Divine Revelation of Genetic Information

“Information is information, neither matter nor energy”¹, is what mathematician Norbert Wiener said in 1948. This however, presents yet another scientific paradox for the naturalist. If genetic information is independent of the matter through which it is transmitted, then the question must be asked; “How did the information of the genetic code originate”?

Even before this question can be entertained however, a workable definition of ‘information’ must be put into effect. This is what I intend to do here, by analyzing 1) What information is not, and 2) What information is.

What Information ‘Is Not’

In his article, Scientific laws of information and their implications, Dr. Werner Gitt makes the point that, information is not a property of matter, and therefore it ismassless. He offers the following analogy for illustration:

“Imagine a sandy stretch of beach. With my finger I write a number of sentences in the sand. The content of the information can be understood. Now I erase the information by smoothing out the sand. Then I write another sentence in the sand… Despite this erasing and rewriting, displaying and destroying varying amounts of information, the mass of the sand did not alter at any time. The information itself is thus massless.”²

Matter contains mass, and since information itself is massless, it is not a property of matter. So we should not think of letters, words and sentences as ‘information’. Rather, these are merely material symbols that are used to convey information.

If we (mankind) had not attributed meaning to letters and words, then they would not carry any meaning at all. Rather, they would be unintelligible symbols and sounds. Thus, language, both written and oral, is merely a set of symbols and sounds to which we have ascribed certain meanings, for the purpose of conveyinginformation that already originated with us. So although information is stored, transmitted and expressed by matter, it is not a property of matter itself.² ”

As a second illustration, consider the word “gift”. In English “gift” means  present, but the word “gift” in German means poison.³ So here we have two quite distinct meanings for the same exact set of letters. Therefore since the meaning of “gift” can vary from language to language, there can be no inherent meaning in the word itself. It is merely a set of letters to which different cultures have ascribed different meanings.

To emphasize the immateriality of information, Dr. Gitt offers a final  example:

“Imagine a piece of information written on a blackboard. Now wipe the board with a duster. The information has vanished, even though all the particles of chalk are still present. The chalk in this case was the necessary material medium but the information was represented by the particular arrangement of the particles.”²

Here, the particular arrangement of the chalk particles served to transmit information, but once that arrangement was distorted, the informative value of the chalk particles vanished. Therefore, the ‘information’ lie, not with the chalk itself. The chalk was merely a “material medium” which served to represent information.

As shown in the examples above, information is not a property of matter. This leaves us with one very important corollary; matter cannot generate information. Dr. Gitt writes:

“The grand theory of evolution would gain some empirical support if it could be demonstrated, in a real experiment, that information could arise from matter left to itself without the addition of intelligence. Despite the most intensive worldwide efforts this has never been observed.”²

‘What Information ‘Is’

Information, in its purest sense, is ‘an encoded message that is issued from a sender’. Therefore, information can only be produced by an intelligence. This leads to some basic implications: The intelligent sender 1) Must be conscious 2) Have the ability to think autonomously, and 3) Have the ability to act of it’s own volition²

As a  final thought then, I will point out that DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) cannot be ‘information’ in and of itself because DNA is a material substance; and as shown above, information is not a property of matter. However, if the genetic code (which is transmitted by DNA) is to be considered’ information’, then the 3 implications of an intelligent sender (above) must be applied.

---

1. Wiener, N., Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, Hermann et Cie, The Technology Press, Paris, 1948. [↩]
2. Gitt, Werner. “Scientific Laws of Information and Their Implications—part 1.” Journal of Creation. Web. 11 May 2012. <Scientific laws of information and their implications—part 1>. [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩]
3. Sarfati, Jonothan. “The Programs of Life.” Creation Magazine, 12 May 2012. Web. <http://creation.com/dna-marvellous-messages-or-mostly-mess>. [↩]

article from http://standtherefore.com/blog

Q & A: No Time for a First Cause?

This post features an interesting question that I received yesterday from ’Kelly’. Her question generated from claims by overstated cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, who says that, ‘Since the Big Bang created time itself, there was no prior time available in which a “first cause” could have created the universe.

Question:

I was watching a show the other day during which Hawking said there couldn’t have been a cause of the universe because the Big Bang created time itself, so there was no time for a cause. From the post about “nothing” in cosmology it sounds like there couldn’t have been literally nothing before the Big Bang. So can we still say there had to have been a first cause? Can we also say that God exists outside of time and therefore could have caused it, even if there was no time before the Big Bang?

- Kelly

Answer:

Hi Kelly,  This is a great question.

The word ‘time’ is used to characterize the system in which sequences of physical events occur. Therefore, when Hawking says that “time did not exist prior to the Big Bang”, he is essentially saying that “a system in which sequences of physical events can occur, did not exist prior to the physical universe”. In other words, Hawking is arguing that, “the operations within the universe did not exist prior to the universe.” This however, is hardly a novel conclusion.

If Christians believed that the existence of God was contingent upon the processes of the universe (like time), then Hawking’s objection would present an insurmountable paradox. However, God is not contingent upon the universe nor any process within – He is rather, the Cause of both.

So then, you’re on the right track with your second question; “Can we also say that God exists outside of time and therefore could have caused it, even if there was no time before the Big Bang”? Yes. A system containing sequences of physical events (i.e. time) certainly did not exist prior to the universe. But this says nothing about sequences of metaphysical events. God, by the Christian definition, is a metaphysical being. This means that He is independent and transcendent of space/time.

So, Hawking is correct when he asserts that a ‘temporally prior being could not exist prior to the Big Bang’. But God is not a temporal being. He is a metaphysically, ontologically prior Being who exists independent of “physical measures of time”. Thus, the absence of the physical (prior to the Big Bang) does not challenge existence of a metaphysical Being.

Hawking gets the physics correct here, as he always does, but he gets the metaphysics wrong, as he usually does.

God bless,
Eric

Points of Emphasis

1. Time is the system in which sequences of physical events occur
2. The Christian God is not a physical being
3. Therefore, the Christian God exists independent of time

1. Time is the system in which sequences of physical events occur
2. Metaphysical entities are not contingent upon physical measures of time
3. God is a metaphysical entity
4. Therefore, God is not contingent upon physical measures of time

article from http://standtherefore.com/blog/

On Animal Planet, Aquatic Apes, a/k/a Mermaids

We watched a 90-minute documentary on Animal Planet last night (recorded from the day before) called Mermaids: The Body Found, about a team of scientists with forensic evidence of "mermaids" (aquatic apes that split from our line some 7 million years ago).

The documentary interviews scientists, plays audio recordings of anomalous sounds from oceanographic scientists, shows suspicious videotape, some artifacts that look like tools, even evidence of a purported government cover-up. It also includes hearty portions of CGI animation of what the mermaids would look like, etc.

In other words, a typical documentary from a Discovery Channel-affiliated network. After a few minutes, however, we realized that the entire thing must be fictional -- that is, more fictional than the typical "this is just what they were like millions of years ago" stuff you see on TV documentaries. Yet at no point was there any disclaimer saying it was a fake documentary. In fact, the "scientists" interviewed were supposedly from real places like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Witwatersrand, South Africa. The Animal Planet website lists it straight-forwardedly on the schedule.

Snopes lists the program as a hoax, but provides no link in which Animal Planet or an official website explains that it is fictional.

The film website takes you to a page that says it has been seized by the Department of Homeland Security. Hey, wouldn't that be illegal?

In case this isn't confusing enough already, the press release includes links that would lead you to believe these people think the Aquatic Ape theory deserves serious consideration. It sort of explains that it is a "stunt" and "science fiction" but also seems to say that the documentary is based on facts and responsible hypothesizing, or something like that.

Well, all too often we see articles in biology journals that mix a few facts with a lot of wild evolutionary speculation. You get the feeling that the makers of Mermaids: The Body Found see themselves as doing something akin to what the authors of such articles are doing. After all, the Aquatic Ape theory was first proposed in New Scientist in 1960! At least the Animal Planet folks recognize (some of) the frankly fictional aspects of their story.

In any event, we're left with the vague feeling that "scientific" culture has crossed a threshold here, in which the distinction between fact and fiction, one might say between sanity and insanity, so long violated in science documentaries involving origins, is now being intentionally blurred.

article from evolutionnews.org

Question of the week, Proper Motives for Faith by Dr Craig

Proper Motives for Faith

Dear Dr. Craig:

Please forgive the prologue, but I think it's important to give a quick summary of how and why I've reached this point in my life. My father is a retired minister, and I attended church (and Christian school) my entire life, but like many of my PK friends, I've abandoned my faith--actually, I don't think I ever had it. But I am still searching. My parents are good people, and I respect my dad a great deal, as he has been a great role model and has lived out his beliefs. He had a rather remarkable conversion experience as an adult, and I only give this background, as it has much to do with my primary question dealing with how and why people are "saved."

I've read and viewed just about everything on reasonablefaith.org over the past 3 years, including all your debates, and I actually attended your debate with Sam Harris at Notre Dame. I've listened to this debate about 10 time since, and I'm still troubled with many issues, but one continues to stand out, since it truly takes me back to my own so-called conversion as a 5-year old child. At one point during the debate, Sam Harris characterized salvation as people grabbing on to a sort of "fire insurance," which, after a year of thinking about this, I think is a very apt description. You responded with the following:

"You don't believe in God to avoid going to Hell. Belief in God isn't some kind of fire insurance. You believe in God because God, as the supreme Good, is the appropriate object of adoration and love. He is Goodness itself, to be desired for its own sake. And so the fulfillment of human existence is to be found in relation to God. It's because of who God is and his moral worth that he is worthy of worship. It has nothing to do with avoiding Hell, or promoting your own well-being."

So, for those who "get saved" because they've been scared out of their minds about hell, are they truly saved? Must they all feel as you described above? I grew up in hell-fire and brimstone churches, and as a 5-year old child, terrified of hearing about hell 4 times a week, I prayed to God "asking Jesus into my heart." What other "choice" did I really have? What child wants to burn (or adult)? And I probably prayed the prayer another 100 times as a terrified child. And now, my wife, who has been a believer her entire life, and she takes our 7-year-old son to church faithfully, and he's just like I was! He's terrified of hell and prays the prayer or raises his hand every time someone gives the old "alter call." And I know why: because he's terrified of burning in hell! Who wouldn't be! I have no idea what to tell him, and I just go along, agreeing with all of the Bible stories that I've been told and that he's now hearing--and it's killing me, because I've come to the place where I don't believe any of it.

I apologize for taking so long to get to my question, but I think it's important to mention these things as it helps me frame these constant thoughts. So, keeping in mind your statement from the debate, that salvation isn't (or shouldn't be) fire insurance, what if there was no hell, or heaven--just nothingness after death? If going to heaven should not be the desire, and the fear of hell should not cause one to desire "insurance" from it, what's the point? Who among us is exactly and perfectly altruistic? Or would do or act a certain way without benefit? We all do things to produce/receive and even to avoid a specific result. And as you say, the only reason to get saved should be because: "You believe in God, as the supreme Good...worthy of worship...fulfillment of human existence...etc", but what if when you die, there's nothing? That's it. How can all of your worship, morality, etc. have meant ANYTHING? After all, you didn't do it all because of heaven; you were supposed to accept Christ for the reasons you stated, so heaven/hell should have nothing to do with it. Right?

Given my 30 years in the church, and my own ongoing experience and struggle, I contend that there are a great many who are trying to avoid hell? I would say, if people were honest, most would admit to this. I have a good many other questions and doubts, but your statement in this debate continues to haunt me. I think mostly because Harris' statement it so accurately described my (and many others') childhood conversion experiences. So how exactly does a person make himself not want to avoid hell and only desire to worship and have a relationship with the only worthy God? Please help...

Kind Regards,
Mark

United States

Your personal situation and struggle, Mark, illustrate poignantly why it is important that we think rightly about God. I am so glad that you’ve grasped and reflected on how different is the motivation for belief in God that I described, which represents the classical Christian tradition, than the frightful caricature painted by Sam Harris. I hope that you can have the strength to embrace in all its beauty and wonder this new vision of God as the Highest Good, which to know is the fulfillment of human existence.

So, you ask, are those who "get saved" because they've been scared out of their minds about hell truly saved? read more ---->

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/proper-motives-for-faith#ixzz1wPAiDR

DOES 'MORAL LAW' PROVE A 'MORAL LAW-GIVER'?

CAN OBJECTIVE MORALITY EXIST WITHOUT GOD?

WHY DO "GOOD" AND "BAD" HAVE MEANING TO US?

IS THERE AN ARGUMENT FOR GOD THAT IMPACTS EVERYONE'S DAILY LIFE?

(Pt.2) This is the second installation of our newest addition to our series "Good Arguments for God's Existence", and it goes by the name of the Axiological or Moral Argument.

The power of this particular argument from Natural Theology lies in the fact that is deals with something that every human being is in touch with on a daily basis, whether they are an atheist, agnostic, pantheist, or theist: our moral inclinations and perceptions concerning right and wrong, good or bad.

Some philosophers say that this can often be one of the most powerful arguments for God's existence for precisely that reason. I encourage you to listen to it, and decide for yourself if it's true. 

Ask yourself these questions, as you evaluate this deductive argument for God's existence:

- Are there any logical errors made in the progression of this argument?
- Does the conclusion follow necessarily if the premises are true?
- If God doesn't exist, what then is the ultimate foundation for objective morality?
- Is Morality truly objective, or is it relativistic? What impact should that have on our justice system, international law, or even personal interactions when we are wronged if there truly is no objective right or wrong?
- Would the non-existence of God logically result in "Moral Nihilism", the destruction of all moral value and duties in a society? Is that kind of a world liveable? 

Consider these questions and track with us as we progress through this argument.

- Pastor J

The Mysterious Embryonic Stem Cell

Stem cells are mysterious. They are cells that make or replenish other cells. For example, when you donate blood, your stem cells are in charge of replenishing your blood cells. Scientists have found stem cells throughout the body, each doing an assigned job. Some replenish blood cells, some replenish skin cells, and others repair heart tissue. These cells do not usually change jobs; they become specialists at making their particular cell types.

However, embryonic stem cells (ESC), those found in the eight- to ten-day-old embryo, are not specialists. They can make all the cells in the body, but how they are able to accomplish this feat is still unknown.

Researchers have been able to coax some of these specialized stem cells into reverting back to a stem cell that acts like an embryonic stem cell. These are call "induced pluripotent stem cells." As with embryonic stem cells, scientists are still seeking the keys to how these cells can develop into specific stem cell types. Interestingly, research on embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells seems to indicate that stem cells are pre-programmed to do their thing, suggesting that this may be a case of an intelligently designed process. (See ENV, "A Piece from the Developmental Symphony").

Two compelling scientific articles this past month provide some hints of how stem cells are programmed. One study, in Molecular Cell, shows that embryonic stem cells will readily undergo apoptosis (cell death) if DNA is mis-copied, but once the embryonic stem cell gets assigned a job (i.e. differentiates), this sensitivity to apoptosis is "turned off." In other words, the cell has a layer of protection in place at just the point when a DNA error would spread throughout the entire organism, potentially causing irrevocable damage. And, just as conveniently, this heightened sensitivity to DNA damage is turned off at just the point when the cell starts to differentiate.

The key player in this process is the Bax protein. This protein is known to signal apoptosis, and is present in its active conformation in the ESC. Through a series of signals, Bax is "turned off" whenever the cell starts to differentiate. But during the delicate DNA replication process in the early embryo, the protein is active to ensure fundamental DNA errors are not perpetuated throughout the organism. Additionally, and adding yet another layer of complexity to this system,Bax is active, but other factors, including the location of the Bax protein, are in place to ensure that the cell does not undergo apoptosis prematurely.

A second study published in PLoS Genetics demonstrates that the level of DNA compaction affects stem cell differentiation. Scientists have long known that stem cells have loosely packed DNA compared to differentiated cells, which probably aids in DNA replication at the early embryonic stages. In eukaryotic cells, chromatin is involved in many DNA processes, including packing the DNA so that it fits inside the cell. The primary proteins in chromatin are called histones. Think of the histone/DNA complex as spools of yarn. The DNA wraps tightly around the histone so that the small spool, rather than the long DNA strand, can fit inside the cell. There are several families of histones, and only some of them are involved in the processes under consideration in this study. For the sake of simplicity, we will simply refer to them as histones. Please refer to the research article for a more detailed description of which histones are involved in which processes.

It seems that there is a coordinated link between DNA compaction and pluripotency. When one of the histones involved in DNA compaction was removed, the mouse embryonic stem cells did not differentiate properly. The stem cells did not get their assignments, as they normally would. The DNA must be loosely wound during the early embryonic stages, but as the embryonic stem cells differentiate (assigned to a specific cell type), histone levels increase and the DNA becomes more tightly wound around the histone.

The key protein players in the pluripotentcy process are Nanog and Oct4. Nanog and Oct4 are regulated via DNA methylation, and as this study found, the absence of certain histones, and therefore the presence of loosely wound DNA, keeps Oct4 "turned on." Usually Oct4 gets "turned off" as the cell transitions from a pluripotent stem cell to a differentiated stem cell. If Oct4 stays activated, then the ESC never undergoes differentiation.

The authors conclude:

Our results suggest a role of H1 [histone] and chromatin compaction in epigenetic regulation of the pluripotency gene Oct4, likely mediated through DNA methylation and histone modifications. To our knowledge, this represents a novel mechanistic link by which bulk chromatin compaction is directly linked to pluripotency, by participating in repression of the pluripotency genes.

This is not a simple case of cause-and-effect. Note that several factors are in place and each activates and inactivates in turn, as if programmed to do so.

In both of these studies, there are proteins that are "turned on" and "turned off" at just the right time so that the complicated ensemble of development processes can occur. These are epigenetic factors that affect the complex process of cell differentiation.

In any other context, we would consider this type of complexity, with a program that tells the components what do and when to do it, a hallmark of the most sophisticated engineering. Those kinds of instructions do not just arise in a kind of add-on or co-opted Darwinian method. The more we delve into the inner working of the cell, the more we see how complicated it is -- complicated in a way that suggests purpose and design.

In case you were wondering, by the way, the studies on embryonic stem cell apoptosis were performed with human embryonic stem cells. The stem cells came from a stem cell line at the University of Wisconsin. Human embryonic stem cell research is, of course, the subject of considerable moral controversy. Some people believe the human embryo should be accorded the same dignity as a human person, while others think that the human embryo, while it is human tissue, is not morally equivalent to a human person.

Even though this research does have compelling implications for intelligent design, we recognize that the methods by which the results were obtained, while legal in the United States, are very much open to question on ethical grounds. Furthermore, we recognize that scientific studies usually begin with animal systems before advancing to human systems, but the scientists in this study chose to investigate human systems. The scientists in the DNA and chromatin study, on the other hand, used mouse systems to derive their data.

Image credit: human embryonic stem cells, Wikicommons.

Evolution News & Views May 26, 2012 7:00 AM, evolutionnews.org

If Humans Tweak Cell Machines, Is It Intelligent Design?

Among molecular machines in the cell, ATP synthase is one of the crown jewels. Virtually ubiquitous in living things, these rotary engines of life continue generating knowledge and inspiration for human designers.

Recently, we asked, "If Humans Write Genetic Code, Is It Intelligent Design?" Let's follow up with a similar question: this time, whether humans observing a "natural" molecular machine in the cell can come understand its design principles well enough to build customized versions.

Quick background: you have trillions of little rotary engines in your body providing you with a steady stream of energy pellets called ATP molecules. These ATP molecules are produced 24/7 (even in your sleep) by ATP synthase, a true rotary engine running on ions that has a rotor, stator, and camshaft. The engine operates an assembly platform that produces 3 ATP per revolution of the rotor. Your cells on a busy day can, via these engines, generate your body weight in ATP; if they ever stopped, you would be dead before you hit the floor. Like the bacterial flagellum, these rotating engines are irreducibly complex and much more efficient than any engine humans have invented.

A new paper in PNAS this week (open access) by scientists from Max Planck Institute and other European universities sought to understand why ATP synthase machines differ slightly among different organisms. The machine consists of two primary domains: the F₁ part, where ATP synthesis occurs, and the F₀ part, which resembles a waterwheel spinning from a flow of protons (some species use sodium ions). The ions come from the food you eat, or in the case of plants, from sunlight. Getting a steady flow of ions to run ATP synthase depends on an upstream factory of other complex motors and machines, but that's for another time.

The PNAS paper focused on the F₀ portion. It looks a bit like a carousel, with wedges called "c" subunits arranged in a ring that spins (the rotor). This c-ring usually consists of 11 c-subunits; in some species, however, it can consist of 8 to 15 subunits. Biochemists have always wondered why. This paper suggests an answer: the number of subunits is a function of the energetic requirements of the organism.

The researchers looked at a mutated bacterium with a 12-unit c-ring substituting for its natural 11-unit ring; the machine still worked -- but at lower ion motive force, and 20-50% reduced efficiency. From this and other considerations, they deduced that each organism produces a c-ring sized to its energetic needs. Here's how they put it:

The high degree of compliance in the architecture of the ATP synthase rotoroffers a rationale for the natural diversity of c-ring stoichiometries, which likely reflect adaptations to specific bioenergetic demands. These results provide the basis for bioengineering ATP synthases with customized ion-to-ATP ratios, by sequence modifications. (Bold added.)

Here, then, is another fine example of the seamless application of intelligent design principles, embracing natural design and human design. First, the authors detected functional design in the finely tuned adaptation of the machinery to the energy requirements of the organism (even though they assumed evolution did the designing). Then, they deduced that they could take this design principle and "tweak" it for their own purposes to create customized molecular motors.

So, as before, we invite a thought experiment: If a researcher without foreknowledge of this technology examined a microbe employing a customized ATP synthase, would he or she be justified in inferring that an intelligent cause played a role in its origin? If so, why not likewise infer an intelligent agent behind the "natural" molecular machine, since it also involves engineering principles finely tuned for efficiency and function?

YALE, PRINCETON, AND M.I.T. SCIENTISTS DISAGREE WITH DARWIN - ALONG WITH 750 OTHER PHD'S!

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

"The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field’s real problems."

- Dr. Vladimir L. Voeikov, Professor of Bioorganic, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences

                                                                         

During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, "artificial intelligence" research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism's central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.

Yet public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured that all known evidence supports Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.

The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001, hundreds of scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names.

The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.

The statement on the "Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" list reads as follows:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability 

of random mutation and natural selection 

to account for the complexity of life. 

Careful examination of the evidence 

for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

"There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard."

Click here to download a PDF copy of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list
Click here to find out how you can add your name to the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list

How to Get Apologetics in Your Church 2: Why Apologetics Matters to Every Believer and Every Church

Why Apologetics Matters to Every Believer and Every Church

by Lenny Esposito

“Apologetics? What are you apologizing for?”
“Is that a class that husbands are supposed to take?”
“What is that?”

These are questions I hear frequently whenever I mention the study of apologetics. It probably comes as no surprise the word “apologetics” is foreign to most people, even who are a part of the Christian church. Evangelicals, who define themselves by their passion to follow Jesus’ command to “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations”(Matt. 28:17) will usually look quizzically at me whenever I begin discussing the need for apologetics, even though apologetics is an essential part of making disciples. Why would this be?

[MP3 | RSS | iTunes]
One of the problems is simply that the church doesn’t talk a lot about it. Apologetics is generally understood to be a specialty discipline– specifically engaging in defending the faith against skeptics, alternate religions, cults, and contrary worldviews. As such, many pastors feel that it can only play a very limited role in ministering to the needs of their congregation. How does apologetics help the man trying to feed his family after losing his job or the newly widowed woman?

I’ve said before that in many churches, a person telling his or her pastor of their desire to start an apologetics ministry results in an experience similar to a young man telling his Jewish mother he wants to be a proctologist. “Well, I glad you’re going to be a doctor,” she would say, “But why did you have to choose that!” Pastors are happy to have people desiring to get into ministry opportunities, but they simply aren’t sure where apologetics fits in their church. However, many times both church leadership and laity fail to understand the more holistic aspects of providing a strong apologetics ministry to the local congregation. In this article, I’d like to highlight two benefits of an apologetics ministry that applies directly to every member of the church, benefits that you may not have considered before. 

Click here to continue reading.....

2,700-YEAR-OLD ARTIFACT BEARS THE NAME "BETHLEHEM"

2,700-YEAR-OLD BETHLEHEM SEAL UNEARTHED

Could prove birthplace of Jesus was bustling market town described in Old Testament

Published: 20 hours ago

(LONDON DAILY MAIL) — It’s about the size of a one penny piece, but its significance is huge.

Israeli archaeologists revealed today they have unearthed an incredible 2,700-year-old fragment that could prove the ‘Bethlehem’ as described in the Old Testament really existed.

The tiny artifact is part of an ancient seal that’s believed to be the oldest object ever found with the name of Jesus’ traditional birthplace inscribed on it.

Read the full story HERE.

DNA Being Used To Write Computer Code?

If Humans Write Genetic Code, Is It Intelligent Design?

Evolution News & Views May 22, 2012 6:00 AM 

Scientists are starting to use DNA to write computer code. They fancy themselves as designers of a system. What does this imply about the natural genetic code?

It's "totally rad," announced a press release from Stanford School of Medicine: "Scientists from Stanford's Department of Bioengineering have devised a method for repeatedly encoding, storing and erasing digital data within the DNA of living cells." After 3 years of work and 750 tries, they found a way to create and erase digital code using DNA molecules.

They're not using the A-G-C-T bases that the natural genetic code uses to store information. Instead, they use the way a portion of DNA points as the equivalent of a bit: one way indicates a one, the other indicates a zero. It's rad because they named it that: Recombinase Addressable Data (RAD). It offers the power to use DNA as non-volatile memory and a molecular "switch" to turn on fluorescent proteins in microbes.

This work, however, involves a seamless overlap with natural genetic code. First, the scientists are using living microbes. Second, they plan to use it for biological engineering. Third, they believe their work "might impact our understanding of and interaction with life." One researcher said, "Programmable data storage within the DNA of living cells would seem an incredibly powerful tool for studying cancer, aging, organismal development and even the natural environment."

Moreover, the original paper in PNAS¹ speaks of genetic material as a "natural data storage medium". Their new system works in conjunction with the natural genetic code and can survive 100 cell divisions; in other words, it is an artificial code working alongside a natural code.

This leads to a totally rad question: If a researcher without foreknowledge of this technology examined a microbe employing it, would he or she be justified in inferring that an intelligent cause played a role in its origin? If so, what's the difference with inferring an intelligent case for the origin of the "natural" genetic code, since it also involves the encoding and storage of functional information?

(Reposted from Evolution News & Views)

Top 3 Flaws of Evolution: Fossils, Mutations, Common Descent.

What Are the Top Three Flaws in Darwinian Evolution, as Taught Today in Public Schools?

By Casey Luskin May 17, 2012 3:11 PM 

Recently a university student posed this question: "What are the top three flaws in evolutionary theory being taught in public schools today?" My response was as follows:

Unfortunately most public schools do NOT teach about the flaws in evolutionary theory. Instead, they censor this information, hiding from students all of the science that challenges Darwinian evolution. But in a perfect world, if the evidence against Darwinian theory were taught, these would be my top three choices:

• (1) Tell students that the fossil record often lacks transitional forms and that there are "explosions" of new life forms, a pattern of radiations thatchallenges Darwinian evolutionary theory.


• (2) Tell students that many scientists have challenged the ability of random mutation and natural selection to produce complex biological features.


• (3) Tell students that many lines of evidence for Darwinian evolution and common descent are weak:

a. Vertebrate embryos start out developing very differently, in contrast with the drawings of embryos often found in textbooks which mostly appear similar.
b. DNA evidence paints conflicting pictures of the "tree of life". There is no such single "tree."
c. Evidence of small-scale changes, such as the modest changes in the size of finch-beaks or slight changes in the color frequencies in the wings of "peppered moths", shows microevolution, NOT macroevolution.

Of course, in a perfect world, I'd also prefer that more than merely "three flaws in evolutionary theory" be taught to students.

I also referred the student to a resource that we regularly send out to college students, The College Student's Back-to-School Guide to Intelligent Design, which contains lots of helpful answers to common objections to ID.

(Reposted from www.evolutionnews.org)