I think it is important to have a good foundation.

A few years back, I choose my name for this site because I realized that we have so many problems in this country because people do not take the time to understand even the very basics of what makes a good life and a good country.

Tina B| 5.16.12 @ 8:31PM

And, KOTN, who made Science God? In my world view, God made us a universe which could be discovered through science. Not the other way around. I ask again, why will you accept any source as long as it's not an almighty and holy God, who revealed Himself to man through His Word, which He also made flesh, just to save the likes of you? Why?

Kingofthenet| 5.16.12 @ 10:58PM

Because I see ZERO evidence that there is a Supernatural Realm much less a God, maybe there is, but I don't see it. No I don't see God in a rainbow, or Life or hear him in my head.Any REAL God would continue to help and interact with his 'children', only when God is a myth would he become more and more distant as time goes by.

Tina B| 5.17.12 @ 10:11AM

Oh, KOTN, I wish, sometimes, I could look in your eyes when I speak here to you. You want answers and I know this. I sense you know that you do not yet know. If you will take the wool off of your eyes, Lee Strobel, a well educated former atheist, has a nice little book, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict." Q & A type.

Try reading it and get back with me. (it's ok I think you won't) but I may have faith that you might.

Tina B| 5.17.12 @ 10:17AM

KOTN, try watching Ravi Zacharias linked here, he deals with much of what you talk about. And far better than I could. http://www.youtube.com/results.....ulvhBc4UeI

Kingofthenet| 5.17.12 @ 12:35PM

Ok Tina I will check it out, could you check something out for me?
look at this:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

Tina B| 5.17.12 @ 3:17PM

I will do that sir.

Tina B| 5.18.12 @ 9:23AM

I have checked out the website at length. some links were unlinkable and I was inteested in them too. Is it your website?

I completely understand the question, I can relate to it, and why it is asked. I am interested in replying to the thoughts on the website wth other authors and a website. Are you interested in checking 'em out and responding. I'm game. are you? and did you check out any of Ravi Z on youtube?

crypticguise| 5.16.12 @ 12:56PM

An excellent book for a layperson which describes cellular biology and how the mind affect the cells and even genes is The Biology of Belief by Bruce Lipton http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UT&tag=theamericansp-20.....y96gii3j_b

You'll find it fascinating and it will open your eyes to the reality of Intelligent Design.

Dave Williams| 5.16.12 @ 1:05PM

OK....if it was god who created everything, then how did that god come to be? And please, no nonsense about how he's always been, and he's outside the physical laws of the universe. NOTHING is eternal, and NOTHING is not subject to physical laws.

Vern Crisler| 5.16.12 @ 2:36PM

By definition God is eternal and does not evolve into being.

Schaef21| 5.16.12 @ 2:41PM

It seems to me, Dave that you have the same problem. If matter and energy were not created, then their existence would violate natural law.

I think you need to deal with the arguments made in this article.

Tina B| 5.16.12 @ 8:50PM

Nothing. Except God. Who created all, including a physical universe and its laws. He's beyond anything our puny little brains can comprehend, or apprehend. So He reveals Himself to us through His Word, written and living, if we choose to believe. However, we must believe in Him. If we do this, He comes to us and abides in our souls. While our souls are in our bodies He abides in us.

Many people posting here today know this, and have chosen to believe in Him, and even to live for Him while here on Earth. Yet we know this is not our final home. That He made this universe and the laws which seem to guide it are evidence of just one of His creations. We know nothing about the rest. A spiritual world seems to exist outside of our understanding. Are we vain enough to think we can comprehend it all? I certainly am not.

Bob Johnson| 5.16.12 @ 1:23PM

Did no one here graduate from the 8th grade? There is no evidence whatsoever for an intelligent agent that started life. None. The IDers can talk all day about how complicated and rare the process must have been, but they have never offered an alternative... because they can't. I am a conservative, but articles and comments like this make me ashamed to be associated with you.

Schaef21| 5.16.12 @ 2:52PM

Hey Bob....

Just a quick question....

Since all of the High School Science text books tell us that a cell created itself out of chemicals in a mud puddle billions of years ago and that eventually man evolved out of that..... that would mean that at some point chemicals learned how to think. Can secular science explain that? Has it ever been observed, tested and repeated in a lab?

There has to be intelligence at the root. A computer can't give you information back unless someone puts information in.

One other thing for you to ponder...

Since genes reproduce asexually and animals/humans reproduce sexually.... that means that at some point in time at the exact same place on the planet, two creatures evolved with two separate sets of plumbing that just happened to be perfect for each other.... one having the sperm necessary for life and the other having an egg necessary for life. They also had the ability to inject the sperm into a cavity where the egg existed in order to fertilize it and begin the process of birthing another of the same species... and by the way... the process of fertilization was only the beginning.... the plumbing where the egg evolved is HUGELY complex and necessarily so in order to get that fertilized egg to the point of birth.

Here are a couple of questions:

1. Since Natural Selection IS an observable phenomenon and therefore a fact (and not conjecture)... and we know that Natural Selection will select based on advantage for survival... how did sexual reproduction survive given that observation tells us that asexual reproduction has up to twice as much reproductive success as sexual reproduction? Wouldn’t Natural Selection have selected sexual reproduction out of the process?

2. What are the odds that evolution, a random process, could invent the two complimentary sets of plumbing at the exact same time and the exact same place.... especially given the facts presented above?

GW| 5.16.12 @ 3:33PM

"I am a conservative, but articles and comments like this make me ashamed to be associated with you"

Good riddance then. True conservatives wish to conserve the longstanding religious, philosophical, and cultural ideas and traditions that built society. People have been postulating a Designer for millenia.

Kingofthenet| 5.16.12 @ 5:43PM

Ever notice God seems to be limited by whatever the humans are capable of? So Iron chariots are a problem, tablets he gives are of stone NOT Titanium Alloy or Diamond. Does powerful things supposedly, but all 'Natural' no Thermonuclear Explosions from God, which would STILL today be detectable and a VERY strong proof he existed.

Tina B| 5.16.12 @ 8:56PM

Dude, you are pathetic. Buzz off if we embarrass you. You embarrass God.

Tom Kyba| 5.16.12 @ 2:09PM

Sorry folks, but the arguments for intelligent design always and ever end up with the equivalent of "God did it". This is not science. It can't be. Poking holes in evolutionary theory like Stephen Meyer does can be helpful because there is no doubt that perpetually constipated a-holes like Richard Dawkins tend to be too gutless to admit that a lot of their ideas are just guesses. Educated guesses but still just guesses. Smarmy shi** like Meyer are, in my two bit opinion, simply mirror opposite a-holes of Dawkins. Give your heads a shake if you think this man is some noble warrior out to save us all from atheistic armageddon. He is running a business and running a business ain't cheap. Just like cause specific businesses like Green Penis and the Sierra Cult, once they are faced with the redundancy of their cause, they need to drum up attention by roiling the waters to garner attention. Meyer needs you to hate the very idea of evolution in order for his business to stay relevant. And for what it's worth, I seriously doubt that Charles Darwin was on the Beagle rubbing his hands together like Snidely Whiplash thinking "boy this is going to piss off Christians like nothing else hardy har har".

Schaef21| 5.16.12 @ 3:14PM

Your snide remarks aside, Bob. Evolution says nothing did it.

Evolution meets none of the criteria of the Scientific Method. You can't test it, you can't observe it and you can't falsify it.

Evolutionists say "There is no Creator" and then look at and evaluate the evidence.

I would ask you the same questions that I asked Bob Johnson a few posts above this one.

I'll look forward to your answers.

Pat| 5.16.12 @ 6:51PM

Schaef21: I think the answer you’re looking for is called “Intelligent Evolution”. In its primordial slime days, evolution theory was completely unintelligent. But then smart alecks, possibly like yourself, began asking embarrassing questions like how did evolution know that sexual reproduction should replace asexual reproduction so as to give random mutations the ability to create many more diverse physical attributes which are then acted upon by outside environmental factors and which contribute to better species differentiation (the new, improved term formerly known as Natural Selection)? To understand how scientists handle these puzzlers, we must reference the scientific works of Dr. Seuss and specifically the words describing his beloved Grinch – which were: “He thought up a lie and he thought it up quick”.

The result was “Intelligent Evolution”. In its previous incarnation, unintelligent evolution theory would simply try and try again – with hundreds of millions of years to experiment, anything was possible, right? But then some folks began pestering old evolution theory with conundrums like asexual reproduction randomly producing sexual reproduction between two separate beings at exactly the right time – or the many separate steps involved in blood coagulation evolving simultaneously and before you could bleed to death from that vicious paper cut.

To put the matter at rest, scientists developed Intelligent Evolution where you argue the facts in reverse. It goes something like this: (1) Obviously, we engage in sexual reproduction and blood does coagulate and (2) evolution theory is the only accepted explanation so therefore (3) evolution must have found a way. As good an explanation as any and something catchy Spielberg would eventually borrow for character lines in his movie, Jurassic Park.

David T| 5.16.12 @ 3:27PM

OK, so when a scientist postulates that life began billions of years ago when lightning struck the primordial ooze, is that science?

Pat| 5.16.12 @ 3:48PM

A question taxpayers frequently ask: Is there intelligent design at work in Washington D. C. ? Legitimate scientists may respond to that question in different ways but varying opinions don’t prevent them from writing grant proposals to study evolution. The National Academy of Sciences awards millions annually to carry on evolution research. Soil samples from returning Mars explorers are rushed to various labs and subjected to extensive analysis for signs of alien life which somehow proves evolution is Nature, not God – sure it’s expensive - and to date the results are nil - but the question must certainly be asked.

The question that is never asked however is why are the taxpayers funding evolution research? The official answer would probably be: The search for truth. Good answer. And the unofficial answer would definitely be: For the money, of course. What? You don’t think scientists have kids to put through college, green fees to pay, 401-k plans to top off?

But what if the taxpayers didn’t fund evolution? Wouldn’t the field be left to rich, amateur kooks like Chuck Darwin? Not entirely because Americans need evolution research and evolution research needs American taxpayers. Books must be published explaining the God gene, the homosexual gene, the shopping gene, etc.. Books debunking the former books attributing everything to evolution must also be published. Barnes and Noble sincerely appreciates this evolution controversy and thanks you for your business.

But what do you, the taxpayer, actually receive in practical terms from funding evolution research? Will your next hospital stay result in a speedier recovery based on what evolution theory tells us? Scientists assure us that without knowing that bacteria evolve, your recent hernia operation could have resulted in your death. Coincidentally or not, these are the very same scientists who recently completed yet another grant application requesting a million bucks - give or take - to study evolution. Asked the very same evolution question, your doctor would respond: “Look, I’ve got other patients to see and a two o’clock tee time so stick out your tongue and say “ah”.

But the search for truth must go on. As a recent taxpayer funded research paper concluded: Primates have the “search for truth” gene embedded deep within our DNA, just as evolution theory always predicted.

Kingofthenet| 5.16.12 @ 5:58PM

Yes, understanding Evolution has made Antibiotics better and new types, and antibiotics are most likely the GREATEST invention since the wheel.

cowgirl| 5.16.12 @ 3:49PM

First, God's time is not man's time. Time as we know it today was invented by man.

Second, Whittaker Chambers in Witness confesses he changed his communist, atheist beliefs while studying the formation of his young daughter's ear. Chambers wrote that the "design" of her ear was so intricate and perfect that the thing called evolution could have never created it.
Thus, his whole life changed and he became a believer.

When you slice open your finger with a knife, over 17 processes take place in your body - starting with the brain that sends signals and chemicals through the nerves and bloodstream to begin the process of what we call "blood clotting". This simple yet extremely complex process could have never evolved from anything. Neither could have things like the reproductive system of man and woman. Evolution was Darwin's attempt to explain God's Genesis. Remember Darwin at one time believed in God. He refers to the word "Creator" numerous times in the Origin of Species. Yet most people who "believe" in evolution do not know that because they have never read or done any research about Darwin. They just believe the crap that is taught in the failing public school system - another evolution failure. Darwin's athetism bore out of the loss of three of his children. Darwin married his first cousin and his ten children were sickly - three of them died most likely from the inter-breeding that took place between him and his first cousin. Funny, Darwin believed in a "mutation" theory. That things evolved from mutations. Guess that did not work so well for him.

Evolution is a joke. A joke that was revered by Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini. All socialist/communists who helped kill over 70 million people.

Kingofthenet| 5.16.12 @ 5:32PM

I can't say for certain there is NO 'Deistic' God, who started up the Universe, than let natural process it created to take over. But I pretty much can say with 99.99% certainty there is NO Yahweh, the God of the Judo-Christian religions.No one who is a believer, even bothers to ask common sense questions, why was God SO talkative to man and than suddenly stop(Yeah Yeah. I know he talks to you, but that's most like Son of Sam stuff) Where are the objects he gave Man, the Tablets, the Ark of the Covenant, he intended them to be seen by man, but they disappear? This was not that long ago and EVERYONE would revere them, where is the Holy Grail? Why no mention of the Egyptians of Jewish slaves? or the Exodus? They wrote about the most mundane things but not this? or the plagues? Where is this lost city of King Solomon? How come the REAL powers of the day don't comment about the city?

EDC| 5.16.12 @ 5:47PM

I too believe evolution to be a philosophical belief system requiring faith in the absence of good, hard evidence.

It just occurs to me that the reason there is gridlock in DC these days is because not enough of them are looking for the Intelligence that could be guiding them. Our founders believed in a Creator and were not just looking for what elevated their egoes or feelings, but basically they set those things aside, as much as they could, to look to build on earth what they preceived from the Scriptures what the Creator and His Kingdom were like. They were attempting to recreate on earth what they perceived to be true in heaven, and that premise elevated their thinking and helped them to arrive at enough consensus to proceed with something better. Oh if more in Washington were like that!

BackToBasics| 5.16.12 @ 8:04PM

This is tangential to the post but I saw an ad for something called quantum jumping. I thought it was a link to an article about quantum physics so I clicked on it. I saw it was an ad for learning how to "jump" from our universe to another of the "multiverses." read more and the explanation was that quantum jumping allows an individual to jump to a "copy" of himself in another universe. Some "copies" have good personalities and other bad.

Besides being ridiculous, in this case, there is a major flaw in the premise of the "construction" of the "multiverses." That premise would be the copies are exact duplicates. Such a "copy" if it were as represented, would lock everyone into the same "caste" as they are here. If you have the same brain cells in your copy, you will be either smart, average or below average intelligence no matter what "multiverse" you inhabited. Everyone would be locked in this way. Sounds like a multiverse "caste" system to me.

But as long as it's not something out of the Bible, or about Jesus, many people will accept it as a substitute without even thinking about what they are doing.

Tina B| 5.16.12 @ 9:09PM

Yep. Anything but Jesus, anything but an almighty holy God, revealed through the Scriptures. Anything but the Truth.

Kingofthenet| 5.16.12 @ 11:12PM

To all you Atheist's and Agnostics, Tina and most of the replies to this topic explain why it is IMPERATIVE that you lie your ass off if your ever a defendant in a trial. If you take the stand and say your an Atheist and would rather NOT 'swear on a Bible' you might as well just have the undertaker fit you for a suit right than and there. wear a cross bigger than the one they supposedly nailed Jesus too, carry a bible and make sure the Jury sees you reading from it during lulls in the proceedings, mention how your devout faith would NEVER allow you to do what your charged with...and whistle as you walk free

Tina B| 5.17.12 @ 9:17AM

Huh? Could you translate that into something that males sense, please?

Erik| 5.17.12 @ 11:00AM

You say 'revealed through the Scriptures' as though that is proof of anything. Sorry, but the 'truth' is that we all evolved, through the process of natural selection over an extremely long time span. Currently, we are able to fully sequence and compare the genomes of many different creatures. This evidence, as well as available fossil evidence, illustrates a 'family tree' of sorts. This tree connects all living things. You are cousins, albeit millions of times removed, with every dog or cat you've ever owned. All humans are closer cousins still. I don't understand how you don't acknowledge this, and find it beautiful. It's a shame you'll never fully understand the complex nature of life.

Layne S| 5.17.12 @ 11:06PM

Yes, scientists have ILLUSTRATED the process they call natural selection using what they observe in nature. But they have never seen or demonstrated the mechanisms by which one species evolves into another. They believe in what they have not seen. They have as much faith (or more) as those who believe in God who created the heavens and the earth.

Tina B| 5.18.12 @ 9:41AM

Agreed Layne. I would postulate that it takes more faith to believe that a world that has changed as rapidly as this one has in just the past century could have been vegging (is vegging a word and, if so, how would I spell it???)for millions of years while an amoeba took its time becoming an elephant, or a man. Just isn't logical, millions of years to become what we were, Neanderthal or whatever, and then less than 500 years to go from telescope to man on the moon. Or don't you believe we did that either?

The same Dad who taught me about the God of Special Creation, and who was a Captain in the Polish Army in WWII, who rose from Military Engineer who designed instant bridges across rivers to move troops and supplies, and then destroyed them so the Germans couldn't use them after the Poles did, to become an engineer on the Apollo missiles to the moon in the mid-60s. Educated, brilliant, and a believer in freedom, hence our migration to the USA, but most prominently a believer in Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Those who believe in a Special Creator and His Special Creation, us, are on much more solid ground than the Atheistic Evolutionist. In fact, our ground is known as the Rock of Ages.

BackToBasics| 5.18.12 @ 12:54AM

One could just as easily surmise that this genome tree rather than being a de facto denial of a creator actually gives support to there being a creator. The genome tree could signify order, a template of sorts if you choose to consider that possibility. If God wanted create life, He would not have to "reinvent the wheel" for each life form.

Speaking of beauty, the myriad variations we see in this related genome-template is a form of beauty in itself. Had God chosen to use a different less-related way, I do not doubt it would also have beauty. But what we have is beautiful anyway. To me, the related-template signifies order, relationship, and harmony and God uses the creation to instruct us of His existence.

Believers in evolution do not have a corner on understanding the beauty of life. I think this is innate in us all.

Romans 1:20 - "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"

Psalm 19:1 - "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the earth shows his handywork."

Tina B| 5.18.12 @ 9:45AM

BtB:
Your song in the night is wonderful. You make me smile. I like your way with words, and your polite way of dealing w/folks on this website.

Russell | 5.17.12 @ 5:07AM

Tom fails to note that The Biologic Institute is funded by the Discovery Institute of which he and Myers are Senior Fellows.

Here's what real live biologists make of Signature in the Cell

Tina B| 5.17.12 @ 10:01AM

The website you refer us to is exactly what I had imagined it would be by your comment "real live biologists."

For anyone with an iota of sense, notice I didn't say education, the evolutionary tale of elephants is just as whack as our story of the beginning of man, and all living creatures, as told in the creation accounts in both the Torah and the Bible are to you, all those who believe that a tornado through a junkyard could produce a 747, or a group of monkeys given a million years, reams of paper and a typewriter could produce a work like Shakespeare's. Give me a break.

Many highly learned people, not brainwashed by 12 years of compulsory education from textbooks full of progressive propaganda, and previously brainwashed teachers who do nothing but spout it, think you are every bit as crazy and ignorant as you claim we are.

Call it a draw. I'll let you spout your nonsense about millions of years of nothing but physical changes from amoeba to elephant and man, hahaha, sorry, but the human eye has something like 600 working parts, and everything I see around me is decaying, not evolving upward, so I laugh, buy let you espouse it. Now will you not mock us because we think the opposite.

We believe God created all life in its adult state and with what we now call appearance of age. A tree was a tree in its created form, with or without tree rings I don't know, like you I wasn't there and don't know anyone who was. And man was created whole and intact, with 600 parts which completed a functioning eye. And thousands of other functional parts, in total perfection. We have been in a state of decay ever since. The reason for this decay is sin, but that's a huge story for another day. I have just given a snapshot of a creationist view. I go beyond ID because the Intelligent Designer must be the Creator that I have personally gotten to know over these past 62 and a half years through His written Word, and then by faith (yes, the same level of faith that evolutionists have based on very little convincing evidence), in His promises reaffirmed by the life and death of Jesus Christ, who lives now in many of us today, and has since His death on a cross some 2000 years ago in Jerusalem.

The ideas that Evolutionists propose are believed by people who have studied the writings of others, as well as nature itself. The ideas espoused by many of us who believe in Special Creation, At least in my case, come from personal experience with this Creator. It is now a relationship that I could not give up if it meant my life. It is not just book learning, but experiential. My empirical evidence is as real, if not more so, than that of the typical Evolutionists.

Erik| 5.17.12 @ 10:52AM

Sorry love, but your 'belief' doesn't disprove empirical scientific evidence. Read this: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/.....cle/evo_01 Evolution is scientific fact.

Erik| 5.17.12 @ 10:46AM

This is one of the worst articles I have ever read in my life. Intelligent Design is nothing more than an attempt to make god relevant in the modern world. Anyone who feels that the theory of evolution is unsatisfying as an explanation for the complexity of life should have their head examined. Anyone who claims that there isn't any evidence for evolution is obviously not paying attention to the world around them. God isn't real. Denying scientific fact is foolish. Oh, also, anyone who decided to quote the bible in the comments: the bible is a decidedly subversive and repulsive document of the negative feelings and ideas of wandering sheep herders in the middle east during a time when people didn't know the Earth goes around the Sun, let alone anything about the intricacy of natural processes. Citing the bible makes your comment even more ridiculous than it would have been otherwise. Read a high school or college level biology textbook. Maybe you'll learn something.

Tim the Enchanter| 5.17.12 @ 3:43PM

Evolution is nothing more than an attempt to make atheism relevant in the modern world. See- I can play too! Putz.

crossworked| 5.17.12 @ 10:54PM

Eric, I am sure you believe that life exists. Can anyone imaging what would have happened if God reveled the General Field Equations 4,000 years ago? in text form? I had revelation studying for a theory of numbers final exam (text cost $150- 38 years ago). There is no chance that life came from mud. I have cooked in my kitchen and still have not found "cold fusion" Life should just appear as an undirected process in my backyard. As well I find that our search for life elsewhere is an excuse to deny God. Why do we abort our own life in uterine and try to find life elsewhere.

Tina B| 5.17.12 @ 12:56PM

Read it and believe what is written? Why, who authored it and what are their sources and credentials? See I don't believe theirs any more than you, Erik, or whoever you are, believe my authors, their credentials and their sources. I'll bet I have vetted my authors, their sources and credentials far, far more than you have "vetted" any of the authors of your textbooks, que nos?

I came to my worldview via a circuitous route that included organized religion, then atheism, then agnosticism, before I landed kicking and screaming  at the foot of His cross. And had to begin to study the history of Christianity, the Bible, other faiths, the Old Testament, and come to grips with the crazy people in the so-called Christian media and how they had negatively warped my thinking about God. 

I blamed Him for His crazy followers! At 62, I now know better. He was perfect all along, but like Peter I had taken my eyes off off Him and I began to sink.

He is a patient and loving God, as CS Lewis calls Him, the Hound of Heaven. He won my heart. Whew. You don't  know what your missing.

Tina B| 5.17.12 @ 1:10PM

Oh my goodness, I used your incorrectly. I meant you're. Please excuse.

Layne S| 5.17.12 @ 10:51PM

Great story! Welcome to the family!

crossworked| 5.17.12 @ 11:16PM

crossworked| 5.17.12 @ 10:54PM

Eric, I am sure you believe that life exists. Can anyone imaging what would have happened if God reveled the General Field Equations 4,000 years ago? in text form? I had revelation studying for a theory of numbers final exam (text cost $150- 38 years ago). There is no chance that life came from mud. I have cooked in my kitchen and still have not found "cold fusion" Life should just appear as an undirected process in my backyard. As well I find that our search for life elsewhere is an excuse to deny God. Why do we abort our own life in uterine and try to find life elsewhere.

REPLY TO THIS

crossworked| 5.17.12 @ 11:34PM

He is a just God. The rest is up to you and everyone.

His patience only lasts as long as you live. You have found him. Truth is what it is. I find myself in deference to judge. Only God can judge, but he gives us wisdom to protect us from evil.

Russell | 5.18.12 @ 12:58AM

Tina B swears she has : " vetted my authors, their sources and credentials far, far more than you have "vetted" any of the authors of your textbooks, que nos?"

OK Tina , let's start with Tom Bethell- have you read his latest book ?

Tom’s failure to do his physics homework bears a strong structural resemblance not just to your position, but the mythic refusal of Cardinal Bellarmine to look through Galileo’s telescope, and Ben Stein’s inability to cope with modern biology .

The author of Is Einstein necessary / makes his living as a Discovery Institute Senior Fellow assuring fellow conservatives the world isn't warming, species aren’t evolving, and Einstein is just another discredited cultural relativist who has made new developments in science incomprehensible to , well, folks like Tom.

Tom claims relativity rules because the "simpler" theory he adduces would "constitute a serious challenge to the priesthood of science." Doesn't anyone recall when attacking "bourgeois science” was a Marxist cliche' instead of a neoconservative chestnut?

Absent a serious grasp of theoretical physics it's impossible to mount a serious critique of relativity, but Tom has earned himself a hallowed place in Pseud's Corner by trying .

Though even the condensed version of the Feynman lectures seems beyond Tom’s mathematical grasp, he naively assumes that those who do physics for a living will ignore his his chicanery .

Bad mistake: the science he styles a "private party" is open to anyone who, unlike him, does their homework- including Tina B. He accordingly disinvites the numerate from his discussion by invoking cranks and obsessives to the exclusion of the actual experts, whom he thinks constitute a conspiracy to promote relativity.

The ignorance of current physics that cripples Bethell as a credible science writer is compounded by his disregard for the scientific process. He says the "priests of science" have gone down the wrong path, yet isn't above ignoring experiments or misrepresenting experimentalists to shore up his breathtakingly bogus views on relativity.

Bethell's idea of a scientific revolutionary is the late Petr Beckmann, the self-published author of Einstein Plus Two, which , without benefit of peer review claimed to supersede relativity by reviving a metaphysical delusion- the" luminiferous aether " the great minds of the dark ages needed to get light to propagate.

Bethell's presents Beckmann's theory with no mathematics, discarding the scientific method by making it impossible to check Beckman's predictions. Instead, Bethell offers one falsifiable specific: in his view, the 1887 Michelson-Morley experimen, did not fail "There was no way that so small an effect could be detected using 19th century equipment. But modern interferometers and laser beams can do so. In fact the most sensitive interferometer experiment ever conducted, by John Hall in 1979, did detect a fringe shift of the correct magnitude, confirming Beckmann's theory of the ether. Ironically Hall's experiment was done at Petr Beckmann's home base, the University of Colorado in Boulder, and while he was there. But he didn't know about the experiment and Hall didn't know of Beckmann's theory (still unpublished at that point)...Hall was not expecting to see this fringe shift and he assumed the effect was 'spurious' - the artifact of a design error in his own equipment."

There's just one problem with Bethell's riff. Finding it unpersuasive, other physicists called up the experimenter , who is not hard to find since he won the Nobel , not for his failed 1979 , experiment, bu something completely different "

Bethell claims "The Earth...rotates within its gravitational field. Analogously, if a woman wearing a hoop skirt does a pirouette - assume she has a circular waist and friction is minimal - she will rotate within her skirt. It won't swing around with her."

But Hall says Bethell is prevaricating: "You are seeing one of the reasons that older people tend to appear grumpy: what was said is transformed and stretched up to, if not beyond the limits of actual fact….There was a mechanical problem with the 1979 experiment because of the lack of stable leveling during rotation and…. In more recent times there have been several experiments... The most recent one was by Sven Hermann and Achim Peters, and shows the correctness of the Einstein model up to two more digits. [ Physics Research Letters 95, 150401 (2005) ]… No positive results have ever been obtained for a deviation from " the prediction made by special relativity.

One accordingly wonders when TAS will ask itself : is the Discovery Institute any more necessary than Tom ?

So much for reviving the aether- it’s as dead as Phlogiston. Straining to shift another goalpost, Bethell claim that the speed of light in a vacuum is not constant: "If the earth rotates through the ether (gravitational field), then there should be a difference in the speed of light east to west and west to east." He devotes a whole chapter to an experiment he lacks the mathematics to understand, averring of the Hafele-Keating experiment, in which clocks fly on planes moving in opposite equatorial directions that relativity would predict that they would run at the same speed because they fly the same distance, and claiming the Global Positioning System has "blown off Einstein," when in fact the adjustments made to GPS satellite clocks are a classic example of relativity working as engineering praxis.

Bethell claims that we've never observed time dilation, just the illusion of it in the action of atomic clocks retarded by aether resistance: "When a clock moves through this medium 'it takes longer for each electron in the atomic clock to complete its orbit.' Therefore, it makes fewer 'ticks' in a given time than a stationary clock. Moving clocks slow down, in short, because they are 'ploughing through this medium and working more slowly.' What , other than rhetorical convenience , drives Toms deliberate, and dead wrong elision of the clocks and the time they measure?

Aether fell by the theoretical wayside the old fashioned way, by being found experimentally wrong, and a thousand experiments later, not even the skeletal bones of this dead horse remain. All that seems to drive Bethell’s sub-quixotic crusade is is a mystery of faith- turning materialism on its head, he really does believe relativity has political implications by serving as a sort of philosophical substrate for the moral relativism he abhors. His real fear is that science will persist in constructing theories that work even though he can't understand them

crossworked| 5.20.12 @ 2:25AM

Big words,little mind. Your parents wasted a lot of money on you Lets let true science and truth reign, where ever it leads. Why do we choose to abort children my friend.......is it not biologically liberal enough?

Tina B| 5.18.12 @ 9:55AM

Bethel is not one of my authors. I am not defending anything he says here or eslewhere. I will read about him, so I can see if you are accurate. My defense is of Scripture and science as a study of God's creation. Read John Lennox for science and the human genome, or Ravi Zacharias (both on youtube videos, Lennox debating Chris Hitchens) on apologetics that make perfect sense to anyone without wool over their eyes. I have listened to both these men in person, Ravi many years ago, Lennox just three yrs ago. Both live what they teach, and may introduce you to the thinking believer.

The most I will say in the negative about many Creationists is they are often uneducated in the science of evolution that they decry. The responsibility is with the believer to have a winsomeness like Christ's, and educate themselves so that they can give a reason for the hope that lies within us to bring to the public square.

crossworked| 5.20.12 @ 2:32AM

Evolution is the delusion. It is not science but atheism. There is no reason if you do not have one. I guess if we evolve enough we could get along and marry earthworms. Get a degree in mathematics and statistical theory and call me in the morning.....

Tina B| 5.21.12 @ 10:43AM

Check.

Tina B| 5.21.12 @ 11:40AM

Crossworked you think well and express yourself very succinctly. And you are not judgmental, as you said above. Your pro life stance is also near and dear to my heart as I twice rejected any thoughts of having an abortion, and miscarried naturally the first time, and gave a pre born up for adoption. I delivered a healthy wonderful son, who reached out to find me, but didn't succeed. Then I reached out to find him, succeeded, I went to Minnesota, and last Christmas Wally visited me and his siblings with his lovely wife and kids. What a Gift! God is so awesome, is He not?

Russell | 5.22.12 @ 12:48AM

Crossworked's discourse tempts one to conclude that human evolution has by no means been uniform in its success.

Tina B| 5.23.12 @ 3:39AM

Says you.

Intelligent Design| 2.8.13 @ 8:00PM

Signature in the Cell is a fantastic book.

More Articles by Tom Bethell

More Articles From Capitol Ideas

Capitol Ideas

March 1, 2013 | Tom Bethell

Islam and Islamism in the Modern World

February 8, 2013 | Tom Bethell

Fifty Years in America

December 12, 2012 | Tom Bethell

George Gilder on the Materialist Superstition

November 8, 2012 | Tom Bethell

Taxes Won’t Save Us

October 30, 2012 | Tom Bethell

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/05/16/intelligent-design-at-the-univ

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|117 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|69 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|62 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|18 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|11 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|27 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|21 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 3:58PM

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 3:22PM

State Department: Iran Has Soldiers in Syria

Kaylin Bugos | 3:12PM

Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong

Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM

Muslims Murder British Soldier in London

Ross Kaminsky | 2:00PM

Anthony Weiner’s Campaign Video

Patrick Ryan | 1:33PM

Congressional Democrat Outraged Over IRS Scandal

Kaylin Bugos | 12:57PM

Immigration Bill Clears Key Committee

Jordan Gonzalez | 11:56AM

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.