In broad outline the Book of Genesis gives the following information about early human history:

1. All humans are descended from one woman and one man. (Genesis: 2)

2. Humans originated in an area close to or in the Tigris-Euphrates Valley. (Genesis 2) The early human population grew to a considerable size (Genesis: 5)

3. At some point early in human history the entire world population was almost wiped out by a catastrophic event. (Genesis: 6)

4. The world was repopulated by the survivors of this catastrophe. (Genesis: 10)

This narrative has found support in recent research published in “The American Journal of Human Genetics.” Please keep in mind that this article has nothing to say about the relevance of this research to the above scriptural passages. The conclusions of this research as stated are completely secular. However there are Biblical implications in this research.

The study examined the mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) of the Khoi and San people, they are two groups of hunter and gathers living in southern Africa. These two bands are considered “…unique relics of the hunting and gathering life style.” Their genetic material represents a pocket of reproductively isolated genes with ancient roots. The analysis of their genetic material is quite complex and convoluted so no detail is included here, if you are interested, the original article is referenced below. However the findings of the researchers were shocking to some and are fascinating to review.

First this work reminds the reader that mitochondrial DNA research supports the idea that we are all descended from one woman. For those interested, there are also Y Chromosomal studies that show that we are all descended from one man. Sound familiar? (Adam & Eve)

Second, in addition to showing lines of descent and the approximate time that these lines diverged from their ancestral line, such studies can also point to the original geographical dispersion patterns of populations of organisms. The current dominant theory among paleoanthropologists is that humans first appeared in Northeast Africa somewhere around the Rift Valley. This area is only about 1,000 miles from the Tigris-Euphrates Valley. Given the imprecision of such studies, the actual focal point of human origins could easily have been anywhere within the East African/Middle Eastern region which includes the Tigris-Euphrates Valley. Again does this ring a bell? (Garden of Eden)

Third, this and other cited studies concluded that the human race underwent a catastrophic near extinction about 70,000 years ago. A related piece of research done by a group from Stanford University concluded that the world population may have collapsed to as little as 2,000 individuals. It is argued that this catastrophic population implosion was “probably” caused by a drought. However the study does not postulate a world wide drought, so it is difficult to see how a drought would have caused a world wide population decline? However this event would fit very nicely with the expectations of what would follow a world wide hydrological catastrophe as described in Genesis 6. (Noah’s Flood)

Fourth, the study points to the fact that all existing humans are the descendants of the survivors of this catastrophe. Again, does this sound familiar? (Genesis 10)

Why This Is Important

This research while probably not intended to have Biblical implications in its broad brush strokes, paints a picture of the early history of the human race that is consistent with the Biblical narrative. Some may take exception to the details of the research but its general outline certainly has a ring of familiarity to it.

Sources:

1. “Humans Nearly Wiped Out 70,000 Years Ago”, April 24,2008,www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/24/close.call.ap/index.html

2. “The Dawn of Human Matralinial Diversity”, in The American Journal of Human Genetics, by Doron Behar, et.al., April 24, 2008.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph.D.

You may be a “Thought Criminal” and not know it. So, if you have not yet seen “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, I strongly suggest that you see it. Ben Stein produced this movie to alert the public to some very disturbing trends. The movie exposes a widespread effort in academia and the media to suppress the fact that a growing number of mainline scientists are beginning to consider Intelligent Design as an explanatory factor in their work or world view.

Intelligent Design is probably most often defined as the argument that the origin of the Universe and the origin of life cannot be completely explained by purely natural, random or unguided processes alone. This leads to the argument that at some point supernatural intervention was required to either start the process or to intervene in it. This supernatural force is usually identified as God. The movie shows what happened to some scientists and teachers who dared to openly consider Intelligent Design. They very quickly found themselves purged from the field, loosing their positions, abilities to publish, reputations and more.

This movie attempts to tackle an enormously large set of subjects. Adequately addressing such a large body of information in two hours is nearly impossible. A twenty-four part series would be inadequate to cover issues that include: science definitions, science history, biology, evolution, Darwinism, Social Darwinism, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, academic freedom and much more. But Stein did a good job of providing an overview and introduction to this battle that is being waged against scientists and scholars who want to consider Intelligent Design.

The film recounts what happened to several researchers who dared to write about scientific research findings that support the Intelligent Design argument. These people have paid dearly career-wise for openly thinking about Intelligent Design.
Keep in mind that in most cases they were not advocating it, but only discussing it. Their crime can best be described as a “thought crime.” Such crimes in the 20th Century generally occurred in the Marxist countries where such crimes were covertly and occasionally openly punished. In Marxist regimes anyone who dared question the Neo-Marxian worldview usually found themselves without a job and home and in some cases imprisoned, like Alexander Soljenitzen, and occasionally as under Stalin or Mao execution was also a real possibility.

The film also discusses some of the problems with Social Darwinism and its consequences. It briefly reviews the undeniable link between Darwinism and the Eugenics Movement and their use by regimes such as the Nazi’s with their theories about survival of the fittest between competing races and how this was directly linked to the Holocaust.

Not surprisingly the film has infuriated the Darwinists. The film is being attacked on all sides. The factual accuracy of the film is usually not attacked directly because many of the facts are undeniable so they speak for themselves. Therefore the criticisms have mostly fallen into marginal areas such as claims that the film does not tell the other side of the argument completely enough or that there are copyright issues about the use of some animations (it is hard to imagine a more irrelevant criticism).

Arguably the films most important point is that the effort to squelch discussion of Intelligent Design is an infringement of freedom of speech and thought. Whether or not Intelligent Design is factually correct is not the main issue for many, the main issue is freedom of thought. The Darwinists, materialists and atheists want to straight-jacket us all, having us put on blinders to the evidence that points to God’s creative role in the Universe by saying that Intelligent Design is not science. However at the same time they contradict themselves by also claiming that the scientific evidence against Intelligent Design is “irrefutable.” If this is the case, why are they trying to suppress free discussion of the subject? The truth is only too
obvious; they know that their beliefs are based on extremely weak evidence and in all probability will collapse under future scrutiny. However Darwinism is the basis for moral relativism and moral relativism is the foundation of the political left. Therefore there is no length these people will not be willing to go to in order to enforce their ideological orthodoxy.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph.D.

Imagine your surprise if you suddenly discovered that the person you thought was your grandfather was actually born more recently then your father.  Well, that is exactly the position that Darwinists are in, given new genetic studies of sponges and jellyfish.

Sponges are very simple, “primitive” life forms. They lack true tissues, having no muscles, internal organs or nervous systems.  They even lack a digestive system.  They resemble something like a colony of independent cells.  They have long been regarded as representing a first step in the evolutionary transition from single-celled organisms to the first multi-celled organisms. Comb jellyfish on the other hand are more advanced, complex organisms having such innovations as internal organs including a nervous system.

According to the Darwinian model of the “Tree of Life,” all life forms are descended from a single-celled ancestor which evolved through time by exclusively random, natural, accidental process into ever more complex multi-cellular organisms.  This model is a hierarchy, which requires that simple life forms must come first and give rise gradually to more complex life forms. Consequently, primitive organisms like sponges must evolve before more complex organisms like jellyfish can be “naturally selected” into existence.

So, imagine the surprise a group of scientists using powerful new genetic research tools had when they discovered that their data showed that comb jellyfish diverged onto their own evolutionary path before sponges. “This was a complete shocker. . . So shocking that we thought something had gone very wrong,” said Casey Dunn, the team’s lead researcher from the University of Hawaii. But despite checking and rechecking the data still pointed to the same conclusion – the more complex animal predated the simpler animal.

Despite this “shocking” finding in contradiction to the predictions of the Darwinian model, the Darwinian model was not brought into question.  After all, these scientists want to keep their jobs and one does not question Darwin in academia (an alleged bastion of unfettered “free thought”).  Consequently, two highly improbable alternative explanations were offered in an attempt to bludgeon the data back into the constraints of Darwin’s 1859 insights.  The suggested solutions are that either sponges devolved from a heretofore completely unknown, more complex ancestor or the comb jellyfish evolved their complexity independently after they went off onto their own evolutionary branch of the Tree of Life.

Why this is Important

This study raises three critical problems only one of which is even addressed by the authors.  The first problem is the fact that the higher form of life is more ancient than the lower form.  The evidentially unsupported speculations mentioned above that are offered to account for this are weak at best and will likely not find support by further research.  The second finding that is even more important is the undressed time factor.  The fossil record shows that jellyfish appeared suddenly in the fossil record.  The third problem is where are their ancestors in the fossil record? If jellyfish didn’t evolve from the sponges where did these complex creatures come from? In terms of the Darwinian model the evolution of organs such as a nervous system would have taken at least ten’s of millions of years.  So where are the original and intermediary forms?

This is not the first case where genetic research has collided with Darwinism.  Genetic research has been making it harder and harder to maintain the Darwinian straight jacket that claims that life appeared and evolved without any divine or intelligent intervention.

Sources:

“Broad Phylogenomic Sampling Improves Resolution of the Tree of Life”, Casey Dunn et. al., Nature, April 10, 2008 pp 745-749.

“The First Animal on Earth Was Significantly More Complex The Previously Believed”, Science Daily, April 11, 2008.

By Lawrence Vescera Ph. D.

This July will see a unique event in the history of modern thought. It may very well prove the beginning of a true “Paradigm Shift” in biology. The Event has been labeled the “Woodstock of Evolution” and will probably mark the beginning of the end of the status of Darwin’s writings as holy writ and Darwinism’s strangle hold on freedom of thought and speech. This meeting will be attended by sixteen of the world’s leading evolutionary biologists and philosophers of science. It will take place in Altenberg, Austria at the Konrad Lorenz Institute. The reason for the meeting is the recognition by most of these scholars that Darwinism is retarding progress in biology through its insistence that biological evolution can only occur through natural selection operating on random processes.

Thought in the nineteenth century was dominated by three main figures Marx, Freud and Darwin. Freudianism has fallen into disrepute through repeated experiments showing that it does not work and in reality can be harmful to psychiatric patients. Indeed in most of its controlled tests the patients in the untreated control groups almost always do better than the patients receiving “psychoanalysis.” Marxism has also been rejected almost everywhere except on university campuses because the people living under Marxist governments eventually get tired of being poor while their neighbors prosper. Darwinism, however, has not died yet, because it is foundational to materialist philosophy, the cornerstone of which is cultural relativism, with its claim that there is no absolute right or wrong. Right and wrong to cultural relativists are just matters of taste not revelations from God.

Unfortunately, devotion to Darwinian orthodoxy also had the unintended consequence of stopping scientific progress in biology. Despite its failures, biologists were reluctant to consider the possibility of any mechanism, even other materialist mechanisms, as possible drivers of evolution. The rarely admitted reason for this strict enforcement of thought policing was the fear that any admission that Darwin could have been wrong might bring down the entire materialist edifice. However reality eventually will force the admission that the emperor has no clothes and that is where biology finds itself today. It has become painfully obvious that Darwinism, despite its claims, cannot explain “the origin of species” satisfactorily and when it comes to questions such as the origin of life, Darwinists have completely abandoned the effort, admitting that it is hopeless within their paradigm.

This is why the meeting in Altenberg is taking place. It is hoped that this meeting will find a new way forward in biology. This new way forward will be called the “Extended Evolutionary Synthesis.” However this new synthesis will not be a victory for the recognition of a role for God in the creation and evolution of life such as proposed by Intelligent Design. It will instead be an effort to rescue materialism by finding new naturalistic explanations for the origin and development of life. The areas that will be looked to are theories of self organization such as Chaos Theory, a Fourth Law of Thermodynamics, the Butterfly Effect and similar theories that exclude God from consideration.

Why This Is Important

Despite the fact that only materialist theories for evolution will be acceptable explanations in the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, it probably will still a be giant leap forward because it will undermine Darwinian orthodoxy in all areas of science, philosophy and social policy. Once Darwinism is more widely recognized as too restrictive for biologists it will also begin to decline in popularity in the social sciences and with this decline as orthodoxy new explanations will be looked at. What will be the most interesting of all will be to see what happens with the new theories of self organization. As anyone who has followed this literature knows, theories of self organization have been widely discussed for over forty years and despite repeated claims of breakthroughs they have so far proven a total failure to explain biological evolution. As these theories continue to prove fruitless in the future, it will be interesting to see what straw the materialists will grasp at next?

Source:” Mazur: Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution” by Suzan Mazur, March 4, 2008, www.scoop.co.nz/stories .

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph.D.

Channel One is an advertisement based educational television network that is currently broadcast into more then 11,000 schools in the United States. In exchange for having students watch their programming and commercials, the schools receive the programming and viewing equipment such as TV monitors and VCRs for free.

Channel One has regularly run stories critical of Intelligent Design and supportive of Darwinism. The stories contained many inaccuracies, misrepresentations, errors of fact, and misleading material. These inaccuracies include using the term evolution to mean Darwinism and using the term Intelligent Design as if it included only Young Earth Creationism. This was done in an effort to portray Intelligent Design in the worst light possible. They tried their best to paint the proponents of Intelligent Design as enemies of science, truth, and fact. They conversely tried to present Darwinists in the most positive light possible, portraying them as beacons of reason, intelligence, truth, beauty, virtue, and the American Way. They stopped short of claiming that Darwinists could leap tall buildings in a single bound.

Recently, Channel One ran a poll in their “Your Turn” section under the title “Evolution or Design” to explore the reaction of the students to whom they have been broadcasting their propaganda. On February 15th an online survey of almost 1500 high school students was conducted to test the effectiveness of their crusade for Darwinism. The students were given the choice of four options regarding what should be allowed in the teaching of origins. The results must have astounded the Darwinist advocates at Channel One. The results are below.

High School Students Only
1. Evolution Only - 9%
2. Intelligent Design Only - 53%
3. Evolution and Intelligent Design - 25%
4. None of These - 13%

The poll remains open to the general public now, and as of today the results from all respondents, not just high school students, are below.

All Respondents as of 3/1/08
1. Evolution Only - 19%
2. Intelligent Design Only - 44%
3. Evolution and Intelligent Design - 24%
4. None of These - 13%

Why This is Important

Despite the enormous efforts of the media, Hollywood, and the rest of the Materialist/Darwinist Complex, they are failing miserably to convince the public that life is the result of a random, purposeless, and exclusively natural process. It is especially interesting that high school students reject the Darwinist Paradigm by an even wider majority then the public in general.

Those who are trying to get the message out that there is a God and that life has meaning and purpose should take heart from these results.

Source:
ChannelOne.com

By: Lawrence Vescera Ph. D., Isaac Newton Institute

In 1943, C.S. Lewis published “The Abolition of Man.” In it, he warned against using science to debunk natural law and objective values to the detriment of the understanding of what constitutes humanity. It is doubtful that Lewis envisioned that “man” as an objectively definable entity could cease to exist within the next sixty-five years, but that is indeed what is about to happen.

British researchers at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne have announced the development of a technique to turn female bone marrow cells (mesenchymal cells) into sperm cells. A similar technique is also expected to allow male marrow cells to be turned into egg cells. Therefore, women will soon be able to produce sperm, and men will be able to produce eggs. The projected uses of the technique are to enable infertile couples to produce children, but its most startling effect will be to allow same-sex couples to produce children that are biologically their own. In the near future, there will be children that are not born of a woman and a man. There will be children of two fathers or of two mothers.

This is no small matter. Think about this carefully. What will the status be of these entities? Are they true human beings? They will certainly appear to be fully human in every way, but what is a human being? Historically and biologically, humans have always been the offspring of a father and a mother. These beings will be persons who will either have no mother or no father. Where will this go in the future? Cloning is possible now. Even more troubling, human genes have begun to be introduced into animal and plant reproductive germ lines, and animal and plant genes will likely soon be introduced into the human germ line. Consequently, “enlightened scientists unencumbered by religious prejudices” will endeavor to produce more completely hybridized humans, finally succeeding where the Nazi’s earlier efforts had failed by producing half ape, half human creatures.

Why This Is Important.

The physical consequences of this new technology probably will be small compared to the spiritual, psychological, social, and emotional consequences. What will it mean to be human? As this technology expands, the very concept of humanity will expand and be progressively eroded and diluted until it becomes as ill defined as the modern concepts of beauty and justice. What the fruit of this abolition of man will be is extremely difficult to predict; nonetheless, it seems probable that it will not be good. Knowing the proclivities of humanity, the extinction of “human beings,” in historical terms, is a virtual certainty.

Source:
1. “Death of the Father: British Scientists Discover How to Turn Bone Marrow into Sperm,” By Feona Macrae, Daily Mail, January 31, 2008.

By: Lawrence Vescera Ph.D., Isaac Newton Institute

The mysterious nature of intelligence has been deepened by increasing evidence that intelligence requires neither a brain nor a nervous system. This is abundantly displayed in the animal kingdom where all sorts of organisms with no brain, and in some cases no nervous system, carry out tasks that require intelligence. Colonies of social insects such as bees, ants, termites, and social spiders display an amazing degree of intelligence building hives, engaging in agriculture, trading symbiotically, enslaving other insects, herding, and engaging in other specialized activities. In some cases, as with certain species of spiders, even isolated individuals perform extremely complex tasks with only the most rudimentary ganglia and primitive nervous systems.

Going even further, it was reported by this Blog on September 15, 2007 in “Microbes Have Consciousness” that even bacteria can display what certainly appears to be intelligence and self-awareness. Not only was the shocking behavior of slime molds discussed but also the even more stunning discovery that some microorganisms actually carry out “genetic engineering.”

As mind-boggling as these discoveries are, it appears that they have been surpassed by the new discovery of “molecular telepathy.” A team of researchers at the Division of Molecular Bioscience of the Imperial College, London has discovered that subunits of DNA molecules have the ability to recognize similar units in other DNA molecules and then congregate together. This is done without intervening proteins and over considerable distance (1 nanometer). The mechanism by which this is preformed is unknown.

Why This Is Important

Despite monumental failures, materialists continue to claim that they know that intelligence and consciousness are simply the by-product of the electro-chemical activities of the brain. It is too early to explain this amazing behavior by segments of DNA molecules. Chemistry and physics may be able to account for molecular telepathy; however, it may turn out to be one more inexplicable discovery that is set aside because it does not fit the expectations of materialist philosophers. This would be a shame for many reasons not the least of which is knowing the truth of reality.

Source:

1. Geoff Baldwin, et. al. “DNA Double Helices Recognize Mutual Sequence Homology in a Protein Free Environment,” Journal of Physical Chemistry, January 31, 2008, Volume 112, No. 4, pp 1060-1064.

2. www.physorg.com/news120735315.html, Jan. 28, 2008.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph.D.

When I took Evolutionary Biology, even considering the possibility of direction in evolution was a Class I “thought crime” and so was Lamarckian Evolution. Lamarck’s evolutionary theory argued that acquired characteristics could be transmitted to offspring. Suggesting that either of these conjectures could be a valid idea was punishable by an F in the class and a strong recommendation that you change your major to Physical Education. These “thought crimes” could only be absolved if you recanted your heresy by placing your hand on a copy of Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” and swearing fealty to the true Darwinian faith in Evolution by means of Undirected Natural Selection alone as the only route to true “evolutionary understanding.” Therefore I was astonished to learn that “Current Biology” has just published an article authored by an international team of biologists that argues for “Directed Evolution” through a Lamarckian mechanism.

These scientists have been studying the shape of the female genitals in flat worms. While studying this glamorous topic they discovered that the evolution of these organs was displaying “direction.” This directionality of a process that was supposedly random forced an about-face and the resurrection of Lamarck’s long despised theory in a desperate attempt to avoid an even more unacceptable possibility. Lamarck had to be resurrected because the other major explanatory theory that this finding could be pointing to is some type of supernatural design and this of course is an even greater anathema than Lamarckianism.

What is also remarkable about this new finding is the reaction of the scientific community and the media to this about face. Somehow they have twisted this finding around to be a proof of Darwinism, rather than a refutation. For example on January 18, “sciencedaily.com” carried the astonishing claim that “According to Darwin’s theory of evolution, individuals in a species pass successful traits onto their offspring through a process called ‘deterministic inheritance.’” “Deterministic inheritance”? Are my eyes deceiving me? Have not random mutation and natural selection been the cornerstones of Darwinism, while Intelligent Design advocated a “directed process” of some type?

In using the term “Deterministic inheritance”, what the Darwinists are referring to is one of the “dirty little secrets of Darwinism”; this is the fact that it was Darwin’s disciples, not Darwin, who completely rejected Lamarck or the possibility of evolution through a supernaturally directed process.

Why This Is Interesting

What is most remarkable about this whole affair is the ease with which Darwinists manage to interpret or misinterpret any finding so that it supports their assumptions. Even though this research is in total disagreement with the cornerstone of Darwinian orthodoxy, the Darwinists pretend that there is no problem at all. This should cause them to open their minds to the possibility that some of their previous ideas have been based on faulty assumptions, but such an idea is beyond unthinkable and would result in career-ending excommunication by their colleagues in academia.

So no matter what the research shows, Darwinism is not questioned. This hypocritical pattern is also seen in other areas, such as “global warming” where above average temperatures are embraced as proof of global warming. But in places where temperature averages are below normal, the cause is also attributed to global warming. This is reminiscent of the Freudian tactic of claiming proof for his theories such as his theory of “latent homosexuality”. Freud claimed that, like him, we are all supposed to have such feelings. The proof of this was twofold. If you admitted to having such feelings, it proved how correct he was. If you rejected the claim, however, that also proved how correct he was by virtue of the “fact” that you were too threatened by the feeling to admit the truth.

Sources:
1. “Trends, Stasis and Drift in the Evolution of Nematode Vulua Development” Current Biology, Karen Kiontke et al, Nov. 2008, Volume 17, pp. 1925-1937.

2. “New Findings Confirm Darwin’s Theory: Evolution Not Random”, sciencedaily.com, Jan. 18, 2008

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph.D.

“In the Beginning Was Information” is the title of a powerful new book by Dr. Werner Gitt, the former Director of the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology and the Head of the Department of Information Technology. This book is a bombshell against Darwinism and Materialism. Dr. Gitt powerfully argues that God created the Universe and everything in it. This book is not a light read, as is the case with most German physics texts; do not expect to see it topping the best seller list any time soon, but for those willing to digest it one page at a time, it is well worth the effort. Below is an attempt to summarize his enormously complex argument.

The title is a play on John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word…” As Dr. Gitt points out: a word is information. The two terms are interchangeable in that a “word” strictly defined is a unit of information. He further points out that modern physics recognizes three constituents, which make up the Universe. These are Matter, Energy, and Information. Information is the organization of the matter and energy in the Universe. Without organization, the Universe would be totally chaotic, and in a totally chaotic environment, life would not be possible.

The organization in the universe is produced by the Natural Laws, which govern it. It is agreed by all physicists that natural laws cannot be proven. They are unlike mathematical theorems and must be discovered and tested empirically. The origin of natural laws is unknown. Natural laws are the carriers of the information, which organizes the Universe. Gitt points out that the origin of the Universe cannot be explained in terms of these natural laws because they do not preexist the creation of the Universe. In the original creation event, “The Big Bang,” all the information that governs the physics of the Universe today had to be in place already. The Big Bang was like a giant firework; it had to be packed just right before the “Bang” in order to produce all the stars, galaxies, and clusters of galaxies seen today.

This initial information can only have come from one of two sources. Either it is an inherent property of matter, or its origin had to come from an outside intelligent source. For the past forty years, some theorists have tried to find a way to ascribe this information’s origin to matter. Their efforts resulted in such conjectures as a Fourth Law of Thermodynamics, Chaos Theory, emergent intelligence from computational processes, and other proposals. These ideas have all proved utter failures in this arena because information is not a property of matter; it is a basic independent constituent of the Universe.

Dr. Gitt demonstrates that information is also the central characteristic of all living systems. All biological processes are completely information dependent. Whether it is making a tool, collecting pollen, or digesting a sugar molecule, tremendous amounts of information and information processing power are required. The human body processes 3×10 to the 24th bits of information every day. All the libraries on the planet only hold 10 to the 18th bits or 1 three millionth as much information as the human body processes everyday. In terms of information processing, the cells of the human body legitimately can be thought of as supreme super computers.

This super computational capacity enables the body to manufacture at least 50,000 different proteins plus tens of thousands of RNAs, micro RNAs, DNAs, enzymes, antibodies, antigens, and other products needed to run the body. The DNA molecule is the primary storage medium for the information needed to manage all of this activity. A DNA molecule is a strand of amino acids that is only about two millionths of an inch thick and has achieved the theoretical limit of miniaturization for information storage capacity. Dr. Gitt finds it no accident that the DNA molecule, with the genetic code it carries, is an optimized information carrier.

This is another fact that defies Darwinian expectations. If the information stored in the genetic code arose as the result of random processes, why would the system have achieved optimization? This optimization of information storage is so efficient that it allows the DNA molecule, during cell division, to transfer all of the information it carries to another DNA molecule in as little as 20 minutes. Imagine trying to down load a large library onto your home computer in 20 minutes? The cells of your body do this all day long.

These, however, are all minor issues compared to the largest informational conundrum- the origin of biological information. DNA produces RNA; RNA in turn makes proteins and enzymes; these proteins and enzymes in turn control the synthesis of DNA. How could such an information dependent cycle possibly originate naturally? According to Dr. Gitt it cannot. A cycle where A makes B and B makes C and C makes A, cannot boot strap itself into existence because of the mutually dependent and the self-referential nature of the process. The type of information needed to initiate such an internally dependent cycle can only come from an intelligent source.

Why This Is Important

Darwinists do not like to discuss information theory because they have no adequate answers for the profound mysteries uncovered in this area. This is another dirty little secret that the media diligently ignores. Ever since the 1960s when Darwinists ran smack into the immovable obstacle of Information Theory and Technology, they have been avoiding the subject assiduously in the hope that some new piece of evidence will emerge that allows them to disprove the math. This has not happened. As a defensive measure, books like “In The Beginning Was Information” can only be ignored. It is no accident that Dr. Gitt waited until he had retired before he published this work.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph. D.

Scientists from around the world met in Edinburgh, Scotland this August at the annual meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation. The title of the conference was “New Frontiers in Science and Faith.” Many outstanding scientists from around the world attended including five Fellows of the prestigious Royal Academy of Science (FRS). The conference focused on examining the theological implications of recent discoveries and developments in Cosmology, Genetics, Evolutionary Biology, Neuroscience, Bioethics, and Ecology and on integrating these developments with Christian faith.

Among the exciting topics discussed were those presented in the Keynote address by Alister McGrath. Dr. McGrath is a Molecular Biophysicist and theologian who holds the post of Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Oxford University. He cited several areas that represent the “New Frontiers in Science and Faith.” Among these are the renewed interest in Anthropic Phenomenon and the return to Natural Theology. The Anthropic Phenomenon (or Principle) explores the growing set of scientific observations that point to the fact that the Universe has been fine tuned (designed) to accommodate intelligent life. Natural Theology is the historical Christian approach to understanding nature and is the foundation of modern science. The return to Natural Theology has reinvigorated Christian scientists’ interest in cognitive research (where does our consciousness come from?), the origins of life, quantum physics, biology, and other areas of scientific study.

Dr. McGrath also pointed out that this new interest in the theological implications of recent scientific discoveries has contributed to the appearance of a new militant atheism that is trying to use science to evangelize its belief system.

In his lecture “Space, Time and Eternity,” Sir John Polkinghorne, FRS and former professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge University, discussed recent attempts by atheists to explain away the nearly undisputed fact that the universe is fine tuned for human life. In this particular instance, the atheists’ denial of God’s creation of the Universe is founded upon the claim of a Multiverse. The Multiverse theory postulates that our Universe is only one of an infinite or nearly infinite number of other Universes. With enough Universes, all with different natural laws operating in them, you will eventually get one like ours, which is perfect for human life. No designer needed! Unfortunately for the Multiverse advocates, these Universes are now and may always be undetectable; however, we are asked to believe on faith alone in their existence as an alternative to believing that the one Universe we know of and live in was created by God as a habitation for life.

Polkinghorne pointed out that this is, ‘“an idea of quite incredible ontological prodigality’ that would make William of Ockham roll over in his grave.”

Another presenter, Dr. Jan Centrella, Chief of NASA’s Gravitational Astrophysics Laboratory at the Goddard Space Flight Center, discussed her groundbreaking work on gravity waves and their implications for testing the General Theory of Relativity. She also discussed her faith journey.

Dr. Conway Morris, FRS professor of Paleobiology at the Cambridge University, discussed the fact that recent work on “evolutionary convergence” brings into question the Primary Axiom of Darwinism. The Primary Axiom is the idea that organisms are the result of random natural processes. Convergence research is showing that the necessary building blocks for intelligence appeared billions of years before the emergence of intelligence, indicating very advanced and highly sophisticated planning and design at work rather then random chance.

Why This Is Important

The misuse and misinterpretation of scientific discoveries have been among the most important tools used to undermine Christian faith. These are still seen today in the intellectually shallow and ham fisted attempts by Richard Dawkins and other evangelists of atheism to destroy Christian faith through the abuse of science. Unfortunately, many are fooled by this approach, especially those who do not have the time or expertise to investigate the accuracy of their claims.

It is important that first-rate scientists in each field counter these claims. It is important that the public realize that they are not called to a blind faith that denies the facts of the real world but rather to a Faith grounded in reality.

Source: Newsletter of the American Scientific Affiliation , Sep/Oct 2007, Vol 49, No. 5, pp 1-7.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph. D.