Listen to this description: They first converted the book, program and images to HTML and then translated this into a sequence of 5.27 million 0s and 1s, and these 5.27 megabits were then sequenced into sections of nucleotides 96 bits long using one DNA nucleotide for one bit. The nucleotide bases A and C encoded for 0, while G and T encoded for 1. Each block also contained a 19 bit address to encode the block’s place in the overall sequence. Multiple copies of each block were synthesized to help in error correction. From PhysOrg.com we get the abstract: Digital information is accumulating at an astounding rate, straining our ability to store and archive it. DNA is among the most Read More ›

In a previous post, I had taken Dr. Larry Moran to task about whether or not mutations, as they exist in nature, are random. Dr. Moran has responded, so I thought I’d give readers a summary of his response. Dr. Moran seems to have at least two different things in mind when he says that evolution is unguided. That’s not a problem per se, but it is always good to be precise about which concept of unguided-ness we are discussing. The appearance of homo sapiens was not an intended part of the evolutionary process Mutations are random with respect to their ultimate usefulness In my post, I was primarily concerned with #2, as I will be in this one. Presumably, Read More ›

Here. Ayala gives two objections to design:  (1) The design we see is suboptimal; and (2) the cruelty we see in nature precludes an inference to a good designer. Craig first shows a picture of a dilapidated old East German Trabant, one of the worst cars ever made.  He then shows a picture of a shiny new Mercedes E Class. Then he makes the following argument. 1.  The Trabant is obviously designed. 2.  The Trabant design is obviously sub-optimal. 3.  Therefore, the fact that a design is sub-optimal does not invalidate the design inference. Conclusion:  Known designs exhibit various degrees of optimality.  Therefore, there is simply no reason to restrict design inferences only to maximally optimal designs.  If a structure Read More ›

One of our Darwinist friends’ favorite tactics is to insist that if something cannot be precisely quantified in mathematical terms then there is no warrant for believing it exists at all.  For example, ID proponents might point out that Mount Rushmore exhibits complex specified information (“CSI”).  “How much CSI does Mount Rushmore exhibit?” a Darwinist might ask.  “Oh, you can’t give me a figure?  Then CSI obviously does not exist.” MathGrrl, one of my favorite materialists, put it this way:  “My conclusion is that, without a rigorous mathematical definition and examples of how to calculate [CSI], the metric is literally meaningless.  Without such a definition and examples, it isn’t possible even in principle to associate the term with a real Read More ›

My friend Peter Byrom kindly transcribed this communication he had with Richard Dawkins on twitter following Dawkins’ recent encounter with John Lennox in New York on the subject of God’s existence. Can you imagine John Lennox having this kind of post-debate attitude? What arrogance. ————- (a few days ago:) Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins “The Lord hath delivered him into my hand” (TH Huxley). I needed no help: John Lennox delivered himself. Reeled out the rope to hang himself Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins Charlie Rose “In Pursuit of Truth” PBS air time tbc. You’d be amazed what a “sophisticated theologian” (John Lennox) is capable of believing Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins John Lennox, in all seriousness, thought he could get away with the old “Stalin Read More ›