Evolution’s Elephant in the Living Room (Part Two)

It’s so astoundingly a matter of kinship.  Isn’t it amazing how readily mankind embraces lies?  It’s so easy because it’s hereditary.  Our great-grandmother believed a lie over the truth through an act of unbelief, and it’s been like-mother-like-daughter, and like-father-like-son ever since.  Man will easily believe the obvious foolishness in the statement “there is no God;” or will also believe in a variety of false gods and doctrines; or the “Da Vinci code;” or the newly-found tomb of Jesus; or sundry other untenable positions.  It’s a matter of kinship.

The initial step in escaping the field of lies is to arrive at the first foundational truth, which is that Jesus Christ is the Lord of Glory and the only savior of the world to all those who embrace Him.  The second foundational truth is that all men “have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”  When a person acts upon these two fundamental truths by first believing upon the Lord Jesus Christ, then repenting of all sins and surrendering to the Word of God, this individual escapes the curse of his fathers.  It must be noted that being a part of God’s creation is not synonymous with being a part of God’s family.  Becoming a child of God requires one to act on both foundational truths.  This is called being born-again.  To escape the problems of heredity, click onto “Further With Jesus” now, for easy instructions and instant entry into the Kingdom of God.  John 8:32 reads, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”  NOW FOR TODAY’S SUBJECT.

GOD SAID, Genesis 1:1:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

GOD SAID, Exodus 20:11:

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

MAN SAID:  According to evolutionist Richard Dawkins, “The DNA of a camel was once in the sea, but it hasn’t been there for a good 300 million years.”

Now THE RECORD.  This is part two on the subject of information.  A quick review follows.

The basic questions about information are similar to the ones concerning consciousness.  Where did it come from?  Could it conceivably evolve from nothing?  Could something so complex as the human body, constructed by its own self-replicating DNA, have simply evolved as a result of eons of time and chance?  Where did this information originate?

In part one, it was established that the laws of science, such as the law of gravity, the first and second laws of thermodynamics, etc., have achieved the lofty status of laws of nature by satisfying two basic scientific demands:

1. Its record in observable nature is without exception.

2. During years of extensive scientific experimentation, it has never been proven wrong.

By this standard, a new law known as the “law of information” should be inducted into the halls of laws.  Scientific theorists have long been searching for the ultimate theory of everything, and of course, God’s law of information will ride at the front.

The “law of information” can then be considered a law because, after many years of scrutiny, no observed scientific experiment has ever been done where coded information has ever risen without a mental origin, in history or nature.  Therefore, if we accept and use natural laws, like gravity, as starting points of certainty in scientific experiments because of the law’s unwavering stand to scientific scrutiny, then we must also accept the natural law of information.

Dr. Werner Gitt authored the book In The Beginning Was Information.  He explains that coded information, such as the self-replicating instructions in human DNA, must follow a specific set of rules from which it never deviates.  These codes and rules always come from a cognitive source.  For something to qualify as a code, it must first follow some necessary conditions.  The following four conditions are taken from page 62 of Dr. Gitt’s book:

1. A uniquely defined set of symbols must be used (e.g., A, B, C, D).

2. The sequence of the symbols must be irregular.  For instance, simply repeating one letter would not be part of a legible code.

3. The symbols must appear in clearly distinguishable structures (e.g., rows, columns, blocks, or spirals).

4. At least some symbols must occur repeatedly.  For instance, it is quite difficult to construct even a single sentence in English without repeating at least one letter. [End of quote]

Putting information into a coded form takes a mental process.  So we know that it we find encoded information, it took a mental source to encode it. 

In part one, we discussed the amazing mass of highly specific coded information in our DNA.  How could it just evolve via time and chance?  The following paragraphs are from part one:

To give an idea of how “enormous” the problem is, let’s examine the make‑up of a protein.  As mentioned earlier, there are 20 different amino acids used to make proteins.  These 20 amino acids are arranged in a specific sequence to make up any given protein.  It works the same as a written language.  In the English alphabet, there are 26 letters that are arranged in specific sequences to make words.  If just one letter is out of place or missing, then the word is no longer correct.  Amino acids are arranged in long sequences and specific shapes to make proteins, and if just one amino acid is out of place or missing, then the whole strand becomes useless or defective.  For instance, yeast proteins have a chain of 466 amino acids.  Just as words in the English language are comprised by using 26 letters of the alphabet, our DNA uses 20 amino acids to make a “word” (protein) that is 466 “letters” (amino acids) long.  The yeast protein has to have the 20 different amino acids it uses arranged in exact order for it to function correctly.  Can you imagine randomly dropping Scrabble pieces on a table and successfully having them drop in sequential order to form an English word that is 466 letters long without a single mistake?  Bizarre, isn’t it?

To demonstrate, let’s imagine that the letter sequence is 17 letters long instead of 466.  Let’s pretend that you write 17 English letters in a random sequence from left to right on a sheet of paper.  After finishing your sequence, you ask your friend to also write a random sequence for the same letters from left to right.  What do you think are the chances of you and your friend randomly lining up these 17 letters in the same order?  Mathematically, the chances are 1 IN 355 TRILLION!  With odds like this, it becomes quite hard to believe that the random sequencing of amino acids swirling around in the oceans could ever come close to creating a protein.  Now, couple this with the fact that many amino acids can’t form together to make a protein, because they are different types (L type and D type, for instance).  But even in the impossible event that a protein would form, it still needs thousands of other proteins and parts necessary to perform the functions for just one cell!  Evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle frames the issue clearly:

The notion that...the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.  [End of quote]

Dr. Stephen Meyer, quoted earlier, is presently director and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.  He is also a professor of the Conceptual Foundations of Science at Palm Beach Atlantic University.  He earned his doctorate from Cambridge University where he analyzed scientific and methodological issues in origin‑of‑life biology.  Concerning the information issue, Dr. Meyer added the following:

I think the information revolution taking place in biology is sounding the death knell for Darwinism and chemical evolutionary theories.  [End of quotes]

Time and space would not permit an exhaustive listing of all members in the science community who have rejected the notions of evolution.  Several are listed below to demonstrate the nature of their objections.

Famed mathematician I.L. Cohen, author of Darwin Was Wrong – A Study In Probabilities, said, “At that moment, when the RNA/DNA system became understood, the debate between evolutionists and creationists should have come to a screeching halt.”

Astronomer, cosmologist, and mathematician, Sid Fred Hoyle of Cambridge University said, “The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it. ... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. ... and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.”  [End of quote]

Molecular biologist Michael Denton, author of Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, asked in his book, “Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which – a functional protein or gene – is complex beyond...anything produced by the intelligence of man?”  [End of quote]

Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D., physicist and mathematician, stated, “A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionists’ camp...moreover, for the most parts these ‘experts’ have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or Biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.”  [End of quote]

The problems for evolutionists, upon being confronted with the information issue, don’t stop with the origin of life.  For evolution to work, the original information is not enough.  New information must be added to the genome for any given creature to evolve.  For instance, it is reported that a microbe has the equivalent of about two books, or 500 pages, of complex genetic information in its DNA, while a human has the equivalent of about 1,000 books.  Evolutionists say that mutations cause evolution.  But, all mutations ever observed resulted in damage to the DNA or loss of genetic information, such as sightless fish.  In an article titled, “Can the Small Changes We See Add Up to the Big Changes Needed for Evolution?” Dr. John Morris of ICR, concerning the evolution of living things, made the following statement:

This extra genetic information must be added from some external source, but science knows of no such source.  Mutations do produce novel genetic changes, but never has a mutation been known to add coded information to an already complex DNA system.  On the contrary, it usually and easily causes a deterioration of the information present in the DNA.  For random mutations to add the information for a leg where there is none is asking a lot, in fact, asking too much.  Never has a helpful mutation been observed, yet trillions are needed.  [End of quote]  

The question at hand is: “Where do evolutionists get this new information for living things to evolve, and has it ever been observed?”  The latter part of this reasonable question was posed to Richard Dawkins (quoted earlier in this article) in a video interview by Keziah and American Portrait films.  The video is titled From a Frog to a Prince: Biological Evidence of Creation.  The exact question is as follows:

Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?  [End of quote]

The famous evolutionist lecturer, professor, and publisher of anti-creationist books responded with 19 seconds of silence before calling for the television cameras to be shut off.  Anyone in the mood for a good belly laugh can view his shortened 11-second moment of silence and the edited “answer” from Professor Dawkins on video download by clicking here.

Another outspoken evolutionist, Dr. Eugenie C. Scott, is the executive director of the National Center for Science Education.  Their website’s homepage reads:

Welcome!  The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) defends the teaching of evolution in public schools.  We are a nationally-recognized clearinghouse for information and advice to keep evolution in the science classroom and “scientific creationism” out.  [End of quote] 

What ever happened to freedom of thought?

Dr. Scott participated in a radio debate with creationist Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis.  During the course of the entire debate, Ken Ham repeatedly asserted that information could not be added to the genome of living things.  At one point in the debate, Ham directly questioned Scott, asking her to provide an example of new information being added to the genome of a living being.  Scott intentionally avoided answering the question and attempted to change the subject.  This debate can be heard on-line by clicking here.  They have no answer, because there is no answer but God.

Note that all the supposed “observed” incidents of evolution in nature, which are pointed out by evolutionists, are always examples of natural selection or variation within a kind.  They do not show any increase of genetic information.  For instance, dogs are bred to have long hair, short hair, or big fluffy tails.  But, the dogs already had the information present in their DNA to produce the desired characteristic.  At the end of the day, regardless of the breed of dog, it is still a dog.  No amount of time and breeding will change that.

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati obtained his Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Victoria University of Wellingon, Australia.  He has published numerous technical writings in his field.  He’s also the author of Refuting Evolution 2.  Sarfati has written three books on the subject of Biblical creation versus the evolutionary paradigm.  From page 56 of Refuting Evolution 2, we lift the following passage:

None of the alleged proofs of “evolution in action” provide a single example of functional new information being added to genes.  Rather, they all involve sorting and loss of information.  To claim that mere change proves that information-increasing change can occur is like saying that because a merchant can sell goods, he can sell them for a profit.  The origin of information is a major problem for the GTE (General Theory of Evolution).  “Information theory,” as it is called, is a whole new branch of science that has effectively destroyed the last underpinnings of evolution...  [End of quote]

Lee Strobel, in his book The Case for a Creator, a New York Times bestseller, weighs in on the matter of information, quoting Dr. Meyers, whom we referenced earlier from a different source:

The attempt to explain the origin of life solely from chemical constituents is effectively dead now.  Naturalism cannot answer the fundamental problem of how to get from matter and energy to biological function without the infusion of information from an intelligence.

Information is not something derived from material properties; in a sense, it transcends matter and energy.  Naturalistic theories that rely solely on matter and energy are not going to be able to account for information.  Only intelligence can.  I think that realization is going to progressively dawn on more and more people, especially younger scientists who have grown up in the age of information technology.

Today we buy information, we sell it, we regard it as a commodity, we value it, we send it down wires and bounce it off satellites—and we know it invariably comes from intelligent agents.  So what do we make of the fact that there’s information in life?  What do we make of the fact that DNA stores far more information in a smaller space than the most advanced supercomputer on the planet?

Information is the hallmark of mind.  And purely from the evidence of genetics and biology, we can infer the existence of a mind that’s far greater than our own—a conscious, purposeful, rational, intelligent designer who’s amazingly creative.  There’s no getting around it.  [End of quote]

In conclusion, we quote from a previous GodSaidManSaid article titled, “DNA, God’s Holy Book:”

A publication of the Institute for Creation Research titled Back to Genesis featured an interview of a molecular biologist that was conducted by George Caylor of the Lynchburg Leader. This molecular biologist is involved in identifying genetic controls for diseases. The biologist spoke on grounds of anonymity and as you hear or read this short excerpt, the reason why will be obvious. The letter “G” represents the interviewer and the letter “J” the biologist.

G: “Do you believe that the information evolved?”

J: “George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by 'genius beyond genius,' and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise.”

G: “Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?”