Has Science Killed God? Four Reasons Why That Idea Does Not Make Sense.

Some atheists say things like "science has fired God" or "science killed God." What about some who say "science is making belief in God obsolete and incoherent"? Or what about this, "we are getting smarter and we can now explain things without invoking God."

Just like a previous post, "Reason vs. Faith", where I argue that reason and faith are compatible, I want to make a similar claim here, science and God are compatible. There is no conundrum.

Most damaging to the "science makes God obsolete" idea, is science is dependent upon Christian ideology, like a child to her mother. Like the rest of life, such as beliefs and cultures, how we interpret the world is based upon the presuppositions that form our worldview. Science is no different. Modern science arose only once in history and in one place, Christian Europe. The culture was saturated with the Christian faith and philosophy.

Captain Nemo And His Sub Expose This One Silly Belief.

Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Sea

Verne's fictitious whaler characters chased Captain Nemo's stupendous submarine all over the ocean. Wild imaginations of a gigantic whale haunted them. You see, captain Nemo's design for his vessel, Nautilus, was somewhat based upon marine creature's hydrodynamic shapes.

Ideological Framework

The single most pervading intellectual ideology of our time (and maybe ever) is the materialistic, neo-Darwinian framework. Many feel that "nature designs" new biological structures. Functional? Complex? Specific? Meaningful?

What? a mindless process designing?

Minds vs. Material

Interestingly, from our experience, we never see natural process pregnant with engineering abilities. We never have. If this concept weren't couched in such technological language, plus holding such high esteem within academia, it would sound foolish.

In fact, the only design originator from our experience is a mind. Why would we ascribe the mindful enterprise to inanimate objects? Do non-animate objects have the capabilities of designing, imagining or communicating?

The same definition of nothing is the same as what rocks think about. Other inanimate objects think about the same thing.

Fall On Your Face And Worship That Stone!

When we look back at ancient cultures and the "uncivilized," we are humored by idol worship, how silly of those people to think wood and stove carvings are life's creators. Modernity strangely struggles with a similar scenario, with the more technical phrase “nature designs.”

This strikes me as facetious. 

It takes multitudes of highly trained, intelligent minds to design a machine functioning like the fictional Nautilus. Hours of mindful fabrication and manufacturing are poured into the creation of submarines. Some are breath-taken, thinking that they're learning from nature's exquisite self-design, when in reality they're looking at seemly endless designs created by the Ultimate Mind.

If you enjoyed this topic and others like it, you can get the latest posts sent straight to your in-box! Please click here to be one of the first to receive the latest articles. You don't want to miss out! (Click here.) 

What biological designs interest you? Bioinspiration is a term to describe when we use these biological designs for new technology. How could you put them to work for yourself? Do you think that natural process have the ability to create complex, meaningful design? Why and how?

Image source: Wikipedia

Neil deGrasse Tyson and Before the Universe

Near the end of his article (here), Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist who stared in the series "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey", talks about what was prior to the universe's existences.

After making some slightly disparaging remarks toward the theists view, he postulates a couple other "where the universe came from" ideas. The multiverse and it "just popped into existences from nothing". It seems that for himself, he holds to the safe and seemly intellectually superior skeptics view of "I don't know". Then he rises the good o'l question of if God did it, who made God?

The Two Main Competitors Problems

However, I'm blown away with the lack of cogency of the only two real competitors to an intelligent being: the infamous multiverse and the "popped into existences from nothing" views. I'm not trying to sound saucy here, but really, are those the best hypothesis out there?

The multiverse hypothesis has big problems, namely its conjecture in some minds and it's not really possible to demonstrate even if true. It seems to me that if multiverse true, you would still need something to bring them all into existence, who is that prime mover? Plus the complexity of making all those universes rises to infinity.

POOF, Like Magic!

So the naturalists view is still left with the universe(s) going "POOF"... into existence, for no reason? Nothing makes everything? Magic without a magician? I'm scratching my head.

Tyson concedes these views usually don't satisfy people, as you can see why. However, it seems to me he takes them more serious than the possibility of a "prime-mover."

So, Who Made God?

Seemingly, in an attempt to discredit a deity, one of his last questions (more or less rhetorical), asks the infamous question of "what was around before God?" or otherwise cashed out as "who made God?" This question has been answered by the fields of theology, history and philosophy.

The "who made God" question has this problem, who would have made the creator who made the creator? You see, it becomes an infinite regress of creator creating creators - forever. Silly, I know.

A preacher once preached that the Earth sits upon nothing (without getting technical about gravity). An old lady came up afterwords and said "I don't agree with you, the Earth rests on turtles." So the preacher asked "What's under those turtles?" She responded "more turtles." To which he replied, and under those?" Out of finality, she said, "turtles all the way down!"

So What About That God Question?

However, there is an answer to this question. A good one, quite simple and elementary. With just a little knowledge of theology, history and philosophy, Tyson should have known better (except for the fact that he seems to degrade the field of philosophy, while philosophizing). In philosophy this "prime-mover" is also called the "uncaused-first-cause". In other words, this "prime mover" has always been in existence, thus uncaused. He is not dependent upon the space time continuum. In fact, we read in history and theology (ie. the Bible), this exact thing - one who isn't dependent on time and who is eternal.

Even as a scientists he should have known better. We know from experience things that began to exist must have a cause. We know the universe had a beginning, came into existence. We also know that the causes must be outside of the thing that comes into existence. Outside the Universe there's no space, time or matter. To cause a universe and life, this cause must must be super powerful, smart and be able to make choices as well! Plus only minds cause the creation of large amounts of meaningful information, DNA anyone? This uncaused-first-cause must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, eternal, smart, powerful, has a mind and personal. Ah, that sounds familiar....

What If We Did Not Know Who Made It All?

Even if there was no answer to this question, a being who created everything still seems to be a perfectly good argument. Just because we would not know who the "prime-mover" was, does not seem to effect the idea that there was an original "prime-mover." Does one have to know who painted a picture, carved a horse or even committed an homicide to recognize agent of causation?

Great Rhetorical Value?

But the question, "who created God", seems to be misleading. This rhetorical questions seems to be meant to raise questions in the uninformed mind. Seemly it is an attempt to discredit those who hold to this view. Even though he may view his ignorance as more intellectual, it seems that he created a straw-man for the theists, rhetorically dismissing it while trying to make it look unreasonable.

However, in reality, the most logically satisfying view is the one he seems to dismiss. It is the most logical and coherent. We have a robust worldview with amazing explanatory power. The naturalistic worldview is broken, having very limited explanatory power, a degraded view that has lame and tenuous answers - a view that does not match reality.

You will not want to miss the next posts. If you found this one helpful, you will want to keep an eye open for others. The best way is to click here, because you can get them straight to your inbox so you don’t miss out! (Click here.)

So, what's your view? Do you agree with Tyson? Or does a Creator seem to be the best explanation? Why?


Image source: "Tyson - Apollo 40th anniversary 2009" by NASA/Bill Ingalls. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons

Biomimicry's Amazing Potential For New Designs in Technology

It was 1948, George was out walking his dog through the Swiss Alpines, when he was attacked by nature's nemeses, the cocklebur. As he plucked these annoying structures off his clothes, inspiration flashed across his mind, inspiration from the common, annoying bur.

Along with his friend, he created what he called “locking tape”, but that name never stuck. We known it as … Velcro.

Biomaterials

You see, biology hides amazing structures, materials and chemicals. They are energy efficient designs, biodegradable materials and chemicals that heal and protect. In addition, biomaterials are manufactured at body temperature! Compare that to our manufacturing practices - high temperature.

Biomimicry

These master designed biomaterials are stupendous. We, as intellectual humans, have spent millennia engineering. We have been perfecting the manufacturing art and amassing our knowledge of technology and materials. However, nature's structures and systems are superior to ours. There abides brilliant designs, fine tuned “technology”, systems that outperform ours. In the quest to solve real world problems, organisms harbor superior information infused systems. In fact, some engineers make it their business to mimic these super designs. We call this biomimicry.

Termites and Temperature control

Consider, if you would, our temperature controlled buildings. Our houses, office spaces and industrial complexes use lots of energy. Is there a design in nature that is somewhat more efficient than ours?

Travel with me to south Africa, and check out the termite mounds that stud the region. Some of these reach the height of 10 feet. These structures are impressive, they have intrinsic temperature controlled systems. These termites “farm” a fungus for food which grow best at exactly 87 degrees Fahrenheit. But listen to this, the ambient temperature ranges from 35 to 104 degrees Fahrenheit! A circulatory system of cooling vents are opened and closed for temperature control. Plus these networks keep the mounds at perfect moisture and oxygen levels.

Can we learn something from these? Designers, using the principles of termite mound ventilation, designed an 18-story shopping complex. Mechanical air conditioning and heating are absent, yet this building remains comfortable. Using its ventilation network, breezes pull fresh air through the building. This building is uses just 10 percent of a traditional building's energy usage.

Conclusion

So can we solve some of our energy, design and pollution problems using biological solutions? Yes. Some of these structures are stronger and lighter than ours. All are biodegradable. All manufactured at mild temperatures. All are environmental friendly. This is an exciting time to be in science and technology!

One can see the mind behind these structures. The designs are beautiful. The uses are abundant. The applications are exciting. The keener we are to these master designs, the better a steward we will be with the gift of nature. The more we talk, think and use biomimicry, the more aware we can be to apply them to novel areas.

If you enjoyed this topic and others like it, you can get the latest posts sent straight to your in-box! Please click here to be one of the first to receive the latest articles. You don't want to miss out! (Click here.)



What other uses of biology can you think of that has helped technology? Do think these structures help point to a designer? 


Image source: Filcker/Joe Ross

The One View Some Christians and Some Atheists Agree On - And Why It is Wrong!

Interestingly, prominent agnostics, atheists [1] and Christians of various persuasions agree on at least one thing, philosophy is of little worth. Other Christians are afraid of the enterprise. Our Western culture downplays classical education – such as philosophy. Even so, philosophy is pivotal, yes pivotal. Especially for our days.

We all have a philosophy and use it, the question is do we do it well? Simply, philosophy is the love of wisdom, it stretches back millennia, notably from the Greeks. However, one can't ignore the elegance and power of Scriptures support for knowledge and wisdom from Proverbs 4:5-11

New Research Says Life Started Hot, But Here's What They Won't Tell You.

Up From a Hot Micropore We Arose – Did Life Start Hot?

In a recent Nature Chemistry article, we are informed that some scientists feel they may have found a mechanism for the formation of life’s precursors, DNA replication in hot rock micropores [1]. An experiment was set up to mimic hot rock’s micropores in the supposed early earth environment. However, this experiment unintentionally demonstrated that naturalistic process could not have started first life, rather a mind is needed.

The Gaps that Naturalism Fails To Answer (And What It Means For You)

Interesting conversation

Recently, I had the opportunity to communicate with some people about origins. I pointed out that naturalism, as a world view, has many problems. Problems such as the lack of explanation for the formation of the laws of physics, the reason that there is something rather than nothing, the origin of life's building blocks, the information source within the cell and the origin of life. One must say that these are big issues. Real BIG! I was perplexed when one responded with something to the effect of “these are just small gaps that we have not yet explained, you are just pushing your God into the gap.”

My response was simple - these are not small gaps, they are LARGE gaps, so large that they are the foundation of existence!

Another thing befuddles me, many Christians swallow the naturalistic world view “hook, line and sinker.” Many feel that naturalism can explain the origin of life and information. It can't intrinsically. They exchange a robust world view with amazing explanatory power for a degraded view that has lame and tenuous answers - a view that does not match reality!

IBITE Science Facebook page!

Switching gears to a new topic, I want to note that we have a new Facebook page for those of us who like science, but are disillusioned by the closed minded and naturalistic mindset that dominates many popular sites. Here's the Facebook description:

IBITE Science is a network of scientists and people who like science.

Natural science is the search for causes and truth in the universe. It is the intellectual and practical activity of studying structure and behavior while accumulating knowledge through the scientific method. Sometimes the evidence points to natural phenomenon, and other times to intelligent causes. We are open-minded. In other words we try to "follow the evidence where it leads."

In addition, we want to be both edgy and just have fun a times.

There you go, feel free to like the page and the posts! Even if science is not your field, interesting memes and articles are linked there. Please feel free to interact on the page as well! https://www.facebook.com/ibitescience

The Amazing Cell!

A couple of years ago, I came across a presentation given at one of the TED conferences by a Drew Berry. If I would have a guess, many non-biologists would be really bored with a talk on cell division, right? But no, not this one, it was most interesting, using computer animation, he exposed the cell division process in great detail - and made it breath taking for everyone!

You see, attached to sister chromosomes is something called the "kinetochore" which contains around 200 types of proteins but thousands in all. This little structure acts as an anchoring site for microtubules, part of the cell scaffolding. Microtubules help pull the two daughter chromosomes apart.

But the interesting part is this, the kenetochores are sending out little chemical and motor signals to indicate when the cell will divide! In fact, Drew called the kenetochore a "signal broadcasting system."

The implications of this structure alone are astounding. Along with many other types of epigenetic information within the cell, these attachment sites hold one of the most illustrious keys to the mysterious dividing cell. One can see a designer's creative abilities at play with structures like this. It's mind boggling that such an elegant structure, such as this, doesn't kindle more awe responses from people towards an amazing creator!

I would encourage you to take a look at it for yourself!

Image credit: Flicker/Mehmet Pinarci

What Is The Difference Between Shannon Information and Specified Complex Information? And why it's important.

Information is interesting, here I want to specifically discuss Shannon Information verses Specified Complex Information. I know, you may be saying "so what, it sounds boring to me." Maybe so, it may even zip over your head, in that case duck so it will hit the person behind you! While being of an esoteric philosophical nature, I think it's significant because of its implications.

The Difference Between Shannon Information and 

Specified Complex Information

There's a view that information in DNA and biological systems contain just Shannon Information - this is not true. Yes, biological systems do contains Shannon Information, but it is more specific than that - it contains Specified Complex Information. Let me first define the two and then tell you why biological systems have Specified Complex Information and why this discussion is so important.

Shannon Information verses Specified Complex Information

Shannon Information is only concerned with the improbability or complexity of character strings. In other words, it's just mere complexity or it has information-carrying capacity. Specified Complex Information on the other hand, is complex, but also has patterning significance. This is functional information that carries meaning. 

Let me put it this way, all Specified Complex Information is Shannon Information, but not all Shannon Information is Specified Complex Information (see bottom half of the meme). For example, Shannon Information just means that a string of characters are complex and improbable in their arrangement, but it does not define if this string carries significant meaning. Again, Specified Complex Information is specified and always carries meaning.

For example, this is Shannon Information:

“dfsad sdaf oije .zvsdlkfjas sdlfj” and also can be “Learning about information is fun!” 

However, Specified Complex Information always carries meaning: 

“Learning about information is fun!”

“dfsad sdaf oije .zvsdlkfjas sdlfj” is not specified functional information - at least as far as I know, it holds no meaning to an English speaker!

In case you did not get that, let me put it this way. Consider a key and lock. You can take a key blank and file down any pattern on the key blade - that is Shannon Information. However, if you want the key to fit the lock, you have to cut the key blade to specified sequences, shapes and depths for proper key-lock fit. Now that is Specified Complex Information.

Biological Systems and Text on the Page

Now both the text you are reading and DNA are improbable and complex. However, both carry meaning. The text you are reading is telling you something in English. DNA contains information that transcribes to RNA that gets translated to protein. In fact those sequences must be in a specific order else the organism will not produce the correct protein, a protein that does not function well or maybe none at all! The organism's enzymes must be able to transcribe it, if there is no correct sequence, there is no transcription.

Why Know the Difference?

Oh, by the way, just so you know why this distinction is so important, Specified Complex Information is only generated from a mind. In fact, that is the only source we know of that produces this type of information! Think of the text you are reading now, it has come from my mind. Thus this leads to the conclusion that life's specified informational core is grounded in intelligence - an intelligent mind!


Have you heard materialists say the "DNA is just Shannon Information" so it can arise by chance? What do you think, have you gained a new level of respect for "Information theory?"

FALSE: Adam Did Not have One Less Rib Than Eve

Introduction to Anatomy & Physiology, professor lecturing - I can still picture it even though it was back in the first year of the new millennium. “Men and women on average have 24 ribs” he said. And then he said: “no, men don’t have one less rib”, he want on “that was only Adam.”

First I was kind of surprised he would even bring up a biblical account, many have gotten in trouble talking about anything biblical in a science class, not counting more or less the part of the creation account. However, something else hit me, raising my hand I said “Maybe Adam did have a complete set of ribs, I understand that the rib is the only human bone that can regenerate sections after removal.” “No” he said, “bones don’t grow back, they can heal, but not grow back.”

As the years slid forward, that interaction never left me. A few years later I set out to track down the truth, was I correct? That’s when I ran across an article by Dr. Carl Wieland who told of a previous accident that caused the loss of some of his bone. To replace the missing bones, his surgeon used sections from his ribs - because they regenerate (1)!

As a born and raised thinker and researcher, I went deeper. After searching online, I came across and contacted a few surgeons around the world who seemed to have some knowledge in this area. Over and over I heard the same, yes they use bone from the rib and it regenerates back (2). Even recently researchers also confirmed this same action with rib cartilage (3).

You see, when a surgeon removes the a section of the rib bone they leave a surrounding tissue, called the periosteum, in place. Stem-cells are abundant in this tissue and they regenerate new rib bone.

So, did Adam have one less bone than Eve? Did God know what he was doing when he picked the bone he did to make Eve? Maybe the same God who made him really did know what he was doing, surprise, surprise!

What are your thoughts? Has an experience like this ever happened to you? Have you been told that men are less a rib compared to women? 



 
Sources:
(1) Wieland, Carl. "ADAM’S RIB: CREATION & THE HUMAN BODY." https://legacy-cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/assets/pdf/radio/adamsrib.pdf

(2) Personal email correspondence with a number of surgeons, one was Dr. David Pennington whose name was mentioned in the article that I came across. Also, see this site: http://www.scoliosis.org/resources/medicalupdates/ribthoracoplasty.php

(3) Healing power of 'rib-tickling' found by researchers. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140913141423.htm?

Srour, M., Fogel, J., Yamaguchi, K., Montgomery, A., Izuhara, A., Misakian, A., Lam, S., Lakeland, D., Urata, M., Lee, J. and Mariani, F. (2014). Natural large-scale regeneration of rib cartilage in a mouse model. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, p.n/a-n/a.

Is Raw Milk Dangerous?

I know I'm deviating from my usual content, but this is science related and there is much public rhetoric about this topic. This is about raw milk. My state's department of public health is trying to increase rules and regulations for the implantation of raw milk sales. I am concerned with this attempt. To set the stage, I want give my credentials and background. Then I want to assess the danger. Lastly, I want to talk about how to impair the growth of milk-borne pathogens.

My background

I have not only drunk unpasteurized milk at times in my life, but I know many who do and have drunk it. One of my parents grew up on a dairy farm, thus drinking raw milk through childhood. Over the years I have known many milk producers, I have helped milk cows on many different farms. In addition to the hands on and practical experiences, my graduate degree is in biology, and I have taught college classes in microbiology, human anatomy and physiology, and general biology.

Is it that dangerous?

Any biologist, who reads the literature, would have to agree that unpasteurized milk can be dangerous and there is a measure of concern. However, while reading through my state's health department's new rules and reading other related technical journal articles on this subject, I'm skeptical of some things that are being presented.

Of all the people I know who have, and do drink raw milk, I have only heard of one unconfirmed case of illness attributed to raw milk. To put this in perspective, if one would average all the raw milk illness cases between 1993-2006 in the United States, and look at how many people got sick from raw milk, my anecdotal experiences would accurately reflect the results (1). After calculating the numbers, the chances of one coming down with a raw milk related illness in any given year is about 1/30,000 people (these are only people who drink raw milk, not the general population). Compare this to food related illness such as from meat. Approximately the chances of one getting sick from contaminated food is about 1 out of 4 people each year (2). In addition, I have known many who have gotten sick from fast food.

So is there an issue with raw milk? Yes, especially if not properly gathered, prepared and stored. This goes with both pasteurized and unpasteurized milk. Let me cover some very foundational aspects of milk safety.

Healthy animals

Farmers not only need healthy animals, they want them. Most go to great lengths for this. Lactating animals are expensive - unhealthy animals ultimately cost more for care. Most farmers like animals, that's why they farm. Most raw milk producers are small scale farmers, they are especially concerned because of the high investment cost per animal. When one knows the farmer and visits the farm for raw milk pickup, it gives the consumer a better opportunity to make sure the animals are healthy. Quality of the milk increases if the cow is properly feed, has clean water and has a proper bovine environment.

Microbial contamination prevention 

Prevention of microbial contamination in the milk is also essential. The miking area needs to be well washed and dried before milking. A barn will never be as clean as a house, nor a cow as clean as a person. However, the animal should be clean using the proper methods and standards that farmers use. All dairy farmers filter the milk to remove contaminants and reserves of microbial contamination. This is done (and should be done) immediately after milking. Most farmers ingests the milk themselves, he or she wants safe milk as well as anyone else.

Storage of milk

The last, but very important aspect of safe milk safety is refrigeration and storage. The milk container needs to be food grade, clean and easily to be cleaned. In addition, proper temperature is needed for milk storage (under 41 degrees Fahrenheit). It needs to be fresh from the farmer's refrigerator. The milk needs to be sold on the farm, not at a grocery store. When one goes to the farm to pick it up, one will have more knowledge how it was produced, cared for and stored. Just like any pasteurized milk, old milk poses a danger. Milk needs to be discarded if it is older than a week to a week and a half in age or if one questions its safety. After a week or so the chances increase for harmful bacterial growth.

Conclusion

No, raw milk is not anymore dangerous than anything else if one uses proper methods. As a farmer or consumer, you have to be knowledgeable and educated. The more you know, the less likely you will be led amiss.

What are your thoughts? Do you have any other pointers? Do you know of any stories of one coming down with illness from raw milk?






(1) Langer AJ, Ayers T, Grass J, Lynch M, Angulo FJ, Mahon BE. Nonpasteurized dairy products, disease outbreaks, and state laws-United States, 1993–2006. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012;18:385–91 10.3201/eid1803.111370

(2) http://www.nj.gov/health/foodanddrugsafety/documents/foodsafety_brochure.pdf

Multiverse Theory Proves Flying Spaghetti Monster

You may not consciously believe in the flying spaghetti monster, but if you affirm Multiverse Theory–as many atheists, agnostics, and anti-theists do–then you really do believe in his Meatball Noodliness. Here’s how.

Premise 1: To account for the vast improbabilities of this universe, this universe is treated as one among many, perhaps, infinite universes [Multiverse theory]

Premise 2: Given infinite (or nearly infinite) universes every logical possibility becomes a metaphysical inevitability (or near inevitability) [i.e., all possible options are tried, so every remotely possible state eventually occurs]

Premise 3: The Flying Spaghetti Monster is logical possible [as are unicorns, leprechauns, tooth fairies, etc.] since they are not logically incoherent.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

There you have it. If one agrees with multiverse theory, where the number of universes are so vastly expanded as to make inevitiabilities out of the many improbabilities of this universe, it is virtually certain that at least one of those many universes has a flying spaghetti monster. For that matter, one may add to the collection of actualized creatures, unicorns, fairy god mothers, tooth fairies, leprechauns, and honest lawyers. All of these exist!!!




Image and Post source: Intelligent Christian Faith used by permission. For in-depth rebuttal and responses to the rebuttals please go to Intelligent Christian Faith. 

That thing that smells

A humans Nose (2)

OK, you know that thing that at times looks ugly, sticking out from your face? Yes, that thing that is messy when you have a little cold and has those few annoying hairs that stick out? Good, we are talking about the same thing here, just to be sure.

So let's ponder here, how many different smells do you think one's nose can discriminate? What would be your guess? Maybe three hundred, maybe a thousand? 

Try something over one trillion (1)! Yes, that is this number here: 1,000,000,000,000 or 10¹². Again, that is one trillion different smells! Can't comprehend the large number, don't worry, you are not alone, most politicians can't either.

So, here's the moment of truth, the core question...how does this type of technology randomly evolve through natural processes? Design is apparent, it is self evident.

(1) Humans Can Discriminate More than 1 Trillion Olfactory Stimuli. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6177/1370
(2) Image source: Wikipedia

Life's New Language

Artistic DNA molecule. Flicker/Keith Ramsey

For one who follows the world of biological news, one but can't help but have seen the news flash of "alien DNA" being incorporated into bacteria. It seems that many are praising the scientists as if it were some great and humanitarian leap for our progeny. However, is the hype accurate?

Yes, it is quite interesting that a group of scientists, Floyd Romesberg and team from Scripps Research Institute, were able to manufacture chemicals that were quite different from DNA's four bases: adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine (A, T, C and G respectively). To be frank it think the research is quite interesting. 

The bases engineered by Romesberg’s team are more alien, bearing little chemical resemblance to the four natural ones (1).

These new alien DNA bases, d5SICS and dNaM, were integrated into the microbes genome - this is the core of all the hubbub. Enzyme machines that help copy and translate the genetic code were able to interact with these novel bases.

Some are saying that we may be able to manufacture new drugs and unprecedented cures come from this research. In other words, with new letters one will be able to make new genetic words, which will expand the potential protein results.

My Perspective

However, I do have ten observations concerning this study, some on the skeptical side:

1. Great, they accomplished adding new, man-made bases to a bacteria's DNA. But at this time the cell has no way of making more, if the microbe's human farmers discontinue supplying the cells with these bases, these bases will no longer be coded within the cell. Traditional bases will replace these artificial bases places.
2. These bases are said to add information potential of the genome. This may be good, however, even with our computer systems, with only two "alphabets" (0 and 1), we are able to make images, videos, text, music, manufacture complex 3D objects and you name it. DNA already has twice as many "alphabets" as our technology, four bases (not counting the 64 codon combinations and used to put together 20 amino acids).
3. OK, we have two new bases, so what about the RNA and all the protein complexes that help make protein? Yes, we can copy the text, but what about protein manufacturing? It is one think to copy text, but it is another to use text to build an aircraft. There is a whole level of magnitude above this accomplishment needed to even think about making protein.
4. Proteins are made up of amino acids. The are attached to something called tRNA and are used to help build protein. So one is going to have to build "machines" help specify new amino acids to the correct new bases that make up the tRNA. Where will these machines come from? How will they be coded? What molecular machines will be automated to make them? There is a vicious loop going on here.
5. To make protein, we need amino acids. Even if we get amino acids to "stick" to the novel tRNA and rRNA, we have to get the amino acids to form protein.
6. We finely make a new protein. But form equals function. In other words, a protein needs to be folded just right for very specific jobs. Little machines, called chaperons, help fold proteins in the correct and usable shapes. Where are these new chaperons coming from for the new proteins with new types of amino acids? In other words, new code and new machines will have to be designed to fold the new proteins into correct orientations to even be potentially usable.
7. They credit the origins of our current nucleotide bases to evolution through deep time. No intelligent source is invoked. However, it took a group of intellectual researchers over fifteen years to just get these microbes to uptake and replicate these artificial letters. This does not count the many other researchers, since the 1960's, who also have been attempting to work toward this goal. It took intelligence to get as far as they did, how could a blind, undirected process come up with four bases? It is even worse than that, think about it, as of now, the microbes can't even uses these bases for anything. They just sit there and get replicated. This hole system is irreducible complex, unless all the parts were in place in the first cells, the original bases would not have functioned.
8. Along with this, we only know of information arising through intelligent minds. It is the inferences to the best explanation and the law of uniformity. Pure naturalism is not enough. As said on the point above, this study demonstrates this argument lucidly.
9. Lead researcher Romesberg said the following within a piece in Nature: "If you read a book that was written with four letters, you’re not going to be able to tell many interesting stories" that is why these new bases are important, they will extend the informational content (1). Again, sounds good except for when one looks at even a simple cell, one is totally amazed by the stunning design and complexity. It makes our greatest accomplishments seem like foolish children's play. The biological story is one of the most interesting "stories" that can be told!
10. Lastly, a quote from Romesberg states the following: "This shows that other solutions to storing information are possible and, of course, takes us closer to an expanded-DNA biology that will have many exciting applications—from new medicines to new kinds of nanotechnology" (2). Why does it seem as if all cutting edge (maybe on the offbeat side) "research" is argued  to help with health, medicine or improve technology? It seems to me that they trying to validate their research by saying "hey, this sounds a little silly, but it really does have importance." OK, maybe I am cynical, but that's what it sounds like!

(1) Callaway, Ewen. "First life with 'alien' DNA" http://www.nature.com/news/first-life-with-alien-dna-1.15179

(2) Scripps Research Institute Scientists Create First Living Organism that Transmits Added Letters in DNA 'Alphabet'. http://www.scripps.edu/news/press/2014/20140507romesberg.html

Genetically Modified Tomatoes

Are genetically modified (GM) foods bad for you? This is a controversial topic and at this time I am not going to talk about that question entirely. Nor am I here right now to discuss the ethics of manipulating genes. However, recently there was a study that pointed out that there were no large unintended genetic consequences in the GM tomato's which were designed to resist ripening.

When the scientists compared the biochemicals of the GM tomato and a wide assortment other non-GM tomatoes, including modern and heirloom varieties, they found no significant differences overall. Thus, although the GM tomato was distinct from its parent, its metabolic profile still fell within the "normal" range of biochemical diversity exhibited by the larger group of varieties. However, the biochemicals related to fruit ripening did show a significant difference -- no surprise because that was the intent of the genetic modification (1).

All in all, it seems that the scientists were able to edit the genome as they intended with no other large unintended genetic changes, which is good. But I do have two questions. First do these "extended ripening genes" have any adverse human consequences? Second, for this tomato it sounds like these ripening genes still fall within the normal tomato range of genes. But what is this "normal" range and what measurement did they use?

(1) Crop Science Society of America. "New approach to detecting changes in GM foods." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 3 April 2014. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140403131942.htm>.

Throw Your Genome Away!

In a recent article by Dr. Tomkins, he writes the following:

It was once believed that the regions in between the protein-coding genes of the genome were wastelands of alleged nonfunctional “junk DNA.” However, we now know that these previously misunderstood regions are teeming with functional activity—and a new study shows they are actually required for life (1).

The idea of junk DNA is another area where the evolutionary ideology has failed us. Only about 1-5% of the DNA codes for protein. The rest of the DNA was assumed by many to be leftovers from evolutionary ancestors.  Most who held to this view were biologists with evolutionary presuppositions. Directly steming from this assumption, much of the genome regions went unexplored for years.

Now we know different. In fact most of the DNA has been assigned roles, very important roles within the cell. Interestingly, many of those who held to the view of life originating from a deity, have for years theorized function to most of the "junk DNA". Truly, as the old saying states "ideas have consequences."

(1) Quoted text and image are from the following source: Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D., . N.p.. Web. 3 Mar 2014. <http://www.icr.org/article/7875/>.

Double Function: DNA Code and Duons

Cells are the "building block of life", they form organisms. Inside, DNA resides, storing the instructions that tell how to build proteins. Protein are made up of something called called amino acids. The instructions in the DNA are called genes. However, the DNA has other functions as well, it regulates some of the cell's activities.

DNA code seems to have multiple layers of information, from molecular tags. Much of the information outside of the DNA is called the epigenome.

While genes and epigenomes are interesting, there is evidence that DNA itself, the four letters that make up the DNA (A, T, C, and G), contain at least two layers of information. One that directs the sequence of the amino acids to make protein. The other helps regulate where types of molecular machines can copy the code to make RNA, an intermediate between DNA and protein. This is a regulatory function. These instructions are found many places on the DNA code. However, some of it is found coded right with the genes, in the same sequences that code for protein!

The sequence of the DNA is "nonrandom". This means that these genes are highly specified. They need to be, they are carrying at least two layers of information on some genes. The writers of the below study state the following: "The information architecture of the received genetic code is optimized for superimposition of additional information." This causes a simultaneous encoding of amino acids and regulatory information within exons, the parts of the gene that code for protein.

We only see information come from a mind. In this case, we have two layers of information, in the same "text". Think of reading a book. Now what if you turned the book and read it in another direction, ore even backwards. While doing this, the author has written more information that is with in the same text that you were just reading. You have a very compact book with couple layers of information. Just one layer of information points to a creator. However, given that we find at least two layers of information makes it even more stunning. Two layers makes it even more stunning and exponentially points to a mindful origin.

Stergachis, A. B. et al. 2013. Exonic Transcription Factor Binding Directs Codon Choice and Affects Protein Evolution. Science. 342 (6164): 1367-1372.

Geckos and Robots

Gecko; Source (1)

Geckos are truly awesome creatures. One intriguing attribute is that they can walk on walls and ceilings. There is a secret however to this ability. Researchers have been trying to elucidate this secret for some time, and have come up with technology to mimic geckos toes. This includes glue, tape and a rubberized material used to make a gecko robot.

The secret of this mind boggling ability is biologically multilevel. Geckos feet and legs are lined with lamellae (image B), these are small ridges that form flaps. On each of these there are hairs called setae (image C & D). These little hairs divide into microscopic hairs called spatula (image E). These spatula attach to its climbing surfaces by weak chemical bond called Van der Waals forces. However, the spatula only stick in one direction. Detachment is easy, but the design is complex, they have rotational ankles so they can "stick" and then rotate to "un-stick".

Gecko's feet; source (3)

Researchers visioned a robot with the same wall climbing abilities. To mimic this sticking action, they designed a rubber-like material that has micro hairs on the surface. This adhesive does not just have hairs, but also the same lamellae design mimicked from the gecko. Lastly they attached this material to their robot called "Stickybot" (2)

What I find just a little curious is the quantity of research time (probably years), the amount of money needed, the vast knowledge base and many minds to make this thing work. The technology, chemical design and engineering also should not be forgotten. However, this Stickybot is still not as finely designed as our little lizard friend. Silly how a mindless process can do more amazing things they our brightest minds. Don't forget we copied this "mindless" design. I wonder....




(1)Gecko image 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gold_Dust_Day_Gecko.jpg
(2) More about the Stickybot: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/gecko-082410.html
(3) Gecko image 2: http://www.pnas.org/content/102/2/385/F1.large.jpg

Post Reverberations From Ham vs. Nye

I once talked to one who had a graduate degree in geology. He told me that one can't be a scientist without believing in evolution. While I already posted some of my thoughts concerning Ham's and Nye's debate, I want to take up this specific issue. After listening to Nye and many others in the social media world, I have been hearing the above concept go something like this: "you can't be a good scientist unless you believe in molecules-to-man evolution." I have two concerns one is this assertion does not follow, second I think the debate topic about if creation is good science is wrongly put, it should have been, can materialistic molecules-to-man evolution be good science.

Why does this specific issue not make sense? Let's look at a real world example. One can cook well at the same time believing in flying cookie monsters, leprechauns and mermaids. However, one does not have to believe in those to also cook well. The same goes for science, there are grounding precepts that have built the science concept over the years. These are in place no matter what a scientist believes. These included, uniformity, logic, math, repetition, drawing the best conclusions, information and peer review just to name a few things. All scientists need to believe in are things like these to do good science.

However, because science and reason have foundations upon the Christianity, one has to wounder how the belief that "you can't believe in creation and be a scientist" even makes sense. In fact, the field of science is based off the Christian world view, things are knowable, repeatable, logical, uniformity and there are ethics (right and wrong) that guides us while living life (1). God is the grounding for science. Without God, the Christian God, science probably would never taken off as an enterprise. It only took off once in history that we know of, that was in Europe. The early European scholars and scientists thought they could know why things work because they had a belief that the Christian God was rational, dependable, the creator and was lawful (1).

Even Tertullian knew that since God is a rational God, we can understand things and reason. He says the following:

Reason, in fact, is a thing of God, inasmuch as there is nothing which God the Maker of all has not provided, disposed, ordained by reason - nothing which He has not willed should be handled and understood by reason (2). 

That is why I am concerned when Christians put an artificial wall between reason and faith. This "wall" is based upon the the atheist world view. It is so prevalent in Christendom because of post-modernity and also atheist assertions. In fact it does not make sense. It is not "reason vs faith" or "science vs God." These are complimentary with each other.

I feel that a better debate question that would have put us on the offensive instead on the definitive should have gone something like this: "can materialistic molecules-to-man evolution be considered science?"


(1) Stark, Rodney (2003) "For the Glory of God", Chapter 2. Princeton University Press. page 147.
(2) Tertullian, On Repentance Chapter 1