God and Science (2)

What lay ahead for Darwin's theory? While naturalists cheered on the Miller experiments of the 1952, another puzzle was being unearthed that would open questions far bigger than any that Miller's experiments could purport to solve. Scientists were just beginning to realize the significance of a nucleic acid they would coin "DNA".

DNA, we found, was the stuff of life. It contained genetic information, without which, reproduction, and life, could not be possible. "What's the big deal?" you ask. The problem lies in how information arrives in a strictly naturalistic paradigm. Without intelligence, we are relegated to chance and law. There's much to unpack here, but just think about the problem in principle. If merely chance is at work, we would expect the building blocks of DNA to be arranged randomly- no repetition, no rhyme or reason, simply randomness.

KHFALKSDHFKSDNFKJNSDFSDFASKDBA SJKDFHFSLKH D SDAFJH SDFH AH

Well, perhaps there are laws that helped align the information? Well, if there are laws at work what we would expect would be repeating segments of information. What the biological determinism would render would be simply repeated instances.

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

Or, coupled with chance:

AHBAHBAHBAHBAHBAHBAHBAHBAHB

However, information is of a different strain entirely. What we find in DNA is more like this:

HELLO, MY NAME IS FRED.

Actually, it's more like the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Think on this question- where else do we find information? What is required for information? When you see a note that says, "Hey, Honey. I'll be in late tonight", what comes to mind? How the wind might have blown the ink on to the paper? Not quite. We know that someone with intelligence has engineered our note. Without even digging into biology, we know that it's impossible even in principle for information to arise without intelligence.

Had we stopped in 1859, we'd still be entrenched with a clean and simple Darwinian gradualism. And yet this is where scientific progress has led us...

God and Science

I don't believe in God, I believe in science.

Thus goes the worn line suggesting that somehow the study of the material world is negating the case for an immaterial being. Of course, the irony in the last statement is thick. I think, though, that the irony approaches absurdity as we look at just a brief overview of a few different branches.

-Biology: In 1859, a pinnacle was reached as the naturalistic worldview was completed. Naturalists now had a creation story that could rival any account from Genesis. In the words of Richard Dawkins, it was Darwin who "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

However, since then, this creation story has taken some unexpected turns... leaving many to render it improbable, some, impossible.