Computer super-virus shows anomaly of evolutionary thinking

News broke out in global media outlets at the end of May about the most sophisticated computer malware virus ever discovered. Dubbed Flame, it has infected hundreds of computers across the Middle East. Here is how media outlets describe it:

From Macleans

Kaspersky Lab, a Russian cyber security firm, has discovered that thousands of computers in the Middle East (mostly government machines, mostly in Iran) have been infected with a malicious piece of software they are calling Flame. Flame is insidious, destructive, and very cool. And no one will ever take credit for building it.

Similarities between Flame and the Stuxnet and DuQu viruses are leading to speculation that the programs were all created by the same people. Stuxnet, which bloodlessly set back the Iranian nuclear program by as much as a decade, is widely believed to be the product of an Israel-America cyberweaponry team-up. Of course, neither country has confirmed this.

From Discovery News

The most sophisticated and powerful cyberweapon to date — a Swiss Army Knife spy tool that can evolve and change to deal with any situation — has been discovered on the loose in several Middle Eastern countries, security researchers said Tuesday.

The Worm.Win32.Flame threat, or “Flame” for short, was likely built by the same nation-state responsible for the Stuxnet virus that targeted Iran’s nuclear power plant in 2010.

Flame can grow and change, too: What makes this cyberweapon so powerful is the ability to be reconfigured with new modules that turn an infected PC or industrial control system into whatever tool a spy dreams up.

From CBN

Experts see similarities between Flame and the Stuxnet virus, which disrupted Iran’s nuclear centrifuges in 2010. Stuxnet was widely believed to be the work of Israeli intelligence, leading to speculation that Israeli programmers may have struck again.

From Surface Earth

According to a wired.com report, The Flame virus is twenty times more complex than the Stuxnet virus , which struck Iran’ s nuclear facilities in 2007. Flame can take screenshots, and capture messages sent over an infected network, and even use the computer’s microphone to record conversations.

The experts believe that this level of complexity indicates that Flame was created by a government rather than an individual criminal or group of hacktivists. Commentators quoted in the Telegraph have suggested that Israel, China, or the United States may be responsible. Israel and United States were widely suspected of creating the Stuxnet virus, and Iran claims that it has noted significant similarities between Flame and Stuxnet, although the western cyber security firms investigating Flame disagree.

From National Post

He said there was evidence to suggest the code was commissioned by the same nation or nations that were behind Stuxnet and Duqu, which were built on a common platform.

Both Flame and Stuxnet appear to infect machines by exploiting the same flaw in the Windows operating system and employ a similar way of spreading.

That means the teams that built Stuxnet and Duqu might have had access to the same technology as the team that built Flame, he said.

From New York Times

Flame, these researchers say, shares several notable features with two other major programs that targeted Iran in recent years. The first virus, Duqu, was a reconnaissance tool that researchers say was used to copy blueprints of Iran’s nuclear program. The second, Stuxnet, was designed to attack industrial control systems and specifically calibrated to spin Iranian centrifuges out of control.

Because Stuxnet and Duqu were written on the same platform and share many of the same fingerprints in their source code, researchers believe both were developed by the same group of programmers.

From The Globe and Mail

In addition to its massive size and many modules, the software’s sophistication is evident from the way it infected machines in the first place. To get on a host computer, Flame was designed to provide a fake Microsoft security certificate. Pulling that off, experts say, would have required incredibly advanced knowledge of cryptography, indicating that math geniuses were among Flame’s authors.

Notice what these articles tell us that software security experts are deducing:

  1. A common design team developed both the Flame malvirus and the earlier discovered Stuxnet and Duqu viruses because of similarity in architecture between them.
  2. The ability of Flame to adjust and change (evolve) means that experts and resources on the level of nation states are behind this virus. This was not made by a bedroom hacker.
  3. Complexity of the malware is broadly measured by its functionality. It can do many things, more things than Stuxnet, and is thus considered more complex.

This reasoning and these deductions seem so reasonable to us that we, without much thought, follow along in their line of reasoning. And that should make us re-think another line of reasoning that is directly confronted by this logic. Notice what the following university textbooks quotes tell us about evidence for naturalistic evolution.

It became apparent that animal species that were similar in their anatomy also had similar genetic instructions. Researchers have also shown that, even though the wing of an insect and the arm of a primate look very different, the same basic instructions are used during their development. … The only explanation for these similarities and this connectedness that has withstood scientific scrutiny is evolution, and the only mechanism for evolution that has withstood scientific scrutiny is natural selectionBernard Wood. Human Evolution. 2005. p. 22

Hox gene expression provides the basis for anterior-posterior axis specification throughout the animals. This means that the enormous variation of morphological form among animals is underlain by a common set of instructions. Indeed hox genes provide one of the most remarkable pieces of evidence for deep evolutionary homologies among all the animals of the world.  Developmental Biology 8th Ed. 2006. SF Gilbert. p. 725

These two university textbooks (and many others could be cited) are telling us that similarity in genetic code is ‘one of the most remarkable pieces of evidence for deep evolutionary homologies’.   Really?  So why does similarity in code between computer viruses indicate to computer experts a common design team behind them?  These are very analogous comparisons and yet the conclusions drawn are opposite.

So how strong is this evidence for evolution? A couple of years ago, because of my background in software development and database design I picked up a university textbook dealing directly with sequencing of genetic information and storing that information in computer databases. Note how an expert in DNA sequencing data sees similarity in genetic information.

It is important to distinguish sequence homology from the related term sequence similarity because the two terms are often confused by some researchers who use them interchangeably in scientific literature. To be clear, sequence homology is an inference or conclusion about a common ancestral relationship drawn from sequence similarity comparison when the two sequences share a high enough degree of similarity. On the other hand, similarity is a direct result of observation from the sequence alignment. Sequence similarities can be quantified using percentages… In dealing with real research problems the issue of at what similarity level can one infer homologous relationships is not always clear … Essential Bioinformatics Jin Xiong 2006 p 32

In other words, the homology (i.e. evolution) is just an inference from the data. Therefore other inferences could also explain the data. But Xiong notes that the scientific literature ‘often’ (his word) confuses the inference with the data itself. If this is the case, then these researchers will not recognize other inferences since they think that their inference is really data.   The issue is not with the data, but with the mind interpreting the data.

The inferences drawn from the experts who reported Flame should lead us all to recognize that there is another good inference that can be drawn from similarity in DNA sequences between organisms. Similarity in code naturally infers common designer. And this makes sense. The reason that the iphone, ipad and the ipod share common features has nothing to do with evolution. They share common features because they share a common design team – those working in Apple. The fact that so many textbooks do not even acknowledge this very natural inference should raise our curiosity. The design inferences from Flame, in a context outside of biology, should prompt us to also consider design inferences in the natural sciences.

We recognize a mind behind the Flame virus because the code shows plan and purpose.  No one disputes this.  We can use this same reasoning to see if biblical events also exhibit verifiable plan and purpose.  You can be the judge, but the remarkable coordination of events separated by thousands of years in the sacrifice of Abraham and the inauguration of Passover lead me to think there is a Mind behind the coordination of these events.  And since they are converging on the same point it is reasonable to deduce that it is the same Mind behind these events, in the same manner that software experts deduce the same design team behind Stuxnet and Flame because of similarities between the two.  This mind is different than a human mind since it also makes verifiable predictions deep into the future.

Interesting to me, these  leading computer software experts were curious about the virus and investigated it with an open mind.  Why should we be afraid to do likewise with this Mind?  We might discover something life-changing.

 

 

BBC Reports Startling Genetic Tests – Neanderthal in Your Bloodline

I had been planning to put up a few posts dealing with theories of Jesus after his death since we are in the Post-Easter weeks, but I came across a fascinating article at BBC on Neanderthals, and given that I have also just put up the FAQ presentation on human evolution I thought this article deserved some attention.  In this FAQ I showed that recent research demonstrates that we modern humans have Neanderthal blood coursing through our veins (in the 3rd video of the FAQ: What about Human Evolution?).  The BBC article, entitled “How I traced my ancestry back to the Stone Age”, is the story of how a journalist had some of her DNA sequenced by sending a vial of her saliva to a DNA testing center from which they traced her genealogy.   Apart from her European Jewish ancestry she learned something else from her test results.

Another exciting thing I’ve learned goes all the way back to the Stone Age. The test I used has added a feature that lets you see what percentage – if any – of your DNA comes from Neanderthals, and 2.7% of mine is Neanderthal.

While that’s not unexpected – almost everyone of non-African descent does have a little bit of Neanderthal DNA in them [1 – 4%] – I find it fascinating to think that somewhere up the line, I was a twinkle in a Neanderthal’s eye.

What was Neanderthal man (and woman)?

Apart from being fascinating at a personal level, this has direct implications on human evolutionary theory.  Neanderthals have probably been the showcase ‘ape cave-man’ popularized across our culture for the last 150 years as scientific ‘evidence’ bolstering the story of human evolution.  Neanderthals did indeed have skull morphology different than the typical morphology we see in people today.  But there are variations in skull morphology across all sorts of human and animal populations.  A species can exhibit great variability in traits, and it comes from having many alleles within the population.  As alleles are lost the variability is decreased and the population loses the ability to adapt to new environments.  I noted this kind of process in the ‘evolution’ of the soapberry bug and saw that this was simply a loss of some alleles – not an evolutionary gain of new information.

In any case, the question had always been an open one as to whether the difference in skull morphologies of Neanderthal and Homo erectus from that of people today was due to evolution, or just due to the inherent range of skull shapes built into Homo sapiens.  If that were the case it would just prove that Homo sapiens come in various skull shapes just like we also come in, for example, different skin colors.  But that reasoning – sound though it was – would have done little to bolster the evolutionary story in popular imagination so instead Neanderthals were portrayed and illustrated as brutish, savage and ape-ish – they were the last rung on the evolutionary ladder until Homo sapiens evolved.

The Neanderthal Narrative & Image in our Culture

Neanderthal skeletons were first discovered in the mid-19th century, around the time of the publication of The Origin of Species, and thus became compelling in the mind of the public at that time ‘proving’ evolution.  The Neanderthal ‘story’ was largely framed by Boule, a prominent paleontologist of that time. The following quote from an anthropology text shows how Boule went about developing the Neanderthal story.

Unfortunately his (Boule’s) model was riddled with errors. Most of the mistakes stemmed from Boule’s preconception that Neanderthals did not fit into the human evolutionary mainstream. Having already decided that they were very primitive, he exaggerated their differences … barely upright with their heads so far forward they could hardly stand, shoulders hunched, and knees bent. He even gave them an opposable big toe similar to that of the apes… After Boule, even reconstructions of facial characteristics emphasized the primitive; in most, Neanderthal was given a vacuous and rather stupid expression – an open mouth and dazed look … When examining the evolution of Neanderthals, we cannot help but consider the evolution of thinking about them…[1]

Boule's image of Neanderthal
Boule's Neanderthal

We can see here that ‘preconceptions’ were the driving force producing a story.  The data (Neanderthal skeletons) were interpreted, and this from the context of a pre-existing belief system.  Thus, even in a secular context, a ‘myth’ was produced by a ‘priest’ (Boule), replete with objects of veneration (the reconstructions) that told a story (vacuous and stupid Neanderthal gives rise to sophisticated modern man) that was ‘believed’ by the educated masses in the same way that primitives believed their religious myths.  And contrary to the claim of ‘critical suspension of disbelief’ that naturalism is supposed to engender, the facts had nothing to do with it.  Religion is certainly no prerequisite for the development of mythology.

And as with Neanderthals, I show in the FAQ presentation that all other popular ‘ape-men’ stories are really just that – stories driven primarily by imagination and preconceptions rather than by hard data.

But Neanderthals Really are … Us

But with Neanderthal we now come full circle from Boule.  Just as the author of the BBC article discovered, both you and I have Neanderthals in our genealogy.  Neanderthals, as well as Homo erectus are Homo sapiens pure and simple.  As the textbook I used in my FAQ class presentation summarized it:

In this scenario for the evolution of modern humans it would be difficult to draw a line between say, Neanderthals and early modern humans in Europe and between Homo erectus and early modern humans in Asia… these gradations, together with the melding effect of the gene flow that has occurred between geographical regions, justify including Homo erectus and all the regional hominin variants that came after it in a single species … Homo sapiens.[2]

We can be sure that interpretations of all sorts will be developed around this new information of Neanderthal’s blood coursing through our veins.   But given our understanding that variance in skull morphology is best understood as gradations within Homo sapiens we should treat with skepticism those stories that rely simply on these differences to project an evolutionary ‘just-so’ narrative.  Otherwise we risk repeating the gullibility of the educated that believed Boule’s stories of his day, now known to be so wrong, simply because their imaginations were tickled.

Neanderthal as per BBC article
Neanderthal as per BBC article
An image of Neanderthal using DNA data
An image of Neanderthal using DNA data

[1] Kenneth L. Feder & Michael A Park, 1997. Human Antiquity: An introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology 3rd ED. p. 278-279

[2] Bernard Wood.  Human Evolution. 2005 p. 136

What about Human Evolution?

[See my related post on whether there was a real Adam or not here and a Noah or not here (and that controversial flood here)]

Recently I had the opportunity to present a scientific critique of human evolution in a university human evolution anthropology class. I recorded the presentation and Q&A which followed and then spliced it into the three videos below. My overall conclusion, referencing in part the textbook and scientific journals, is that the human evolution story is just that – a story – which says more about our society and culture than anything derived from hominin fossil data.

In the first video I discuss how it is our worldview which moves us to interpret data in a certain way, rather than the data forming our worldview. I cite from the textbook used in the course to provide some examples of this. I then look at how the fossil hominin data is to all practical extent removed from investigators. I introduce the Catalogue of Fossil Hominids – a catalogue of discovered fossil hominids up to mid-1970’s – and contend that the fossil data is actually much better than we are usually led to believe – it just does not follow the standard evolutionary story so we do not know about it.

 

 

In the second video (a continuation of the same presentation in class). I systematically go through the most ancient hominin candidates that are typically proposed as the first human ancestors that diverged from apes 5-8 million years ago. I analyze Ardipithecus, tchadensis, Tuang skull (an australopithecine), australopithecus afarensis (ie Lucy), australopithecus africanus, Laetoli footprints and homo habilis and argue that all of these do not readily fit within the standard evolutionary story. I look at fossil hominid KP271 which we usually do not hear about since it does not follow the standard story.

 

 

In the third video I examine the standard homo specimens: homo erectus, archaic homo sapiens (ie Heidelbergensis) and Neanderthals. I look at 2010 Neanderthal nuclear DNA sequencing data results which show Neanderthals interbred with modern homo sapiens and that therefore all these homo species can be seen as varieties of homo sapiens – this is one conclusion supported in the textbook. Funny thing, the BBC reported the same thing just after.  The video then follows the Q&A time where the class interacted on the material I presented.

 

From Soapberry Bugs to SuperBugs: Nature’s slippery slide down.

In the second video of Session 1 I documented immense confusion in attempts to try to identify a natural process which can be observed to increase the information and/or functional content in biological organisms.  And given the confident (but mistaken) claims of its detection and operation it is obvious that naturalists (in the sense of those who believe natural processes can explain life through an evolutionary process) expect it to be observable, i.e. the implicit prediction is that this process should be detected.  I surveyed the stickleback fish case study – written about in many university textbooks and popular books on evolution – and showed from what they themselves say this was simply a loss process – a slide down, not a gain up.  Then we saw that though birds can lose wings, and mutations can cause Apert’s Syndrome, these are not examples of gain-of-function processes – even though they are touted as such in the textbooks.  Natural selection, though observed, is also not a gain-of-function process.  They all decrease the information – that is – these processes of nature slide genomes downwards, not push them upwards to more functionality.

In our previous post we saw the cell function at the microscopic level, a point-of-view that convinced long-time atheist Antony Flew to change his mind for Intelligent Design.  But what rebuttals are given in university texts?  Let’s take a look at a prominent one: The Evolution of the Soapberry Bug.

The Soapberry Bug: A Case Study in Evolution

It took me some time (and a lot of reading) to arrive at this conclusion.  And if this is a new thought for you I am sure that likewise this will require more consideration.  But I am not just maliciously picking on some ‘mistaken’ examples in a sea of correct ones.  The examples I covered in the video are endemic across the literature.  But how can this be?  Analyzing another case study, taken from Evolutionary Analysis by Scott Freeman and JC Herron, can help us better understand how it occurs.

Soapberry bugs: Before & After
Soapberry bugs: Before & After the New Host Plant

In this study, soapberry bugs in Florida had traditionally fed on the Balloon vine fruit as shown in this figure taken from the text.

But in 1926 a new host plant for this bug was introduced and almost immediately biologists noticed a change in the beak length.  Our text concludes that:

the soapberry bug population evolved …the characteristics of soapberry bugs … have changed substantially (pg 41)

So again, an example of observed evolution is claimed.  A graph of beak lengths over time is presented from the text to support this conclusion.  I added the green vertical 1926 line which is the point at which beak lengths changed.  So what can we conclude?  As you can see, before 1926 soapberry beak lengths ranged from 9 to 5.5 millimeters – a 3.5 mm range.  After 1926, when this new tree was introduced the beak size range was reduced from 7.5 to 5.5 millmeters – a 2 mm range.  The title for the graph (which I circled) states this as ‘evolutionary change in soapberry bugs’.  But was anything new gained or developed?  Were even new beak lengths, not previously seen, observed?  No! Not at all!  All that happened was that after the new tree was introduced, beak sizes from 7.5 to 9 millimeters disappeared.  Information was lost!  A certain allele that produced long beaks was selected against in the new environment and was now gone.  Change –Yes!  Natural Selection – Yes!  Evolution – definitely not!  Their own data refutes it!

Evolution: Not just any Kind of Change

But how can this case study, which simply documents a loss (of longer beak lengths), be touted as an example of evolution?  It is simple.  The authors have equated ‘evolution’ with ‘change’.  But that is erroneous at best and misleading at worst.  Evolutionary naturalism as the establishment’s answer to Design is a claim to account for the origin and development of all life, and is supposed to be a process that over long time produces new information, genes and structures that were not previously there.  That is not just any kind of change, but a certain kind of change – one that increases genetic information and function.  To reason like these authors is like saying that increasing company profits is simply a change in the balance sheet, and thus if one can show any balance sheet change – such as a corporate loss  – this would demonstrate increased profits since a change has occurred in the balance sheet??!!   This is such a basic logical error – called the fallacy of equivocation – whereby the definition of a key term is subtly modified during the reasoning process (in this case ‘evolution’ is modified from ‘change with new function and information’ to ‘any change’) that I found it breathtaking to see it not just once, but again and again in so many university textbooks and books promoting naturalism and evolution.

Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics: A Case of Evolution?

And this is also true of the cases of Superbugs, perhaps the strongest cases in the public mind of observed evolution.  We have all heard of bacteria that have become resistant to antibiotics, having thus ‘evolved’, and now threatening humans with an epidemic.  What is happening in these situations?  Are new enzymes, processes, or organelles that were not previously there being developed by these bacteria?  That is what I had originally thought.  If so that would be an example of an innovative evolutionary process.

Natural Selection on Pre-Existing Traits: Not Evolution

But if we examine the literature we find this is not the case.  Consider the following:

‘most cases’ antibiotic resistance results from selection of an existing genetic trait, especially those traits that are highly variable, such as the natural defences that all organisms possess[1]

In other words in most cases, there were bacteria prior to the introduction of the antibiotic that already had the resistance.  The other bacteria were selected away by the antibiotic and we are left with the resistant bacteria.  For example, there was a 1988 University of Alberta study of bacteria on the bodies of Arctic explorers frozen in 1845.  Investigators discovered that some of the bacterial strains were resistant to antibiotics. The study, which evaluated six strains of Clostridium on three men who had been buried in permafrost, found the bacteria were particularly resistance to antibiotics that were developed over a century after the men died.[2]

What about Bacteria developing drug Resistance?

As we see here, conjugation, and processes that create resistance in bacteria – making them ‘superbugs’ is not an ‘evolutionary’ case of gaining new information or creating new functions.

No Observed Gain-of-Function

The mutations causing resistance to mycin is a case similar to birds on remote islands losing wings – it may be an advantage since there are no predators on those islands – but it is not an example of gain-of-function.  In the specific antibiotic environment, having a misshapen ribosome prevents the antibiotic from readily attaching and there is thus resistance.  But the ribosome does not function as well as non-mutant ribosomes and thus these bacteria are selected out (eliminated) in the wild.

Bacteria: No Evolution Observed

French biologist Pierre Grasse remarked on the irony of using bacteria as a showcase to try to observe evolution.  He stated:

Bacteria, the study of which has formed a great part of the foundation of genetics and molecular biology, are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants . . . bacteria, despite their great production of intra-specific varieties, exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Echerichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago.[4]

Resistance to Insecticide: No Evolution

These same processes also explain insect resistance to DDT and other insecticides.  Evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala reports that:

Insect resistance to a pesticide was first reported in 1947 for the housefly (Musca domestica) with respect to DDT. Since then the resistance to pesticides has been reported in at least 225 species of insects and other arthropods. The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.[5]

Fruit Fly Mutations: No Observed Evolution

The fruit fly is another small insect from which investigators have tried to ‘observe’ evolution. Rifkin writes about this

The fruit fly has long been the favorite object of mutation experiments because of its fast gestation period (twelve days). X-rays have been used to increase the mutation rate in the fruit fly 15,000 percent. All in all, scientists have been able to “catalyze the fruit fly evolutionary process such that what has been seen to occur in Drosophila (fruit fly) is the equivalent of many millions of years of normal mutations and evolution.” Even with this tremendous speed-up of mutations, scientists have never been able to come up with anything other than another fruit fly.[6]

The ability to observe this alleged process has eluded scientists since Darwin so eloquently argued for it.  However, instead of coming clean about this, textbooks and news articles confuse us in a slippery way by equivocating evolution with ‘change’.  And this is always presented as a scientific (ie observed) answer to Design.  But Soapberry bugs to SuperBugs simply attest, along with all other observed changes, that Nature is simply on a slide downwards.  To-date there is no observed alternative to Design.


[1] Palumbi, S.R., Evolution—humans as the world’s greatest evolutionary force, Science 293:1786–1790, 2001; p. 1787

[2] McGuire, R., Eerie: human arctic fossils yield resistant bacteria, Medical Tribune, 29 December, 1988, pp. 1, 23

[3] Garrett, L., The Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases in a World Out of Balance, Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, New York, 1994. P 413

[4] Pierre P. Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms. New York, Academic Press, 1977 p.87

[5] Francisco Ayala. “The Mechanisms of Evolution” Scientific American  Vol 239 September 1978.  p 63

[6] Jeremy Rifkin,  Algeny 1983  p.1983

Origins: Evolution or Design – why touch it?

This site is about the gospel.  Yet Session 1 and several of my posts deal with origins, dissecting university textbooks and other books on evolution.  Why bothering getting into this confusing and sometimes touchy subject?

It is a good question and someone challenged me on it a little while ago.   After all, it can be such a polarizing topic – why go there?  I thought I would address it with a five page pdf article which I have attached with this post.  In it I show how what we think about our origins is foundational to everything we understand about ourselves.  It affects all areas of human inquiry.  This includes our understanding of ethics, as we will see in Session 2.

I hope you take the 5-10 minutes you will need to read this article.  I do not argue for the correctness of any belief of system – evolutionary or otherwise.  I only show that it is an important question.  And important questions demand informed answers, not politically correct silence.  As the article says, it is well worth the fuss.

Evolution and origins – why the fuss?

Antony Flew Considered Intelligent Design

When I was a university student, Antony Flew was considered to be one of the outstanding philosophers alive at the time.  He was also a prominent – world famous even – atheist.  In fact one of his contributions in the early 1970’s was an essay arguing that the very concept of God was meaningless since it was not testable in any rational way.

Antony Flew was born in the early 1920’s, and by the late 1930’s had concluded that there was no God.  But in 2007 he co-authored a rather remarkable book entitled There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. So what caused this man to change his mind? In a 2005 interview he explained:

It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account.

Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.[1]

In his 2007 book Antony Flew stated that “the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries” and that “the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it”.  He stated the issue succinctly in his book:

The philosophical question that has not been answered in origin-of-life studies is this: How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities, and “coded chemistry”? Here we are not dealing with biology, but an entirely different category of problem.[2]

In late 2006, Flew joined 11 other academics in urging the British government to teach intelligent design in the state schools.[3]

I am not generally swayed solely by opinions of leading people.  But I rarely ignore them.  I want to know the reasons which these people base their opinions on.  So what was it that Antony Flew learned about the cell that was not known in the 1930’s when he first decided that there was no God?  Take a look at some of the following videos that have been made recently to teach students how parts of the cell work.  As you watch them ask yourself these questions.  How could this cellular machinery put itself together to start cellular life?  Can this work if only half the components are present ‘waiting’ for the other half (and remember these are basic cells functions that are essential for life)?  Could this be assembled by chance (one cannot invoke natural selection since there is no reproduction until these processes work)?  Follow Flew’s lead and Consider Design at the cellular level.

Intelligent Design:  ATP Synthase

This one shows ATP Synthase – the enzyme that makes ATP, the molecule used for energy in all cellular functions.  Without this energy there could be no life.  Each cell in all bodies has many mitochondria organelles where the ATP Synthase is lodged in its membrane.  While you watch this video you will have generated trillions of ATP.

Intelligent Design: RNA Transcription

This one shows how information in DNA is transcribed to RNA.  Without this capability life could not make proteins – the building blocks of cells.  Notice that it requires ATP to do this while the ATP Synthase requires DNA-RNA transcription.  A decidedly chicken-and-egg problem.

Intelligent Design: Photosynthesis

This one shows how photosynthesis works.  This process is found in cyanobacteria, the simplest cells, and is the prerequisite function to convert solar energy into chemical energy, without which life could not function.  Notice again how ATP Synthase is required here.

I encourage you to watch the many fascinating educational videos on how the cell works.  You can find them (Virtual Cell) at http://vcell.ndsu.edu/animations/home.htm

Certainly at an intuitive level, these cellular functions look like machines, and machines are made by intelligent agents.  So what is the naturalistic evolutionary rebuttal?  When I understood that is was a more-or-less blind appeal to ‘natural selection’, showcased at the university textbook level with examples like the evolution of the Soapberry bug, it was not hard to spot that this was simply a case of loss of functional information, not a gain of anything new.

When I also understood that the evolutionary argument from homology could just as easily be interpreted as evidence from a common designer I changed my mind.

I can also see why Antony Flew changed his mind.


[1] My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: an exclusive interview with former British atheist Professor Antony Flew by Gary Habermas, Philosophia Christi, Winter 2005

[2] Antony Flew: There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind,” New York: Harper One, 2007, p124.

The Ubiquity of the Design Inference

I have noticed that it is often the very things that surround us all the time that escape our notice.  Or at least we seem to easily miss the significance of that which is everywhere – the ubiquitous.   It is fish who are likely to fail to notice the water that they swim in – precisely because it is all around them, all the time.

The same is true of our Design Inference.  It is so innate to us that we can miss it even when it confronts us directly.  This realization snuck up on me last week when I was staying with a friend of mine.

This friend is wrestling deeply with questions pertaining to the Gospel.  Is there a God?  Has He revealed himself?  Or have people made him up?  If He has revealed himself, how should one separate his ‘fingerprints’ from those of people?  Is the historical Jesus accessible to us?  As we shared our thoughts, insights and doubts about these and other similar questions our friendship grew because it is often the sharing of these questions, rather than having similar answers that can spark fellowship.  As part of his search he was exploring naturalistic answers, and given that I believe the gospel assertion that we are made by a Creator, he invited me and another to view the NOVA series Becoming Human. It is a documentary on naturalistic human evolution.  We watched the third episode entitled Last Human Standing.

I predicted that the general trend would be that as more information is gathered one would see that the supposedly intermediate ‘ape-men’ would be either human or ape.  This was based on my experience in discovering in the literature that there is marked absence of transitional fossils across the fossil record (see Session 1b video for more on that).  The documentary did show, through DNA sequencing comparisons that Neanderthals were fully human.  Their DNA is the same as ours.  I showed my friend how other data presented in the documentary fit readily within a Biblical framework.  One needed just to look at the data slightly differently.

But it was the inferences and reasoning logic of the anthropologists interviewed in the documentary that made me take note.  They were excited because they had discovered rocks in Africa that had etchings scratched on them.  They had also discovered shells with patterned holes in them.  Their conclusion was that this was the first instance ever of information being stored outside a human brain.  And given the presence of these artefacts, hominids at this point must have evolved sufficiently to have minds capable of symbolic thought.  And it was then that the irony struck me.

Why did these anthropologists very naturally, and without hesitation, deduce that hominids at this ‘stage’ of evolution must have developed the capability of symbolic thought? Because we know from universal experience – it is ubiquitous – that information and design only comes from an intelligent agent.  These anthropologists did not stop to wonder if the holes in the shells and the etchings on the rocks were produced by time, chance and natural processes.  They used the design inference to deduce that they were made by hominids and that these hominids must therefore have been ‘intelligent’.  And we the viewers did not even question their reasoning.  Without batting an eye we accepted it as self-evidently logical and reasonable.  The inference to an intelligent agent when confronted by design is ubiquitous.

Yet in the same interview these same anthropologists surmised that these etchings and shell holes were the first instance ever of information stored outside the brain.  Really?  The information stored universally in the biological world in DNA, from which kidneys, wings, lungs, feathers – and yes even brains – are built is astronomically more complex and functional than any etchings on rocks or holes in shells.

Is it really a stretch to deduce an Intelligent Designer when we are confronted with information in DNA that is far more complex than anything man has ever developed when we at the same time so naturally deduce ‘Intelligent Hominids’ when confronted by information that is far less impressive?  That is the question we take up in Session 1 – The Case for God: Considering Design.  The videos in this session are high definition and they are partitioned into chapters so you can stop and then re-start viewing in marked spots.

1. The Case for God – Considering Design

It is generally assumed in our world today that naturalistic evolution can explain how life arose and developed into what it is today.  In other words, the origin and development of everything from lobsters, giraffes and humans – and everything in between – can supposedly be explained by evolution.

When I was asking some basic questions of the gospel (as summarized in About Me: The Wisdom I learned from a filthy-rich, hard-drinking playboy) I had read books that called evolution into question and argued for a Creator.  However, it was when I was a grad student in Forest Engineering that I decided to study university textbooks and journals used to teach evolution to dig deeper into the subject.  It was eye-opening.  What the critics of evolution wrote was one thing, but it was the arguments and rationales used in the textbooks and journals explaining evolution that moved me far more.  Since my grad student days I periodically read the current textbooks used in university.  In the following four videos I take you on a tour of some of these textbooks so you retrace the journey that I took.

This first video introduces the Design Inference and asks whether such a view, at a high level, fits with the data.  Seeing how leading evolutionists describe what and how life is shows us that there is at least an initial fit.

This second video looks at whether we observe the process of evolution occurring today.  After all, science is based on what we observe.  What do the texts says?…

This third video surveys the fossil record of natural descent and then using the alleged evolution of the bird-lung looks at some theoretical problems with functional transitions.

This fourth video looks at misconceptions that are common in our culture about evolution and then concludes by revisiting Design.

These video sessions reference some of the books and journals that I have studied over the years.  The main ones used in the videos are:

Kenneth V Kardong,  An Introduction to Biological Evolution. 2005

Snustad and Simmons.  Principles of Genetics 2nd Ed 1997

Francis Collins.  The Language of God. 2006

SF Gilbert. Developmental Biology 8th Ed 2006.

Scott Freeman and JC Herron. Evolutionary Analysis 4th Ed. 2007

ENK Clarkson &  Blackwell.  Invertebrate Palaeontology and Evolution. 1979

Peter Price. Biological Evolution, 1996

Davis & Kenyon.  Of Pandas and People: The central question of biological origins. 1993

Blog Posts Related to this Session

  • 07/05/2020 - A Teen explores the Flood

  • 01/05/2020 - A Teen explores Evolution & Natural Selection

  • 08/10/2013 - University survey affirms we are ‘Bound to Believe’

  • 01/06/2013 - Does Evolution make sense in light of biology?

  • 04/09/2012 - …But Corrupted (Part 1 – like orcs of Middle-earth)

  • 27/08/2012 - In the Image of God

  • 26/07/2012 - System upgrades shows hopelessness of Darwinian evolution

  • 19/07/2012 - ConsidertheGospel System upgrade shows hopelessness of Darwinian evolution (Part 1)

  • 18/06/2012 - The Faith of a World’s leading Evolutionary Anthropologist

  • 11/06/2012 - Computer super-virus shows anomaly of evolutionary thinking

  • 22/04/2012 - BBC Reports Startling Genetic Tests – Neanderthal in Your Bloodline

  • 14/04/2012 - What about Human Evolution?

  • 13/02/2012 - From Soapberry Bugs to SuperBugs: Nature’s slippery slide down.

  • 06/02/2012 - Origins: Evolution or Design – why touch it?

  • 31/01/2012 - Antony Flew Considered Intelligent Design

  • 24/01/2012 - The Ubiquity of the Design Inference