Very interesting artical, well worth the read

For many years British philosopher, Dr. Antony Flew, has been a leading spokesperson for atheism, actively involved in debate after debate. However, scientific discoveries within the last 30 years brought him to a conclusion he could not avoid. In a video interview in December 2004 he stated, "Super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature."1 Prominent in his conclusion were the discoveries of DNA. Here’s why.

computer programming:
DNA code:

DNA in our cells is very similar to an intricate computer program. In the photo on the left, you see that a computer program is made up of a series of ones and zeros (called binary code). The sequencing and ordering of these ones and zeros is what makes the computer program work properly.

In the same way, DNA is made up of four chemicals, abbreviated as letters A, T, G, and C. The sequencing of these letters tells the cell how to behave. Much like the ones and zeros, these letters are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. The order in which they are arranged instructs the cell’s actions. Within the tiny space in every cell in your body is a code three billion letters long!!2

To grasp the amount of DNA information in one cell, "a live reading of that code at a rate of three letters per second would take thirty-one years, even if reading continued day and night."3 Wait, there’s more.

This DNA structure not only informs the cells actions, like a sophisticated computer program, it also uniquely identifies you. It has been determined that 99.9% of your DNA is similar to everyone’s genetic makeup.4 What is uniquely you comes in the fractional difference in how those three billion letters are sequenced in your cells.

The U.S. government is able to identify everyone in our country by the arrangement of a nine-digit social security number. In comparison, it is astounding that inside every cell in you is a three-billion-lettered DNA structure that belongs only to you. You can see why criminals, or innocent people, can be identified by their DNA.

Not only do you have in each cell of your body a three-billion-letter identification of you, this DNA code is actively instructing your cells’ behavior.

Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."5

Perry Marshall, an information specialist, comments on the implications of this. "There has never existed a computer program that wasn’t designed…[whether it is] a code, or a program, or a message given through a language, there is always an intelligent mind behind it."6

Just as former atheist Dr. Antony Flew questioned, it is legitimate to ask oneself regarding this three billion letter code instructing the cell…who wrote this script? Who placed this working code, inside the cell?

It’s like walking along the beach and you see in the sand, "Mike loves Michelle." You know the waves rolling up on the beach didn’t form that–a person wrote that. It is a precise message. It is clear communication. In the same way, the DNA structure is a complex script, informing and directing the cell’s process.

In this era, with computer programs made up of zeros and ones, we can understand the long sequencing of CGTA, continuing in a unique assembly for three billion letters in each human cell, determining a person’s makeup. How can one explain this sophisticated messaging residing in our cells?

On June 26, 2000, President Clinton congratulated those who completed the human genome sequencing. President Clinton said, "Today we are learning the language in which God created life. We are gaining ever more awe for the complexity, the beauty, the wonder of God’s most divine and sacred gift."7 Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, followed Clinton to the podium stating, "It is humbling for me and awe inspiring to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God."8

When looking at the DNA structure within the human body, we cannot escape the presence of intelligent (incredibly intelligent) design

I think that, quite frankly, it is a Christian excuse for why NATURE and SCIENCE are capable of amazing things.


31 Comments

  1. Emily Strange
    Posted November 15, 2009 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

    Bologna is not just a city in Italy.References :

  2. There is an exit here.
    Posted November 15, 2009 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

    I think that, quite frankly, it is a Christian excuse for why NATURE and SCIENCE are capable of amazing things.References :

  3. A B
    Posted November 15, 2009 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

    tl;dr
    Intelligent design is a crock, though. Patterns in nature is evidence of patterns in nature, not a creator.
    Complexity is relative.References :

  4. Brian
    Posted November 15, 2009 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

    Computer code doesn’t self replicate. DNA does.

    The analogy is irrelevant.References :

  5. MKC
    Posted November 15, 2009 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

    b.s.

    incompetent design, this guy obviously never had a biochemistry courseReferences :

  6. Jared
    Posted November 15, 2009 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

    All the scientists who "find God" seem to just come to an inexplicable point where they can’t move forward in their work, and instead attribute it to God.

    If you’ll recall from Richard Dawkins’ "River out of Eden," a scientist was instantly converted when he noticed that wasps and orchids depend on each other’s survival to live.

    Long story short, scientists turn to God the same way regular people do: by lack of education. Of course, scenarios like these are always scientifically explainable, but it’s much more convenient to bypass education and to accept the Bible.

    And on that note, about 5% of scientists believe in God today, a sharp decline in the last century, which is still dwindling.

    One last thing: This guy is usually the only guy ever mentioned when speaking of notable atheists turned Christians. The man is a philosopher, not a scientist.References :

  7. Sin 'jari
    Posted November 15, 2009 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

    I’m not reading all of that.
    Christians use the whole "improbability" thing to back up their own beliefs. It’s sad though, that they don’t seem to realize how probable abiogenesis is because of the trillions of planets in our Universe.

    btw, you spelled "article" wrong.References :

  8. No Gods, No Masters
    Posted November 15, 2009 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

    "British philosopher, Dr. Antony Flew,"

    He’s not a biologist…so I don’t think he’s an expert on biology

    ID = unscientific nonsense. As Ken Miller says, "It’s a science stopper"References :

  9. mc93433
    Posted November 15, 2009 at 9:30 pm | Permalink

    Einstein was recognized as incredibly intelligent…is he god?References :

  10. Caboose
    Posted November 15, 2009 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

    I think it’s irrelevant to me. Good for that guy, I guess.References :

  11. irkt
    Posted November 15, 2009 at 10:46 pm | Permalink

    While I’m reading yours, you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_DistrictReferences :

  12. Iceblink Luck
    Posted November 15, 2009 at 11:18 pm | Permalink

    Of course atheists will deny scientific principles that don’t support their views ;)References :

  13. Vann
    Posted November 15, 2009 at 11:30 pm | Permalink

    Atheists don’t think.References :

  14. Wise Duck
    Posted November 15, 2009 at 11:39 pm | Permalink

    As a biologist, it’s bollocks.References :

  15. Boo
    Posted November 15, 2009 at 11:56 pm | Permalink

    Some serious gaps in logic.
    And I cannot believe that a Christian is quoting Bill Clinton (isn’t that the same guy the fundies spent about 8 years attacking?) as if he is in any way scientifically qualified to give an verdict on the veracity of intelligent design.References :

  16. answer man
    Posted November 16, 2009 at 12:22 am | Permalink

    You state the obvious and they will slander you for it.
    Darwin thought the "simple" single celled beings just "poof" came into being. He had no idea of even their complexity, thus he could imagine such a silly thing.
    Their faith in evolution requires much more faith than my faith in God.References :

  17. MOTH FATHER REVISITED
    Posted November 16, 2009 at 12:38 am | Permalink

    I stopped reading when "British philosopher" came up.References :

  18. numbnuts222
    Posted November 16, 2009 at 1:28 am | Permalink

    In the interview I saw with Flew, he said it was the original cause argument that convinced him, not the ID argument, and he said he still thought that Christianity and Islam etc held no water.
    Also with those quotes, they are being metaphorical as people tend to be when discussing their awe of nature. DNA complexity is built on millions of years of mistakes, you could argue that it was designed to be built on mistakes, but that makes the designer so clever that his work can’t be differentiated from natural causes.References :

  19. Gorgeoustx Go Spurs Go!!
    Posted November 16, 2009 at 1:39 am | Permalink

    Does Dr. Flew have the credentials to make an intelligent guess like that? Or are his credentials comperable to Hovind?

    Einstein believed in a god, just not the Abrahamic one.References :

  20. Alex
    Posted November 16, 2009 at 2:00 am | Permalink

    God must be really smart to program all that DNA. And just think how smart the god was that made God! Because something as smart as God couldn’t just evolve or appear out of nothing, right? But the god that made the god that made God, now there’s a really smart one…References : elephants all the way down

  21. lainiebsky
    Posted November 16, 2009 at 2:13 am | Permalink

    Summary: There are theists in the world. A few of them are scientists.

    We knew that.References :

  22. rt66lt
    Posted November 16, 2009 at 2:18 am | Permalink

    Sorry, DNA does not provide proof of intelligent design to me. It’s a chemical molecule. In fact, DNA can be compared to other species and shows evidence for evolution.References :

  23. It's That Guy
    Posted November 16, 2009 at 2:49 am | Permalink

    Patterns in nature may be very intricate and beautiful, but still be natural. If you had a bunch of steel balls, all magnetized, and you released them in a zero-g environment and let them come together however they may, you would find they make perfect geometrical rows. They look like they’ve been deliberately arranged in straight lines and matrixes’, but in fact it’s just the way they would come together. Crystals, like salt crystals or quartz or even snowflakes, happen because of the shapes of the molecules themselves. God does not purposefully design the intricate shape of each unique snowflake, it just has to do with the way water molecules freeze together.

    DNA is complex but each piece of the puzzle fits together only in certain ways, like tinker-toys. In several billion years of life on earth, more and more complicated forms of DNA have had a chance to develop. All forms of life on earth have connections to other forms, and biologists can fit them into a taxonomy. To me that suggests that they were not all invented individually.

    Remember, only a few hundred years ago, people believed that sun, moon, planets and stars traveled in perfectly circular paths around the earth, and pointed this out as proof of God’s existence, that he not only designed the universe but moved the stars and planets with his own invisible hands! We’ve learned a lot since then. Our whole knowledge of DNA is only a few -decades- old. Give us another couple of hundred years and we’ll see it as simple as a tree.References :

  24. Sam E
    Posted November 16, 2009 at 2:58 am | Permalink

    I don’t want to read your cut and paste, all I know is that you cant spell ‘article’ (that’s as far as I got)References :

  25. Rico JPA
    Posted November 16, 2009 at 3:21 am | Permalink

    Old news, and learn how to spell "article".

    At best, Flew has become a deist with the deism of the sort that Thomas Jefferson advocated: "While reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual human beings."

    I, myself, am a pantheist, which has been described as sexed up atheism. The sort of deism which posits a creator that then absents itself from creation ultimately has the same net effect as atheism. No revealed God, no magic, no need for salvation, etc.References :

  26. the zomb
    Posted November 16, 2009 at 3:49 am | Permalink

    to be honest it just sounds like more typical fundie christian lies and propaganda if i could see the original source that would be a good startReferences :

  27. Woody B
    Posted November 16, 2009 at 4:11 am | Permalink

    What’s an artical? Is it anything like an article?References : Agnostic who can spell.

  28. goddessences
    Posted November 16, 2009 at 4:45 am | Permalink

    YES!!!! Nature, our true creator, is TRULY AMAZING

    we already know that the human brain is more amazing than the most amazing computer we humans have yet been able to design…Nature CREATES the human brain and everything else in the universe so all of Nature’s creation is truly amazing…Nature is far more incredible than a small part of her creation, us, can ever be

    but Nature is NOT infallible…otherwise why are so many babies born with atrocious abnormalities in their DNA that makes them unable to function?

    and certainly not compassionate…otherwise why are so many babies born with atrocious abnormalities in their DNA that makes them unable to function?

    and certainly not sentient and intelligent…otherwise why are so many babies born with atrocious abnormalities in their DNA that makes them unable to function?

    BUT…Nature is EXPERIMENTAL…Nature is CREATING here and now in every moment…Nature is continually creating the universe…so I see that sometimes Nature’s creation works and other times it doesnt…

    NATURE is FLUID…NATURE is alive in the here and now creating as we breath…it is commonly called Evolution

    Nature = G.O.D.

    G-generator
    O-operator
    D-destroyer

    Nature, our true creator, eternal, all powerful, all present, non judging, all encompassing

    why wont xtians and other religious pple see that Science and Nature are both so amazing…why do they insist on trying to explain the incredible facts with their silly ridiculous hocus pocus ‘god’ beliefs…why cant they just accept that Nature, all around them here and now creating as we think, is their true creator???
    <;8( }~~~~References :

  29. egyphile
    Posted November 16, 2009 at 5:29 am | Permalink

    I can’t understand why Christains are so excited over Flew rejecting atheism for deism. He has stated ONLY that he belives SOME KIND of God might exist but, as with most Deist, he believes that ‘god’ is Neither the god of Christian scripture, nor the god of Muslim scripture.

    That has been the stance of MOST deists, including myself, for years. It does nothing to prove the claims of either Christianity or Islam.References : Graham: "Deceptions and Myths of the Bible"

    Doane: "Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions"

    Hike: "The Myth of God Incarnate"

    Armstrong: "The History of God"

  30. neil s
    Posted November 16, 2009 at 6:08 am | Permalink

    Also "prominent in his ‘discovery’" is his well documented dementia.References :

  31. Nick Smith
    Posted November 16, 2009 at 6:37 am | Permalink

    Random chemicals that react, react in very complex ways, too, but it doesn’t mean there’s a god behind two particles of carbon and hydrogen coming together (i know, simple in comparison to dna, but some molecules (macromolecules) can get pretty long! — as the one girl said, complexity is relative).References :

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>