Home  |  Search  |  Contact  
Order Book   |  Read Book Online  |  Testimonials  
 You are in / Foolish Faith / Read Book Online / Chapter 3 / Footnotes
"Nobel Prize winner Dr. Francis Crick (co-discoverer of one of the most important discoveries of 20th century biology) arrived at the theory that life could never have evolved by chance on planet earth."
»  Chapter Introduction
»  The Experts Say What?
»  Life from Non-Life
»  Mutations - Evolution's Raw Material
»  Fossils
»  Ape-Man
»  Radio Dating
»  Starlight
»  The Creation Model
»  Dinosaurs
»  Odds & Complexity
»  Chance Design?

Chapter 3:
Two Worldviews in Conflict
What do thousands of scientists believe about creation and evolution?


[1] Specifically, the Kansas State Board of Education, new Science Education Standards, as of August 11, 1999, banned the testing of “macroevolution,” a decision which ignited so much controversy by evolutionists, that most of the supporting board members were later voted off, allowing the possibility for the decision to be reversed.

[2] A great portion of the material in this chapter has been provided by the creation-based organization, Answers in Genesis Ministries International, http://www.answersingenesis.org. Some material has also been taken from the book Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1999).

[3] “Darwin’s Death in South Kensington,” Nature, February 26, 1981, p. 735.

[4] Nature, vol. 290, March 12, 1981, p. 82.

[5] “Theodosius Dobzhansky,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http:/ /members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=31253&sctn=1

[6] T. Dobzhansky, Evolution, vol. 29, 1975, p. 376–378.

[7] Pierre Grassé, Evolution du Vivant (New York, NY: Academic Press, 1977).

[8] Professor Louis Bounoure as quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984, p. 17.

[9] “Louis Pasteur,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http:// members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=114943&sctn=1

[10] “The Death of Spontaneous Generation,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=119731&sctn=29

[11] Dr. Michael Behe caused a stir in the scientific community by elaborating these ideas in Darwin’s Black Box (New York, NY: Free Press, 1996).

[12] The article reads, “Due to a rapid and efficient photochemical consumption of CH4 and NH3, a methane-ammonia atmosphere would have a maximum lifetime of about 1,000,000 years. This finding is of interest because it has been suggested that life originated from mixtures of organic compounds synthesized by nonbiological reactions starting from methane and ammonia. Recognition of the short atmospheric lifetimes of these materials poses grave difficulties for such a theory.” (“Atmosphere: Photochemical Reactions,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=118221&sctn=9)

[13] J. Levine, New Ideas about the Early Atmosphere, NASA Special Report, No. 225, Langley Research Center, August 11, 1983.

[14] For a deeper analysis of the spontaneous generation or “chemical evolution” issue, visit the Answers in Genesis website at http:// www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp

[15] George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, August, 1954. In the remainder of his article, Wald goes on to argue that perhaps the impossible is not so impossible after all. Like many evolutionists, he asserts that given enough time, anything might be possible, and thus argues that spontaneous generation is possible. But time itself is not creative. In fact, the scientific law of entropy indicates the very opposite. For example, a shiny new metal sword left in the forest would rust and break down over time — it would not organize itself into a more complicated structure. Just because enough time goes by does not mean that the impossible can become possible. Experience suggests the very opposite in the natural world. See “Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism, How Do Creationists Respond to Evolutionists’ Counter-arguments, e.g., Open Systems and Crystals?” Timothy Wallace, http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.htm.

[16] “Evolution,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http:// members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=108620&sctn=6

[17] “If the sequence [of the DNA code] is changed at random, the ‘meaning’ rarely will be improved and often will be hampered or destroyed.” (“Evolution,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http:// members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=108620&sctn=6)

[18] “Mutation,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http:// members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=55860&sctn=1 Other mutations may be neutral; that is, not damaging enough to cause any major consequences.

[19] Neil A. Campbell, Biology, 4th Edition (Menlo Park, CA: University of California, The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., 1996).

[20] “Mutation,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://members.eb. com/bol/topic?eu=55860&sctn=1

[21] See “Philosophy of Nature,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http:/ /members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=115092&sctn=19

[22] “Information” itself is not tangible — it transcends chemistry and physics. The material base of a message is completely independent of the information transmitted. The content of the sentence “Apples are sweet” does not change when it is written in crayon instead of ink. It is unaffected by a switch to chalk or pencil. The same thing can be said if it is written in the sand. It can even be translated into the dots and dashes of Morse code. The information transmitted by the writing is not within the ink used to write it. Likewise, the information within the genetic code is entirely independent of the chemical makeup of the DNA molecule. The information transmitted by the sequence of bases has nothing to do with the bases themselves. There is nothing in the chemicals themselves that originates the communication transmitted to the cell by the DNA molecule. For a long time, biologists overlooked the distinction between two kinds of order (simple, periodic order versus specified complexity). Only recently have the leading origin-of-life researchers appreciated that the distinguishing feature of living systems is not order but specified complexity (information). (Source: “DNA, Design, and the Origin of Life,” article by Charles B. Thaxton, http://www.leaderu.com/science/ thaxton_dna.html)

[23] This is true even if the production of the wings occurs in small, gradual steps. Biochemist Michael Behe, in his book Darwin’s Black Box, explains that many structures in living things show irreducible complexity, far in excess of any man-made machine. In other words, the complexity of a structure cannot be reduced without destroying its function entirely, thus making the gradual production of such a structure practically unfeasible by strictly natural processes.

[24] National Academy of Sciences Staff, Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Staff, 1998), p. 16–17.

[25] One example is resistance to the antibiotic penicillin. Bacteria normally produce an enzyme, penicillinase, which destroys penicillin. The amount of penicillinase is controlled by a gene. There is normally enough produced to handle any penicillin encountered in the “wild,” but the bacteria is overwhelmed by the amount given to patients. A mutation disabling this controlling gene results in much more penicillinase being produced. This enables the bacterium to resist the antibiotic. See the book Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1999) for more info and references.

[26] Reuters News Service, April 23, 1998.

[27] Including Canada’s Royal Ontario Museum.

[28] In fact, it is now widely accepted that the entire story of the peppered moths was false and involved fraud. See Journal of Animal Ecology, vol. 44, 1975, p. 67–83; also Nature, vol. 396, p.35–36; also Washington Times, January 17, 1999, p. D8.

[29] “Evolution,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://members.eb.com/ bol/topic?eu=108620&sctn=6

[30] From a Frog to a Prince, video distributed by Answers in Genesis (AiG) organization. Some skeptics have accused AiG of fraudulently doctoring the video, however AiG denies such charges and has forwarded the original recording of events to anti-creationist sources who, in one particular instance, reversed their charge after listening to the recording.

[31] Creation ex nihilo magazine, September–November 1998. Dawkins has since written an essay in response to this question, but in it he still has not pointed to any specific example. Creationist scientists have also written a rebuttal to this essay, which is available online at http://www.trueorigins.org/dawkinfo.htm.

[32] Creation ex nihilo magazine, March–May 1999.

[33] “Stephen Jay Gould,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http:// members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=38285&sctn=1; also Science magazine, vol. 279, 1998.

[34] S.J. Gould, “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?” Paleobiology Journal, vol. 6, 1980, p. 119–130, reprinted in the collection by John Maynard Smith, Evolution Now: A Century after Darwin (San Francisco, CA: Freeman, 1982). Gould himself believed in evolution, but developed his own theory to explain it (which, to date, has not been widely accepted among evolutionists).

[35] Dr. Carl Wieland, “Beetle Bloopers,” http://www.answersingenesis.org/ docs/241.asp

[36] “Fossil,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://members.eb.com/ bol/topic?eu=35639&sctn=1

[37] This quote, and most of the foregoing paragraph, is from “Evolution,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://members.eb.com/bol/ topic?eu=108619&sctn=9.

[38] Science, January 14, 1994.

[39] Science, vol. 274, 1996.

[40] New Scientist, vol. 154, April 12, 1997.

[41] Time, Australia, April 26, 1993.

[42] Major Features of Vertebrate Evolution, convened by Donald R. Prothero and Robert M. Schoch, “On the Origin of Birds and of Avian Flight” by John H. Ostrom (Knoxville, TN: Paleontological society, 1994). Much of the information in the foregoing two paragraphs is from Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1999), p. 60, 73.

[43] “Turtle,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://members.eb.com/ bol/topic?eu=118989&sctn=5. Emphasis added.

[44] Ibid. Emphasis added.

[45] “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Raup, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979, p. 22–26. Note: This text deals only with intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design. A discussion of the appearance in the fossil record of what is known as “faunal [fossil] succession” (i.e., the notion that least complex fossils progressively become more complex in each rock layer upwards in the geologic column) lies outside the scope of this text — but see reference at end of this footnote. It should be noted, however, that the global “stack” of index fossils actually exists nowhere on earth, and most index fossils do not usually overlie each other at the same locality, as commonly believed. In fact, only a small fraction of index fossils are superposed at the same location on earth. (These facts are fully documented in the reference at the end of this footnote.) As for the degree to which faunal succession is actually apparent in the geologic column, the “creation model” adequately explains it (however still outside the scope of this book — but see reference). Such explanations include mechanisms such as the sorting of organisms during the Flood, differential escape of organisms during the same, ecological zonation of life-forms in the antediluvian world (such that different life-forms in different strata reflect the serial burial of ecological life-zones during the Flood), and TABs (Tectonically- Associated Biological Provinces — wherein different life forms occur in successive horizons of rock as a reflection of successive crustal downwarp of different life-bearing biogeographic communities). See John Woodmorappe, Studies in Flood Geology, 2nd Edition (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999).

[46] S.J. Gould, Natural History, June–July 1976, May 1977; S.J. Gould, “The Ediacaran Experiment,” Natural History, 93(2):14-23, February 1984. While natural selection may account for minor changes in creatures observed in the fossil record (which no one contests), Gould clearly acknowledged that “the absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design . . . has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” This statement eliminates any false accusations of misquoting in this context. Smith, Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin, p.140; emphasis added.

[47] Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (New York, NY: E.P. Dutton, 1972).

[48] In 1972, Eldredge and Gould together developed the theory of punctuated equilibria.

[49] Niles Eldredge, The Myths of Human Evolution (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1982), p. 45–46.

[50] “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Raup, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979, p. 22–26.

[51] Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin‘s Enigma, 4th edition (Green Forest, AR: 1988), p. 78, quoting Niles Eldredge.

[52] Patterson has made important contributions to paleontology (Encyclopedia Britannica).

[53] Sunderland, Darwin‘s Enigma, p. 89.

[54] “A long period of time” in this context is presumably millions of years.

[55] Darwin, Origin of Species.

[56] The University of California, Berkeley, Museum of Paleontology, http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/eutheria/chirofr.html

[57] “Turtle,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://members.eb.com/ bol/topic?eu=118989&sctn=5

[58] David Attenborough, Life on Earth (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1979), p. 32.

[59] Cincinnati Enquirer, November 14, 1998, p. B6.

[60] Stanford Daily, November 4, 1998; also Time magazine, May 14, 1990.

[61] “Evolution,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http:// members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=108619&sctn=9

[62] “Lord Solly Zuckerman,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http:// members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=123749&sctn=1

[63] Solly Zuckerman, Beyond the Ivory Tower (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1970), p.64; also Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, Vol. 11, 1966, p. 87–115. The full quote reads as follows: “No scientist could logically dispute the proposition that man, without having been involved in any act of divine creation, evolved from some ape-like creature in a very short space of time — speaking in geological terms — without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation. . . . As I have already implied, students of fossil primates have not been distinguished for caution when working within the logical restraints of their subject. The record is so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this field at all.”

[64] Weekend Australian, magazine section, May 7–8, 1983, p.3.

[65] Nature, Oxnard, vol. 258, 1975; also Charles E. Oxnard, The Order of Man (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984).

[66] Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind (London: Michael Joseph Limited, 1981), p. 43.

[67] “Evolution,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http:// members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=108619&sctn=9

[68] See “Half-life” in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

[69] See “Dating,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://members.eb.com/ bol/topic?eu=128006&sctn=2; also Physical Geology 7th Edition, Plummer & McGeary, 1996.

[70] The “isochron” technique for dealing with the chemical analyses of rocks being “dated” attempts to bypass this assumption. For a treatment of isochron “dating,” along with the associated problems of false isochrons, see S.A. Austin, Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1994), p. 111–131.

[71] “Dating,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://members.eb.com/ bol/topic?eu=128006&sctn=2, emphasis added. Such reasoning is deeper implied in the article in the Encyclopedia: “It is the obligation of geochronologists to try to prove themselves wrong by including a series of cross-checks in their measurements before they publish a result. Such checks include dating a series of ancient units with closely spaced but known relative ages. . . .” This means that in order to crosscheck his or her radiometric dates, the geochronologist must rely on the geologist’s already assumed age, or “known relative age,” of the specimen to be dated. Such assumed ages, or “known relative ages,” are derived from the geologic column — but see Woodmorappe, Studies in Flood Geology.

[72] Radiometric “clocks” begin keeping time only after molten rock solidifies; i.e., radiometric dating should reveal the age of the rock from the time it hardened until the moment of dating.

[73] "Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano," CEN Technical Journal, 10(3), 1996, http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i3/argon.asp

[74] This and many other examples published in scientific literature are documented in A.A. Snelling, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, 1998, p.503–525. See also “Radioactive ‘Dating’ Failure,” by Andrew Snelling, http:/www.answersingenesis.org/home/ area/magazines/docs/cenv22n1_dating_failure.asp#f5

[75] J.G. Funkenhouser & John J. Naughton, “Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii,” Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 73, no.14, p. 4602.

[76] Ian McDougall, H.A. Polach, J.J. Stipp, “Excess Radiogenic Argon in Young Subaerial Basalts from the Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand,” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, vol. 33, p. 1485.

[77] A. Hayatsu (Department of Geophysics, University of Western Ontario, Canada), “K-Ar Isochron Age of the North Mountain Basalt, Nova Scotia,” Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 16, 1979, p. 974.

[78] “Dating,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://members.eb.com/ bol/topic?eu=128006&sctn=1

[79] “Physics, Faith and the FBI,” Creation Ex Nihilo magazine, December 2000–February 2001. Note: In 2003, a judge in the highly publicized Peterson murder trial case in Durham had concluded that Saami Shaibani had perjured himself regarding one item on his resume, specifically his affiliation with Temple University. However, according to Court TV, prosecutors said that Shaibani was "a highly regarded expert, and the controversy was a result of a misunderstanding" and that "other letters between Shaibani and Temple University would clarify [the situation]." The university noted that Mr. Shaibani held a courtesy appointment as a clinical associate professor for three years. Dr. Shaibani also holds four degrees from Oxford University, and at the time was on the faculty at Virginia Tech University. Matt Bean, "Judge: Key prosecution witness perjured himself," Court TV, Sept. 26, 2003, http://www.courttv.com/trials/novelist/092603_ctv.html

[80] Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, p. 112.

[81] Fredrick B. Jeaneman, “Secular Catastrophism,” Industrial Research and Development, June 1982, p. 21.

[82] Russell Humphreys, Starlight and Time (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994).

[83] This is in fact consistent with the Bible, which indicates 15 times, using three separate Hebrew verbs, that God “stretched,” or “spread,” out the heavens (Isa. 42:5, 45:12, 51:13; Jer. 10:12). In this biblical context, the word “heavens” is an ancient term for what is now called “space.”

[84] Humphreys uses the distortion of time in general relativity theory to explain how light could have reached the earth from distant stars in a much younger (by earth-bound clocks) universe. His theory also postulates a universe commencing not from some small point, but rather from a size only about 50 times more compact than today.

[85] Creation ex nihilo, September–November 1999.

[86] Some argue that the author of this biblical story was merely referring to a localized flood, and not worldwide. However, in itself, the biblical case for a global flood is strong. More than 30 statements of the universal character of the Flood and its effects occur in Genesis 6 through 9. God’s purpose for sending the Flood was to destroy not only all mankind for their extreme wickedness, but also all animal life on the dry land as well (Gen. 6:7, 6:17, 7:22). The Flood lasted over a year (Gen. 7:11; 8:13), and many subsequent biblical writers accepted the historicity of the worldwide Flood (note Ps. 104:6–9; Isa. 54:9; 1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 2:5, 3:6; Heb. 11:7). It is these and many other biblical proofs which show that not only the author of the Book of Genesis but the other biblical authors as well accepted that the Flood was of worldwide extent and effect.

[87] Many believe that the evidence and arguments from science stack up overwhelmingly against a literal interpretation of the Flood story. Where, for example, would such a volume of water have come from, and where would it have gone afterward? How would mammalian life have re-emerged on isolated islands and landmasses that emerged from the receding flood waters? Feasible scientific answers to such objections do in fact exist, yet the treatment that follows in this section regarding Noah’s ark and the global Flood is brief. For a comprehensive treatment, consult the book by John Woodmorappe, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study (Santee, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996), a compilation of over seven years of study concerning issues such as food requirements, excretory requirements, pitch, interbreeding, animal migration after the Flood, and more. See also Don Batten, editor, The Answers Book (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1990), chapter 12, page 157, or look up “Flood” under the Q&A section of the Answers in Genesis website at http://www.answersingenesis.org/ home/area/faq/flood.asp.

[88] “Sedimentary rock,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http:// members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=117862&sctn=1

[89] In most cases, the Genesis “kind” could be equivalent to what is today called a genus, which is simply a broader grouping of animals than a species. Due to a process called rapid post-Flood speciation, many different species could have descended from one genus. That new species can be generated in a matter of years or decades has been observed. Both creationists and evolutionists have compiled numerous examples of such. Such speciation is the result of natural selection, that is, a sorting or removal of genetic information causing a loss of genetic diversity. For example, by selecting individual dogs which are very large or very small, Great Danes and Chihuahuas were bred. But these breeds have lost the information contained in their genes for certain other sizes; see the section “Mutations — Evolution’s Raw Material” in this chapter. Also, animals such as tigers and lions can interbreed and produce hybrids called tigons and ligers, so it is likely that such animals descended from the same original kind.

[90] Up-to-date tabulations as recorded in Woodmorappe’s book, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study.

[91] This type of survival has been observed, see Nature, October 8, 1998, p. 556.

[92] The ark’s measurements were 300x50x30 cubits (Gen. 6:15). One cubit is considered to be at least 18 inches in length.

[93] Up-to-date tabulations as recorded in John Woodmorappe’s book, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, 1996. Note that many animals were probably adult-size by the time of disembarkment.

[94] Creationists generally believe there was one great Ice Age after, and as a consequence of, the Flood. How a Genesis flood would have caused an Ice Age is explained in meteorologist Michael Oard’s technical book, An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1990). The Ice Age/Flood model offers a good explanation for issues such as frozen mammoths, land bridges, and more.

[95] New Scientist, August 24, 1991.

[96] When studying the development and origin of languages, there is strong evidence that supports this view. See Creation ex nihilo, vol. 22, no.1, 2000.

[97] Alan Charig, A New Look at the Dinosaurs (New York, NY: Facts on file, Inc., 1983).

[98] Time, November 30, 1998; also Nature, November 19, 1998.

[99] Ibid.

[100] “It is important to note that extinction is a normal, universal occurrence.” “Dinosaur,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http:// members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=108938&sctn=1

[101] “Tyrannosaurus, Expeditions: Treasures,” American Museum of Natural History, http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/expeditions/treasure_fossil/Treasures/Tyrannosaurus/tyrannos.html

[102] For instance, today’s killer piranhas have relatives called the pacus who are plant-eaters, yet look virtually identical to the killer piranhas. Even experts found it hard to determine based on appearance whether a specimen was a piranha or pacu. See “Piranha,” Creation Ex Nihilo, September–November 2000.

[103] This is consistent within the creation model framework, which says that dinosaurs did not become extinct 65 million years ago, but were created by God at the same time as the other land animals. Most of the fossilized dinosaur bones found in the earth today would have been produced by the Genesis flood, along with many of the other fossils.

[104] “Dragon,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://members.eb.com/ bol/topic?eu=31636&sctn=1

[105] “Lambeosaurus,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http:// members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=48028&sctn=1

[106] “Ground beetle,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http:// members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=38993&sctn=1

[107] “Life,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://members.eb.com/ bol/topic?eu=109621&sctn=1. Leading evolutionist Richard Dawkins also observes, “There is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York, NY: Norton 1986), p. 115.

[108] “Life,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://members.eb.com/ bol/topic?eu=109621&sctn=1

[109] Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, 1986).

[110] Ibid.

[111] Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe (New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1983). This figure has been criticized by some because it assumes present complex enzymes and production of all 2,000 enzymes at once, however, the necessity of a large number of enzymes to sustain life is unquestioned by scientists.

[112] “Sir Fred Hoyle,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http:// members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=42169&sctn=1

[113] Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe.

[114] Ibid.

[115] Francis Crick & L.E. Orgel, “Directed Panspermia,” Icarus journal, 19, p. 341–346; also Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1981).

[116] “Francis Crick,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http:// members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=28338&sctn=1

[117] The complex, meaningful arrangement of bases (or “letters”) in the DNA code are characterized by high specified complexity, that is, high information content. Leading origin-of-life researcher Leslie Orgel, explains: “Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. . . . Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure.” The more complex a structure is, the more instructions needed to specify it. Leslie Orgel, The Origins of Life (New York, NY: Wiley, 1973), p.189– 190. For a more detailed explanation of how information theory relates to biology, see “DNA, Design, and the Origin of Life,” http:// www.origins.org/offices/thaxton/docs/thaxton_dna.html.

[118] “There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.” Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 2nd English Edition (Bielefeld, Germany: CLV [Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung], 2000), p. 79. A distinction must be made between order and information. A neat pattern of ice crystals, for example, does not contain meaningful information (specified complexity), it simply shows a repeated meaningless pattern of the same structure over and over. Also, examples such as Richard Dawkins’ English sentence computer simulation, called “Methinks It Is Like a Weasel,” attempt to downplay the information observed in living things. However, Dawkins’ computer program will always reach its goal, because the whole design involves selecting a target in advance. The program is fixed, the target is specified in advance, and, ironically, all the parameters are set by an intelligent agent!

[119] Neither a random nor a repetitive sequence would be proof, because natural processes produce radio noise from outer space, while pulsars produce regular signals.

[120] There is much more information available. See http:// www.answersingenesis.org