Now that we have established what needs explaining (biological information, and the origin and functional interrelatedness of cellular machinery) and the scientific method biologists employ to formulate an explanation, we turn our attention to the four possible explanations for life’s origin: (1) Chance; (2) Necessity; (3) Combination of chance and necessity; (4) Intelligent agency.  In this post I will examine the possibility that life can be explained in terms of chance processes alone.

Just like the lottery, specific probabilities can be assessed for the origin of life by chance.  To illustrate how probabilities are assessed, consider a combination lock.  What are the chances of someone guessing the correct combination of a lock with four dials containing 10 digits each?  To determine the chances one must multiply the number of digits on each dial (10) by itself four times (because there are four dials): 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 = 10,000 different possible combinations.  The chances of guessing the correct combination, then, are 1 in 10,000.  If one more dial was added to the lock, it would decrease the odds by a factor of 10 (1 in 100,000).  If one is given only one try, the odds of getting the right combination are overwhelmingly against him—so much so that if the lock opened everyone would suspect that his selection was not random, but based on intelligence, or that the lock was faulty.  The odds of cracking the combination increase, however, as one increases the number of attempts.  If one is given 100,000 tries to guess the combination, then the odds are that he will eventually guess the combination through random attempts alone (if each try took 10 seconds, you could crack the 4-dial code in about 28 hours, and the 5-dial code in about 11 days).

Because the addition of every new part increases the odds exponentially, when you get into sufficiently complex objects like proteins and DNA, the odds of them forming by chance alone are effectively 0.  Why?  Because there is not enough time for even half of the possible “combinations” necessary to form a single protein to have been tested by chance alone.

The simplest living cell is Mycoplasma genitalium, a bacteria with 580,070 nucleotide base pairs, and 517 genes that code for 482 different proteins.  Scientists, however, think it may be possible for a cell to function with less DNA, and as little as 250-400 proteins.[1] This marks the minimal complexity for life.  So what are the chances that 250 functional proteins could arise by chance to form the first living cell?[2] To determine this we need to first establish the chances of forming even one protein by chance.

Some of the shortest functional proteins in the cell consist of at least 150 amino acids. The chance of getting those amino acids to assemble themselves in the right sequence by chance alone is 1 in 10¹⁶⁴ (a 1 followed by 164 zeros).[3] That’s 1 in 100 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.  To put this in perspective, there are only 10⁸⁰ number of protons in the entire observable universe!  That means the chances of finding a specified particle in the observable universe are a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion times greater than the chances of producing a functional protein consisting of only 150 amino acids.  And these are the odds of forming just one protein.  Since the simplest living cell requires at least 250 different proteins, the chances of forming the necessary proteins by chance alone is 1:10^41,000!

But wait, you say, given enough time, couldn’t the odds be met?  No.  Given a liberal estimate, there have only been 10¹³⁹ events in the entire universe since the Big Bang.[4] So even if every event in the history of the universe was devoted to building a single functional protein, the number of sequences produced thus far would be less than 1 out of a trillion trillion of the total number of events needed to give it even a 50% chance of success! And that’s just one protein!  The other 249 would still need to be accounted for.  Anyone who believes chance can succeed with these odds is being irrational.

Random chance cannot explain the origin of life, but what about necessity?  Can natural law explain it?  We’ll take up this possibility next time.

In even the simplest of cells approximately 20 proteins are needed to transcribe DNA, more than 100 proteins are needed to translate RNA into proteins, and more than 30 are needed for replicating DNA during mitosis.

[2]The chances of forming a protein by chance are roughly equivalent to the chances of forming the gene that codes for the protein by chance (the information content is equal as well), but most OOL researchers choose to calculate the odds of forming proteins because it is simpler.

[3]This number is calculated by adding the odds of forming a sequence of 150 amino acids that can fold into a stable three-dimensional structure capable of performing a biological function (1:10⁷⁴), plus the odds of forming only peptide bonds between amino acids (1:10⁴⁵), plus the probability of sequencing only and all left-handed amino acids (1:10⁴⁵): 10⁷⁴ + 10⁴⁵ + 10⁴⁵ = 10¹⁶⁴.  It does not take into account additional factors such as the odds of all 20 amino acids being produced in enough quantities and being in close enough proximity to form a protein.

One might wonder why the odds of forming a functional sequence of 150 amino acids is not 1:10¹⁹⁵ since that is the sum of 20 multiplied by itself 150 times.  While that number does represent the odds of obtaining a specific amino acid sequence, we are only interested in the odds of obtaining a functional protein (and there are a number of sequences that will lead to a functional protein).  The odds of obtaining a sequence of 150 amino acids that can perform a biological function, while astronomical, are considerably better than the odds of obtaining a specific amino acid sequence.

[4]William Dembski calculated this figure by multiplying together the number of elementary particles (10⁸⁰), the number of seconds since the Big Bang (10¹⁶), and the number of particle interactions per second (10⁴³).

In May of this year the District of Columbia passed a law recognizing the legality of same-sex marriages performed in states where they are legal.  Today, they voted 11-2 to legalize same-sex marriages performed in D.C.  The mayor of D.C., Adrian Fenty, has vowed to sign it.  Because of D.C.’s unique status, the U.S. Congress has 30 legislative days to review the bill.  If they do not act to overturn it during that time, it becomes law (and there’s not much chance they will).  It looks like D.C. will be the sixth jurisdiction in the U.S. to legalize same-sex marriage.

What is the scientific method?  Everyone who sat through grade-school science class knows the answer to this question, right?: observation, hypothesis, prediction, experimentation, conclusion.  What may surprise you is that there is no such thing as the scientific method.  There are a variety of methods scientists employ in their quest to discover the truth about the natural world, none of which can be claimed as the scientific method.  Which method a scientist uses depends on what he is studying.  While the method outlined above works well for “experimental scientists” such as chemists and physicists, it doesn’t apply to “historical scientists” (i.e. those who study the past) such as paleontologists, astronomers, and evolutionary biologists.  Those in the historical sciences require a different method.

Historical scientists study the past, not the present.  They seek to discover the historical causes responsible for past events – effects that we observe in the present.  For such a task the scientific method outlined above simply won’t work.  It’s the wrong tool.  To explain the structure of the fossil record, for example, one cannot engage in experimentation.  Likewise, there is no need for making predictions since predictions address the future, not the past.  How, then, do historical scientists test their theories?

Famed Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould explained that those working in the historical sciences test their theories by means of their explanatory power.  In their search for historical causes they operate according to a principle called the “method of multiple working hypotheses.”  Essentially, they postulate multiple causes that could be responsible for the observed effect, and then compare them to see which cause best explains the data in question.  This sort of approach is also called abductive reasoning, or “inference to the best explanation.”

How do scientists determine what constitutes the “best” explanation?  To establish some cause X as the best explanation one must show (1) that X is capable in principle of explaining the effect in question [causal adequacy], (2) was present and operative at the time the effect was produced [causal existence], and (3) has greater explanatory scope and explanatory power than competing hypotheses.  And if it can be shown that there is only one known cause in operation today that is capable of producing the observed effect (causal uniqueness), then scientists can be reasonably certain that that cause was responsible for producing the effect in question.

Let me illustrate how this process works.  If when I wake up, I look out my window and see that my driveway is wet, there are several possible causal explanations for this historical event: (1) the lawn sprinklers went off in the night; (2) someone washed the car with a garden hose; (3) it rained.  Those are my multiple working hypotheses.  Which can best explain the data?  If I observe that the driveway is wet but not the road, the rain hypothesis is ruled out since we would expect the road to be wet as well.  If I observe that the lawn is also dry, that eliminates the possibility of sprinklers as the cause.  Finally, I observe that the car is shiny clean.  The garden hose hypothesis best explains these observations.  But was that cause present?  Yes, I observe it lying in the driveway next to the car, so the garden hose hypothesis satisfies the causal existence criterion as well.  It follows, then, that the driveway is wet because someone washed the car with the garden hose.

Now that we understand the method historical scientists use to discover past causes, what is the best explanation for the origin of the machinery, processes, and information in the cell?  Most scientists think a valid scientific explanation must appeal to purely naturalistic processes: (1) chance, (2) necessity, (3) or a combination of both.  But what about intelligence?  Could the cause of life be an intelligent agent?  We know information routinely originates from thoughtful, conscious beings, so it seems at least possible that a designing intelligence could be responsible for the specified complexity found in the cell.  If so, intelligent agency should be included as a possible explanation for consideration as well.  Indeed, since the only known source for generating complex specified information is intelligent agents, prima facie a designing intelligence should be considered the best explanation of the data.

Many scientists will dismiss this option out-of-hand on the grounds that science cannot detect the actions of intelligent agents.  But this is not a scientific conclusion; it is a philosophical presupposition (and a false one at that, seeing that branches of science such as archaeology and forensics regularly detect the presence of intelligent agents in the natural world).  Why should a priori philosophical commitments prevent us from considering all possible causes, especially when this philosophical bias excludes what appears to be the best explanation?  If the goal of science is to discover the truth about the physical world, and the evidence points to the activity of an intelligent agent, shouldn’t we be allowed—in principle at least—to conclude that an intelligent agent is responsible?  Either the goal of science is the pursuit of truth, or it is not.  The goal of science should be to find the right answers, not the right kind of answers: those that conform to philosophical naturalism.

Historical science is a search for past causes.  Our search should not be limited to natural causes alone, but should include any and all possible causes.  We should be allowed to follow the evidence to wherever it leads, not only where naturalism allows.  As Greg Koukl has opined, “The object and domain of science should be the physical world, but its goal should be truth, not merely physical explanations.  Though science is restricted to examining physical effects, when causes are inferred, there should be no limitation.”[1]

The only cause in operation today that is known to be capable of producing specified complexity (causal adequacy) is intelligent agents, so if we find specified complex things in the past, we are rational to conclude through abductive reasoning that they have been caused by an intelligent agent.  And since intelligence is the only cause capable of producing specified complexity (causal uniqueness), it follows that an intelligent agent is the best explanation for the origin of biological information.

But wait, how do we know an intelligent agent existed at the times in question?  By logical deduction.  If there is only one known cause of a certain effect, and we observe that effect, we are justified in concluding that the cause was present at the time.  As Meyer writes, “Logically, one can infer the past existence of a cause from its effect, when the cause is known to be necessary to produce the effect in question.  If there are no other known causes—if there is only one known cause—of a given effect, then the presence of the effect points unambiguously back to the (uniquely adequate) cause.”  For example, if only volcanic eruptions can explain certain rock formations, then when we observe those rock formations in the fossil record we are justified in concluding that volanoes must have existed at that time in history.  Likewise, if biological information can only be explained in terms of intelligent agency, then the presence of biological information proves the presence of a designing intelligence in the history of life’s formation on Earth.

Consider the following parable.  Imagine that researchers in Antarctica discover certain markings on a stone, as well paintings of animals in cave buried beneath the ice.  Testing proves that the markings and paintings are 25 million years old, which is much earlier than the arrival of intelligent hominids.  Because we know that such patterns can only be produced by intelligent agents, we would be justified in concluding either that hominids evolved much sooner than we thought, or that there were other intelligent beings prior to hominids, even if we are ignorant of their identity.  The same is true of the cell.  It evidences specified complexity, and thus we would be justified in concluding that life was created by a designing intelligence, even if we do not know the identity of that designer.

Now that we have established the methods by which historical scientists do their research, and the validity of including intelligent agency in the mix of our multiple working hypotheses, we will turn our attention to the possible causes of life, beginning with the naturalistic hypotheses.  Next time….

If you haven’t already done so, read parts 1 and 2 of this series as well.

In my first post on Meyer’s Signature in the Cell I discussed information theory, and claimed that the cell exhibits functional information—information that cannot be explained in terms of the physical machinery of the cell.  In this post I want to provide some background on the machinery and inner workings of the cell to provide evidence for the claim that the cell contains complex specified information (functional information), and explain why biologists have come to recognize that DNA stores and transmits “genetic information,” contains a “genetic blueprint” with “assembly instructions,” and expresses a “digital code.” 

The two most basic components of the cell are DNA and proteins.  DNA is made up of a 4 character chemical alphabet: adenine, thymine, guanine, cytosine (these are called nucleotides).  These nucleotides always appear in complimentary pairs: adenine is paired with thymine, and guanine is paired with cytosine. 

Proteins—the workhorses of the cell—are composed of amino acids.  The cell contains 20 different kinds of amino acids.  To create functional proteins, these amino acids must be sequenced together in a specific order, forming a “chain” of amino acids (proteins come in varying lengths, with shorter proteins consisting of ~100 amino acids, most proteins consisting of several hundred, and some as large as 34,350 [titin]).  While there are a number of ways in which amino acids can be sequenced, the vast majority of combinations are functionless.  They sequence must be specified if the protein is to have function (functionality also requires the protein to be folded into a particular shape).

In 1958 Francis Crick proposed that there exists a relationship between DNA and proteins: DNA builds proteins.  Crick suggested that the sequence of nucleotide bases along the spine of the DNA molecule determines the arrangement of amino acids in proteins.  But how does a 4 character genetic alphabet determine the sequence of a 20 character alphabet?  Crick said it must utilize a digital code to translate one biological “language” into another.  He postulated the existence of several biological entities he thought would be necessary to explain how genetic information could be converted into proteins, all without any observational evidence.  Within five years, not only was Crick’s theory of a digital code within the cell proven correct, but the biological entities he postulated were discovered as well.  What exactly did biologists discover?

The process of protein production involves unwinding and transcribing a portion of the DNA molecule.  RNA polymerase is responsible for unwinding the section of DNA that needs to be copied, and then carrying out the transcription process.  RNA polymerase attaches itself to the binding site of the gene—a site that specifies where the gene begins.  This is necessary to prevent RNA polymerase from beginning its transcription in the middle or end of the gene, and thus missing important genetic information.  Then, the RNA polymerase directs and positions RNA nucleotides present in the cell’s nucleus to pair with their complimentary partner on the DNA template.  As the RNA nucleotides pair with the DNA nucleotides, the RNA polymerase binds the RNA nucleotides together to form a long chain called Messenger RNA (mRNA).  The finished product is a strand of mRNA that is the exact compliment of the DNA.

mRNA is then is transported outside the cell nucleus to the ribosome to undergo translation to create a protein.  Since mRNA copies sections of DNA that code for proteins as well as sections that don’t (introns), however, the mRNA must be edited prior to its arrival at the ribosome.  Enzymes in the cell carry out the editing process by splicing the mRNA, cutting out the non-coding regions, and then reassemble the coding regions in their proper order.  Once editing is complete, mRNA enters the ribosome.

Once docked inside the ribosome, transfer RNA (tRNA) shows up to carry out the process of translating the mRNA sequence to create a protein.  tRNA molecules are short strings of (ribo)nucleotides[1] looped together to form a cross-like shape.  On one end of the cross there is a sequence of three ribonucleotides (called an anti-codon) that allows tRNA to bind to mRNA, and on the other end is an amino acid.  There are many different types of tRNA molecules (31-61 depending on the cell), each of which carries a single, specific amino acid.[2]  tRNA molecules can be thought of as the personal chauffeurs and matchmakers of amino acids, transporting them to the ribosome and linking them together with other amino acids to form proteins. 

Once a tRNA molecule is found whose anti-codon corresponds to the first three nucleotides (called a codon) in the mRNA sequence, it attaches itself to the beginning of the mRNA molecule (the mRNA codon pairs with the tRNA anti-codon).  This is followed by the arrival of a second tRNA molecule.  It attaches itself to the next triplet of mRNA nucleotide sequences.  Once attached, the amino acid it carries will bond to the first amino acid,[3] linking them together like box cars of a train.  Once bonded, the tRNA molecule drops off, leaving its amino acid behind.  This is followed by the arrival of yet another tRNA, and the process continues until the entire strand of mRNA is translated by tRNA, producing a chain of amino acids (protein). If you are not a biologist, this process may be hard to imagine. A wonderful video animation of the process can be viewed at www.signatureinthecell.com (lower right corner).

This simplified version of protein production presents us with a window into the complexity of the cell.  Life requires a great number of interacting and matching parts, as well as biological information:

• Phosphate, ribose, oxygen, hydrogen, and nucleotide bases to form DNA
• A complex and specified arrangement of nucleotides to form biological information
• RNA polymerase to unwind and transcribe that genetic information into mRNA
• A transport system to move mRNA from the nucleus to the ribosome
• Enzymes to edit the mRNA
• Ribosomes to synthesize proteins
• 20 different amino acids to construct proteins
• At least 20 different kinds of tRNA to translate DNA into proteins
• 20 aminoacyl-tRNA syntheases to bind amino acids to tRNA
• Peptidyl transferase to bind the amino acids together in the ribosome

It also presents us with a chicken-and-egg dilemma.  As Jacque Monod wrote in 1971, “The [DNA] code is meaningless unless translated.  The modern cell’s translating machinery consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in DNA: the code cannot be translated otherwise than by the products of translation”[4] (note, we now know that more than 100 proteins are required).  David Goodsell wrote that this “is one of the unanswered riddles of biochemistry: which came first, proteins or protein synthesis?  If proteins are needed to make proteins, how did the whole thing get started?”[5]

Biologists and origin of life scientists, then, must explain at least four things: (1) the origin of the system for storing and encoding digital information; (2) the origin of the digital information itself; (3) the origin of the components necessary for unwinding, transcribing, editing, transporting, and translating the information; (4) the origin of the functional interdependence of the various parts required for processing this information.

How is the origin of these things to be explained?  Before we evaluate various proposals, we need to take a look at how scientists who study the past go about their work; specifically, the method by which they determine what it was in the past that caused the effects we observe in the present. 

[2]An enzyme called “aminoacyl-tRNA syntheases” is responsible for attaching amino acids to tRNA molecules.  There are 20 different enzymes, one for each of the twenty different kinds of amino acids. 

[3]A protein in the ribosome called peptidyl transferase is responsible for binding the amino acids together.

[4]Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity, 143 in Meyer, 133-4.

[5]David Goodsell, The Machinery of Life, 45 in Meyer, 134.

If you are interested in the history of when the celebration of Christmas began and how the date was determined, this article from Biblical Archaeological Review is a good one.  And if you think the answer is that Christians co-opted the Roman feasts of Saturnalias and/or Sol Invictus, you need to read the article.

One of the regular visitors/commentators on this blog made me aware of a video on YouTube titled “You can’t prove God doesn’t exist (lies Christians tell #4), featuring a couple of quotes from yours truly.  The video is posted below, followed by my response.

“This is Jason Dulle, who was quoted at the beginning and middle of the video.  I asked to hear evidence for why God cannot, or does not exist.  Nowhere did I say one cannot prove that God exists, so how did my quote contribute to the point of your video?

“Ah, but you say I did.  You quote me as saying ‘That is difficult for atheists because it is impossible to prove a universal negative.’  But you cut off my statement mid sentence, for I go on to say ‘unless it is self-referentially contradictory (like a square circle). But there is nothing about the notion of a divine transcendent being that is internally incoherent or self-contradictory. So you are only left with giving reasons to think a divine being probably doesn’t exist.’  You conveniently left off that part because it would contradict the point you wanted to make.  I don’t doubt that some Christians argue the way you suggest, but quoting me as being one of them is disingenuous for I made the very opposite point.

“Furthermore, I find it interesting that the title of your video says the claim ‘You cannot prove God doesn’t exist’ is a lie that Christians tell, and yet you state that one cannot disprove the existence of God!  Apparently, it’s not a lie, then.  Ironically, as a theist I believe it is possible to disprove the existence of God.  One cannot do so empirically (a posteriori), but they can do so philosophically (a priori) if they can show that the very concept of God is incoherent.  You seem to recognize this, which is why you flashed the argument from evil on the screen.  So why would you say it is impossible to disprove the existence of God?

“Furthermore, no Christian philosopher would say that because God’s existence cannot be disproved, therefore God exists.  But of course they would say that it is possible that he does.  But this is nothing more than the claim that anything which can possibly exist, may in fact exist.  It doesn’t mean it’s evidence for God’s existence.

“You also said one cannot disprove the existence of any particular thing.  This is false.  One can disprove the existence of a square circle, because the concept itself is rationally incoherent.  One can disprove the existence of the rationally incoherent a priori.  You seem to confuse empirical proof with a priori philosophical proof.

“Finally, to say there is no evidence for God’s existence is simply incorrect.  There is plenty of rational evidence for God’s existence.  Are you not familiar with the long tradition of natural theology: cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, moral argument, etc.?”

It’s not often that a book on Intelligent Design becomes a best-seller, or is opined (in print) to be one of the best books of the year by a prominent atheist philosopher.  And yet that is true of Stephen Meyer’s book, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.  I must say it’s one of the best books I have read on the topic of the evidence for intelligent design in biology.  The information was presented in a very logical, systematic order, with each chapter building naturally on the former.  Not only was Meyer’s approach systematic, but he presented difficult concepts in very understandable ways.  Coming in at 561 pages of text, it is not a quick read, but the time spent is well worth it.

Meyer’s thesis is that the origin of life is best explained by an intelligent cause.  He begins his book by telling how the mystery of life’s origin was not recognized in Darwin’s day, but came to be realized in the decades that followed as knowledge of life’s complexity began to emerge.  That mystery has not been solved over the decades, but rather looms larger and larger the more we discover about the internal workings of the cell, and what is required for even the simplest of life. 

When it comes to explaining the origin of life (OOL), many think it’s just a matter of explaining the origin of biological complexity.  Not so.  What needs to be explained is not just the mere complexity of the cell, but the origin of the biological information conveyed by the DNA molecule.  But there are two different types of information, so we have to be specific about the type of information we find in the cell that needs to be explained.  

The first type of information is called Shannon Information, named after MIT engineer Claude Shannon.  Shannon pioneered information theory in the 1940s.  He noted that information and uncertainty are inversely related, so that information increases as uncertainty is eliminated.  Shannon said “the amount of information conveyed (and the amount of uncertainty reduced) in a series of symbols or characters is inversely proportional to the probability of a particular event, symbol, or character occurring.”  So “the amount of information conveyed by an event is inversely proportional to the probability of its occurrence.”  The greater the probabilities, the more improbable it is that any one event or string of symbols is actualized, and thus that event or string of symbols, if it occurs, will convey more information.  Furthermore, probabilities are multiplied as more symbols are added to the mix, so long sequences will always bear more information than shorter sequences.

According to Shannon’s definition of information, “nenen ytawoi jll sn mekhdx nnx” has the same information capacity as “Four score and seven years ago” because both strings of symbols contain the same number of symbols, and are equally improbable.  And yet, we recognize that the latter is clearly different from the former.  What that difference is brings us to the second definition of information.

The second definition of information is “the attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produce specific effects,” or what I call “functional information.”  This definition does not contradict Shannon’s, but adds an additional component to it, namely functional specificity.  Shannon’s definition only measures the amount of information-carrying capacity contained in a particular sequence based on the improbability of the sequence, but it does not distinguish between improbable sequences whose arrangements are specified to perform a function from improbable sequences that are not specified to perform a function.  There is a difference, then, between information and meaning.  What distinguishes the latter from the former is the specificity of the arrangement to perform a function.

To illustrate the difference between Shannon information and functional information, consider U.S. domestic phone numbers.  Every phone number consists of a 10 symbol sequence, so each contains the same amount of Shannon Information, and each of the 10,000,000,000 possible phone numbers is equally improbable.  While an assessment of the Shannon information content of phone numbers is interesting, it won’t be of much help if you are trying to call your friend in New York, but inadvertently lost the slip of paper you wrote his number on.  You’ll need more than just Shannon information to call your friend—you’ll need information that is specified to perform a certain function, namely connecting you to your friend.  While all phone numbers are equally complex, they are not all equally specific.  Only one specified sequence will connect you to your friend.  There is a difference, then, between mere complexity and specified complexity. 

What type of information does the cell contain?  Both.  The complexity we find in the cell is not just mere complexity, but also specified complexity: complexity specified to perform a particular function.  And the specification we discover is very improbable given the sheer number of symbols (in this case nucleotides, amino acids, etc.) involved.  Of all the possible ways to specify the order of nucleotides in DNA and amino acids in proteins, only a limited number of sequences will result in biological function.

The information content of the cell cannot be explained in terms of the raw physical properties of DNA because information is not a physical property.  Consider a book.  While all would agree that a book contains information, where exactly is that information found?  Is it found in the chemical properties of the ink and paper?  No.  The information is found in the purposeful arrangement of those chemical properties by an intelligent agent.  The same is true of DNA.  DNA is an information-bearing molecule, but is not the source of the information itself.  It merely serves as a medium for the information content.  

I’ll continuing blogging through Meyer’s book next week.  Stay tuned.

I must say I am a little shocked at this one given how liberal NY is, but the NY Senate rejected a same-sex marriage (SSM) bill that passed in the NY House.  The voted it down by a vote of 38-24.  

So as of December 2009 five states allow for SSM: Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont.  California was once on the list when the CA Supreme Court forced the CA legislature to legalize SSM (of course, SSM was already legal in practice, although not in name), but the CA voters amended their constitution in November 2008 to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling.  Maine was also on the list until last month, when the voters of Maine overturned a congressional law that passed in May of this year legalizing SSM.

The NJ Senate is expected to vote on a SSM bill next week, so we’ll have to wait and see what happens there.

See comments #22-31.  The atheist, awfrick, is responding to some comments I made regarding positive evidence for the existence of God.  This little exchange was so typical of my “dialogues” with atheists.  Here’s the anatomy of a dialogue with an atheist: 

• Step 1 = Atheist tells theist how stupid they are for believing X
• Step 2 = Theist responds to atheist point-by-point, supplying evidence against the atheist’s assertions (rather than demanding that the atheist actually give evidence for his assertion)
• Step 3 = Atheist tells you to read some article/book that will show why your arguments are wrong, rather than offering any rebuttal of his own. It’s the “I know someone who can beat up your dad” response.
• Step 4 = Theist takes the time to read the article and interact with its claims.  Responds to atheist with reasons why the article’s claims are mistaken.
• Step 5 = Atheist ignores everything you said in favor of nitpicking at some irrelevant point.  Asks for more evidence.
• Step 6 = Theist provides more evidence
• Step 7 = Atheist acts like you skipped step 6, dismisses everything you say with a hand-wave rather than a rebuttal, and resorts to name calling and putdowns.  
• Step 8 = Theist calls atheist on the carpet for what he’s doing.  Atheist doesn’t respond. 
• Step 9 = Atheist goes looking for easier targets – those who will cower at the mention of his intellectual superiority, have nothing to offer in the way of rebuttal, and do not even think to demand that the atheist offer any evidence for his claims.

Awfrick, if you are reading this, I invite you back to truly engage on the topic you started.  All other atheists, if this is not descriptive of you, I am not claiming it is.  I appreciate the atheists who have engaged me on this blog in a serious dialogue.  I cannot appreciate those who assert the greatness of their intellectual superiority and strength of evidence, but never deliver on it.  If you’ve got the goods, show me the money.  If not, play at a different table.  This blog is for the serious–for those who want to engage in dialogue on serious matters in a serious, sensible way.

I just finished reading a tremendous review of Bart Ehrman’s latest book, Jesus Interrupted, by Michael Kruger.  I would highly recommend it.  The last paragraph is literary gold in my book.  It’s one of those summary paragraphs that I would have loved to have penned myself.

HT: Justin Taylor