Intelligent Design Origin Of Life Video

An utterly serious look at origin of life claims

Spread the love

Well adapted to the believability of mainstream claims:

We’re often told that origin of life experiments have simulated the production of life’s building blocks under conditions that mimicked the early earth. Or at least that’s what many textbooks say. But is this really true? This video shows how origin of life researchers “cheat” by using purified chemicals that don’t reproduce actual natural conditions. Another dirty little secret is that prebiotic synthesis experiments often don’t report the bulk of the product: toxic garbage that destroys the building blocks’ ability to form more complex molecules. Watch this video to appreciate how origin of life experiments don’t come anywhere close to accounting for the vast complexity of biology. This is the first of several episodes about the origin of life presented as part of the Long Story Short series.

Rob Stadler, “Tonight, New “Long Story Short” Video Delivers a Dose of Reality for Origin-of-Life Researchers” at Evolution News and Science Today (August 17, 2021)

The thing to see here is that origin of life is history, not science. That point is often missed. Science is about how laws act in nature; history is about the details of what actually happened.

If you want to know how life originated, you want to know history. It may or may not be accessible. We might never know how life originated for the same reasons as we may never know whether Neanderthal man had a religion. Anything anyone says on the subject is conjecture or ideology, not evidence.

You may also wish to read: Microbial fossils found at 3.4 billion years ago at the sub sea floor level. It’s not entirely clear that these were life forms but if they were, it’s further evidence that life got started pretty much when the planet cooled and not, apparently, as a result of some long, slow, Darwinian process.

30 Replies to “An utterly serious look at origin of life claims

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    This video is an excellent, easy to understand, summary of the (very) disingenuous way in which Atheists ‘sell’ their false narrative of a completely naturalistic Origin of Life.

    For a deeper dive into the technical details discussed in the video, I recommend Dr. James Tour’s fairly recent lecture series on this topic.

    Addressing Abiogenesis – Common Misconceptions – Dr. James Tour – video playlist (March 2021)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-RvMStTkx4&list=PLILWudw_84t2THBvJZFyuLA0qvxwrIBDr
    0 – Reasons for this Series: https://youtu.be/71dqAFUb-v0
    1 – Introduction to Abiogenesis: https://youtu.be/NqoVxwdWWpg
    2 – Primordial Soup: https://youtu.be/tNbl-g8QoAg
    3 – Hype: https://youtu.be/Q6b76XQQN00
    4 – Homochirality: https://youtu.be/tqbpd3CmBgE
    5 – Carbohydrates: https://youtu.be/rdqd_EvpsZM
    6 – Building Blocks of Building Blocks: https://youtu.be/CCf-OfFpS_k

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    7 – Peptides: https://youtu.be/0Hv6KjB0j8Y
    8 – Nucleotides: https://youtu.be/CYiguQYCSio
    9 – Intermediate Summary & a Call to Colleagues: https://youtu.be/ImPxfmKrmoY
    10 – Lipids: https://youtu.be/QTQd5Ifqv2g
    11 – Chiral-induced Spin Selectivity: https://youtu.be/VKEZSfuMgL0
    12.1 – Cell Construction & The Assembly Problem, Part 1: https://youtu.be/IaJo5jWs_6k
    12.2 – Cell Construction & The Assembly Problem, Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDayvhch_W4&list=PLILWudw_84t2THBvJZFyuLA0qvxwrIBDr&index=3

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    The main problem for Darwinists in explaining the Origin of Life, (and the main problem for Darwinian evolution in general), is explaining where the information in life came from.

    Information Enigma – 22 minute video (Stephen Meyer – Doug Axe)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g

    “As the pioneering information theorist Henry Quastler once observed, “the creation of information is habitually associated with conscious activity.” And, of course, he was right. Whenever we find information—whether embedded in a radio signal, carved in a stone monument, written in a book or etched on a magnetic disc—and we trace it back to its source, invariably we come to mind, not merely a material process. Thus, the discovery of functionally specified, digitally encoded information along the spine of DNA, provides compelling positive evidence of the activity of a prior designing intelligence. This conclusion is not based upon what we don’t know. It is based upon what we do know from our uniform experience about the cause and effect structure of the world—specifically, what we know about what does, and does not, have the power to produce large amounts of specified information.”
    – Stephen Meyer – Signature in the Cell – Response to Darrel Falk – 2009

    Darwinian atheists simply have no clue how inanimate matter can possibly generate information. As Werner Gitt noted, “,,,there is no known law of nature and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter. ”

    “A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor). It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required. ,,,there is no known law of nature and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.”
    – Werner Gitt 1997 In The Beginning Was Information pp. 64-67, 79, 107.” ?(The retired Dr Gitt was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig), the Head of the Department of Information Technology.)

    And as Paul Davies explained, “,,,in the same way that Chalmers identified qualia as central to the hard problem of consciousness. To that end we propose that the hard problem of life is the problem of how ‘information’ can affect the world.”

    The “Hard Problem” of Life – Sara Imari Walker and Paul C.W. Davies – June 23, 2016
    Excerpt: ,,,in the same way that Chalmers identified qualia as central to the hard problem of consciousness. To that end we propose that the hard problem of life is the problem of how ‘information’ can affect the world. In this essay we motivate both why the problem of information is central to explaining life and why it is hard, that is, why we suspect that a full resolution of the hard problem will not ultimately be reducible to known physical principles.,,,
    ,,, There are some indications for a potentially deep connection between information theory (which is not cast as a physical theory and instead quantifies the efficacy of communication through noisy channels), and thermodynamics, which is a branch of physics(5) due to the mathematical relationship between Shannon and Boltzmann entropies. Substantial work over the last decade has attempted to make this connection explicit, we point the reader to [22, 20] for recent reviews. Schrodinger was aware of this link in his deliberations on biology, and famously coined the term “negentropy” to describe life’s ability to seemingly violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics(6) . Yet he felt that something was missing, and that thermodynamic considerations alone are insufficient to explain life [26]:
    “. . .living matter, while not eluding the ”laws of physics” as established up to date, is likely to involve ”other laws of physics” hitherto unknown . . . ”
    – Erwin Schrodinger
    ,,,, Conclusions:
    There are many difficult open problems in understanding the origin of life – such as the ‘tar paradox’ [2] and the fact that prebiotic chemistry is just plain hard to do. These problems differ qualitatively from the ‘hard problem of life’ as identified here. Most open problems associated with life’s origin such as these, while challenging right now, will likely ultimately reduce to known principles of physics and chemistry and therefore constitute by our definition “easy problems”. Here we have attempted to identify a core feature of life that won’t similarly be solved based on current paradigms – namely, that life seems distinct from other physical systems in how information affects the world (that is, that macrostates are causal).,,,
    To quote Einstein, ‘One can best feel in dealing with living things how primitive physics still is.’
    ( A. Einstein, letter to L. Szilard quoted in [25]).
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.07184v1.pdf

    As Paul Davies also mentioned, “There are some indications for a potentially deep connection between information theory,,,, and thermodynamics, which is a branch of physics(5) due to the mathematical relationship between Shannon and Boltzmann entropies.”

    And this ‘deep connection’ between entropy and information has now been experimentally realized.

    As the following 2010 experiment found, “they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a “spiral-staircase-like” potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information.”

    Maxwell’s demon demonstration (knowledge of a particle’s position) turns information into energy – November 2010
    Excerpt: Scientists in Japan are the first to have succeeded in converting information into free energy in an experiment that verifies the “Maxwell demon” thought experiment devised in 1867.,,, In Maxwell’s thought experiment the demon creates a temperature difference simply from information about the gas molecule temperatures and without transferring any energy directly to them.,,, Until now, demonstrating the conversion of information to energy has been elusive, but University of Tokyo physicist Masaki Sano and colleagues have succeeded in demonstrating it in a nano-scale experiment. In a paper published in Nature Physics they describe how they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a “spiral-staircase-like” potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....nergy.html

    As Christopher Jarzynski, who was instrumental in formulating the ‘equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information’, stated, “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,”

    Demonic device converts information to energy – 2010
    Excerpt: “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,” says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. “This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale,” says Jarzynski.
    http://www.scientificamerican......rts-inform

    In. short, it is now experimentally shown that, when dealing with immaterial information, we are not dealing with some abstract, non-physical, entity that has no causal effect on the material world but are in fact deal with an immaterial entity that has a quanta-unquote “thermodynamic content”.

    Even more provocative than that experimental finding that linked together entropy and information, advances in quantum information theory have now shown that, quote-unquote, “an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer”

    Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 1, 2011
    Excerpt: The new study revisits Landauer’s principle for cases when the values of the bits to be deleted may be known. When the memory content is known, it should be possible to delete the bits in such a manner that it is theoretically possible to re-create them. It has previously been shown that such reversible deletion would generate no heat. In the new paper, the researchers go a step further. They show that when the bits to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,,
    In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer. Applied to the example of deleting data, this means that if two individuals delete data in a memory and one has more knowledge of this data, she perceives the memory to have lower entropy and can then delete the memory using less energy.,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....134300.htm

    And as the following article 2017 stated, “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,

    The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017
    Excerpt: the 19th-century physicist James Clerk Maxwell put it, “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”
    In recent years, a revolutionary understanding of thermodynamics has emerged that explains this subjectivity using quantum information theory — “a toddler among physical theories,” as del Rio and co-authors put it, that describes the spread of information through quantum systems. Just as thermodynamics initially grew out of trying to improve steam engines, today’s thermodynamicists are mulling over the workings of quantum machines. Shrinking technology — a single-ion engine and three-atom fridge were both experimentally realized for the first time within the past year — is forcing them to extend thermodynamics to the quantum realm, where notions like temperature and work lose their usual meanings, and the classical laws don’t necessarily apply.
    They’ve found new, quantum versions of the laws that scale up to the originals. Rewriting the theory from the bottom up has led experts to recast its basic concepts in terms of its subjective nature, and to unravel the deep and often surprising relationship between energy and information — the abstract 1s and 0s by which physical states are distinguished and knowledge is measured.,,,
    Renato Renner, a professor at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, described this as a radical shift in perspective. Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/

    To repeat that last statement, “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”

    That statement is simply completely devastating to the reductive materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, and is a full vindication of the presuppositions of Intelligent Design where it is held that only an Intelligent Mind has the capacity to create the information needed to explain life.

    How much information is needed to explain the origin of a ’simple’ cell? Well, the information needed to be imparted into a system, by an intelligent ‘observer’, in order to bring the system far enough out of thermodynamic equilibrium in order to sustain life, is found to be immense.

    The information content of a ‘simple cell’ when working from the thermodynamic perspective is found to be on the order of 10^12 bits,

    Molecular Biophysics – Information theory. Relation between information and entropy: – Setlow-Pollard, Ed. Addison Wesley
    Excerpt: Linschitz gave the figure 9.3 x 10^12 cal/deg or 9.3 x 10^12 x 4.2 joules/deg for the entropy of a bacterial cell. Using the relation H = S/(k In 2), we find that the information content is 4 x 10^12 bits. Morowitz’ deduction from the work of Bayne-Jones and Rhees gives the lower value of 5.6 x 10^11 bits, which is still in the neighborhood of 10^12 bits. Thus two quite different approaches give rather concordant figures.
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/18hO1bteXTPOqQtd2H12PI5wFFoTjwg8uBAU5N0nEQIE/edit

    ,,, Of note: 10^12 bits is equivalent to approx. 100 million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, besides the OOL requiring a vast amount of information, the information needed to explain embryological developement is also found to be immense.

    Specifically, “the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000.”

    In a TED Talk, (the Question You May Not Ask,,, Where did the information come from?) – November 29, 2017
    Excerpt: Sabatini is charming.,,, he deploys some memorable images. He points out that the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000. Later he wheels out the entire genome, in printed form, of a human being,,,,:
    [F]or the first time in history, this is the genome of a specific human, printed page-by-page, letter-by-letter: 262,000 pages of information, 450 kilograms.,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/in-a-ted-talk-heres-the-question-you-may-not-ask/

    While we are on the subject of information and life, it is also interesting to note that, long before Darwinists even realized that it is immaterial information that is ‘running the show’ in life, that Christianity ‘predicted’ that life had an ‘author’.

    Acts 3:15
    You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.

    Moreover, to show that it is indeed God who is imparting this massive amount of immaterial information into the first life, as well as imparting the massive amount of information into each individual human during embryological development, (in order to ‘locally’ circumvent the second law with immaterial information), I can appeal to advances in quantum biology.

    Specifically, Quantum Entanglement/Coherence, and/or Quantum Criticality, is found to be ubiquitous within life. i.e. It is found within every important biomolecule of life.

    As the following 2015 article entitled, “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules”, stated, “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” and the researchers further commented that “finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,

    Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015
    Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say.
    That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.”
    The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
    “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?”
    https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552

    And as this follow up article in 2018 stated, “There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,”

    Quantum Critical Proteins – Stuart Lindsay – Professor of Physics and Chemistry at Arizona State University – 2018
    Excerpt: The difficulty with this proposal lies in its improbability. Only an infinitesimal density of random states exists near the critical point.,,
    Gábor Vattay et al. recently examined a number of proteins and conducting and insulating polymers.14 The distribution for the insulators and conductors were as expected, but the functional proteins all fell on the quantum-critical distribution. Such a result cannot be a consequence of chance.,,,
    WHAT OF quantum criticality? Vattay et al. carried out electronic structure calculations for the very large protein used in our work. They found that the distribution of energy-level spacings fell on exactly the quantum-critical distribution, implying that this protein is also quantum critical. There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,
    http://inference-review.com/ar.....l-proteins
    Gábor Vattay et al., “Quantum Criticality at the Origin of Life,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 626 (2015);
    Gábor Vattay, Stuart Kauffman, and Samuli Niiranen, “Quantum Biology on the Edge of Quantum Chaos,” PLOS One 9, no. 3 (2014)

    As well, DNA itself does not belong to the world of classical mechanics but instead belongs to the world of quantum mechanics. In the following video, at the 22:20 minute mark, Dr Rieper shows why the high temperatures of biological systems do not prevent DNA from having quantum entanglement and then at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper goes on to remark that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it.

    “What happens is this classical information (of DNA) is embedded, sandwiched, into the quantum information (of DNA). And most likely this classical information is never accessed because it is inside all the quantum information. You can only access the quantum information or the electron clouds and the protons. So mathematically you can describe that as a quantum/classical state.”
    Elisabeth Rieper – Classical and Quantum Information in DNA – video (Longitudinal Quantum Information resides along the entire length of DNA discussed at the 19:30 minute mark; at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it)
    https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE?t=1176

    The interesting thing about quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement is that quantum entanglement is a non-local, beyond space and time, effect that is shown to require a beyond space and time cause in order to explain its existence.

    As the following paper entitled “Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory” stated, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, and with the falsification of ‘hidden variables’, simply have no beyond space and time cause that they can appeal so as to be able to explain the non-local quantum coherence and/or entanglement that is now found to be ubiquitous within biology.

    “hidden variables don’t exist. If you have proved them come back with PROOF and a Nobel Prize.
    John Bell theorized that maybe the particles can signal faster than the speed of light. This is what he advocated in his interview in “The Ghost in the Atom.” But the violation of Leggett’s inequality in 2007 takes away that possibility and rules out all non-local hidden variables. Observation instantly defines what properties a particle has and if you assume they had properties before we measured them, then you need evidence, because right now there is none which is why realism is dead, and materialism dies with it.
    How does the particle know what we are going to pick so it can conform to that?”
    per Jimfit
    https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/quantum-physicist-david-bohm-on-why-there-cannot-be-a-theory-of-everything/#comment-662358

    Whereas I, as a Christian Theist, readily do have a beyond space and time cause that I can appeal to in order to explain quantum entanglement and/or quantum information. As Colossians 1:17 states, “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

    Colossians 1:17
    He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

    Moreover, quantum information, like energy, is conserved. As the following article states, “In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.”

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time – 2011
    Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....tally.html

    The implication of finding ‘non-local’, (i.e. beyond space and time), and ‘conserved’, (i.e. cannot be created nor destroyed), quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious.
    That pleasant implication, of course, being the fact that we now have very strong empirical evidence suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following article, “the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”

    Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe – Oct. 19, 2017 – Spiritual
    Excerpt: “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
    – Stuart Hameroff – Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – video (5:00 minute mark) (of note, this video is no longer available for public viewing)
    https://radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/10/life-after-death-soul-science-morgan-freeman/

    Verses:

    Mark 8:37
    Is anything worth more than your soul?

    Psalm 36:9
    For with You is the fountain of life;
    In Your light we see light.

  5. 5
    martin_r says:

    the origin of life … Darwinian clowns are nowhere close to explain the origin of life… actually, with every new discovery, they are further away than ever …

    But the is not the main problem…. the main problem is, that Darwinists are nowhere close to create a simplest cell in their fancy labs … let alone to create a simplest life … we are stupid creationists/ ID proponents… so Darwinists, please finally show us how it could be done …. use your fancy labs, use any tool, any technology, …. i personally don’t mind what way, … just show me how you create a simple cell … show me how to create that very poor design …

  6. 6
    zweston says:

    I am wanting to hear Sev, Bob-oh and Chucky d give their rebuttal to this video. Maybe they will wait for “professor” Dave to explain 😉 😉

  7. 7

    Again, I don’t see a big problem with spontaneous origins of life, from non life.

    1. The DNA system is an information processing system.

    2. The human mind is also an information processing system.

    3. Therefore reasonably the human mind is mainly an extension of the DNA system, and less a development of it, like arms and kidneys are developments.

    4. Therefore how the human mind works fundamentally, is the same as how the DNA system works fundamentally.

    5. I have direct evidence of how the human mind works, I have one. And my sense of how the human mind fundamentally works is, that it is alike a universe in it’s own right. Ordered in logically efficient steps away from zero / nothing. Things can be copied to the human mind from the universe proper, and things can be created in it, de novo.

    6. Therefore the human mind and the DNA system, have the same fundamental mathematical ordering as the universe proper.

    7. As is also backed up by parsimony, makng it the default theory, and by empirical evidence.

    8. Therefore because the mathematical ordering of the DNA system is the same as the fundamental mathematical ordering of the universe proper, the ordering of the DNA system would only have to be copied from the fundamental ordering of the universe, and this seems easy. Therefore it is probable that life can originate spontaneously, from non living matter.

    9. Which does not deny that it is possible that life is generated by a “poof” mechanism, creating organisms fully formed. Which theory also has credence for some reasons.

  8. 8
    Silver Asiatic says:

    zweston 🙂
    I just scanned through the 200+ comments and the impact is strong, to say the least.

  9. 9
    Seversky says:

    We’re often told that origin of life experiments have simulated the production of life’s building blocks under conditions that mimicked the early earth. Or at least that’s what many textbooks say. But is this really true?

    The Miller-Urey experiment simulated the conditions that were thought at the time (1952) to exist on the very early Earth. It’s purpose was to test the hypothesis that organic molecules could be synthesized through natural processes under such conditions. That was all.

    It worked. Over 20 amino acids were formed in the experiments.

    Did it provide a comprehensive, abiogenetic theory of the origins of life? No, of course not. But apart from creationists, who have their own reasons for exaggerating its success, no one thought it did.

    The thing to see here is that origin of life is history, not science. That point is often missed.

    Because it is not a valid point. In both history and science, researchers attempt to create explanatory narratives or hypotheses to account for observational data.

    For example, there is no one alive today who was an eyewitness to the Battle of Gettysburg. Yet there is no doubt that such an event occurred in the nineteenth century American Civil War because of the mass of data we have as evidence for it.

    Far less certain is the fate of the Roman Ninth Legion in the second century AD Britain because the data is so sparse

    Astrophysicists do exactly the same thing when compiling observational data of the likes of the expansion of the Universe and the cosmic microwave background radiation and infer that the Universe came into existence around 14.8 bn years ago in an event known as the Big Bang.

    No human being was around to witness it – probably no living thing was – but that does not prevent us from gathering whatever data we can and trying to fit narratives around them.

    The real difference is not so much between history and science as it is between how much data we have and consequently how much confidence we can have in our explanations of it.

  10. 10
    martin_r says:

    Seversky, thanks for the post- we already know that your Faith is very strong. Your Darwin-god would be proud of you.

  11. 11
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Martin_r
    But the is not the main problem…. the main problem is, that Darwinists are nowhere close to create a simplest cell in their fancy labs … let alone to create a simplest life …

    Scientists are in lose-lose situation : if they can’t create a cell is obviously that complexity is outside of human understanding that means there is a type of intelligence more advanced that designed the life . If they would create a cell will be considered that the cell is intelligently designed by the minds of scientists. Either way life can be designed only as an activity of an intelligence.

    Seversky
    Astrophysicists do exactly the same thing when compiling observational data of the likes of the expansion of the Universe and the cosmic microwave background radiation and infer that the Universe came into existence around 14.8 bn years ago in an event known as the Big Bang.

    🙂 Who knows what speed of light was in the past when the universe was in shipyard when not all the universal laws were in place as they are today ? Answer :Nobody. Therefore all the hypotheses of origins are just religious ideas. We only have to chose which religious hypothesis is more credible.

  12. 12
    martin_r says:

    LCD @11

    Scientists are in lose-lose situation

    sure… because life was intelligently designed… and they already know that … so they deserve to lose…

    i as an engineer also think, that OOL-scientists take the wrong approach… I doubt that whoever created the cell was pouring, mixing and heating some chemicals. To create a self-replicating technology which lasted to replicate for 3.5 billions of years, indeed, this is “outside of human understanding” …

  13. 13
    Bob O'H says:

    The thing to see here is that origin of life is history, not science. That point is often missed. Science is about how laws act in nature; history is about the details of what actually happened.

    So ID is (at best) history and not science then. Got it.

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob quips, “So ID is (at best) history and not science then. Got it.”

    Yet Intelligent Design, as a ‘historical science’, uses the same exact method of ‘scientific reasoning’ that Charles Darwin himself used, and, (in light of scientific facts that Darwin did not even know about in his day), comes to a very different conclusion than Darwin did.

    As Stephen Meyer explains,

    “So I began to wonder if this intuition, this intuitive connection between information and intelligence, could be formulated as a rigorous scientific argument. And that was my big animating question as I left for Grad school. And I began to study the scientific method and methods of reasoning that scientists use when they are investigating these questions about what happened in the remote past. In the distant past. These origins questions. So naturally that led me to Darwin. And I learned that Darwin had a particular method of reasoning that is now called ‘the method of multiple competing hypothesis’ or ‘the method of inference to the best explanation’. And he (Darwin) said in justifying his own theory that he inferred his picture of the history of life as the best explanation and that he would hold it until a better explanation came along. But that raised the question, “Well what makes an explanation best?”,, And I came across the answer to that (question), not only in Darwin’s work where he had a very specific criterion of ‘best explanation’, but also in the work of his scientific mentor, Charles Lyell, the great geologist. And I’ll never forget the day that I was reading this boring Victorian sub-title to a dusty old book, and for me the light bulb just went on. Here’s the book, “Principles of Geology: Being an attempt to explain the former changes of the Earth’s surface by reference to causes now in operation.” And this idea just hit me like a thunderbolt. I remember right where I was. What Lyell was saying was that if you are going to explain an event in the remote past you should not invoke a cause the effects of which we do not know. You should invoke a cause the effects of which we do know. You should invoke a cause that is presently acting, or now operating, which has the power to produce the effect in question.,, The best explanation is (found) by reference to a cause that is known to produce what you are trying to explain.,,,”
    So when I began to think of the information question in light of the “Darwinian methodology’, the Lyellian principles of uniformitarian reasoning, I realized that, using Darwin’s own method of reasoning, we should come to a very different conclusion,, Why? Because there is something else we know about information, and this was my second epiphany. Information scientist Henry Quastler, early pioneer in applying information science and theoretical analysis to molecular biology, to the genome. Off hand, not meaning to say anything about this question of design in biology, he said “The creation of information is habitually associated with conscious activity.”
    Now think of that in light of causes now in operation. In other words, what he is saying is the cause now in operation for the production of information is,, intelligence, mind, conscious activity.
    So I realized that applying Darwin’s key standard of ‘best explanation’, Lyell’s principle of reasoning, to the information question, to the DNA enigma, there was a powerful rationale supporting the inference to intelligent design. Why? Because we know of only one cause that produces information.
    I knew from my study of Origin of Life research that chance, necessity, the combination of the two, and all the models that fell under those mutually exhaustive categories, had failed, But there was a cause of which we know is capable of producing information. And that cause is conscious activity, rational deliberation, intelligent design. Is this consistent with our experience? Absolutely.,, (whenever you trace information back to its source),, invariable come to an intelligent cause, not to a mindless, undirected, process. So when we encounter information at the foundation of life, in these information bearing molecules, such as DNA, RNA, and proteins, the most logical thing to conclude, based on our knowledge of cause and effect, based on our knowledge of causes now in operation, is that intelligence also played a role in the origin of the first life because life depends of information.”
    – Stephen Meyer: Charles Darwin’s Methods, Different Conclusion – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqq6JP5gE0E

    Of semi-related note, Christianity just so happened to ‘predict’ that life had an author long before anyone even knew about DNA.

    Acts 3:15
    You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.

  15. 15
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 – your gripe is with Denyse not me: she’s the one who gave that idiosyncratic definition of science.

  16. 16
    ET says:

    Bob O’H:

    So ID is (at best) history and not science then.

    ID offers the only scientific explanation for our existence. But you wouldn’t know because you don’t seem to understand science.

  17. 17
    ET says:

    Nature can produce stones yet nature cannot produce Stonehenge. It would be easier for nature to produce Stonehenge than it would be for nature to produce life. And it is impossible for nature to produce Stonehenge.

  18. 18
    ET says:

    Here it is, 2021, and still not ONE peer reviewed paper that supports a naturalistic abiogenesis or evolution by means of blind and mindless processes- unless you count genetic diseases and deformities.

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    Although Dr. Meyer has, in the past, charitably conceded that Darwinian evolution qualifies as a science, or at least conceded that it qualifies as a testable scientific hypothesis, I myself, personally, find that Darwinian evolution is not now, nor has it ever been, a true and testable science but that Darwinian evolution, instead, firmly belongs in the realm of pseudoscience, even in the realm of a being faith based religion for atheists, rather than belonging in the realm of a true and testable science.

    The key, and primary, step that brought modern science into the world was when Francis Bacon, a devout Christian, championed ‘bottom-up’ inductive reasoning over and above the ‘top-down’ deductive reasoning that had been the dominate form of reasoning that had been in place since the times of the Ancient Greek philosophers.

    Deductive and Inductive Reasoning (Bacon vs Aristotle – Scientific Revolution) – video
    Excerpt: Deductive reasoning, which uses general premises to arrive at a certain conclusion, has been around since Aristotle. In his book Novum Organum (1620, translated ‘new method’), Sir Francis Bacon advanced a new way of philosophical inquiry known as inductive reasoning, in which the inquirer comes to a probable conclusion based on several specific observations.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAdpPABoTzE

    Deductive vs. Inductive reasoning – top-down vs. bottom-up – graph
    https://i2.wp.com/images.slideplayer.com/28/9351128/slides/slide_2.jpg

    Inductive reasoning
    Excerpt: Inductive reasoning is distinct from deductive reasoning. While, if the premises are correct, the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.[4]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

    The History of Induction
    Excerpt: The philosopher most responsible for making Socratic mainstream was Francis Bacon. His Novum Organum book II (1626) became what Aristotle’s Topics book V was in antiquity, viz., the main handbook on how to perform a good induction, that is, on how to identify a formal cause (or “Form,” in Bacon’s term).
    Baconian induction dominated experimental science for the next two hundred years. It was the scientific method that produced countless laws in mechanics, chemistry, electromechanics, even economics, from Hooke and Boyle to Darwin, (corrective note, Darwin was castigated for forsaking the inductive method), and Say.
    https://www.johnmccaskey.com/history-of-induction/

    In. short, and as Henry F. Schaefer explains, “The emergence of modern science was associated with a disdain for the rationalism of Greek philosophers who pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”

    “The emergence of modern science was associated with a disdain for the rationalism of Greek philosophers who pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”
    – Henry F. Schaefer III – Making Sense of Faith and Science – 23:30 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/C7Py_qeFW4s?t=1415

    The reason why Francis Bacon championed inductive reasoning over and above deductive reasoning was because Bacon, via his Christianity, held that, due to humanity’s fallen, sinful, nature, the human intellect, “could not be trusted to generate knowledge that was in any way free from bias, wrong presuppositions, or contradictions.,,,”

    Bacon’s “Enchanted Glass” – Emily Morales – December 2019
    Excerpt: It was the rather low regard for the fallen human mind, besieged as it were by sin, that drove Francis Bacon, the “Father” of the Scientific Method, to formulate a new epistemology in his Great Instauration. In this brilliant man of faith’s view, the Adamic fall left an indelible mark on the human intellect, such that in its total depravity and persistent infirmity it could not be trusted to generate knowledge that was in any way free from bias, wrong presuppositions, or contradictions.,,,
    Recognizing then, the limitations of the human mind for revealing truth by mere logic and deductive reasoning, Bacon posited an altogether different means for knowledge acquisition: experimentation3—repeated experimentation—within the context of a scientific community (natural philosophers in his day). Bacon’s inductive methodology facilitated an explosion in knowledge of the natural world and accompanying technological advancement:
    3. Harrison, P. (2007). The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science. Cambridge University Press.
    https://salvomag.com/post/bacons-enchanted-glass

    And indeed, repeated experimentation, ever since it was first set forth by Francis Bacon, has been the cornerstone of the scientific method. And has indeed been very, very, fruitful for man in gaining accurate knowledge of the universe in that repeated experiments lead to more “exacting, and illuminating”, conclusions than is possible with the quote-unquote, “educated guesses” that follow from Aristotle’s deductive form of reasoning.

    Francis Bacon, 1561–1626
    Excerpt: Called the father of empiricism, Sir Francis Bacon is credited with establishing and popularizing the “scientific method” of inquiry into natural phenomena. In stark contrast to deductive reasoning, which had dominated science since the days of Aristotle, Bacon introduced inductive methodology—testing and refining hypotheses by observing, measuring, and experimenting. An Aristotelian might logically deduce that water is necessary for life by arguing that its lack causes death. Aren’t deserts arid and lifeless? But that is really an educated guess, limited to the subjective experience of the observer and not based on any objective facts gathered about the observed. A Baconian would want to test the hypothesis by experimenting with water deprivation under different conditions, using various forms of life. The results of those experiments would lead to more exacting, and illuminating, conclusions about life’s dependency on water.
    https://lib-dbserver.princeton.edu/visual_materials/maps/websites/thematic-maps/bacon/bacon.html

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    And, (in what should not be surprising for anyone who has debated Darwinists for any length of time), it turns out that Darwinian evolution itself is not based on Bacon’s Inductive form of reasoning, (which is too say that Darwin’s theory itself is not based on the scientific method), but Darwin’s theory is instead based, in large measure, on the Deductive form of reasoning that Bacon had specifically shunned because of the fallibleness of man’s fallen, sinful, nature.

    As Dr. Richard Nelson noted in his book ‘Darwin, Then and Now’, Charles Darwin, in his book ‘Origin of Species’, “selected the deductive method of reasoning – and abandoned the inductive method of reasoning.”

    Darwin Dilemma by Dr. Richard William Nelson
    The theory of biological evolution Charles Darwin argued for in the Origin of Species now presents a litany of problems for twenty-first-century evolution scientists – known as the Darwin Dilemma. The dilemma stems from the method of reasoning Darwin selected.
    Dilemma Origins: For investigating the laws of nature, Charles Darwin selected the deductive method of reasoning – and abandoned the inductive method of reasoning. The method of reasoning is critical when investigating the secrets of nature.
    Unlike deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning minimizes the dogma and bias of the investigator. Inductive reasoning is the defining element of what has become known as the scientific method. Details of Darwin’s reasoning method are discussed in Darwin, Then and Now.
    https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/darwin-dilemma/

    In fact, Richard Owen, in a review of Charles Darwin’s book shortly after it was published, had found that Charles Darwin, as far as inductive methodology itself was concerned, had failed to produce any “inductive original research which might issue in throwing light on ‘that mystery of mysteries.’.

    Darwin on the Origin of Species (1860)
    Reviewed by Richard Owen for Edinburg Review
    Excerpt: The scientific world has looked forward with great interest to the facts which Mr. Darwin might finally deem adequate to the support of his theory on this supreme question in biology, and to the course of inductive original research which might issue in throwing light on ‘that mystery of mysteries.’ But having now cited the chief, if not the whole, of the original observations adduced by its author in the volume now before us, our disappointment may be conceived.
    http://www.victorianweb.org/sc.....rigin.html

    In other words, Darwin had failed to produce any original experimental research that might support his theory for the “Origin of Species”.

    And on top of Richard Owen’s rather mild rebuke of Darwin for failing to use inductive methodology, Adam Sedgwick was nothing less than scathing of Darwin for deserting, “after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth – the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon.”

    OUCH! That had to leave a mark! 🙂

    Moreover, Adam Sedgwick also called Darwin out for being deceptive in exactly what form of reasoning he was using in his book. Specifically Sedgwick scolded Darwin that “Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction?”

    From Adam Sedgwick – 24 November 1859
    Cambridge
    My dear Darwin,
    Excerpt: I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly, parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grievously mischievous. You have deserted – after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth – the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction?-
    As to your grand principle – natural selection – what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. Development is a better word because more close to the cause of the fact.”,,,
    ,,, (your conclusions are not) “ever likely to be found any where but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination.”
    Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873) – one of the founders of modern geology. – The Spectator, 1860
    https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml

    And it was not as if Darwin was ignorant of the fact that he had failed to follow Bacon’s inductive methodology when he wrote his book.

    Charles Darwin himself, two years prior to the publication of his book, confessed to a friend that “What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.”

    Charles Darwin to Asa Gray – 29 November 1857
    My dear Gray,
    ,,, What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.
    https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2176.xml

    In fact, just two weeks before Darwin’s book was to be published, Darwin’s brother, Erasmus, told Darwin, “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.”

    Scientific Method
    Excerpt: Darwin was concerned about the effect of abandoning the scientific method. To console Darwin, just two weeks before the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, Erasmus Darwin, his brother wrote:
    “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.”
    https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/darwin-dilemma/scientific-method/

    In short, when Darwin published his book, and in regards to inductive reasoning itself, Darwin did not do, or have, any original experimental research that would actually establish his theory as being scientifically true. i.e. Darwin had failed to use the scientific method!

    And now, over a century and a half later, the situation still has not changed for Darwinists who, ironically, proclaim ‘I believe in science”.

    To this day, Darwinists still have no experimental research that would establish Darwin’s theory as being scientifically true,

    As Dr Richard Nelson further noted in his book’ Darwin, Then and Now’, “After 150 years of research,,, the scientific evidence is clear: there are no “successive, slight” changes in the fossil record, embryology, molecular biology, or genetics to support Darwinism or neo-Darwinism.”

    Darwin, Then and Now – by Dr. Richard William Nelson – Book Preview
    Excerpt: as a theology graduate from Christ’s College, Darwin set out on a mission to discover the natural laws of evolution with a passion. Darwin Then and Now reveals how the emerging nineteenth century philosophies influenced Darwin to eventually abandon the Scientific Method. Darwin conceded that The Origin of Species was just “one long argument from the beginning to the end”—not a scientific treatise. DARWIN, THEN AND NOW highlights Darwin’s top 15 contradictions in arguing for natural selection.
    Just two years before the publication of The Origin of Species, in writing to a friend, Darwin confided, “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” With more than 300 quotations from Darwin, DARWIN, THEN AND NOW is an exposé on what Darwin actually said concerning his “point of view” on the origin of species.
    After 150 years of research with more than 700 references from scientists, DARWIN, THEN AND NOW chronicles how the scientific evidence is clear: there are no “successive, slight” changes in the fossil record, embryology, molecular biology, or genetics to support Darwinism or neo-Darwinism. Even the popular twentieth-century Central Dogma theoretical mechanism of evolution has been abandoned. Today, a cohesive mechanism of evolution and evidence of a Tree of Life continues to remain as elusive as Darwin infamous drawing – “I Think.”
    – ibid

    In fact, not only do Darwinists still not have any experimental evidence that would establish their hypothesis as being true, or even establishing their hypothesis as being feasible, Darwinists, like ostriches sticking their head in the sand, blatantly ignore many lines of experimental evidence that falsify their hypothesis as being true.

    A key principle in the inductive methodology of Francis Bacon, (where repeated experimentation plays a fundamental role in gaining accurate knowledge about the world), is if your hypothesis can withstand falsification from repeated experimentation (Karl Popper).

    As Richard Feynman, who formulated Quantum-Electrodynamics, himself stated, “If it (your hypothesis) disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”

    “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
    – Richard Feynman
    https://fs.blog/2009/12/mental-model-scientific-method/

    Darwinists, in blatant disregard for the scientific method itself, simply ignore many lines of empirical evidence that have now directly falsified their theory as being true.

    Here are a few falsifications of Darwin’s theory that Darwinists, (such as Seversky and Bob O’H) simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications of their theory,

    Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’.

    Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute.

    Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke.

    Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever.

    Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late).

    Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species.

    Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.”

    Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.”

    Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’.

    Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place!

    Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!.

    The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy.

    Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science!

    Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.

    Verse:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    Test all things; hold fast what is good.

    As if that was not bad enough for Darwinists, by any other reasonable measure that one may wish to judge whether Darwinian evolution even qualifies as a science, as is shown in the following video, Darwinian evolution fails to meet those criteria as well:

    “There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.”
    – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17

    Simply put, Darwinian evolution simply fails to qualify as a rigorous and testable science by any reasonable measure one may wish to invoke and is therefore more properly classified as a pseudoscience, even as a religion for atheists, rather than being classified as a real and testable science.

    Moreover, contrary to what many people have been falsely led to believe by Darwinian atheists about Intelligent Design supposedly being a pseudo-science, the fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism as Darwinists falsely claim..

    From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results, from top to bottom science itself is certainly not ‘natural’.
    Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever just found laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analysed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.

    Moreover, If science is artificially forced into this materialistic straightjacket of methodological naturalism, (where, prior to scientific investigation, all answers are forced into some sort of materialistic, natural, and/or physical explanation), then this artificial naturalistic straightjacket on scientific inquiry, that is forced onto science prior to any investigation, ends up driving science itself into catastrophic epistemological failure.

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian materialism to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions and/or ‘observations’ about reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin).
    Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    – April 2021 – Detailed Defense of each claim
    https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/philosopher-mary-midgeley-1919-2018-on-scientism/#comment-728595
    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/from-philip-cunningham-the-human-eye-like-the-human-brain-is-a-wonder/#comment-727327

    Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic/Darwinian materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

  21. 21
    ET says:

    The thing to see here is that origin of life is history, not science. That point is often missed. Science is about how laws act in nature; history is about the details of what actually happened.

    That is not even wrong. The OoL is part of science. Science is about how things came to be. Science is not just about how laws act in nature- see archaeology and forensic science. History isn’t about any details unless those details were documented. It takes science to tease out the details where there isn’t any documentation.

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob O’H at 15, “your gripe is with Denyse not me: she’s the one who gave that idiosyncratic definition of science.”

    I thought that it was fairly clear that I did not agree with Denyse’s ‘idiosyncratic definition of science’ since I directly quoted Stephen Meyer, (who has a Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge), in regards to what constitutes the methodology of ‘historical science’. i.e. ‘inference to the best explanation’.

    As well, I also thought it was fairly clear that my ‘gripe’ is now, and always has been, with Darwinian Atheists, such as yourself, who continue to propagate the pseudo-scientific garbage of Darwinian evolution as if it were true despite being contradicted by the scientific evidence, at every turn, time and time again.

    I am far more forgiving of the minor slips that ID advocates may have in regard to properly defining science, (which is a fairly complicated definition to hash out), than I am of Darwinian atheists who have systematically, via censorship and intimidation, forced their atheistic, pseudo-scientific, and religious garbage upon unwary school children in public schools

    Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (full movie)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g

    Discrimination (by Darwinists) is a pervasive reality in the scientific (and education) world. It’s also a hidden reality.
    Scott Minnich
    Richard Sternberg
    Günter Bechly
    Eric Hedin
    Don McDonald
    David Coppedge
    Caroline Crocker
    Bryan Leonard
    Martin Gaskell
    Dean Kenyon
    Roger DeHart
    Granville Sewell
    https://freescience.today/stories/
    Here are many more examples of discrimination against people who dare question Darwinism
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/review-of-darwins-doubt-slams-id-theorists-for-not-publishing-in-darwinist-run-journals/

    Slaughter of Dissidents – Book
    Volume 1 of a trilogy, the disturbing premise of this book documents widespread discrimination by Darwin loyalists against Darwin skeptics in academia and within the scientific community. Multiple case studies expose the tactics used to destroy the careers of Darwin skeptics, denying them earned degrees and awards, tenure, and other career benefits offered to non-skeptics. The book exposes how freedom of speech and freedom of expression are widely promoted as not applicable to Darwin doubters, and reveals the depth and extent of hostility and bigotry exhibited towards those who would dare to question Darwinism. The book also shows how even the slightest hint of sympathy for Darwin Doubters often results in a vigorous and rabid response from those who believe such sympathies represent an attack on science itself.,,,?”If folks liked Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” they will be blown away by “Slaughter of the Dissidents.”
    – Russ Miller
    http://www.amazon.com/Slaughte.....0981873405?

    Darwin’s diabolical delusions – Ellis Washington – September 2011?Excerpt: Tragically, for over 150 years since the publication of Darwin’s diabolical, anti-scientific book, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” nonpartisan science, truth, logic and deductive reasoning have been ruthlessly suppressed and replaced with state-funded Darwinist propaganda, groupthink, education atheism, liberal fascism and Machiavellian tactics as demonstrated in the Sewell case representing the ongoing battles between the Darwin Gestapo and Intelligent Design scientists.?http://www.wnd.com/index.php?f.....eId=343445

    “Some I.D.-haters have shown themselves willing to use any argument—fair or not, true or not, ad hominem or not—to keep this dangerous idea locked in a box forever. They remind us of the extent to which Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory but the basis of a worldview”
    – GIVING UP DARWIN: A fond farewell to a brilliant and beautiful theory – By David Gelernter – May 1, 2019 –
    – David Gelernter is professor of computer science at Yale University, chief scientist at Mirror Worlds Technologies, and member of the National Council of the Arts.

  23. 23
    jerry says:

    So ID is (at best) history and not science then. Got it.

    How does one come to that assessment?

    ID is about logic applied to facts to come to conclusions on how those facts arose. Those facts could be historical facts or facts of physical processes or results from experiments.

    ID is not a science per se but uses the results from science to come to the best explanation for the findings of science. So ID and science are intertwined but one is not the other.

  24. 24
    jerry says:

    In terms of science and ID is the unusual facts about the Earth.

    THINK ABOUT THIS: The Goldilocks Principle and Earth

    The science is the findings about the properties of Earth. ID is a conclusion about why these facts exist.

    https://www.hillfaith.org/agnosticism/think-about-this-the-goldilocks-principle-and-earth/

    Aside: this site references a young earth apologetics site. However, the conclusions of this analysis are not dependent on acceptance of a young earth scenario.

  25. 25
    martin_r says:

    Jerry @23

    ID is about logic applied to facts

    ID proponents/creationists believe in something that makes lots of sense, especially in 21st century.

    And then, there are the other guys … Darwinists

  26. 26
    martin_r says:

    i never understood what Darwinian OOL-researchers want to figure out …

    By now they know, that even in simplest cell, there are thousands of parts/molecules working in concern for a purpose …

    Do Darwinian researchers really expect, that when they mix, heat up and cool down some chemicals that these chemicals suddenly start working in concert for a purpose ?
    What do these guys actually expect ????

  27. 27
    Bob O'H says:

    Jerry @ 23 – according to Denyse, “[s]cience is about how laws act in nature”. If there is one thing ID doesn’t do, it is describing how laws act in nature: on core claim is that ID doesn’t investigate the designer or how the designer does things. So, by Denyse’s definition, ID can’t be science.

    This should probably be filed under “With friends like these…”.

  28. 28
    jerry says:

    So, by Denyse’s definition, ID can’t be science.

    Did you read what I wrote?

    I have zero problem with what Denise wrote and what I wrote is also accurate. Origin of life investigation is not science. It’s at best futile speculation.

  29. 29
    martin_r says:

    It is so absurd …
    The most advanced technology on Earth (perhaps in whole Universe) is being researched by a group of natural science graduates (Biologists)
    No wonder that biologists claim the most absurd things imaginable …

  30. 30
    ET says:

    Bob O’H:

    If there is one thing ID doesn’t do, it is describing how laws act in nature: on core claim is that ID doesn’t investigate the designer or how the designer does things.

    What an ignorant thing to say. Of course ID describes how the laws act in nature. And ID is about the DESIGN. Only ignorant fools think that ID needs to say anything about the Designer.

Leave a Reply