The Evidence of Biological Information

Is the foundation of all biological life based on something that is itself non-physical and immaterial in nature - INFORMATION?  

Do we see the signature of an Intelligent Designer within the genetic encoded language of DNA?

As you will see in this short clip from "Case For A Creator", the answer is a resounding "Yes!".  How fascinating it is that we have discovered in the 20th century, that in the midst of scientists claiming that the only reality that exists, is that which is physical and material, we have come to learn that the very foundation of life itself is based on INFORMATION - a non-physical and immaterial reality.  

The DNA molecule (hardware) and the encoded, digital language it contains (software) have rightly been dubbed "the Holy Grail" of the biological sciences and will likely be the undoing of the Neo-Darwinian naturalistic worldview.

The Evidence of Micro-Biological Machines

Is there any empirical evidence that living systems were designed or engineered?  If genuine design in living systems points to a designer, can we uncover any such design within living organisms?

MICRO-BIOLOGICAL MACHINES answer this question with a resounding "Yes!".  In this short clip, from Lee Strobel's "CASE FOR A CREATOR",  you will discover that micro-biological machines, such as proteins and the bacterial flagellum motor, betray an incredible amount of information and genetic design. 

GOD: The Best Explanation Of Our Reality?

What is the most plausible way to explain the features that we observe about our universe?

In this first installment of our new miniseries, "GOD: The Best Explanation?", we begin to investigate whether a personal Creator God might or might not be a good explanation to the variety of features we observe in our Reality.

In this video we also discuss 4 features of a strong worldview that need to be present:

- Explanatory Power

- Explanatory Scope

- High Degree of Plausibility

- Minimal Ad Hoc

Read More

Making the Jump from Prelife to Life: The Enigma Remains

The American Chemical Society's special issue of Accounts of Chemical Research is dedicated to chemical evolution. See our previous comments here and here. Now let's look at an article by Irene Chen and Martin Nowak that addresses the fundamental evolutionary step involved in making the transition from non-life to life ("From Prelife to Life: How Chemical Kinetics Become Evolutionary Dynamics"). The authors say that they are going to explain how longer RNA sequences arise from shorter ones and how the ability to replicate emerges.
OK, let's hear it.
Well, the article proposes a model based on prior origin-of-life research. Thus the authors assume that certain research questions are already answered. Many of their assumptions are, however, problem areas for RNA-world experiments.
The model on offer is based on chemical kinetics (reaction rates) giving rise to evolutionary dynamics (replication and competition). Essentially, the authors define "prelife" as a system that maintains chemical rules and "life" as a system that maintains biological rules. Prelife systems are subject to chemical equilibrium and reaction rates. Living systems are subject to environmental pressures and replication rates. Therefore, the point at which a chemical system can self-replicate is the point at which the system transitions from prelife to life. Here is how the authors define this distinction:
Prelife is characterized by gentle changes in the abundance of different sequences in response to differences in reactivity. Such a response of the system would be familiar to those who study chemical systems. On the other hand, if the polymers are able to template and thereby self-replicate, the dynamics change abruptly, and the fittest sequences dominate the pool in large excess even if they are only slightly better replicators than the rest. And if two systems compete for resources, one can exclude the other. Such features would be familiar to those who study biological systems.
Implicit here is the assumption that biological and chemical systems operate differently. But the authors explicitly compare their model to a bottom-up approach to synthetic life. Usually when people take a "bottom-up" approach, they are assuming that biology is reducible to chemistry. Otherwise it is NOT a "bottom-up" approach, but is based on some other overarching parameter or driving force.
Here is a summary of the proposed model:

An Evolutionary Argument against (Christian) Theism

Hello Dr. Craig,
You think that evolution is not a threat against christianity or theism in general. However, I think an argument can be made against theism or at least christian theism from evolution.
1. If God created life (biological life), he would have created life in the best possible way someone could create life, because God is a perfect being and therefore only does what´s the best.
2. Evolution is not the best way therefore: God did not create biological life
Or in formality:
If A then B not Bmtherefore: not A
Of course, it does not necessary follow from "God did not create biological life" therefore "God does not exist". God could still exist even if he hadn´t created life (seems unlikely though), but at least the biblical account says that God created humans and animals, in one way or another. So, if God did not create biological life, this would be at least a argument against christian theism, if not theism itself.
1. The first premiss: I think this is obviously true, if we define God as a perfect being, then he would always do what is the best to do. If he had to choose between A,B or C and B is the best, he would choose B.
2. I think you will disagree here, maybe even before or even with the whole structure of the argument. I can´t imagine how evolution could be the best possible way for God to create life. You could think of possible other ways that would be better. For example: God could´ve just created animals or humans withoud the biological mechanisms of evolution or do you think God is dependent on evolution to create life? I don´t think so. So why would God choose A instead of B or C, a way in which his creatures had to go through pain, death and agony, a very brutal way in which only the strong will survive, when B or C seems to be a better way?
You may ask, what do you mean by "better"? Better for whom? God? In this sense you could think evolution is a better way, in terms of easier, less complicated. It may or may not be easier to create the first cell and let it evolve on it´s own like creating everything oneself. Somewhat like a computer scientist who lays the ground and then let the programme do the rest. But I don´t think it makes sense to think in this dimensions like "easy" and "difficult" because for God it would be equal. Think of a mathematician for example. For us it may be easier to count 2+3 than 156+213 but for a good mathematician it really wouldn´t matter. God is a good mathematician, so it really would´t matter in terms of easy and difficult. Then what about better method for animals? I think creating every animal on its own would be way better for the animals than causing unnecesarry pain and random mutations that often result in negative results and even mistakes through evolution. So, all in all, evolution does not seem to be a very noble method in which we would expect God to create.
Thank you and God bless,
Michel
Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer

Origin of first life

Evolution teaches spontaneous generation—that life came from non-life without intelligent intervention.  However, spontaneous generation violates the law of biogenesis and the cell theory.  The law of biogenesis states that “all living things arise only from other living things.”  The cell theory defines the cell as the most basic unit of life, and declares that “new cells arise only from pre-existing cells.” Both the law of biogenesis and the cell theory are accepted by evolutionists; the evolutionists merely assume that first life is the exception to these principles.  But, a model that violates scientific theories and laws should be abandoned.  This is especially true when there is a rival model that does not violate scientific theories and laws.

   The creation model posits the existence of an intelligent Being in order to bridge the gap from non-life to life.  The creation model recognizes that the specified complexity (highly complex information) found in a single-celled animal could not be produced by chance.  Even Richard Dawkins himself believes that a single-celled animal contains enough genetic information to fill one-thousand complete sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica.  Just as an explosion in a print shop cannot randomly produce even one volume of an encyclopedia (not to mention one-thousand complete sets), there is no way that a single-celled animal could have been produced by mere chance.  Intelligent intervention was needed.

Click HERE to continue reading