Science of Information

Continued from last entry . .

Stephen C. Meyer, PHD, director and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture has the following to say about information,
“I think the information revolution taking place in biology is sounding the death knell for Darwinism and chemical evolutionary theories. 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.”

In order for information to exist, an alphabet of some kind must exist and be used consistently to produce specific (non-random) structures. There must also exist an interpretation device that can detect these structures (words) and apply (interpret) a consistent meaning to each. In the world of biological construction, there must also exist an agent to reproduce the building blocks based on the information conveyed by the unique "words".

To date, scientists have never witnessed the spontaneous development of information. In fact, to some experts, the very notion is ludicrous. How many millions of years would it take for a block of copper to produce an alphabet, much less a book based on that alphabet? And who or what could read the results? The answer is obvious.

Lee Strobel, former award winning legal editor for the Chicago Tribune has written a compelling book that explains the demise of evolutionary theory at the hands of recent scientific discoveries. The book is simply titled “The Case for a Creator”. Dr. Meyer’s quote comes from that book. Do not read the book if you want to go on believing in evolution. You have been warned!

Not So Fast

Continued from my last entry . .

Other issues

However, there are a couple more things to keep in mind here. One of these, is that it would take an outside agency to provide all of the genetic information for something as complex as the simplest appendage.

Why? In order for the limb to fully develop and function, all of the required information would have to be present at the same time. A partial instruction set would only produce a partial, non-functioning appendage. Based on one of the core tenets of evolution, the partial information would be discarded by random selection in the next generations - because it failed to yield any useful purpose.

Secondly, based on the testing that has already been completed, the mathematical probability of any real “spontaneous information generation” actually occurring is so astronomically small that it may well be outside the realm of probability. In my next entry I will talk about “information” a little more thoroughly. The very existence of information actually produces some profound problems for those who still hold to macro evolution.

In summary

Our new understanding of genetics reveals that if the spontaneous production of new genetic information never occurs, which clearly appears to be the case, then biological evolution is absolutely impossible.

Digging Deeper

Continued from my last entry . .

Again, what would it take?

SO, from the field of genetics anyway, what would it take for the evolutionary model to be considered a viable option? For example, what would it take for an organism to add a new appendage? First, a large amount of new genetic information would have to appear in the genetic code. Furthermore, that information would have to appear at exactly the right place and in exactly the right order. Last, but certainly not least, the instructions would need to be in place prior to the development of the organism.

The Catch

Here’s the HUGE catch: To date, scientists have never observed an increase in genetic information as the result of random mutations. Let me say that again. There is no recorded instance of a random mutation creating totally new genetic information. Some would say, “Well, that just means that we haven’t observed it yet because the field of genetics is still young.” True on both accounts. However, there is more to the story. In my next entry I will attempt to "flesh this out". (please excuse the pun)

Missing Pieces

As continued from my last entry . .

Design Requirements

The second area where erosion of the evolutionary theory is clearly evident has to do with critical missing pieces that simply can not be found. For instance, research in the field of genetics has consistently shown that the development and design of all biological life is controlled by stored information in the form of DNA. To use an engineering analogy, everything has a controlling "blueprint".

The problem for evolutionary theory is this: In order for the function or design of an organism (or appendage of an organism) to change, the controlling information must change first. (The blueprint determines the design)

Obviously, at the micro evolutionary level, certain changes only require that existing DNA information be turned on or off. For example, there are shrimp that live deep in underwater caves that have eyes which no longer function. The caves are always in total darkness and the eyes serve no purpose under these conditions. Somewhere in previous generations, only shrimp that had sight capability “switched off” survived or procreated. This determined the eyesight function for all future generations within that cave system. Technically, there is nothing to prevent sight being restored – if the controlling DNA is simply switched back on.

Devolution?

In some scientific circles, this is lauded as an example of evolution. In reality, it is an example of “devolution” – in other words, the opposite of evolution. It does not show genetic progress. Rather, it demonstrates a net loss of function, if not of genetic information.

Untold Stories

Silent Exodus

The title of my last entry used the word "designed". This was not an oversight on my part. One of the profound things I have discovered over the years, is that the current state of affairs in the medical world (as in all other areas of life) is largely determined by the world view of its participants. The topic of human origins is always a central component of any worldview.

What interests me is the number of scientists today who have abandoned the theory of evolution as a viable explanation for our existence. Even more fascinating, is the almost total silence on this subject in academia and the media. I guess this should expected, given the strong liberal bias that exists in both these quarters. Never-the-less, it is fascinating to observe that while the theory of evolution is steadily eroding under continuous waves of scientific evidence, the general public is largely oblivious to these changes and our two largest information outlets refuse to recognize and communicate what is happening under our very noses. At best, the real evidence indicates that the theory is highly improbable - more likely, totally impossible.

Where's The Proof?

Here is a brief summary of what I have learned in my research (using sources other than academia and the media). First, after a century of the most intense research in almost every
field of science, no compelling evidence has been presented in clear support of the theory of macro evolution. (That is, microbe to man origin by virtue of random mutation). Secondly, during this same period, a number of compelling holes have been punched in the essential skeleton of evolutionary theory.

Yes, many articles have been written which appear, on the surface, to support macro evolution. However, when the facts are sifted from the very soft extrapolations of the authors, no real scientific proof is ultimately found to exist. Most of this "supposed evidence" comes from paleontology. An example would include the discovery in China of an extinct mammal in size and appearance similar to a small whale but with short "forearms". This is touted as compelling evidence of a "transitional form". When one digs a little deeper, it is discovered that the bones of these "forearms" were not attached to the skeleton and therefore incapable of carrying sufficient weight to assist with land mobility. Other scientists, viewing the same fossil are immediately convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that these appendages are simply flippers - a common enough appendage for aquatic mobility. It definitely provides no evidence of a transitional form.

Abetting The Crime

Newspapers love this stuff. It is fodder for the "info grist mills" across the western world. In the example above, an article appeared in my local newspaper describing this incredible "evidence" in the most glowing of terms. This was despite the fact that the so called evidence had been heartily debunked by reputable scientists more than 6 years prior! Apparently, it is assumed that anything written by a scientist that appears in print does not require scrutiny or critical thinking skills. I have noticed that such articles are circulated for years, often appearing more than once and each time giving the impression that this is late breaking news.

A Philosophy of Health

Designed to be healthy.

Even the most novice of medical students already knows that we are amazingly designed. Later he/she learns more about the highly sophisticated and inter-connected defense system that spells certain death to millions of invading organisms. Then it's on to filtration and elimination systems that handle widely varying types of toxins - if necessary, in large amounts.

Here is where I will stop with technical comments on our design. It is time to think about the practice of modern medicine. Actually, it has less to do with how medicine is practiced and more to do with what modern medicine deliberately chooses to ignore. What it has choosen to ignore, almost from the day that medicine was institutionalized, is the large body of evidence coming from two very different sources. One is the field of science. The other is the work of alternative practitioners. I will look at each of these areas in turn.

Why are so many of us still sick?

Western culture is constantly barraged with messages lauding the great successes of modern medicine. Indeed, there have been some great technical advances. (Honestly though, most of these advances did not come from the field of medicine. They came instead from engineers, technicians and researchers outside of the medical field. These individuals may have collaborated with medical personnel but ultimately, it was their innovative ideas and persistence that produced a useful, marketable product.) All the more, this begs an answer to my question.

Obviously, I believe there are a few simple answers to why so many of us are still sick. Hopefully, as I describe my personal research journey, those answers will unfold on their own. At this point, it is enough for me to quote a mentor by saying: "Getting healthy is easy. It's becoming diseased that takes persistent effort!"