The most famous, passionately argued, longest-running debate

angry_carlos_hernandez_landeroIn June 2005 I delivered my lecture “If you can read this I can prove God exists” and posted it on my website.

Today, I have to thank a brotherhood of evangelical atheists for making it world-famous. It became the longest-running, most viewed thread on the largest atheist discussion board in the world.

They never successfully countered it.

A few months after I posted my talk, a gentleman named Rob sent me an email that said, “I see right through your sophistry and pseudoscience…” and an intense discussion began.

After a couple of weeks he got flustered, so he went to the largest atheist discussion board in the world, Infidels. He posted a link to my talk and basically said, ‘be nice to this guy while you rip him to shreds.’

I’d be lying to you if I said I wasn’t nervous. I was nervous. (Wouldn’t you be?) One of me, dozens of them. One slip of the foot and they’d eviscerate my sorry carcass like a pack of wolverines.

If you’ve spent any time on Infidels, you’ve seen – it’s not like those guys are real big on manners. The anger and hostility is so thick you can cut it with a knife. The Infidels website is six thousand pages of rage and spitting vitriol.

It’s do-or-die time. If there’s a hole in my theory, sooner or later these guys will find it.

And I really did fear that at some point someone would pin me down on some technicality. Or at the very least, that I would screw up or say something I didn’t mean and there would be some disaster I’d have to recover from.

Nope. That’s not what happened. What happened was actually a little surprising.

Let’s just say… they used to intimidate me. They don’t anymore.

I called their bluff.

Before this happened, I couldn’t have imagined that any group of self-respecting, educated men and women would actually try to tell me that DNA isn’t really a code. But that’s exactly what they did. (It is formally, scientifically and literally a code. See explanation here.)

They tried to tell me DNA was not a code – then tried to tell me a snowflake is a code – at the very same time!

They mocked me for taking science books and dictionaries literally. They called me every name in the book. One guy got so furious that the moderator had to delete his posts and ban him from the forum.

But after years of trying, they have not punched a single hole in the argument.


The argument begins with an open question “Did DNA come from natural processes, or was it designed?” and it goes like this:

1. The pattern in DNA is a code (by definition)

2. All other codes we know the origin of are designed (by observation)

Therefore we can explore five possible conclusions:

a) Humans designed DNA
b) Aliens designed DNA
c) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously
d) There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates information*
e) DNA was Designed by a Superintelligence, i.e. God.

(a) requires time travel or infinite generations of humans. (b) could well be true but only pushes the question back in time. (c) may be a remote possibility, but it’s not a scientific explanation because it doesn’t refer to a systematic, repeatable process. It’s nothing but an appeal to luck. (d) could be true but no one can form a testable hypothesis until someone observes a naturally occurring code.* So the only systematic explanation that is consistent with science is (e) a theological one.


3. To the extent that scientific reasoning can prove anything, DNA is proof of design.


That’s it. That’s the argument. It’s that simple.

It’s so elegant, it’s irrefutable. It’s airtight.

There is nowhere for the atheist to go, except to say “I don’t know.”

Which is the truth. We don’t know, we can only infer.

All these guys understand that once they admit they don’t know, I’ll say, “Congratulations. Welcome to the world of agnosticism. Honest inquiry is now possible.”

Die-hard members of Infidels are profoundly committed to their atheist beliefs. They are just as devout as members of any religious sect. They won’t go there.

So they just endlessly argue that DNA really isn’t a code…. or it’s only a code in our imaginations…. or that rocks and snowflakes and cosmic rays are codes. Or that it’s not permissible for rational people to draw these sorts of silly conclusions.

I spent five years answering every single question and addressing every objection. I posted an exhaustive Q&A summary at You can click to six different pages that carefully address all the major arguments.

I noticed that one by one, the ‘smart ones’ dropped out. The moderator refuses to answer any of my questions, even though I’ve answered every single one of his.

One guy said, “If you quote Hubert Yockey one more time, I’m going to scratch your eyes out.”

One guy, screen name “Robert Webb” eventually showed up. He’s an atheist but he’s also a computer programmer and he called them on it. He said, “Perry’s definitions are correct, points #1 and #2 are right and you’re never going to prove him wrong.” They lashed out at him for saying that, and accused him of secretly arguing my side.

So far as I can tell, most of the ones who are still hanging in there haven’t actually read or listened to my presentation. They just go around in circles and call me names.

I stop by every few months and answer questions. Meanwhile this has become the most viewed, longest-running thread in the history of Infidels.

I have proven God exists, and… the place where this has been most thoroughly articulated is the largest atheist website in the world.

I love it!

God has a sense of humor, doesn’t He?

I’ve learned a lot from this. In no particular order, here’s what I’ve observed:

1. When people are backed into a corner and do not want to change their beliefs. They go into denial. No amount of logic, evidence, scientific findings or proof can change their minds. I guess somehow I had thought that if you put enough peer-reviewed, non-controversial textbooks, definitions and examples in front of them they would admit that I could be right.

Nope… not the case. If someone doesn’t want to believe something, there is nothing you can do to change their minds.


2. Most people do not know that science is based on inference. The idea that there is a law of gravity is inferred from 100% consistent observations. You can’t literally prove it. Belief in all scientific laws rests on faith in something you cannot prove: Namely, that the universe operates according to fixed discoverable laws.

3. Many people also do not know that the core belief of science – that the universe operates according to fixed discoverable laws – was originally a religious idea. To the best of my knowledge, this idea was first introduced 3000 years ago by Solomon, who wrote “Thou hast ordered all things in weight and number and measure.” (Wisdom of Solomon 11:21)

4. People who are well informed about things like the inner workings of computer systems – hardware and software engineers, for example – almost never challenge me on Information Theory. When I gave three different lectures at Lucent Technologies / Bell Labs, for example (the company where Claude Shannon first developed information theory), nobody accused me of applying the theory incorrectly.

The ones who argue are science wannabes, not professionals. People who think that watching the Discovery Channel or the latest Evolution show on PBS makes their opinions scientific.

5. When people feel threatened they abandon facts and resort to name-calling and emotional tirades. They accuse you of practicing “pseudoscience” and they say that you’re an “idiot” and a “creationist”.

They quote passages from the latest Richard Dawkins bestseller as though it were a Holy Book.

6. The real reason some people believe that life was caused by random accident is they have a very, very hard time fathoming that an all-knowing God would allow the world to be so messed up. This is a moral judgment, not a scientific position. “Accidents happen, therefore it’s all an accident.”

This at least appears to relieve them of having to explain why there is evil in the world. (Perhaps that’s true. But the problem is, it leaves them with no objective definition of what is good.)

7. Theologians gave birth to science in the middle ages. People who believed the world operated according to fixed, discoverable laws, began to search for those laws. People like Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, Mendel, Boyle, Maxwell and even Einstein saw science as a way of studying the mind of God.

Science itself got started in ancient Rome, Greece, China and in Islam – but it never went anywhere in those cultures. Why? I would like to suggest that none of those cultures had a theology that described a systematic universe. But Christianity did teach that the universe was systematic and discoverable and that’s why science succeeded in the West after failing everywhere else.

8. Because of my websites and, I have had literally thousands upon thousands of email conversations with people about science, religion, morality, and all of kinds of deep questions. People from literally every single country in the world, every religion, every race and belief system you can imagine.

And I can assure you – NOBODY argues more stridently than the atheists. Nobody.

Militant atheism is most zealous form of religious fundamentalism in the world today. And yes, based on all my conversations and experiences I do classify atheism as an extremist religion. I’ve heard all the usual objections to that but I just don’t buy them. Modern atheism is not the least bit interested in discovering the truth, it’s only interested in making disciples.

A common stereotype of Muslims, for example, is that they are dogmatic and belligerent. But almost none of the Muslims I have ever encountered are actually like that! Atheists overwhelmingly are.

They’re combative and not only do they fail to show respect, they display burning contempt and derision for religious people. Atheists are more dogmatic about what they believe than anyone else I’ve ever encountered. Again, that’s my own experience from answering thousands of emails and debating in the Infidels forum.

9. Many people perceive science and religion as being in a war with each other. It’s a false war that has been largely invented and perpetrated by a tiny minority of extremely angry people. These people have perpetrated a lot of myths, too – for example they tell you that people believed the earth was flat until 500 years ago.

Wrong. People have known the earth was round for 2500 years.

You may not have known that prior to the mid- to late-1800’s there was far less hostility between science and religion. Yes there are the Galileo vs. the Church stories, but we have an exact reversal of that today: Scientists who are persecuted by secular institutions because of their religious beliefs. I predict that some day the present hostility will subside.

10. Atheists are very good at going on the attack. But they are astonishingly weak when they are called to defend what they believe (i.e. that life was a random accident; that the big bang happened for no particular reason at all; that there’s an infinite number of other universes somewhere.) I’ve found that when I press them for answers, they usually at some point suddenly vanish, never to return.

PZ Myers, a very popular biologist, author and prominent atheist spokesman (he is referenced more than 200,000 times on the Internet and was a featured speaker at many Atheist conferences) subscribed to my email series. He sent me an email. He said:

“You’re insane, and you’re ignorant. You can stop sending me your foolish twaddle, your info is now in my filters.”

I kindly asked him if I could post his name and his comments on my website. No response.

That’s it. Total refusal to engage.

You know why?

Because he knows he can’t win.

[I debated PZ on the Unbelievable radio program in 2015. Listen at].

I realize that I am not being terribly kind to atheism here (though I am not being unkind to anyone either). The atheist belief system needs to be punched in the face by people of all beliefs, and forced to account for itself. The infidels debate and this website is an open challenge for atheists to provide evidence for the things they believe in.

Tossing around words like “rational inquiry” and “science” and “non-sequitur” is no substitute for sound reasoning, actual practice of science, and the use of logic.

If atheism is going to wear the robe of science and reason, it’s time for us to expect it to answer science questions, not evade them. We need to demand reasons, not non-reasons. Open factual discussion, not name-calling and childish behavior from anonymous cowards.

And… if the atheist doesn’t know, let’s allow him to admit he doesn’t know, and be kind to him when he makes that admission.

And once he is open to following the evidence wherever it leads, let us welcome him into the world of honest and rational inquiry.

Perry Marshall

P.S.: I used to say: “If you doubt what I am saying here – go to the Infidels site and see for yourself. Read every single post in the 5+ year thread.” (They took it down and refused my requests to make it public. Screen shot at Read every reference you can find to this anywhere on the Internet. If after that you still think that my argument has been dismantled by the Infidels and I’m doing a cover-up job, then come back here and post your questions. Please read the FAQ first.

*P.P.S.: I have a multi-million dollar prize for Origin Of Information at

Download The First 3 Chapters of Evolution 2.0 For Free, Here –

Where Did Life And The Genetic Code Come From? Can The Answer Build Superior AI? The #1 Mystery In Science Now Has A $10 Million Prize. Learn More About It, Here –

334 Responses

  1. Brian Shipley says:

    I have to agree with Anil here.
    Yes, there is a vast amount of hard evidence to show that God exists, to anyone with a fair and open mind, who actually examines the issue.
    Every scientific discipline has long established policies, deciding what is required in the way of evidence, fact and witness for something to be considered proven. Ding this, the life and deeds of Jesus Christ can be considered proven by Law, History, Archeology and statistics, at a minimum.
    Second, there is NO science disproving God.
    Third, Perry’s theory is so elegant and fits so exactly. He takes both acclaimed and obscure science, and revives a discredited theory. Yet, it is rejected by atheists, not because its wrong, but because it includes God, or something very much like Him. So, in their most stubborn Flat-Earther attitude, they summarily reject it. A few burrowing into corners and crevices, trying to gnaw a hole of doubt.
    I am grateful for the insight Anil gave us, about “pistis” meaning “forensic evidence” You know, science?
    I am astounded that atheists ALWAYS claim science, when there is absolutely none to disprove God. Its a fraud. In fact, it actually boils down to “straining at gnats while swallowing camels” as Jesus said. Anything, absolutely ANYTHING, to deny God. Then claim, “It just happened, Dude!” and call it science.
    Atheists are this era’s Flat-Earhers.

    • Carol Sperling says:

      So, Brian, give us your best “hard evidence” for God’s existence.

      • Brian Shipley says:

        Perry already has, and you dismissed it. Just as you dismissed all previous evidence. Atheists are atheists due to many motives, EXCEPT science.
        YOU are the ones claiming “science” for all of history it seems, so you are the ones obligated to prove it with science.
        Its all here, an elegant theory that fixes all the absurd flaws in Evolution, and proves it. But you reject it, because it proves God, or something/someone very, very like Him. The fact atheists swallowed the old evolution bull, hook, line and sinker, but simply refuse to consider Evolution 2.0, despite all their constant yammering of science, is pretty good proof that they decided without knowing or examining the facts. It indicates their motive too. Hostility, extreme, unreasoning hostility towards a God they claim to not believe in. Because when they are handed “science” on a platter, they reject it for myths and fraud, purely because it involves God. Excuse me, but that’s not scientific.

        • Mike Lucci says:

          Again Brian, that’s not how science works. Science assumes the null hypothesis; in this case that God did not create DNA, or that God does not exist. The burden is on whoever is trying to prove causality to actually show causality, and what is presented here doesn’t meet that standard.

          In fact, the argument made here does not even attempt any sort of scientific proof, but rather attempts to use deductive logic.

          The logic is flawed though; every answer but e) is summarily dismissed without logical reasoning. And the reason given for d), that supposedly no one can form a testable hypothesis to prove that codes occur naturally seems patently absurd when no testable hypothesis can be formed to prove e) either.

      • Carol,

        The best that science can ever provide for such questions is inference. Not direct proof. Inference is the gold standard in science.

        At the present time, we have 100% inference to design in DNA and 0% inference to any other explanation. I say this as author of an Ethernet book, observing that like Ethernet packets, genes and chromosomes have start bits, stop bits, checksums, parity, redundancy, error correction and many other systemic features that have never been found in any place besides systems engineered by extremely smart people.

        This does not prove God designed DNA – it could mean that there are some spectacular laws of physics that we are unaware of. And I am eager to take that option as well, and I am offering a $3 million prize for its discovery.

        Until someone successfully meets this challenge, you cannot truthfully dismiss the inference to design in biology, because what we know about codes explicitly indicates it.

        Do you have any counter-evidence to present? If so I invite you to come forward.

        • Mike Lucci says:

          No, we actually have 0% inference to design.

          We know from observation and experimentation that under the right conditions that subatomic particles form atoms, atoms form molecules, and molecules band together to form increasingly complex structures, including proteins and RNA. We’ve actually synthesized the conditions for the spontaneous creation of RNA in labs before, and I’ve seen you try to dismiss it as somehow not meeting your standard of coded information, but RNA is the building block of DNA, and capable of replicating itself, which does in fact require information to be coded within the structure. Even if it didn’t though, it would still be a logical fallacy to infer that just because we haven’t been able to figure out the conditions required for spontaneous creation means that there must be some sort of intelligent design.

          So, whether we’re trying to use science or logic, we cannot infer causality, and are left with the null hypothesis, which in this case is that DNA is a result of the inherent properties of matter. Of course, you could then ask the question “how did the inherent properties of matter come to exist?”, and are ultimately left with 2 possibilities: either something created them, or nothing created them and they are simply part of what is—and given that binary proposition, in the absence of evidence of causality, science would again assume the null hypothesis (that they simply exist), as unsatisfying as it is.

          • This does nothing to answer the question of where the rules of the code came from. $3 million prize for the answer –

          • Anil Gulati says:

            I just wanted to make a quick reply to Mike Lucci on the spontaneous creation of RNA.

            As you allude in your comment, Mike, you are not addressing the question of information, coding, and organisation of molecules towards a design, which is essential.

            But Just addressing “spontaneous RNA self-creation” alone, your claims make it sound like spontaneous RNA creation is an easy and natural thing, that happens all the time.

            Even just chemically speaking, it could never happen in the wild, and still less in the context of requiring other elements of an organism even to just co-exist in the same location.

            “The most reasonable assumption is that life did not start with RNA …. The transition to an RNA world, like the origins of life in general, is fraught with uncertainty and is plagued by a lack of experimental data” [Joyce, G. F., 1989. RNA evolution and the origins of life. Nature]

            “Without enzymes from a living cell, formaldehyde (HCHO) reactions with hydrogen cyanide (HCN) are necessary for the formation of DNA and RNA bases, condensing agents, etc. But HCHO and especially HCN are deadly poisons — HCN was used in the Nazi gas chambers! They destroy vital proteins. Abundant Ca2+ ions would precipitate fatty acids (necessary for cell membranes) and phosphate (necessary for such vital compounds as DNA, RNA, ATP, etc.). Metal ions readily form complexes with amino acids, hindering them from more important reactions.” [Sarfati, J, 15 loopholes in the evolutionary theory of the origin of life:]

            Your statements just don’t fit with the literature on the subject. We have figured out the conditions required for RNA to be created, those conditions have been figured out in detail, and they just don’t exist in the natural world.

            Meanwhile you are carrying on with “we just need to figure this out and the theory will work”. How scientific is that? I think you need to be more rigorous about what parts of your beliefs have a scientific basis and which parts you are accepting on faith as part of the Evolutionary religion.

    • Mike says:

      “Second, there is NO science disproving God.”

      OMG…did I really just read this? Clearly, you do not understand how scientific method works. Science is not capable of proving a negative; it cannot therefore disprove God any more than it can disprove unicorns or faeries or the Flying Spaghetti monster.

      As for supposed proof of God’s existence, none of it actually meets the scientific standards of proof. All you’re doing is taking phenomena that you either don’t understand, or can’t conceive of another plausible explanation for even if there is one, and ascribing God as the causality, simply because you can’t come up with a better explanation. That’s not proof. That’s a belief.

      • Mike,

        From now on use your full first and last name or your posts will be deleted.

      • Brian Shipley says:

        Where to start?
        First, I know all this. But, thanks for arguing my point for me. And I most certainly do understand the Scientific Method. Do you?
        Science is not capable of proving a negative, yet atheist go around screeching “Science!” like an old MTV video. THERE IS NONE DISPROVING GOD, so its a fraudulent belief, and not at all scientific.
        Actually? It is only your biased belief that lets you dismiss proof.
        A convention of American lawyers got started on Jesus’ life and works, and using the established and accepted rules of the legal profession, came to the conclusion that Jesus life and works were among the most proven in history. Using the established and accepted rules of the Historian, same thing. Proven. Use statistical probability and the myths atheists believe are staggeringly improbable. You just cant let go of your hostility, nor your “scientific” claims.
        Personally, I think God is waaayyy better as an explanation than, “It just happened Dude!” Sorry, but the whole “happy accident” thing is ridiculous. Astoundingly so. Its a myth, bitterly clung to. Not because its scientific, but because plausible sounding rejection of God.
        Your entire post centers on your own, unsupported premises, and a knee-jerk rejection of anything else, especially God. I don’t accept your unsupported premises. They are fantastic, and grounded in preconception.

  2. Anil Gulati says:

    The scientific method everyone is referring to is the inductive method. This basically means testing your ideas to find out if they’re true. It would be an arbitrary constraint to restrict this to just the natural or physical world. It’s also spiritual.

    In case you misunderstood Brian’s comment, I am not supporting Perry’s theory. Does the one who made the ear not hear? Does the one who made the eye not see? He that teaches man knowledge, shall he not hear?

    And God created more than us, he created the universe for us, the evidence is not just biological. This isn’t just about evolution.

    God is a single central intelligence who also establishes a moral system that brings a good / bad evaluation, and punishment: judgement. Shall he that disciplines the nations, shall he not rebuke?

    Atheists deny God because they don’t want to comply, submit and acknowledge. We want to make ourselves like God which itself rejects God. Wherever there is avoidance of morality, obedience and judgement there is avoidance of God. God is irrefutably a person. And God is love.

    • Brian Shipley says:

      I think Perry HAS proved Gods existence. I also think that you cannot prove Gods existence with Philosophy. I feel Philosophy first requires a belief in God though, to be able to discuss Him. What would be the point of discussing God from an atheists unimaginative viewpoint? In fact, take away God, and you take every good and sublime thing in life, reducing us all to accidents, living out a pointless existence. Far would I rather be a Child of God, then a Monkeys Uncle.
      I have not met an atheist yet who does not claim he is just as moral as anyone, but agree with you. “They “do not want to comply, submit, acknowledge” So, they scoff, without any rational basis, and call it science.
      I think atheists have many motives, but primary is hostility towards God. So they reject Him, in an attempt to hurt Him, and lash out at His followers, constantly mocking and attacking. Another motive is a feeling of insecurity, driving a need to feel superior. Sorry, but most religions have far more basis for belief, even thru science, than atheism, which has no science.

  3. Kevin draiss says:

    Congratulations….You just proved where God came from…..not.

  4. Kevin draiss says:

    The arrogance of you all is stifling…..

  5. edwardtbabinski says:

    Biology lesson #1 for Perry

    All living things are mashups and mixes of genetic material that has been traded between replicators over untold eons. The human genome contains both viral and bacterial genes, and the amount of viral genetic material that has weedled its way inside our cells is equal to or exceeds the number of genes that make us peculiarly human.

    The simplest replicators are not viruses but transposons, transposable genetic elements (TE) or retrotransposons which are DNA sequences that can change its sequence within the genome sometimes causing or reversing mutations and altering the cell’s genome size. These transposons have been found inside viruses that infect other viruses, which in turn affect amoebas that infect human beings. As one microbiologist put it, “I think it’s difficult to see where one organism begins and another one ends, we are only beginning to appreciate how intertwined these layers of organisms are in large flora and fauna.” [from “The Dexter of Parasites” on the Stuff to Blow Your Mind podcast for Nov 14, 2013, the podcast also discusses a species of wasp that lays its eggs inside caterpillars that have already been infected by wasp eggs, but the larva of this species of wasp not only eats the caterpillar but also the larva of the other wasp species whose eggs hatched earlier inside the caterpillar, basically hot parasite on parasite action]

    We even know via experiments that a single strand of RNA (usually taken from a virus) can make more strands that then make more strands in test tubes filled with that strand & some basic building block molecules & a little zinc as a catalyst. So a single strand of RNA can self-replicate. They even put some RNA dissolving chemicals in one of those test tubes (a dilute amount of chemical that was poisonous to RNA) and then siphoned out of the tube any RNA strands that survived and placed them in a fresh test tube to produce more strands, and then slowly increased the dosage of the poison, and then took out any surviving RNA strands and placed them in a fresh test tube to make more RNA, etc., until an RNA strand that was more highly resistant to the poison was produced, demonstrating the naturally growing adaptability of a strand of RNA to poisonous chemicals over several generations and via a selection of surviving strands.

    Now for viruses. Viruses are so adaptable they can have either RNA or DNA as their genetic material (in other words their nucleic acid may be single- or double-stranded). The entire infectious virus particle, called a virion, consists of nucleic acid covered by an outer shell of protein. The simplest viruses contain only enough RNA or DNA to encode 4 proteins. But the largest known virus, the Pandora salinus virus, is larger than many bacteria and contains more than 2,500 genes! Nor do viruses have proof reading mechanisms, so more mutations occur in them each generation than other replicators on earth. Also, giant viruses are known to be infected by much smaller viruses that invade them! Hot virus on virus action.

    Viruses are the most abundant replicators on earth, with each drop of healthy sea water containing exponentially larger numbers of viruses than either bacteria (prokaryotes) or single-celled organisms (eukaryotes). Viruses attack other viruses, prokaryotes, eukaryotes, and the Archaea (single-celled organisms that were recently discovered to constitute their own separate kingdom of living things neither bacterial nor eukaryotic).

    Now for bacteria. Most bacteria are larger than most viruses. Bacteria passively absorb genetic material they happen to run into. And they actively exchange packets of genetic material. This means they are filled with loads of odd genetic material at all times. And keep in mind how many countless viruses and bacteria are perishing every second on earth (never passing along their genetic material to future generations, while others are busy producing far more offspring than others) and you begin to realize just how much genetic shuffling and natural selecting has been going on for a long time. In fact for the majority of biological history on earth there was nothing but single-celled organisms on earth. Multicelluar organisms haven’t been around nearly as long as single-celled organisms. So however amazing the internal architecture of single-celled organisms, they had a long long time to develop that internal architecture–far longer than the time multi-cellular organism have been around.

    After the appearance of mosquitoes & flies many viruses and bacteria have spread far more widely than they ever could have spread before. Pandemic-causing diseases, multi-cellular parasites, and even relatively benign viral and bacterial DNA thus have spread exponentially further since the appearance of mosquitoes and flies.

  6. edwardtbabinski says:

    Biology Lesson #2 for Perry

    But we do know for a fact that DNA does not produce perfect copies of itself, not even in eukaryotic cells with their copy reading capabilities. And we do know that endless offshoot species or cousin species perished over time for every one that succeeded, just as we know that endless numbers of each newborn generation die, and only those who survived every hurdle life had to offer get to produce the next generation. We also know that if there is some principle of I.D. at work, it doesn’t seem to care whether it spends eons creating and perfecting some species only to see it wiped out in an instant via a meteor. Nor does this alleged principle of I.D. seem to care about cleaning up the genome since there is redundancy (duplicate copies of genes) as well as pseudogenes (inactivated duplicates), heavily methylated inactive regions of the genome (which if activated cause CANCERS, as has been proven in experiments), retroviral genes (from ancient viral infections that reached the germ cells and were passed down to the next generation), plenty of neutral mutations that accumulate changes over time, and even some bacterial genes inside the human genome. Nor does the size of the genome point to anything in particular because we know about whole genome duplication events that lead to similar species having widely different genome sizes. If there is little visible in the way of genetic cleanup, then how can one be sure this principle of I.D. ever added anything?

  7. edwardtbabinski says:

    Biology Lesson #3 for Perry

    WE HAVE EVIDENCE that mutations happen, there are cosmic rays that randomly penetrate the nucleus, mutation-causing chemicals found naturally inside each cell, and we know for a fact that DNA does not produce perfect copies of itself during meiosis. We also know that it takes countless deaths (in other words many genomic dead ends) for every individual that successfully passes along its genes. And species are not isolated but always have many near cousin species, and countless numbers of those near cousin species don’t succeed for every species that survives longer and flourishes. As for grand mutations and survival, some species even survive mutations as radical as WHOLE GENOME DUPLICATION events (many lesser mutations are also survivable by some species, such as whole chromosome mutation events, or chromosomes sticking together, or breaking apart, or simply the duplication of single genes, or point mutation events as well, most of which are neutral). See also




    In contrast what EVIDENCE does I.D. offer? Cells look complex. That’s it. They can’t imagine, they don’t even seem to be curious about natural connections and mechanisms when they can cut the Gordian knot with “God did it.” Let me quote two leading lights of the Discovery Institute on their theory of “puff of smoke” and “ta da.”

    ‘Michael Behe told us his hypothesis a few years ago. We both took part in a week-long lecture series on the intelligent design debate at Hillsdale College. After Michael Behe’s lecture, some of us pressed him to explain exactly how “irreducibly complex” mechanisms arose–mechanisms that cannot, according to Behe, be explained as products of evolution by natural selection. He repeatedly refused to answer. But after a long night of drinking he finally answered: “A puff of smoke!” A physicist in the group asked, Do you mean a suspension of the laws of physics? Yes, Behe answered. Not very persuasive as a scientific answer.’
    –RBH July 9, 2012

    Reminds me of what Berlinski wrote: “Before the Cambrian era, a brief 600 million years ago, very little is inscribed in the fossil record; but then, signaled by what I imagine as a spectral puff of smoke and a deafening ta-da!, an astonishing number of novel biological structures come into creation, and they come into creation at once.– [Berlinski, “The Deniable Darwin” (June 1996), Commentary magazine. Oh, and BERLINSKI AND STEPHEN C MEYER ARE WRONG ABOUT THE CAMBRIAN, simply repeating an old creationist lie: ]

    Berlinski added to Behe’s explanation by adding the word “Ta da.”

    Compare BIOLOGOS — founded by a leader of the Human Genome Project, an organization of Christians who are scientists who support evolution and critically analyze I.D. arguments.

    Biologist Jeffery P. Schloss used to be pro-I.D. and was a former senior member of the Discovery Institute who left after the Institute’s film, Expelled, was released, and he wrote a lengthy review and rebuttal of the film’s arguments here:
    Schloss has since joined BIOLOGOS

    Biologist Dennis Venema use to be pro-I.D. and he explains why he changed his point of view at the BIOLOGOS website:
    Venema joined BIOLOGOS.

    • I am not sure why you are saying all of this.

      Much of it I already know and agree with.

      Not all of it is right, but we can get to that later.

      You seem to be under the impression that I’m an “Intelligent Design” ID guy a la Discovery Institute. As though I’m an old earth creationist or something. Is that what you believe?

  8. Perry Daciuk says:


    A very interesting webpage, and fascinating thread of comments and arguments. You have one clear scientific question – what is the origin of DNA? With all the research and scientific data you’ve investigated you present your case that in the end DNA requires a designer, and the only one who qualifies is God. I have read all the posts and you’re right, no one is able to refute it. Some play with semantics and definitions, some accuse you of being philosophical or talking theology. Some play the denial game as you mention in the beginning. Some try to take you down a rabbit hole of another topic. Some try to get your goat and draw you into a theological discussion (usually in order to diminish the science behind your argument). I love how you keep coming back to the original question, showing how no one has yet adequately refuted it (as hard as some have tried, though with no hard evidence). And you are able to make your argument because you have the scientific data to back it. Brilliant.

    If God wanted us to have 100% undeniable tangible proof He existed He is capable of that. However, He chooses not to, because it would violate our free will to choose. And this world is messed up, not because of what God has or has not done (Absent Watchmaker), but because of the multitude of bad choices mankind has made throughout history, mostly selfish. To truly have free will the consequences of choice MUST be real. If God were to intervene on every bad choice, we would NOT have free will. We would be puppets living in a world where the only things that happen are those which God approves of. So, He rarely reveals Himself in very overt ways. But when we examine the evidence (as provided by scripture and other ancient documents, by historical events, by archaeology, by logic and reasoning , by legal arguments, and by books written by people such as Josh McDowell, J. Warner Wallace, Ravi Zacharius, Lee Strobel and many others) we see that faith is built on reason, not in denial of it. It is not a “leap of faith”. It is an undeniable realization of the truth, undergirded by reason and evidence. And yes, with all the data and experience we have we then choose to believe, and we find we personally experience God in a many different ways. No coercion involved. If God shows up in the sky above us all, all choice is thrown out the window. So, He won’t do that until the time is right. But I’ve gone off on a tangent, mostly because people bring up evil and suffering as an argument against God, when it is an indictment against human choices through the ages. At least believers have an answer to the question, though unbelievers may not like it. I don’t know any unbelievers who can provide a reasonable explanation for the existence of evil and suffering in the world.

    One more point, all areas of knowledge are connected and related to one another in some way, including science and theology. The world is much too integrated not to realize this. I could list off a number of categories, but I won’t. It is only hard-line atheists who make a clear distinction between science and religion. I get it, they don’t want to acknowledge any sort of God in any way. But it’s they who have made this divide and it is fairly recent in history (though they like to pretend otherwise). The rest of us see how all of life is interconnected.

    But your “scientific” argument presented here Perry, is another solid piece of evidence in a long chain of evidence (if people were to truly investigate it with an open mind) that there is a designer. Thank-you for your marvelous contribution and sticking to the topic, unlike me, who has veered off somewhat. I would ask that people who post here, whether they agree or not would do so in a spirit of kindness, without name calling or demeaning comments. I believe the hope is to respect differences and pursue truth and examine the argument as presented. Be well my brother. I appreciate all the work you’ve put into this… from another Perry.

  9. Bowie says:

    No surprise since the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus in his words also. A tough roe to hoe indeed!

  10. David Greeley says:

    ITT The exact opposite of the argument atheist’s use.

  11. Nicolás says:

    Greetings, Perry.

    I’ve really enjoyed this post but I disagree with some specific point:

    Science itself got started in ancient Rome, Greece, China and in Islam – but it never went anywhere in those cultures. Why? I would like to suggest that none of those cultures had a theology that described a systematic universe. But Christianity did teach that the universe was systematic and discoverable and that’s why science succeeded in the West after failing everywhere else.”

    I don’t know about Rome or China, but as a muslim I don’t think that great scientific era in the muslim world ended because our teology does not describe an universe behaving rationally according to God’s laws. The causes of this ending are hotly debated by historians but there is no consensus.

    It’s true that some have seen the writings of our influential scholar Abu Hamid Al Ghazali as the cause of the decline of islamic science, because he said that cause and effect do no exist as 100% real things but was directly the will of God what makes wood be burnt by fire. But I also don’t think his point wasn’t that universe doesn’t work according to laws, because he says in his book “Alchemy of Happiness”:

    “Those whose eyes never see beyond the world of phenomena are like those who mistake servants of the lowest rank for the king. ->The laws of phenomena must be constant, or there could be no such thing as science <-; but it is a great error to mistake the slaves for the master."

    His point really was that we don't have to forget Who is behind natural laws, and that this laws don't function apart from his will.

    And, much more important, the Holy Qur'ān promotes the "universe functioning rationally" worldview, as can be seen in verses like:

    "Certainly, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the succesion of day and night, lo! are signs for the people of deep understanding: those who remember God standing, sitting and on their sides. And reflect on the creation of the heavens and the earth: our Lord! you didn't create this in vain, so keep us from the punishment of the fire!"
    (Chapter 3:190-191)


    "The Merciful,
    taught the Quran,
    created man,
    taught him eloquence,
    the sun and the Moon [run] by calculations"

    (Chapter 55:1-5)

  12. Carol says:

    Hello to you all ,I have read every statement and every response written here, each argument ,each defense . This whole conversation seems a battle over who is right and who is wrong .I myself would like to put a twist on it all ….just throw this out there …okay ,here goes .Starting with scientific findings , proven facts , instead of disproving that God exists what if ,it’s actually proving he does ? EVOLUTION for example,due to environmental changes, food supply and sources ,weather conditions etc.many living things adapt eventually their offspring are born not having to they’ve “evolved “so to speak many different ways some stronger ,some bigger,some taking different looks all together.The purpose for this is survival .Who’s to say this wasn’t a higher beings doing .?Gravity this I don’t even understand the argument here was created for all living things and beings to live survive.. without it and at just the perfect levels ,how would that be possible here on earth?So many things science has PROVEN…has in my opinion actually like it or not should have “BELIEVERS “and scientists alike believing in a higher being..look around you.. how perfectly our planet earth ..sustains millions of living creatures and human beings .Everything from the ocean the land the moon ,sun .The oxygen all living breathing creatures humans plants the list goes on and on.Plants and trees that actually cleanses and releases oxygen filters it back into our beautiful earth .The ocean the tides the bees my God,everything here on this EARTH serves a purpose to sustain the life of millions of living creations !!!So yes,science is a wonderful thing ….not that disproves there’s a GOD but actually shows just how amazing and loving he really is !!! HONESTLY I don’t go to church I believe most people are actually hypocritical who claim to be CHRISTIANS …or whichever religion they may follow ..and turn around judge others snub their noses at people and honestly believe going to church alone makes them worthy …or better than those who don’t .GOD is inside of you’s a very personal connection on one you don’t need walls or pay dues,or ask for forgiveness ,from any one man that tells you to hail Mary x amount of times …YOU ASK GOD ..YOU TALK TO HIM and not only when you want or need but when your thankful as well or if you just need to have someone to talk to without judgment .I’VE SEEN A LOT OF “IF THERE WAS A GOD THEN WHY THIS OR THAT…….I’VE GOT TWO ANSWERS ….1 FREE WILL.. 2 OTHER PEOPLE..AND THE CHOICES MADE…GOD DOESN’T HURT PEOPLE.. PEOPLE D0 .

  13. omar khan says:

    An Atheist is convinced by Evolutiion theory and desperate to replace and or eleminate existance of God But not aware that concept of his Self cannot be established without a God….so Atheist concept of existance falls in a state of nihilism… that we come from nowhere and disappear to nothing….since you are trapped in a process of eating and shitting there no such freedom without God………If you eat must shit for survival, and once you were able to shit there will be hunger, and you must eat again to survive , its a contnuous universal cycle that will remind you universe will collapse without a backing power Evolution itself need A God. You must grasp and able to accept universal truth and harmony or you will perish .. A mango tree must produce only mangoes and banana only banana or there will be chaos in universe. Do you think in another planet molecular composition water (H20) will be changed to HO2 …nooooooooo there is something permanent in nature which cannot be changed or challenged by Time….there comes concept of eternity and eternal. Acquired knowledge reached to humen brain is not more than the visible universe perceiveable through tiny hole of hubbel telescope..not enough to draw a conclusion about multple universes.
    So what is definite proof that God Exist ??? That is a great american word, BULLSHIT….A PIECE OF BULLSHIT CANNOT BE CONFIRMED
    ,” I am in your individuality, but you do not observe”(Sura Dhariyat, 51:21)Quran. Natural selection, Mutaion,billion years Evolutionary process will never change individuality in a Species, You cannot be a monkey and Homosapien at the same time, every atom, electron, cell or species is a single existance and follow their own destiny, A BEGINING AND AN END to curve a historical truth..there will be no new George washington or bush or obama in history again. EVOLUTION THEORY FALLEN SHORT
    Latest thinking comfirm Evolution is invalid or false .SOMETHING over writes Time. (Destiny)
    “I am in your individuality but you do not observe” ( sura dahriyat.Quran 51:21) EVOLUTION is An attempt to change humen thinking in wrong direction based on Time. Humen or Water (h2o) is not product of Time, Time will not change water (h2o). Atomic and molecular weight of all elements or compounds will remain same on earth or distant planets in universe. There is SOMETHING permanent in universe.
    Evolution Theory succumb in concept of Time. Time is relative standard…..(Einstein). In reality Time does not Exist. Time is illusion or 4th Dimension. What will be definite proof that Evolution Theory is invalid or False….?? It is water H2O … In billion years Water H2O remained unaffected by Time…… Water H2O is not a product of Time..Whooooo created water ??No Water, no life, No evolution, No natural selection..Water is a phenomena out of time, a rule over nature. When Time fails Evolution fails. An instant knock out of whole Evolution theory, so called Darwinism.

    If life is an accident Then every incident happening in this world will demand an accident. Even existance of a piece of Bullshit cannot be confirmed without a Bull…So from where two cars will come to cause an Accident. What will be definite proof that life is not an accident, Just throw a bag of rice mixed with vinegar in a dark warm place, within 48 hours you will see bag of rice turned into full of life, ( worms) Throw it again if it happens again then this incident ( life ) is not an accident, example is silly but it points out a big mistake in evolution history. is not an Accident but conditional (Confirmed)

    H20 ( water) is a permanent condition in nature which caused diversity of life on earth. Scriptures says life is created not evolved from water” And God created every animal from water ” ( Quran 24:45 ) . What will be definite proof that life is created and not evolved ?? It is water H2O. Water suffered no evolution from another source as a product of time thus Water lack co ordination and stability with time to aid a billion years evolutionery process . If water is found in another planet, still water cannot be designated as product of Time, H2O is A permanent law or command written by PEN in nature (destiny) which will contnue to display any where in universe where oxygen and hydrogen is available. If life is an Accident then Life may be found in another planet even that planet is made of copper. For An accident cannot be dependent on another factor like water..if a Pre-condition like water is a requirement for an accident (life) to happen,then this life must be A divine plan.

    Time is not a cause Time is not a real entity or quantity. Time is nooothing.. Null…00.. Nada (void of self). To validate evolution theory you must establish A definition of Time, it is not possible. Did you ever think or ask yourself a question WHAT IS TIME ??? your mind will go blank, Time will create a delusion in your psyco, beacuse Time itself is illusion, In mathematical term time is variable,Relative and unstable .To understand Einstiens space time theory you need to grow wrinkles on your forhead likeEinstein.

    1 Kg, 1 Lbs, 1 Km, 1 Mile, 1 Minute, 1 Hour, 1 Year ,100 Years, Million years, Billion years, Time is a relative standard (Einstein) Water is not a product of time, Atomic and Molecular weight of all elements and componds will remain same unaffected and unchanged by Time until eternity. Even number of smallest praticle electrons and protons, will remain same on this earth or another planet. . TIME FAILED HERE AS ETERNAL CAUSE………. Evolution is invalid or false (confirmed).
    Astronomy says,universe has a begining (BIGBANG) and this ever expanding universe will end up on a reverse massacre when gravitational point is zero..(.00)…Since universe has a begining and universe has an end there must be CREATOR. An american scientist said give me time and technology I will create A Man. His intention was to claim A God is not necessary to create a Man, in that case is it not true that american scientist will be creator or God of that Robot. So origin cannot be denied.”Looook” Watch out” what Richard Dawkins a british biologist, an evolution scientist saying “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”I am my own god. Richard Dawkins is actualy confirming God in his own self like pharooh of anciant Egypt,
    so Existance of God cannot be denied,
    Why monky look like Man ?? We know the root confusion is there than observation of species. …Answer is Beacuse God wanted that way,or Man came from God and desperately trying to return to God Amighty.. There is a similarity and contest in creaton or species beacuse they came from same origin and trying to return same origin so Monky looks like Man and Man looks like God or represent God by mastering nuclear power. Superior inferior brain dogma does not fit between an Ant and An Elephant. Yet there is an inbuilt similarity common in all creatures, We all see and hear beacuse God Almighty see and hear all things, it will be more appropriate to say humanity came from a Godlike origin not a monky beacuse our thinking does not support that humanity will ever evolve into a new species diffrent than human . Jesus is a sign from God Almighty that evolution is False and singing of million billion years(evolution) not required for creation of Man…..Prophat Mohammed peace be upon him said Allah The Almighty said:” The son of adam abuses Me. He curses Time and I AM TIME for in My hand is night and day”( Narrated Authentic by Abu Huraira may Allah be pleased upon him.(book of bukhari and muslim

    Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. (quran)
    Let there be light ( genesis) It is confirmed in scriptures that cause of creation started from light, Also science relates BigBang appeared from A POINT OF SINGULARITY
    which was intense light.

    Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
    Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
    He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
    And there is none like unto Him.(Quran 112:1-4.)
    Humanity, will keep searching God in every click, civilization, technology,invention will be product of his searching, perhaps only few will conclude reflection of truth was in his own Self, Darwin in remote galapagos island was not searching origin of species but origin of his own Self. Ameen.

  14. Veljko Blagojevic says:

    ”1. The pattern in DNA is a code (by definition)”
    By your definition? Let’s see:
    You wrote ”Code is defined as the rules of communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.”.
    Yet you fail to emphasize the most important parts of that sentence – rules of COMMUNICATION between an ENCODER and a DECODER using AGREED UPON SYMBOLS.
    By this definition you put up, we would need to know for certain 4 things:
    1. That there definitely is an ENCODER, who is intelligent.
    2. That there is definitely a DECODER, who is also intelligent.
    3. What are the symbols upon which the ENCODER and DECODER agreed upon and WHEN/WHERE did this agreement take place?
    4. What is the purpose of this COMMUNICATION? A string of DNA translating into a protein of this or that conformation is meaningless, in a sense of communication.
    However, instead of answering any of these questions, you simply jump to the conclusion ”oh, scientists call DNA a code, and code must have an encoder, therefore – GOD”. Many jumps in logic are made in that conclusion, Perry. 🙂
    Also, I find it funny that you are prepared to list examples of words meaning different things, as a parallel to a DNA string not having one single ”meaning”, yet you soul-crushingly fail to apply the same logic to the word ”code”. 🙂

    ”2. All other codes we know the origin of are designed (by observation)”
    Yes, but not by observation. We know that our codes are designed simply due to one simple thing – WE DESIGNED THEM!
    Seriously, this must be one of the most repeated, yet most easily refuted claims in the creationist textbook. We know that paintings have designers because WE designed them. That is how we could extrapolate that cave drawings were also the work of men in the past. However, when we see a cloud of a familiar shape, we do not assume that someone painted the cloud. Or a rock formation. If someone formed rocks into a word ”HELP!” on a beach, you would be right to ASSUME that those rocks were put in place by some intelligent being, because:
    1. You KNOW what the word those rocks are trying to convey means, you are familiar with the set of rules that ”code” follows. No one who knows English would get confused with the message.
    2. You do not expect rocks to form in such a way by mere coincidence, rocks are not known to bind or attract each other.
    3. Even if you didn’t know the language, you would still recognize some pattern in the rock-writing consistent with what you saw other humans do.

    HOWEVER, we know that chemicals that make DNA/RNA do actually bind together (same for proteins). We know that they do not need outer interference to form a structure. We also know that DNA/RNA by itself doesn’t carry any meaning, and we also know that it’s reproductions/translations are not consistent. And, the best of all, DNA/RNA can actually replicate, without intelligent interference. These facts alone are enough for any reasonable man to conclude that DNA is not an intelligent code with an immutable message. On the other hand, we never saw a piece of written code assemble itself or replicate itself – that is how we KNOW it needs some push.

    ”Therefore we can explore five possible conclusions:

    a) Humans designed DNA
    b) Aliens designed DNA
    c) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously
    d) There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates information*
    e) DNA was Designed by a Superintelligence, i.e. God.”

    (a) is nonsensical,(b) is entirely plausible, yet unnecessary, (c) is very likely (btw there is nothing random about nucleotides binding, they follow the same laws that any chemical binding with another chemical follows…so in that sence, they are not ”random”, but are spontaneous), (d) is nonsensical, since ”information” is a relative term, and (e) is the same as (b).
    And I would agree that choosing (b) only pushes the question further backward in time, but what you fail to grasp is that so does choosing (e). They are not different options, they are the same – something created something else, therefore this something also had to be created. If you say ”God is eternal”, one might easily answer ”so are the Aliens”. 🙂

    ”3. To the extent that scientific reasoning can prove anything, DNA is proof of design.”
    Too bad that scientific reasoning doesn’t rely on the process of elimination. 🙂

    Remember, just because you don’t know the answer to a question, that doesn’t mean that any answer you like can be declared the true answer. Usually, when you don’t know an answer, you simply state ”I don’t know”, you do not shoehorn a random option and declare it the only one possible. Scientific method requires POSITIVE evidence, not NEGATIVE. There is no shame in not-knowing, that is the start of learning. 🙂

    • Veljko,

      The nature of your questions indicates you are not familiar with my work.

      Read Evolution 2.0, demonstrate familiarity and I will engage with you. The majority of these questions are answered in the book.

      • Perry, Velijko doesn’t seem to be familiar with common logic, let alone anyone’s work. This is a complete breakdown of rational thought. We all know what DNA is. It’s a code. We know that because we know how it’s constructed, what it achieves, and how it does that. I can’t remember your position, so I make no comment with respect to that, but this last update is just a farce.

        • Veljko Blagojevic says:

          It would be nice if you could back up your attacks against people with some arguments a little stronger than ”we all know that”, and ”we all know that because of how it is” is an even weaker argument (it’s called ‘argument from popularity’, google it).
          First ask yourself this question – is code TANGIBLE? Can you TOUCH a line of code?
          Then ask a follow up question – is DNA tangible? Can you TOUCH it?
          Here is a definition of the word ”code”:
          ”a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy.”
          What part of this applies to DNA?
          I emphasize the part ”used to represent others” (by others it means ”words, letters, figures, or symbols”). When you write into a computer ”print ‘hello world’ ”, that sentence must be compiled and assembled by a computer chip into a binary string of symbols (ones and zeros), and it is THIS binary string which represent something that actually exists (voltages on the chip), while the code you wrote represents that binary string. Computer code is a description of a description of something real. Just like the definition, ”symbols used to represent others”.
          On the other hand, does ATCAGGT needs to be assembled and decoded by another physical entity? No! It is merely a description, and a ”description of a description”! ATC isn’t there to replace a different word, but it represents actual molecules.
          When you look at a DNA molecule, you can write down the sequence with accepted abbreviations we use.
          When you look at a computer chip, you can write only it’s binary states, but not the software code in it.

          To display it graphically, here:
          (a person working for the police) – POLICEMAN – COP
          The word ”cop” is, in this sense, a CODE for the word ”policeman”, while the word ”policeman” describes an entity which exists – a man in a specific line of work. In other words, ”cop” is a derived, slang term, which not all people may be familiar with, while ”policeman” is the original word all English-speaking people know. In other words, the word ”cop” requires a translator, to explain it to someone unfamiliar with it.
          (voltages on the bits of the chip) – BINARY STATES – SOFTWARE CODE
          The software code doesn’t directly translate to the state of the chip. In other words, it requires a TRANSLATOR to turn it into binary strings, and the binary string is a sequence explaining real physical states of the bits of the chip.
          (DNA molecule sequence) – DNA code – ???
          DNA code explains the real physical state of the molecule. It requires no translation, it doesn’t stand for other words. When you see the letter A in a code ATTACAG, you KNOW what that means in the molecule. But when you see the word ”print” in a software code, you have NO IDEA what that means for the chip.

          It literally can get no simpler than this. If it is still unclear, then I have nothing else to say, that is simply denial on your part. 🙂

          • Dear Veljko, I was talking to Perry, not arguing with you. Perry understands, so there’s no need for argument. I don’t say I agree with Perry completely, but he’s dealing with the amazing information that’s coded into DNA. It’s difficult to work with you, because you’re so obtuse [and other things], which is why, feeling tired, I turned to Perry.
            I feel sorry that you can’t yet participate in the conversation, because I’m sure your passion and commitment would be helpful, but you’ve got to get off your high horse and realise that there’s some basic facts you need to get under your belt first.
            All information is abstract, and requires a transmission medium. There is coded information held in the DNA. Even the coding system is amazing. And you can cube the amazingness when you realise that the machinery that interprets the code to build living things was itself built from information coded in the same DNA.
            Actually Information Science is somewhat still born world wide, possibly because the revelations from developing it further are not politically popular. And by political I mean atheism. I thoroughly recommend Werner Gitt’s “In the Beginning was Information”. I’m sure you’d be able to consume Gitt’s theories pretty quickly, and then we’ll be able to talk.
            By the way, this isn’t an argument either, I’m just imploring you to educate yourself further:

      • Veljko Blagojevic says:

        The premise of your book is wrong. You have fundamentally wrong analogies and assumptions. Here, from the ”The Road to Code” section of your book:
        ”I suddenly saw the striking similarity between DNA and computer software”.
        This is patently false. DNA is nothing like software. Do you know why? Let me explain it to you in the plainest way possible:
        A computer code, by itself, means nothing. It doesn’t even exist, it is merely an idea embedded in a mind of a programmer. The computer code (which comprises all software) is merely a set of instructions for an actual, physical entity – which is a chip. The code can be stored on another physical entity – which is a disk (or another chip). How about DNA? Well, DNA is an ACTUAL, PHYSICAL ENTITY, not an abstract idea. It is a chemical, it doesn’t need to be input into another physical media, it RECIEVES input. If you wanted to make any kind of analogy between programming terms and genetics, it would be more precise to say that DNA is a ”chip”, rather then code. However, unlike the chip, which is inert unless someone specifically instructs it to do something, we KNOW that DNA reacts even with non-intelligent chemicals (and all of the functions of DNA are mere chemical reactions). We have OBSERVED this.
        So, your assumption that DNA is an intelligent code falls flat even on the most basic level. You are merely too involved in the idea that both programmers and geneticists use the word ”code”, and you SHOULD know that words have arbitrary meaning, not objective. 🙂

        Also, I had great fun reading the sentence ”why don’t they teach Darwinism in engineering schools?”. The answer can be formed as another question – why don’t they teach engineering in biology classes? Why don’t they teach knitting in cooking classes? Why don’t they teach ethics to automechanics? Because the two are unrelated, it is unnecessary.
        Here, take a magnifying glass. It is a simple feat of engineering, right? Just a piece of glass, treated in a certain way, mounted on a simple holder, and voila – it gives you the ability to see things so tiny that no other creature alive can see (on our scale). This is achieved with minimal effort, maybe a few hours/days. On the other hand, evolution worked for billions of years, and doesn’t even come close to creating something as powerful as a magnifying glass.
        Do you understand now why evolution isn’t a good course for engineers? Because engineering is MORE EFFICIENT!
        Let’s take another route – domesticated animals and plants. How fast did animals/plants change under ”artificial selection”, and how fast did they change in the wild, under ”natural selection”? Artificial selection produced results MUCH quicker than waiting for natural selection to work.

        The reason why your $10M prize is hollow is that we have surpassed natural processes in construction a long time ago. Bacteria do not evolve because they KNOW how to adapt, but because they replicate at an INCREDIBLE rate, and their replicas are IMPERFECT! When their environment changes, the replicas that cannot survive it die off, while those that can (if there are those that can) do not! That is the whole science behind it, Perry. I know that it sounds dull after being raised to believe in divinely intelligent creation with magic and love and kindness…but it is what the observations and evidence point to.
        I am sorry if it affects you that deeply. The reason a topic is ”hotly debated” is not because it is unknown, but because it is not understood. Biologists aren’t really stupefied by origin of life and evolution – laymen are…

        It’s hard reading past a broken premise, Perry. But I will put in effort at some time. So far, I haven’t read an original argument from you anywhere, so I am afraid I will waste my time if I dig deeper. 🙂

  15. Bob Sears says:

    Hi Perry. This is my first contact with you after signing up for more info about Evolution 2.0. I am very pleased and intrigued to discover you and your work, and I’m eager to learn more. I recently heard you say that you believe humans are descended from primates. I’m open to that, but my faith is still inextricably linked to the biblical record. An historically literal Adam seems to be required by scripture since Jesus’ own beliefs and so much New Testament theology is based on Adam’s representative headship of our race and his original sin. Do you have an opinion on how we can be descended both from primates and from him?

  16. Philip Young says:

    Perry, picked up Evo2 last week and am encouraged by it. Want to dialogue but, apart from this Reply, can’t figure it out. Is this the only way to dialogue? I read somewhere that I needed to create PDFs to send in (so I did that) but can’t attach? Help would be appreciated.

Leave a Reply

You must use your real first and last name. Anonymity is not allowed.
Your email address will not be published.
Required fields are marked *