The mechanisms of living systems are based on the most sophisticated computer program ever written.
Attempts to deny this obvious fact relegate those who support materialism to the lowest level of illogical speculation. This is the antithesis of true science — the pursuit of knowledge and understanding.
Arguing with people who cannot perceive obvious truth is an exercise in futility. They will go to their graves, hopelessly lost, and their lives will not only have been meaningless, they will have been less than meaningless, even toxic, because the anti-scientific lie they propagated most assuredly must have poisoned many lives, as mine once was.
My qualifications in making these assertions are impeccable, because I was once a victim of the nihilism of Darwinian anti-logic and anti-science. Somehow, only by the Grace of God as far as I can figure, did I finally escape from this hideously irrational, soul-destroying, science-destroying plague on humanity.
11 Replies to “The Toxic, Anti-Science Nature of Darwinism”
The level of complexity being dealt with in life is unlike anything we have ever seen before. And despite this fact of an unparalleled engineering, and information processing, in even the simplest of life ever found on earth, neo-Darwinian processes have yet to demonstrate any gain in any prescriptive programming information above what was already present in life! The level of disconnect that is forced upon science by neo-Darwinists, by appealing to the court system no less, is something I would have never dreamed possible for the science in America I had grown up admiring very much!
Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information – David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors – Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8
“No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms’ genomes programmed?”
“a one-celled bacterium, e. coli, is estimated to contain the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Expressed in information in science jargon, this would be the same as 10^12 bits of information. In comparison, the total writings from classical Greek Civilization is only 10^9 bits, and the largest libraries in the world – The British Museum, Oxford Bodleian Library, New York Public Library, Harvard Widenier Library, and the Moscow Lenin Library – have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.” – R. C. Wysong
“Blue Gene’s final product, due in four or five years, will be able to “fold” a protein made of 300 amino acids, but that job will take an entire year of full-time computing.” Paul Horn, senior vice president of IBM research, September 21, 2000
A Few Hundred Thousand Computers vs. A Single Protein Molecule – video
The data compression of some stretches of human DNA is estimated to be up to 12 codes thick (12 different ways of DNA transcription) (Trifonov, 1989). (This is well beyond the complexity of any computer code ever written by man). John Sanford – Genetic Entropy
Do you believe Richard Dawkins exists?
Excerpt: DNA is the best information storage mechanism known to man. A single pinhead of DNA contains as much information as could be stored on 2 million two-terabyte hard drives.
Welcome to CoSBi – (Computational and Systems Biology)
Excerpt: Biological systems are the most parallel systems ever studied and we hope to use our better understanding of how living systems handle information to design new computational paradigms, programming languages and software development environments. The net result would be the design and implementation of better applications firmly grounded on new computational, massively parallel paradigms in many different areas.
The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity – David L. Abel – 2009
Excerpt: “A monstrous ravine runs through presumed objective reality. It is the great divide between physicality and formalism. On the one side of this Grand Canyon lies everything that can be explained by the chance and necessity of physicodynamics. On the other side lies those phenomena than can only be explained by formal choice contingency and decision theory—the ability to choose with intent what aspects of ontological being will be preferred, pursued, selected, rearranged, integrated, organized, preserved, and used. Physical dynamics includes spontaneous non linear phenomena, but not our formal applied-science called “non linear dynamics”(i.e. language,information).
3-D Structure Of Human Genome: Fractal Globule Architecture Packs Two Meters Of DNA Into Each Cell – Oct. 2009
Excerpt: the information density in the nucleus is trillions of times higher than on a computer chip — while avoiding the knots and tangles that might interfere with the cell’s ability to read its own genome. Moreover, the DNA can easily unfold and refold during gene activation, gene repression, and cell replication.
Quantum Dots Spotlight DNA-Repair Proteins in Motion – March 2010
Excerpt: “How this system works is an important unanswered question in this field,” he said. “It has to be able to identify very small mistakes in a 3-dimensional morass of gene strands. It’s akin to spotting potholes on every street all over the country and getting them fixed before the next rush hour.” Dr. Bennett Van Houten – of note: A bacterium has about 40 team members on its pothole crew. That allows its entire genome to be scanned for errors in 20 minutes, the typical doubling time.,, These smart machines can apparently also interact with other damage control teams if they cannot fix the problem on the spot.
“The manuals needed for building the entire space shuttle and all its components and all its support systems would be truly enormous! Yet the specified complexity (information) of even the simplest form of life – a bacterium – is arguably as great as that of the space shuttle.”
J.C. Sanford – Geneticist – Genetic Entropy and the Mystery Of the Genome
‘The information content of a simple cell has been estimated as around 10^12 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica.”
Carl Sagan, “Life” in Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974 ed.), pp. 893-894
Ben Stein – EXPELLED – The Staggering Complexity Of The Cell – video
Cells Are Like Robust Computational Systems, – June 2009
Excerpt: Gene regulatory networks in cell nuclei are similar to cloud computing networks, such as Google or Yahoo!, researchers report today in the online journal Molecular Systems Biology. The similarity is that each system keeps working despite the failure of individual components, whether they are master genes or computer processors. ,,,,”We now have reason to think of cells as robust computational devices, employing redundancy in the same way that enables large computing systems, such as Amazon, to keep operating despite the fact that servers routinely fail.”
Systems biology: Untangling the protein web – July 2009
Excerpt: Vidal thinks that technological improvements — especially in nanotechnology, to generate more data, and microscopy, to explore interaction inside cells, along with increased computer power — are required to push systems biology forward. “Combine all this and you can start to think that maybe some of the information flow can be captured,” he says. But when it comes to figuring out the best way to explore information flow in cells, Tyers jokes that it is like comparing different degrees of infinity. “The interesting point coming out of all these studies is how complex these systems are — the different feedback loops and how they cross-regulate each other and adapt to perturbations are only just becoming apparent,” he says. “The simple pathway models are a gross oversimplification of what is actually happening.”
Life Leads the Way to Invention – Feb. 2010
Excerpt: a cell is 10,000 times more energy-efficient than a transistor. “ In one second, a cell performs about 10 million energy-consuming chemical reactions, which altogether require about one picowatt (one millionth millionth of a watt) of power.” This and other amazing facts lead to an obvious conclusion: inventors ought to look to life for ideas.,,, Essentially, cells may be viewed as circuits that use molecules, ions, proteins and DNA instead of electrons and transistors. That analogy suggests that it should be possible to build electronic chips – what Sarpeshkar calls “cellular chemical computers” – that mimic chemical reactions very efficiently and on a very fast timescale.
Also of interest is that a cell apparently seems to be successfully designed along the very stringent guidelines laid out by Landauer’s principle of ‘reversible computation’ in order to achieve such amazing energy efficiency, something man has yet to accomplish in any meaningful way for computers:
Notes on Landauer’s principle, reversible computation, and Maxwell’s Demon – Charles H. Bennett
Excerpt: Of course, in practice, almost all data processing is done on macroscopic apparatus, dissipating macroscopic amounts of energy far in excess of what would be required by Landauer’s principle. Nevertheless, some stages of biomolecular information processing, such as transcription of DNA to RNA, appear to be accomplished by chemical reactions that are reversible not only in principle but in practice.,,,,
etc… etc… etc… etc…
The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel – Null Hypothesis For Information Generation – 2009
To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis.
Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation)
1) Mathematical Logic
2) Algorithmic Optimization
3) Cybernetic Programming
4) Computational Halting
5) Integrated Circuits
6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium)
7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics)
8 ) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system
10) Formal function of any kind
11) Utilitarian work
The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency – Dr David L. Abel – November 2010
Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”
Arguing with people who cannot perceive obvious truth is an exercise in futility.
I think everyone perceives the obvious truth — not everyone acknowledges it. Hopefully more will acknowledge it today than did yesterday — is that not a purpose of this blog?
Great post, have to agree with Gil on all points.
I’ve never met a Darwinist -that was honest- that didn’t end up in the design camp. The rest are seriously in need of both education in simple logic and of psychiatric help.
They cannot change their empty world-view because doing so would disrupt their sense of security and inner delusions of a meaningless universe.
Funny. I was reading Greg Bahnsen’s (very well priced) presuppositional apologetics book last night on my Kindle:
and he talks about presuppositions just like you Gil.
Have you read it? He formed part of a trinity with Van Til and Francis Schaeffer.
I think everyone perceives the obvious truth — not everyone acknowledges it.
Good point. When I was seven years old I logically figured out that my life had no ultimate meaning or purpose if atheism and materialism were true. (I was a very strange kid, and still am, who thinks about such things and writes artificial-intelligence computer programs for fun in my spare time.)
My conclusion is that it takes a lot of materialistic training and indoctrination to deny what our souls and minds know, and that is that we are not just meat machines that came about by the interaction of atoms influenced by information-destroying random errors.
The entire edifice of Darwinism, concerning life in its essence, is hopelessly illogical and counter-factual, and even worse, pathetically destructive of all that ultimately matters.
Hopefully more will acknowledge it today than did yesterday — is that not a purpose of this blog?
Indeed. And if I can make even a minor contribution in this regard, I pray that it will be deemed a treasure laid up in heaven.
God bless you Mr Dodgen…and thank you for all the wonderful work you do to help shine a light on this issue!!
It is toxic, and like you I am angry. My father was as agnostic evolutionist. Thank God my mother was a Catholic . I won’t say anymore apart from this: Darwinism = Death.
There is Truth, there is Anti-Truth. The anti-truth looks like truth, (at first glance that is). The anti-truth serves our “nature” in offering a false sense of logic or “rationality” offering quite a wide road, being “easy” on our ethics or moral conduct. Discerning which “truth” IS True is obtained, I am told (by you know Whom), by a humble attitude characterized not only by a willingness to learn and be corrected, but by a DESIRE to know and humility is the key to this particular desire and may be received if truly asked for. It’s not a matter of being critical, but both honestly and humbly so and may I myself be delivered from presumptuous sin. (mad doc: the wages of sin = death. Darwinism IS sin therefore Darwinism – Death – Interesting don’t you think?)
correction: Darwinism = Death therefore Darwinism = or is sin –
You should write a short book evaluating arguments against darwinism.
You could give each argument a rating.
5 stars = “Proof.” Just one of these arguments means darwinism can’t be true.
4 stars = Strong evidence against darwinism. This argument makes evolution highly improbable.
3 stars = good argument against darwinism. This argument makes darwinism improbable.
2 stars = fair argument. This argument makes darwinism somewhat less likely.
1 star = neutral/has no bearing/ weak argument. I bet you’d make a lot of money doing just what you do commenting on this blog.
Collin, I appreciate that you find the information I present helpful, but I assure you that I am a hopeless beggar in these matters for I have borrowed most all my references from contributors to UD. Contributors like you! 🙂