Answers In Genesis

I often discuss the debate where people believe that their religious beliefs have more to say about scientific disciplines than the scientists who have made our world what it is today. During those debates I am often given, or have them shoved at me, links to many websites. Most, if not all of them have many problems academically and do not qualify as a credible source. One of them I receive most often is: http://www.answersingenesis.org This website is chock full of information about the universe and presents it as if this were a scientific source for knowledge. I am often bothered by their presentation of this information, it seems deceptive to present religious beliefs as if they were tested scientific principles and theories.

Today I was given yet another link to the same website. At first I did not even bother clicking the link as I knew where it would go. The person then asked me, "Did you read the article?" I could not say yes. So there I was, doing what they do, claiming I knew while not bothering to read it. So I decided to do just that. I am reading the article linked to me and I will discuss as many points as I can and why this entire article is not a good source for any information.

So here I go

The link provided to me was: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/itbwi/information-in-living-organisms

In the first sentence you find your first assumption, "simple unicellular organism is much more complex and purposefully designed." Already, without any supporting facts or evidence, they assert their opinion. We will see if they back this up with any evidence later.

The very next sentence contains, "The central characteristic of all living beings is the “information” they contain." Many things that are not organisms contain information, an obvious example would be a computer and its various information storage systems. The characteristics of living things are: Living things are composed of cells, actively maintain their complex structure and their internal environment (homeostasis), acquire and use materials and energy from their environment and convert them to different forms, grow, reproduce themselves using DNA, and Evolve.

"The total number of bits handled daily in all information-processing events occurring in the human body is 3 x 1024." Here we have another leap of logic, I am unable to validate the claim as there is no reference or source for this information cited on this page. I am left with the conclusion that it must be made-up. If you want to be taken seriously, you MUST cite your sources.

"The basic building blocks of living beings are the proteins." No. While proteins are ONE of the basics, they are not THE basic. The category that proteins come from contains Lipids and Carbohydrates too, among others. If you want to point at a central molecule that seems required, you will be unable to find just one. All of the molecules used by living organisms as the base are required for life as we know it.

"These acids have to be arranged in a very definite sequence for every protein." No. The sequence of proteins used in living organisms is specific, however the sequence could feasibly be different had life evolved differently.

"We now discuss the question of devising a suitable coding system." Again, the statement assumes before any evidence has been presented that the system MUST be devised. The idea that this system was devised is not necessary.

From here on it begins to resemble the connections made by your typical conspiracy theorist that makes connections between ideas because they share some minor and inconsequential trait. These ideas have no sources, no studies, no supporting evidence, nothing that can authenticate the legitimacy of the ideas being presented here. It seems they are attempting to say that because it's complex it absolutely HAS to be designed, but that isn't the case as we have plenty of examples and explanations showing complexity coming from simplicity via the principles defined as evolution.

"Conclusion: The coding system used for living beings is optimal from an engineering standpoint." No, it's not. The system employed by DNA could be much better. DNA does decay as it continues to replicate, this is what causes cell breakdown and aging in humans and other living creatures. Often the system of recombination eliminates a vital component such as the sequence that generates the restrictions on cell replication, known more simply as Cancer. To assert that DNA is a perfectly engineered system is deceptive and self-centered.

"This fact strengthens the argument that it was a case of purposeful design rather than fortuitous chance." For one, as I just showed, the fact that DNA is a perfectly engineered system is false. Two, the idea that a "simple human being" could find the flaws in the supposedly "divine-engineered perfect system" is silly and only shows that the writer fails to understand the implications of the failures that exist in nature.

The start of section 6.3 is already off to a poor start already. It is the only sentence to have any type of citation and yet that citation is not very helpful to the main argument of the section. The citation only attempts to explain the origin of the word Genome. Otherwise the citation is not very helpful. "We find a unique coding system and a definite syntax in every genome." This statement is otherwise false. The coding system that is used by DNA is not unique, but is a refined version of a previous version using lesser steps. RNA is a much simpler version and came before DNA was even in use in any organism. RNA and it's processes remain as a major part of cell division and can operate without the assistance of DNA.

"cell goes through a cyclic process (Figure 20), but the semantics of this process is not (yet) understood." Actually, the cell cycle is understood. I learned it in an entry-level class called Principles of Biology, and it is also taught in high-school science classes. It is also viewable in a microscope, which I myself have done.

"If one carefully considers living organisms in their entirety as well as in selected detail, the purposefulness is unmistakable." Again, the author makes an assertion of fact with no evidence or sources to back up the opinion. What exactly does "carefully considers" mean scientifically? Nothing. As we can explain the complexity of organisms and their DNA without the concept of purposeful design, then how exactly is it unmistakable? It is not.

"The apobetics aspect is thus obvious for anybody to see; this includes the observation that information never originates by chance, but is always conceived purposefully." Driving home the authors opinion. This opinion which is still not based on any real facts or evidence but on false assumptions and invalid data which is not from any trusted source. I would go further in saying that it seems the first statement made is an attempt to insult anyone who might disagree with the authors opinion and therefore attempt to coerce the reader with emotion rather than facts.

"Theorem 25: Biological information is not an exceptional kind of information, but it differs from other systems in that it has a very high storage density and that it obviously employs extremely ingenious concepts." No. While DNA does have a very high storage density, again the author attempts to manipulate the reader by making an assertion that his conclusion is obvious. "ingenious concepts" is not the way I would describe the somewhat faulty storage system of DNA. I would say it is quite adequate for supporting life and allowing reproduction, but it is far from a perfectly designed system for storage and reproduction of information. Example: My computer, a human designed system, has more data accuracy than DNA in that it has built in verification of all the data that is used. Only a system failure on the level of hardware failure (cell damage), faulty programs (viruses, bacteria, or other organisms), or a major system fault (bad starting DNA due to bad copy) can cause data corruption.

"It is clear that the information present in living organisms requires an intelligent source." No it's not. This is assertion based on false assumptions.

"Man could not have been this source; so, the only remaining possibility is that there must have been a Creator." No. The origin has no intelligent source, therefore this whole statement is assertion based on false assumption.

"Theorem 26: The information present in living beings must have had a mental source." Already shown false previously. Restating the false assumption does not lend it any additional credit.

"Theorem 27: Any model for the origin of life (and of information) based solely on physical and/or chemical processes, is inherently false." A statement as if factual that contradicts observable real-world observations. So again, this "theorem" is false and invalid as a hypothesis or theory.

"This result, which requires the information content of living beings to be complete right from the beginning, is biologically sound." The idea that genetic information was all present at one time and never changes is absurd. We can see quite clearly that DNA and it's pool of traits changes constantly in a population. We see the results of this in short-time via viral and bacterial resistances to medicines. This is an example of evolution due to changes in the environment. The same principle applies to all other living things and can be seen within a lifetime. For more comprehensive examples you can review the fossil record and see examples of any species of organism and see a scope of millions of years as the shape and function of the organism changes from generation to generation to meet the environment in which the species lives in.

"The derived theorems about the nature of information fit this model." No, they don't.

"Anybody who wants to make meaningful statements about the origin of life would be forced to explain how the information originated. All evolutionary views are fundamentally unable to answer this crucial question." This statement is false. Anyone who studies evolution can clearly and easily answer this question as it is simple. Chemical processes using the input of energy from the sun can combine in natural order the basic amino acids. These basic acids "want" to form due to the chemical attraction of the atoms involved. Those amino acids "want" to form a chain-like shape naturally due to the attraction of the atoms exposed on parts of the molecules. These chains can, and have, formed complex acid-chains that resemble RNA (Ribosomal Nucleic Acids). This RNA, once the correct chain that allows replication of that RNA is, yes, by chance assembled, the process of replication and evolution can begin. Once evolutionary processes begin, the information is continually sorted, replaced, and removed to continue to suit the RNA, DNA, or organism to the environment.

The following are the list of names the author of this article uses to represent biology and its views:

Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck (1744–1829), Many of Lamark's views have been abandoned by most of the scientific community. His research on organisms and their origins were proven to be incorrect and insufficient to explain the phenomena of life. It is believed that Charles Darwin read some of the works of Lamark, but did not agree with much of what he had to say. Darwin then went on to give a much more fitting explanation to the origin of species. (not to be confused with the origin of all life)

I was going to cover the rest but I don't want to give a life history of each and every one of them. While the author does use a few quotes from the original authors, he also inserts a great deal of what the author believes the views of the biologists are. This is not an honest representation of these people. This is dishonest and very suspect. I dislike when a great deal of paraphrasing and quote-mining is used to defame someone's character in order to support your points. I find this whole section distasteful and absolutely degrading to the authors character to have "stooped so low."

I really love this part: "If such statements were based on a sufficient body of facts, then one might perhaps agree with the conclusions, but the reverse process was followed: All phenomena of nature are placed under the all-encompassing evolutionary umbrella. Scientists who submit themselves to such a mental corset and support it uncritically, degrade themselves to mere vassals of a materialistic philosophy."

The statements refer to scientific principles as "a mental corset" and state that scientists "support it uncritically" thereby "degrade themselves to mere vassals..." This statement clearly demonstrates that the author of this article lacks the fundamental understanding of the scientific method either in whole or in part. The methods used by science to determine truth from untruth is the furthest thing from "uncritical" as the human race has ever conceived. The whole point of the method is to remove bias, opinion, and belief from the process. The idea that a process that depends on peer review and repeatable validation of results could be anything but the most critical is...  well, idiotic. I feel I must explain why this is the case and I will try to be short here.

Step 1: Observation - all inquiry begins with the observation of a phenomenon.

Step 2: Question - Example: "How did this happen?"

Step 3: Hypothesis - A hypothesis is a supposition, based on previous observations, that is offered as an answer to the question and a natural explanation for the observed phenomenon.

Step 4: Prediction - Typically expressed as an "If... then"

Step 5: Experiment - The prediction is then tested, often repeatedly in an attempt to prove OR disprove the given prediction true or false.

Step 6: Conclusion - The result of the testing which shows whether the prediction, which was based on the hypothesis, is true or false.

Seeing the steps listed before, understand that the results of this process does NOT grant a hypothesis the title of Theory. Instead this only allows the originating individual to publish their findings for others to see. What happens is that others will duplicate his experiments and determine if his conclusion is correct or invalid. This re-testing will be done many times, sometimes hundreds. This testing can be revisited by anyone, at any time, including anyone who believes they can actually disprove evolution. Only after many re-visits, many re-tests, many re-publishing's, many reviews of the procedures and data that was used to come to the conclusion does a hypothesis become an accepted scientific theory. Once again, let me be completely clear. If anyone, anyone, scientist or not, wishes to show that the theory of evolution is not valid, they must only engage in the scientific method and show with logic and evidence that it is not true. This has, as of the ideas invention by Charles Darwin's release of On the Origin of Species, not been done. Any scientist welcomes the idea that their ideas can be challenged by others, those challenges will either strengthen the original idea or replace it with a better one.

"Science should, however, only be subservient to the truth, and not to pre-programmed folly." As previously discussed, it already IS "subservient to the truth and not pre-programmed folly." So on this we can agree on.

"Evolutionary theory bans any mention of a planning Spirit as a purposeful First Cause in natural systems, and endeavors to imprison all sciences in the straightjacket called the “self-organization of matter.”" The fact of the matter is that science, as illustrated by the scientific method, can only study "Observable Phenomenon." Unless the church wants to define a "soul" as an observable phenomenon, this is not a failure of the system. Science cannot, by definition, study anything supernatural, magical, or spiritual. If you want to discuss souls, go ahead, science will have nothing to say about it existing or not.

"Since science does not have the faintest idea how life on earth originated. . ." A prime example of quote-mining. This is a dishonest representation of the statements made by him. Not to mention the article was printed in 1981 when we knew much less than we do today. Science is an ever-evolving discipline. To compare the thoughts of today with principles and ideas that have changed in the last 30 years is ridiculous.

"Karl Popper [H1], once characterized it as a “metaphysical research program.”" The same Karl Popper born in 1902 who was not even a natural scientist but a teacher of philosophy. Of course he would put it in terms of a philosophical argument, he wasn't looking at it as a biologist or a taxonomist would. This is another example of Quote-mining and a total misrepresentation of the facts in order to support the authors argument. It is  distasteful and dishonest to misrepresent any data purposefully.

I will not copy the entire section titled Cumulative selection for the sake of length. I will, however, discuss it. Again, research and ideas are being misrepresented in order to further the agenda and bias of the author. The example cited where Dawkins seeks to end with the phrase "Methinks it is like a weasel" is not an attempt to explain the entirety of the theory of evolution. It was an example provided to a group of young students. Children of about 10-13 years old. The goal of the demonstration was to illustrate the gradual process of changes from generation to generation. The author of this page claims that this is an explanation of how evolution works. While it is a simple representation of generational change, the idea that there is a goal or endpoint is contrary to the concept of evolution. On a personal note, I have seen this lecture (a video I have on my computer right now) where this model was first used, and I understood it completely. It was designed for anyone over 10 years old to understand and comprehend before moving onward to a more precise and accurate explanation of the nuances of the process by which creatures continue to change and evolve.

"Genetic algorithms: The so-called “genetic algorithms” are yet another way of trying to explain how information could originate in matter" Genetic algorithms do not attempt to explain how "information," otherwise known as genetic code, could "originate in matter." A genetic algorithm is a way of describing how the makeup of the genetic code changes as it is replicated. There is nothing about it that attempts to determine the origin of all life.

"Numerical methods cannot describe the origin of information." That's a pretty bold statement. That would be like the last time the church said, "the earth is the center of the universe, and science will never prove otherwise." I think we all know what happened when the church made those kinds of absolute statements. I am sure that, if someone hasn't done it already, we will be able to calculate any mathematical algorithms or methods that represent natural processes as we come to understand how they really work.

"Evolutionary models for the origin of the genetic code: We find proposals for the way the genetic code could have originated in very many publications [e.g., O2, E2, K1], but up to the present time, nobody has been able to propose anything better than purely imaginary models. It has not yet been shown empirically how information can arise in matter, and, according to Theorem 11, this will never happen." I'm shaking my head at this one. Either the author is completely ignorant of current and past research, or the author is intentionally lying. There have been numerous studies done about the origins of the basic compounds that make up life. As I previously discussed, the basic chemicals that existed on earth, according to geologic records,  can be assembled in a lab and a small ecologic experiment can be performed.  Using the elements we know were in great abundance, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon, etc. and bombarding them with ultraviolet light (which comes naturally from the sun) the molecules will naturally form basic amino acids. The attraction is a natural occurrence due to the tendency for certain atoms to share electrons with others. This is the same principle that causes water to form out of Oxygen and Hydrogen. Well, those amino acid compounds also have a preference for attaching to other amino acid compounds, much like Lego toys or other construction sets. Some pieces just fit. Those will naturally form chains of amino acids. And working on the same known atomic forces, with a whole ocean of amino acids floating about on the surface of the ocean, eventually it is entirely possible for one of the billions of combinations floating around over millions of years to find one that has a natural tendency to cause copies of itself to be made. Once the process of replication begins, the laws that govern the evolutionary process then take over and you can see a rapid progression (rapid in geologic time) in the complexity of that amino acid string.

"Fortunately, the number of scientists who repudiate evolutionary views and dilemmas is increasing." What they don't say is how many of them are reputable, how many of them are paid by the Discovery Institute, or how many there are versus the entire scientific community as a whole. In reality, the pie chart is nearly entirely against them. I have not measured them, but statistical data shows that it is fewer than 5% of the entire scientific community. Once you remove the "scientists" who accept money from religious organizations or the Discovery Institute, that figure drops below 1%.

"The punch line is that, even though outward speeds are maintained in a free explosion, internal motions are not. Internal motions die away adiabatically" "The punch line is that," he is discussing typical earthly explosions on the scale of mankind. He is making a poor correlation from the "big bang" which is just a label for an event, not an accurate description of what took place, and a small explosion based entirely on the consumption of a fuel and oxygen. The idea that you would compare the two is like comparing the motion of ocean waves to the complexity of tidal patterns. They aren't even the same principle and work on completely different physics.

The article then goes on to misquote real scientists and mix the statements with quotes from their paid scientists to give the impression that they have some kind of legitimate claim to the facts here. I was unable to confirm a single one of the quotes I checked as being free of quote-mining or paid by Discovery Institute in some way. I find their list of "credible scientists" to be about as unbelievable as any other not sourced, not cited, and not true text I have ever had the displeasure of reading.

"Theorem 28: There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter." Again, repeating the assumption that this "information" cannot be originated. However I have been able to demonstrate it and  illustrate how the origination of such "information" can actually take place quite easily in the presence of the most common elements on this planet, and the presence of the sun. Therefore this "theorem" is more of a "punch line."

"This was also the conclusion of the seventh “International Conference on the Origins of Life” held together with the fourth congress of the “International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life (ISSOL)” in Mainz, Germany. At such occasions, scientists from all over the world exchange their latest results. In his review of the congress, Klaus Dose [D3] writes: “A further puzzle remains, namely the question of the origin of biological information, i.e., the information residing in our genes today.” Not even the physical building blocks required for the storage of the information can construct themselves: “The spontaneous formation of simple nucleotides or even of polynucleotides which were able to be replicated on the pre-biotic earth should now be regarded as improbable in the light of the very many unsuccessful experiments in this regard.”" We can start here by discussing the fact that the "international Conference on the Origins of Life" is an event sponsored by the Discovery Institute and similar organizations. The attendees of this conference are mainly those that already subscribe to the views presented in this paper. The “International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life (ISSOL)” is another such organization which is comprised of the very same people who already subscribe to a tainted view of the world corrupted by bias and beliefs. The quote at the end of the paragraph is entirely disingenuous in that it attempts to say that the research done on amino acid formation was somehow unsuccessful or that repeated attempts to recreate it have failed. This is not the case and in all reality the experiment has been duplicated and confirmed as legitimate.

"As early as 1864, when Louis Pasteur addressed the Sorbonne University in Paris, he predicted that the theory of the spontaneous generation of living cells would never recover from the fatal blow delivered by his experiments. In this regard, Klaus Dose makes an equally important statement: “The Mainz report may have an equally important historical impact, because for the first time it has now been determined unequivocally by a large number of scientists that all evolutionary theses that living systems developed from poly-nucleotides which originated spontaneously, are devoid of any empirical base.”" The last paragraph in the article seeks to use the discoveries made by Louis Pasteur to confirm that life does not spontaneously form from nothing. This is a deceptive and underhanded tactic which I disapprove of. Pasteur was discussing the idea that was commonly held that maggots and other forms of life would "spontaneously" form from a piece of rotting meat or dead animal. The idea that mold simply "came into being" when milk went bad. His experiments proved that the "organisms" had to come into the meat or the milk from somewhere. This experiment had NOTHING to do with the origin of life. I would challenge you to find a single scientist who would say that "a whole bacteria" or "a whole animal" just "popped into being." This is a ridiculous characterization of the real theory of evolution which only seeks to describe how one species can become two different ones, not how life originated. The idea of life "popping" into existence in a fully formed and functional shape such as a bacteria or a human being is absurd and only represented in biblical creationism. No reputable scientist would ever assert such a ludicrous claim.

In conclusion, I have read this complete article and found no redeemable value as an academic work. There is but one citation which does not attempt to provide any actual credibility to the thesis of the article. There are many examples of misrepresented quotes, and data. The author seems obviously deceptive and resorts to underhanded and invalid attempts to subvert observable reality in an attempt to push a personal bias or agenda. In short, this article, as a whole is academically worthless. With no established credibility the entire text becomes nothing more than an opinion piece and holds no weight in discussions against credible sources.

Thank you for reading my long, drawn-out, treatment of this article. Hopefully this will clarify to some why their use of such websites in academic debates and discussions leaves them with no arguments that hold any weight.

As a final note, I would like to issue the same challenge I would issue to anyone who believes that any of our scientific theories, laws, or principles is incorrect. Prove it. If you are right, you will not only get to have the incorrect theory replaced with your, more correct, theory, but you will also likely win yourself a Nobel Prize and a place in the textbooks as a result.

 

Works Cited

Audesirk, Teresa, Gerald Audesirk, and Bruce E. Byers. Biology: Life on Earth. San Francisco, CA: Benjamin Cummings, 2011. Print.

"Chapter 6: Information in Living Organisms." Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics. Web. 11 May 2011. .

*Note: Easybib.com does not consider www.answersingenesis a credible source. Which is pretty funny because that's the whole point of this.