عصير كتاب: طبيعة الاحتمال واحتمالية الطبيعة لـ دونالد جونسون Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability By Donald E. Johnson

Posted: يونيو 21, 2016 in الكون ونشأة الحياة, الكتابات العامة, الإلحاد, عصير الكتب

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability

A Call to Scientific Integrity

By: Donald E. Johnson

للتحميل: (PDF) (DOC)

Probabilitys-Nature

نبذة مُختصرة عن الكتاب:

كتاب هام جداً للعالم الأمريكي «دونالد جونسون» والذي يُعَدّ أحد أبرز مُمثِّلي نظرية التَّصميم الذَّكي (ID)، وقد حصل على شهادتيّ دكتوراه، الأولى في الكيمياء، والثَّانية في تكنولوجيا المعلومات، وعمله الأشهر هو كتابه بعُنوان: «برمجة الحياة» (Programming of Life) والذي تم إنتاجه على هيئة فيلم وثائقي من جزئين.

هذا الكتاب مُتخصِّص جداً، ومليء بالمُعادلات، ويحتوي على كنز من الاقتباسات العلمية، ويُعتبر الكتاب المثالي لكل باحث مُتخصِّص يُريد الاطلاع على الكثير من أقوال العلماء المُعتبرين، ولكنَّه صعب بعض الشيء على المُبتدئ، ولا يحتوي على الكثير من الشرح والتَّوضيح.

الكتاب ينتقد فكرة نشأة الحياة عن طريق الصُّدفة والاحتمال العشوائي! ويُؤصِّل بشكل علمي دقيق جداً لبعض المُصطلحات الهامَّة في علم الاحتمال والإحصاء، مثل: الصُّدفة، المُمكن أو المُحتمل، المُرجَّح، العملي أو الواقعي، ويُبيِّن أن هذه المُصطلحات تُستخدم في كثير من الأحيان بشكل خاطئ من قِبَل العلماء من أجل إيهام النَّاس بأنَّ الأمور قد تحدث واقعياً لمُجرَّد أنَّها مُحتملة!

الكتاب يتناول أشهر الأدلة على وجود الله، ويستدل بها على صحة نظرية التَّصميم الذكي، مثل نشأة الكون، والضَّبط الدَّقيق، وخصائص الحياة وتعقيدها، وكيفية نشأتها، والمعلومات الجينية.

أؤكِّد مرَّة أخرى على أنَّ الكتاب يُعتبر كنز من الاقتباسات العلمية، وغنيمة رائعة جداً لكل باحث، ولكنَّه لا يصلح للمُبتدئ لعدم وجود شرح وبيان، واعتماد المؤلِّف بشكل أساسي على مُجرَّد عرض المادَّة والأدلَّة العلمية.

Introduction

· This book will show that undirected naturalism lacks known scientific facts in several critical areas, and that some intelligent agent better accounts for many observations. [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p4.]

· Over time, the author began to doubt the natural explanations that had been so ingrained. It was science, and not his religion, that caused his disbelief in the explanatory powers of undirected nature in a number of key areas including the origin and fine-tuning of mass and energy, the origin of life with its complex information content, and the increase in complexity in living organisms. [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p4, 5.]

· The fantastic leaps of faith required to accept the undirected natural causes in these areas demand a scientific response to the scientific-sounding concepts that in fact have no known scientific basis. Scientific integrity needs to be restored so that ideas that have no methods to test or falsify are not considered part of science. [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p5.]

· For example, one should not be able to get away with stating “it is possible that life arose from non-life by … ” without first demonstrating that it is indeed possible (defined in the nature of probability) using known science. One could, of course, state “it may be speculated that … ,” but such a statement wouldn’t have the believability that its author intends to convey by the pseudoscientific pronouncement. [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p5.]

· It is important to realize that empirical science does not address issues such as “why” or “how,” but merely “that.” For example, the law of gravity has proven to be extremely accurate for determining intersections of moving objects in 3-dimensional space, such as landing on Mars. Science does not yet know “how” gravity works (gravitons have been proposed, especially as part of string theory), and may never know “why” it works, but science has determined “that” it works. [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p5.]

2 Chance: Possible, Probable, and Feasible

· Any outcome that has a non-zero probability (is not impossible) can happen. By the law of probability, given “enough” trials such an outcome will happen, but “enough” may be out of reach in the real world. Consider the following statements. “Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.” [W AL55] “Given infinite time, or infinite opportunities, anything is possible.” [Daw96Bp139] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p11.]

· As has been shown, an impossible outcome cannot happen regardless of the number of trials, and a probable outcome will become virtually certain with unlimited trials. A possible outcome becomes probable when its probability is at least 0.5 since any lower probability makes it more likely not to happen. [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p11.]

· People who endorse undirected chance formation of life have made speculation like: this pattern is extremely improbable, but there it is – it happened. In a similar way, life is extremely improbable, but it happened by similar chance processes. The fallacy of this line of reasoning is that in rolling the die, any outcome was acceptable so that each roll had a probability of I of being correct. [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p11.]

· Dictionaries (e.g — © Random House, Inc. 2006 and The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition) give definitions of infeasible as impracticable or unworkable — “not capable a,[ being carried out or put into practice.” A feasibility study is used to determine whether a possible action is reasonable in terms of its cost. [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p12.]

· Some have suggested using Borel’s guideline “to set at 10-50 the value of negligible probabilities on the cosmic scale. “[Bor50] “Merely by existing, all physical systems register information. And by evolving dynamically in time, they transform and process that information. The laws of physics determine the amount of information that a physical system can register (number of bits) and the number of elementary logic operations that a system can perform (number of ops). The universe is a physical system. This paper quantifies the amount of information that the universe can register and the number of elementary operations that it can have performed over its history. The universe can have performed no more than 10120 ops on 10911 bits.” [Llo02] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p13.]

· Dembski uses 10-150 as an infeasibility criterion. [Dem99] Since the fastest chemical reaction known takes 10 femtoseconds (10-14 sec) [Zew99], if all 1080 atoms of the universe participated in reactions of that speed for 14 billion years, less than 10111 reactions would theoretically take place. Since the vast majority of reactions are many orders of magnitude slower, if a scenario requires over 10115 reactions to become probable, that scenario is clearly infeasible. [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p13, 14.]

· It should be noted that “plausible” is often used to describe scenarios that can’t be proven, but fit the dictionary.com definition “having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable” or merriam-webster. com definition “superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious.” It may be enlightening to consider dictionary.com plausible clarification when scenarios are described as plausible: “specious describe that which has the appearance of truth but might be deceptive. The person or thing that is plausible strikes the superficial judgment favorably; it may or may not be true: a plausible argument (one that cannot be verified or believed in entirely). [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p14.]

· Specious definitely implies deceit or falsehood; the surface appearances are quite different from what is beneath: a specious pretense of honesty; a specious argument (one deliberately deceptive, probably for selfish or evil purposes).” Unfortunately, many non-provable speculations are described as “plausible,” with the intention of making them believable, whereas, in reality they are “specious.” [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p14.]

3 Mass and Energy: Source and Fine-Tuning

· “The principle of the conservation of energy is considered to be the single most important and fundamental ‘law of nature’ known to science, and is one of the most firmly established Endless studies and experiments have confirmed its validity over and over again under a multitude of different conditions. ” [Y ou85] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p15.]

· Since undirected natural processes producing “matter and energy from nothing” has been dismissed by virtually all scientists (some do believe there is no such thing as “nothing,” however), “eternal existence” of matter and energy has been proposed. This model proposes an oscillating universe that has always existed, alternating between a Big Bang and a Big Crunch. Although this model complies with the conservation law, there are two major problems. One problem is that the known mass of the universe is insufficient to cause a collapse since the universe is expanding [Hub29] at a rate faster than the escape velocity (gravitational forces cannot slow the expansion enough to cause collapse). Some have speculated the existence of”dark matter,” which can’t be seen, but whose mass would make a collapse possible, that is the universe’s density exceeds the Friedmann critical value. Optimistic estimates of dark matter haven’t resulted in densities approaching even half this required Friedmann critical value. Recent findings indicate that even the rate of expansion is increasing [Pee03], which means the universe cannot collapse. “Dark energy” is the proposed “explanation” of this increase in expansion rate. What “is driving this apparently antigravitational behavior on the part of the Universe, nobody claims to understand why it is happening, or its implications. ” [Ove08] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p15, 16.]

· The Second Law of thermodynamics says that in a closed system, entropy always increases. This is the second difficult scientific problem to accommodate for a Universe of infinite age. Entropy is a measure of randomness or inability to do work (limiting energy transfer between entities). Isaac Asimov has said “As far as we know, all changes are in the direction (􀀮f increasing entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, of running down. Yet the universe was once in a position from which it could run down for trillions of years. How did it get into that position?” [ Asi73] An infinitely old universe that is not at maximum entropy violates the Second Law because energy is still being transferred within the universe, which is a closed system by its “uni-” definition. Some have argued that the universe isn’t closed, since it is expanding without limits. “Closed” has nothing to do with physical size, but rather with matter/energy content. [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p16.]

· These are faith-based models based on unseeable 10-12 dimensions and innumerable unseeable universes. Nima Arkani-Hamed (Harvard) and others propose over 10500 universes because fewer would make the fine-tuning that is evident clearly infeasible [AAAS05]. [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p19, 20.]

· Others note that “String Theory” is not a scientific theory since it cannot be observed, tested, or falsified. “Alternative universes, things we can’t see because they are beyond our horizons, are in principle unfalsifiable and therefore metaphysical.” [Gef05). “The trouble is, proponents have not produced an iota of empirical evidence for strings. That’s why University of Toronto physicist Amanda Peet- a proponent-recently called string theory a faith-based initiative'” [Rev05]. “No part of it has been proven, and no one knows how to prove it. ” [Smo07] “Because our Universe is, almost by definition, everything we can observe, there are no apparent measurements that would confirm whether we exist within a cosmic landscape of multiple universes, or if ours is the only one. And because we can’t falsifY the idea, … it isn’t science.” [Bru06] “If … the landscape turns out to be inconsistent … as things stand we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanations of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. ” [Gef05] It is clear that string theory is not science, but a philosophical belief. [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p20.]

· “Fine-tuning”ofthe universe allows life on earth to exist. Incompatibility would result by changing any one of dozens of parameters. It should be noted that the majority of the fine-tuned arguments assume a “big-bang” scenario for the origin of this (current) universe, regardless of the ultimate source (supernatural, oscillating, quantum tunneling, etc.). The physical constants for weak and strong nuclear forces, electromagnetic and gravitational forces, ratios of forces and electron/proton masses, and properties of neutrons are all critical. The expansion rate, mass, and density of the universe are also critical, as is our position within the solar system, galaxy, and universe. The Earth’s orbit, tilt, rotation, magnetic field, atmosphere, and composition are highly unlikely and yet life-critical. [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p21.]

· Astrophysicist Paul Davies states “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all … It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature ‘s numbers to make the Universe… The impression of design is overwhelming. ” [Dav88p203] Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg reflects on “how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.” [WeiSA] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p21.]

· “lfwe nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all. “[Deu06] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p21, 22.]

· Stephen Hawking states concerning the constants of physics: “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very .finely adjusted to make possible the development of life … For example, if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. “[Haw88] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p22.]

· If the strong nuclear force “were just 2% weaker or 0. 3% stronger than it actually is, life would be impossible at any time and any place within the universe. ” [Swi91] “Small changes in the electric charge of the electron would block any kind of chemistry. ” [Bar80] Theoretical physicist Lee Smolin has calculated the probability of star (including our Sun) formation from random parameters as 1 o·229• [Smo97] While admitting “l(fe as we know it on Earth would not exist ifseveral of the parameters of physics were d(fferentfrom their existing values” [Ste07p 146] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p22.]

· it has been speculated that there is a “possibility that an appreciable number of planets exist with conditions that, while unsuitable for our form of life, can support some kind of life. ” [Ste07p 144] It is important to realize that no scientific proof is offered that life as we don’t know it is “possible” (e.g.- nonzero probability), so such statements amount to wishful thinking and pure speculation, not part of science. [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p22.]

· “The small value of the cosmological constant is telling us that a remarkably precise and totally unexpected relation exists among all the parameters of the Standard Model of particle physics, the bare cosmological constant and unknown physics.” [Abb91] This constant needs a precision of one part in 10120 [Mic99]. [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p22.]

· In analyzing the precision of the original Big Bang entropy, Penrose calculates “An accuracy of one part in 1010(123) . .. the precision needed to set the universe on its course.” [Pen89] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p]

· Hoyle has stated “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics … The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” [Hoy81 U] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p23.]

· Davies states “If nature is so ‘clever’ as to exploit mechanisms that amaze us with their ingenuity, is that not persuasive evidence for the existence of intelligent design behind the universe? ff the world’s finest minds can unravel only with difficulty the deeper workings of nature, how could it be supposed that those workings are merely a mindless accident, a product of blind chance? ” [Dav84] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p23.]

4 Life

· Although there is no universally accepted definition of life [Emm97], it often includes characteristics like metabolism, growth, adaptation, and reproduction. “The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from nonliving matter” is perhaps the most concise definition of life. (Y oc05p3] This definition includes as (at least once) living organisms those that are sterile (e.g.- mules and worker ants) and acellular organisms (e.g.- viruses). [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p25.]

· While life uses the laws of chemistry and physics, those laws cannot define or explain life any more than the rules of grammar that were used during the preparation of this book define its content. [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p25.]

· The longest known biochemical “half-time – the time it takes for half the substance to be consumed- is I trillion years, 100 times longer than the lifetime of the universe. Enzymes can make this reaction happen in 10 milliseconds … Without catalysts, there would be no life at all … It makes you wonder how natural selection operated in such a way as to produce a protein that got off the ground as a primitive catalyst for such an extraordinarily slow reaction.” [Wol03] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p26.]

· Since the DNA code is like computer code in many respects, it is truly amazing that the same “instruction patterns” can perform different overlapping instructions. The author has done this with short sequences (up to eight bytes) of computer code in assembly language, and can assure the reader that it is not trivial to make meaningful operational sequences in which completely different instructions result by starting execution at different locations! The human genome has thousands of overlapping genes. “However, the origin and evolution of overlapping genes are still unknown. ” [Vee04]. [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p29.]

· Richard Dawkins writes “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose … Physics books may be complicated, but … The objects and phenomena that a physics book describes are simpler than a single cell in the body of its author. And the author consists of trillions of those cells, many of them differentfr om each other, organized with intricate architecture and precision-engineering into a working machine capable of writing a book.” [Daw96Bpl -3] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p29, 30.]

· Ernest Borek states “The membrane recognizes with its uncanny molecular memory the hundreds of compounds swimming around it and permits or denies passage according to the cell’s requirements. “[Bor73p5) [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p30.]

· An example of a specialized organ is the brain, which can be extremely complex. The human brain contains about 1 00 billion neuron cells, each linked to as many as 1 0,000 other neurons ( 1 015 total synaptic interconnections). It is estimated that the human brain can perform in excess of 1 016 operations per second [Hor08], which is more than all the computers in the world put together (although that may not be true much longer due to the advances in computer power and widespread computer use). [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p31.]

· The brain uses 20% of the body’s total oxygen consumption and 15% of the blood flow, even though it is only 2% of the body’s weight. [Rai02, Cal06] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p31.]

· As more is known about life, the more intricate and complex it becomes. There is no such thing as a “simple” organism. [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p31.]

5 The Origin of Life

· The formation of a living organism from non-living components, abiogenesis, remains a mystery to science. Several scenarios have been proposed, each having characteristics that stretch credulity. [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p32.]

· “It has been agreed by most scientists that Earth’s atmo!>phere was reducing or neutral, and that oxygen was not present. The reducing conditions present were required for the synthesis of the building bloch of life … Besides the bases, ribose and phosphate were also needed to create nucleotides. The sugar ribose has not yet been discovered as a major biproduct in any chemical reaction using molecules present in the prebiotic soup. Also, the ribose that is created comes in two forms, and the right-handed form is the only one used in synthesis of nucleotides. Another problem to the building of nucleotides is that phosphates were not present in large amounts in the prebiotic environment.” [Org94] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p33.]

· “many researchers now hold that the ancient Earth’s atmosphere, compared with the earlier view, had more oxygen and less hydrogen – as the atmosphere does today. Amino acids don’t form as readily under that condition as they did in the 19 53 experiment, and when they do form, they tend to break apart.” [GorOl] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p34.]

· “Many investigators now consider nucleic acids to be much more plausible candidates for the first self-replicating molecules. The work ofWatson and Crick and others has shown that proteins are formed according to the instructions coded in DNA. But there is a hitch. DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. To those pondering the origin of life, it is a classic chicken-and-egg problem: Which came first, proteins or DNA?” [Hor91] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p34, 35.]

· “Anyone trying to solve this puzzle immediately encounters a paradox. Nowadays nucleic asids are synthesized only “the help of proteins, and proteins are synthesized only if their corresponding nucleotide sequence is present. It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.” [Org94] The intractable DNA/RNA/protein origin problem has led most scientists to abandon the DNA as the first life. [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p35.]

· Wickramasinghe explained this in a statement prepared for court [Wic81] in which he states that “Yet perhaps the most significant single difficulty associated [with] the neo-Darwinist view of life is that microorganisms are far too complicated When bacteria were created, or accomplished, or formed as the case might be, it is true to say that 99.99% of the biochemistry of higher life was already discovered Some 2000 or so enzymes are known to be crucial over a fairly wide spectrum of life ranging from simple micro-organisms all the way up to Man. The variation of amino acid sequences in these enzymes are, on the whole, rather minor. In each enzyme a number of key positions are occupied by almost invariant amino acids. Let us consider how these enzymes sequences could have been derived from a primordial soup containing equal proportions of the 20 biologically important amino acids. At a conservative estimate say I5 sites per enzyme must be fixed to be filled by particular amino acids for proper biological function. The number of trial assemblies needed to find this set is easily calculated to be about IQ/”40,000 -a truly enormous, super astronomical number. And the probability of discovering this set by random shuffling is I in 1 ()1\40, 000 … There is also a serious difficulty to understand how any re-shuffling of amino acids could occur at all in the context of a canonical terrestrial-style primeval soup. To link two amino acids together requires the removal of a water molecule and the supply of some 150 times more energy than heat in the Earth’s oceans could supply. In the absence of a joining enzyme used by bioloJ.;’Y or without an excessively large flux of ultraviolet light at the ocean surface, no new arrangements could be achieved. But even if chemical barriers for the linkages are artificially and miraculously removed, the really vast improbability of I in I 01\40, 000 poses a serious dilemma for the whole of evolutionary science. Life could not be an accident, not just on the Earth alone, but anywhere, anywhere at all in the Universe. “[Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p35, 36.]

· “But where the first RNA came from is a mystery; it’s hard to see how the chemicals on early Earth could have combined to form the complicated nucleotides that make up RNA. ” [DavOO] As De Duve (Nobel Prize-winning biochemist) observes “The problem is not as simple as might appear at first glance. Attempts at engineering- with considerably more foresight and technical support than the pre biotic world could have enjoyed- an RNA molecule capable of catalyzing RNA replication have failed so far. ” [Duv95] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p38.]

· “Numerous problems exist with the current thinking ofRNA as the first genetic material. No plausible prebiotic processes have yet been demonstrated to produce the nucleosides or nucleotides or for efficient two-way nonenzymatic replication. ” [NelOO] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p38.]

· As evolutionary biologist John Maynard Smith observed: “The origin of the [genetic] code is perhaps the most perplexing problem in evolutionary biology. The existing translational machinery is at the same time so complex, so universal, and so essential that it is hard to see how it could have come into existence or how life could have existed without it. The discovery of ribozymes has made it easier to imagine an answer to the second of these questions, but the transformation of an ‘RNA world’ into one in which catalysis is performed by proteins, and nucleic acids· specialize in the transmission of information, remains a formidable problem.” [Smi95] “The prebiotic synthesis of nucleotides in a sufficiently pure state to support RNA synthesis cannot be achieved using presently known chemistry.” [Org04] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p38.]

· The problem of accounting for the information content of life is not addressed in any meaningful way by any abiogenesis model. [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p40.]

· “We once thought that the cell, the basic unit of life, was a simple bag of protoplasm. Then we learned that each cell in any life form is a teeming micro-universe of compartments, structures, and chemical agents-and each human being has billions of cells. ” [Les98p30-31] “The unexpected levels of complexity revealed at the molecular level have further strained the concept of the random assembly of a self-replicating system. ” [Swe96] “Functionally effective proteins have a vanishingly small chance of arising spontaneously in a pre biotic environment. “[Jim04] “When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: ‘It happened. ‘ Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd. “[MorOO] “All speculation on the origin of life on Earth by chance can not survive the first criterion of life: proteins are left-handed, sugars in DNA and RNA are right-handed. ” [Y oc05p 119] “Unfortunately, the interpretations of the corpus of publications on the origin of life is false. Those experiments are based on a belief that life is just complicated chemistry and that the origin of life, if it could be found, is emergent from organic chemistry.” [Yoc05p147] “The likelihood of life having occurred through a chemical accident is, for all intents and purposes, zero. This does not mean that faith in a miraculous accident will not continue. But it does mean that those who believe it do so because they are philosophically committed to the notion that all that exists is matter and its motion. In other words, they do so for reasons of philosophy and not science. ” [Gan86] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p40, 41.]

· Two-time Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigogine noted something never proved incorrect: “The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typifY living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.” [Pri72] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p41.]

6 The Information Contained in Life

· “The question ‘How did life originate?’ which interests us all, is inseparably linked to the question ‘Where did the information come from?’ Since the findings of James D. Watson and Francis H. C. Crick, it was increasingly realized by contemporary researchers that the information residing in the cells is of crucial importance for the existence of life. Anybody who wants to make meaningful statements about the origin of life would be forced to explain how the information originated. All evolutionary views are fundamentally unable to answer this crucial question.” [Git97p99] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p43.]

· “There are no chemical bonds between the bases. Thus, there are no chemical rules to determine the order in which the bases will be attached to the background. ” [Dav02] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p43.]

· Carl Sagan wrote: “The information content of a simple cell has been established as around 1012 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. “[Sag97] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p43.]

· “Due to the abstract character of function and sign systems, life is not a subsystem of natural laws. This suggests that our reason is limited in respect to solving the problem of the origin of life and that we are left accepting life as an axiom … Life express both function and sign systems, which indicates that it is not a subsystem of the universe, since chance and necessity cannot explain sign systems, meaning, purpose, and goals.” [Voi06] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p43.]

· The coded information “may be compared to a book or to a video or audiotape, with an extra factor coded into it enabling the genetic information, under certain environmental conditions, to read itself and then to execute the information it read<i. It resembles, that is, a hypothetical architect’s plan of a house, which plan not only contains the information on how to build the house, but which can, when thrown into the garden, build entirely of its own initiative the house all on its own without the need for contractors or any other outside building agents… Thus, it is fair to say that the technology exhibited by the genetic code is orders of magnitude higher than any technology man has, until now, developed. What is its secret? The secret lies in its ability to store and to execute incredible magnitudes of conceptual information in the ultimate molecular miniaturization of the information storage and retrieval system of the nucleotides and their sequences. ” [Wil87] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p43, 44.]

· Evolutionary biologist George Williams observed: “Evolutionary biologists have failed to realize that they work with two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that of matter … These two domains will never be brought together in any kind of the sense usually implied by the term ‘reductionism. ‘ … Information doesn’t have mass or charge or length in millimeters. Likewise, matter doesn’t have bytes … This dearth of shared descriptors makes matter and information two separate domains of existence, which have to be discussed separately, in their own terms. ” [Wil95] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p44.]

· “One cell division lasts from 20 to 80 minutes, and during this time the entire molecular library, equivalent to one thousand books, is copied correctly. ” [Git97p90] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p44.]

· “Crick expounded and enshrined what he called the ‘Central Dogma’ of molecular biology. The Central Dogma shows that influence can.flow from the arrangement of the nucleotides on the DNA molecule to the arrangement of amino acid􀁗 in proteins, but not from proteins to DNA. Like a sheet of paper or a series of magnetic points on a computer’s hard disk or the electrical domains in a random-access memory – or indeed all the undulations of the electromagnetic spectrum that bear information through air or wires in telecommunications- DNA is a neutral carrier of information, independent of its chemistry and physics … As the Central Dogma ordains and information theory dictates, the DNA program is discrete and digital, and its information is transferred through chemical carriers- but it is not specified by chemica/forces. Each unit of biological information is passed on according to a digital program – a biological code – that is transcribed and translated into amino acid\·. ” [Gil06] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p44.]

· Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, writes: “Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created. ” [Gat96] Can you imagine how believable it would be if someone were to suggest that the Windows Vista operating system just arose by natural processes without intelligent design? “A coding !>ystem always entails a nonmaterial intellectual process. A physical matter cannot produce an information code. All experiences show that every piece of creative information represents some mental effiJrt and can be traced to a personal idea-giver who exercised his own free will, and who is endowed with an intelligent mind. ” [Git97p07] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p44, 45.]

· “Peer-reviewed life-origin literature presupposes that, given enough time, genetic instructions arose via natural events. Thus far, no paper has provided a plausible mechanism for natural-process algorithm-writing. .. Both the semantics and syntax of codonic language must translate into appropriate semantics and syntax of protein language. That symbolization must then translate into the ‘language’ of three-dimensional conformation via minimum-free-energy folding. No combination of the four known forces of physics can account for such conceptual relationships. Symbolism and encryption/decryption are employed. Codons represent functional meaning only when the individual amino acid’! they prescribe are linked together in a certain order using a different language. Yet the individual amino acids do not directly react physicochemically with each triplet codon. Even after a linear digital sequence is created in a new language, ‘meaning’ is realized at the destination only upon folding and lock-and-key binding.” [Tre04] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p51.]

· From the information perspective, the genetic system is a preexisting operating system (of unknown origin) that supports the storage and execution of a wide variety of specific genetic programs (the applications). [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p52.]

· By the “Universal Laws of Information” [Git97], it is impossible (zero probability): 1) to set up, store, or transmit information without using a code; 2) to have a code apart from a free and deliberate convention; 3) to have information without a sender; 4) that information can exist without having had a mental source; 5) for information to exist without having been established voluntarily by a free will; 6) for information to exist without all five hierarchical levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and purpose; and 7) that information can originate in statistical processes. Unfortunately, most people investigating origins are unfamiliar with the immensity of the problems, and believe that time, chance, and natural selection can accomplish almost anything. [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p54.]

· Yockey proves that it is impossible (zero probability) to transfer information from the 20-symbol protein alphabet to the 64-symbol genetic code. “Since no code exists to transfer information/rom protein sequences to mRNA, it is impossible for the origin of l(fe to be ‘proteins first’. “[Y oc92] This categorically eliminates the protein first theories as the origin or life since “it is mathematically impossible, not just unlikely,for information to be transferred from the protein alphabet to the mRNA alphabet. ” [Yoc05p23] “Scientists cannot get around it by clever chemistry. This restriction prevails in spite of [what] the concentration of protein in a ‘pre biotic soup ‘ may have been or may be on some ‘Earth-like’ planet elsewhere in the universe.” [Yoc05p182] Yockey states that since the genetic code had to be present from the very beginning of life, “the origin of life, like the origin of the universe is unknowable. But once life has appeared, Shannon’s Channel Capacity Theorem … assures us that the genetic messages will not fade away … without the assistance from an Intelligent Designer” [Yoc05p 181]. [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p54.]

7 Increasing Complexity of Life

· “We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully ‘designed’ to have come into existence by chance. How, then, did they come into existence? The answer, Darwin’s answer, is by gradual, step-by-step transformations from simple beginnings,from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance. Each successive change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple enough, relative to its predecessor, to have arisen by chance. But the whole sequence of cumulative steps constitutes anything but a chance process, when you consider the complexity of the final end-product relative to the original starting point. The cumulative process is directed by nonrandom survival. “[Daw96Bp43] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p62.]

· Darwin wrote “!f it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been.ftJrmed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” [Dar98p 154] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p62.]

· “The Darwinian theory is in principle capable of explaining l{fe. No other theory that has ever been suggested is in principle capable of explaining life.” [Daw96Bp288] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p62.]

· “The great evolutionary biologist George C Williams has pointed out that animals with complicated life cycles need to code for the development of all stages in the life cycle, but they only have one genome with which to do so. A butterfly’s genome has to hold the complete information neededfor building a caterpillar as well as a butterfly. A sheep liver fluke has six distinct stages in its life cycle, each specialized for a different way of life. ” [Daw98p24] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p62.]

· “The .ftJllowing problems have proven utterly intractable not only .ftJr the mutation-selection mechanism but also for any other undirected  natural processes proposed to date: the origin of life, the origin of the genetic code, the origin of multicellular life, the origin of sexuality, the scarcity of transitional forms in the fossil record, the biological big bang that occurred in the Cambrian era, the development of complex organ ,\ystems, and the development of irreducibly complex molecular machines. ” [Dem99p29] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p62.]

· “Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different ,\pecies from a common ancestor over many generations).” [EVsite] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p62, 63.]

· Microevolution, small adaptive changes that are heritable, is accepted as verifiable fact by virtually all scientists. Macroevolution, the scenario that all life originated by undirected natural processes from an original organism, is believed by most scientists, but doubted by many scientist, including over 700 who have signed the statement: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged” [Dis-web] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p63.]

· “A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of microevolution and macroevolution – whether macroevolutionary trends are governed by the principles of microevolution.” [Sim02] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p63.]

· “Mutation is not an increase in true information content, rather the reverse, for mutation, in the Shannon analogy, contributes to increasing the prior uncertainty. But now we come to natural selection, which reduces the ‘prior uncertainty’ and therefore, in Shannon’s sense, contributes information to the gene pool. In every generation, natural selection removes the less succes5ful genes from the gene pool, so the remaining gene pool is a narrower subset … what is the information about? It is about how to survive.” [Daw08T] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p64.]

· Only ten years ago Dawkins wrote “there’s lots more DNA that doesn’t even deserve the name pseudogene. It, too, is derived by duplication, but not duplication of functional genes. It consists of multiple copies ofjunk, ‘tandem repeats’, and other nonsense which may be useful for forensic detectives but which doesn’t seem to be used in the body itself Once again, creationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudog enes andj unk tandem repeat DNA. “[Daw98] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p65.]

· “Geneticists have long focused on just the small part of DNA that contains blueprints for proteins. The remainder—in humans, 98 percent of the DNA-was often dismissed as junk. But the discovery of many hidden genes that work through RNA, rather than protein, has overturned that assumption. These RNA-only genes tend to be short and d[fficult to identifY. But some of them play major roles in the health and development of plants and animals. ” [Gib03] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p66.]

· “Some scientists now suspect that much of what makes one person, and one species, d(!Jerent from the next are variations in the gems hidden within our ‘junk’ DNA. “[Gib03] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p66.]

· At first, evolutionists thought that introns had no role in the production of proteins and regarded them as merely junk. However, research has proven that they play vitally important roles. “For years, more and more research has, in fact, suggested that introns are not junk but influence how genes work. .. introns do have active roles.” [Ray03] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p66.]

· “Just when scientists thought they had DNA almost figured out, they are discovering in chromosomes two vast, but largely hidden, layers of information that affect inheritance, development, and disease.” [Gib03] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p66.]

· Genetic biologist Wojciech Makalowski states: “Now, more and more biologists regard repetitive elements as a genomic treasure … that repetitive elements are not useless junk DNA but rather are important, integral components of eukaryotic genomes.” [Mak03] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p66.]

· “Nonprotein coding RNA (ncRNA) refers to mRNA that is transcribed from DNA but not translated into protein. Rather than being ‘junk’ DNA (ie an evolutionary relic) some nonprotein coding transcripts may in fact play a critical role in regulating gene expression and so organizing the development and maintenance of complex life. ” [Per05] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p66.]

· “Scientists are puzzling over a collection of mystery DNA segments that seem to be essential to the survival of virtually all vertebrates. But their function is completely unknown. The segments, dubbed ‘ultraconserved elements’, lie in the large parts of the genome that do not code for any protein. Their presence adds to growing evidence that the importance of these areas, often dismissed as junk DNA, could be much more fundamental than anyone su:;pected. ” [Pea04] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p66, 67.]

· “If one adds together nucleotides that are individually nonfunctional, one may end up with a sum of nucleotides that are collectively functional. Nucleotides belonging to chromatin are an example. Despite all arguments made in the past in favor of considering heterochromatin as junk, many people active in the field no longer doubt that it plays functional roles … Nucleotides may individually be junk, and collectively, gold. ” [Zuc97] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p67.]

· John Mattick, Director of the Centre for Molecular Biology and Biotechnology at the University of Queensland, writes: “I think this will come to be a classic story of orthodoxy derailing objective analysis of the facts, in this case for a quarter of a century, the failure to recognize the full implications of this – particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information in the form of RNA molecules-may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology … Indeed, what was damned as junk because it was not understood may, in fact, turn out to be the very basis of human complexity.” [Mat03] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p67.]

· “There is no evidence that genetic information can build up through a series of small steps of microevolution. .. Mutations reduce the information in the gene by making a protein less specific. They add no information, and they add no new molecular capability … None of them can serve as an example of a mutation that can lead to the large changes of macroevolution… The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence against the … neo-Darwinian theory. “[Spe97p 159-160] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p69.]

· “None of the papers published in JME (Journal of Molecular Evolution) over the entire course of its lffe (1971-) as ajournal has ever proposed a detailed model by which a complex biochemical system might have been produced in a gradual, step-by-step Darwinian fashion. “[Beh96p 176] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p69.]

· “We must concede there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular 5ystem, only a variety of wishful speculations. “[HarO I] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p69.]

· Biologist Lynn Margulis writes: “We agree that very few potential offipring ever survive to reproduce and that populations do change through time, and that therefore natural selection is of critical importance to the evolutionary process. But this Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the rei igious ferocity of its rhetoric. Although random mutations influenced the course of evolution, their influence was mainly by loss, alteration, and refinement. One mutation confers resistance to malaria but also makes happy blood cells into the deficient oxygen carriers of sickle cell anemics. Another converts a gorgeous newborn into a cystic fibrosis patient or a victim of early onset diabetes. One mutation causes a flighty red-eyed fruit fly to fail to take wing. Never, however, did that one mutation make a wing, a fruit, a woody stem, or a claw appear. Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, lead5 to speciation. Then how do new species come into being?” [Mar03] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p69, 70.]

· “Yes, small-scale evolution is a fact, but there is no reason to think it is unbounded. In fact, all our data suggests that small-scale evolution cannot produce the sort of large-scale change Darwinism requires.” [Hun03] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p70.]

· Anthropologist Roger Lewin, at the 1980 Conference on Macroevolution, said: “The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the position of some people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. ” [Lew80] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p70.]

· The Cambrian explosion refers to the geologically sudden (within no more than 5 million years or 0.1% of earth’s history) appearance of at least 19 (or as many as 35 of the 40 total) phyla of animals in the fossil record during the Cambrian period. During this event, each phylum exhibits a unique architecture, blueprint, or structural body plan with no predecessors or intermediaries. [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p70.]

· “Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record first appear, ‘fully formed, ‘ in the Cambrian some 550 million years ago … The fossil record is therefore of no help with re!>pect to the origin and early diversification of the various animal phyla. ” [BarO I] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p70.]

· “If subphyla are included in the count of animal body plans, then at least thirty-two and possibly as many as forty-eight of fifty-six total body plans (57.1 to 85.7 percent) first appear on earth during the Cambrian explosion.” [Mey03p330] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p70.]

· “The animal body plans (as represented in the fossil record) do not grade imperceptibly one into another, either at a specific time in geological history or over the course of geological history. Instead, the body plans of the animals characterizing the separate phyla maintain their distinctive morphological and organizational features and thus their isolation from one another, over time.” [Mey03p333] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p71.]

· Dawkins writes concerning the invertebrate phyla fossils: “It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. ” [Daw96Bp229] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p71.]

· “Evolution. .. must be gradual when it is being used to explain the coming into existence of complicated, apparently designed objects, like eyes … Without gradualness in these cases, we are back to miracle, which is simply a synonym for the total absence of explanation.” [Daw95] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p71.]

· “The problem of how eyes have developed has presented a major challenge to the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection. We can make many entirely useless experimental models when designing a new instrument, but this was impossible for Natural Selection, for each step must confer some advantage upon its owner, to be selected and transmitted through the generations. But what use is a half-made lens? What use is a lens giving an image, if there is no nervous system to interpret the information? How could a visual nervous system come about before there was an eye to give it information? In evolution there can be no master plan, no looking ahead to form structures which, though useless now, will come to have importance when other structures are sufficiently developed. And yet the human eye and brain have come about through slow painful trial and error.” [Gre72] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p71.]

· There continues to be much speculation on the origin of the eye, ranging from multiple independent (as many as 60 [Sal61]) times [Koz08] to a single evolved eye from which all eyes evolved. [Geh05] Even the simplest light sensitive spot involves a large number of specialized proteins and molecules in an extremely complicated integrated system. [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p72.]

· The trilobite eye is a good case study since the trilobites suddenly appeared in the Cambrian era in less than 5 million years with no record of ancestry. The trilobite eye is made of optically transparent calcium carbonate (calcite, the same material of its shell) with a precisely aligned optical axis that eliminates double images and two lenses affixed together to eliminate spherical aberrations. [McC98, GalOO]. The advanced optics, including bifocality have produced observations like: “Trilobites had solved a very elegant physical problem and apparently knew about Fermat ‘s principle, Abbe’s sine law, Snell’s laws of refraction and the optics of bir􀀺fringent crystals.” [Cla75] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p72.]

· Physicist Riccardo Levi-Setti observes: “In fact, this optical doublet is a device so typically associated with human invention that its discovery in trilobites comes as something of a shock. The realization that trilobites developed and used such devices half a billion years ago makes the shock even greater. And a final discovery – that the refracting interface between the two lens elements in a trilobite’s eye was designed in accordance with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and Huygens in the mid-seventeenth century- borders on sheer science fiction.” [Lev93p57] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p73.]

· “The trilobites of the Cambrian already had a highly advanced visual system. In fact, so far as we can tell from the fossil record thus far discovered, trilobite s ight was far and away the most advanced in Kingdom Animalia at the base of the Cambrian. .. the lenses of the eyes of living trilobites were unique, being comprised of inorganic calcite … There is no other known occurrence of calcite eyes in the fossil record” [FM-trib] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p73.]

· “There are three recognized kinds of trilobite eyes … with the great majority of trilobites bearing holochroal eyes… characterized by close packing of biconvex lenses beneath a single cornea/layer that covers all of the lenses. These lenses are generally hexagonal in outline and range in number from one to more than 15,000 per eye. ” [Geo-web] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p73.]

· “Rarely, trilobites may have visual swfaces of normal size, but which lack lenses. This confirms that visual surface growth must have been regulated separately from lens emplacement, and is a feature that cannot be accounted for by the existing developmental model. “[Tho05] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p73.]

· Paleontologist Niles Eldredge observed: “These lenses-technically termed aspherical, aplanatic lenses – optimize both light collecting and image formation better than any lens ever conceived We can be justifiably amazed that these trilobites, very early in the history of life on Earth, hit upon the best possible lens design that optical physics has ever been able to formulate.” [Eld76] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p73, 74.]

· “The design of the trilobite’s eye lens could well qualify for a patent disclosure. ” [Lev93p5 8] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p74.]

· The trilobite lens is particularly intriguing since the only other animal to use inorganic focusing material is man. The lens may be classified as a prosthetic device since it was non-biological, which also means the lens itself was not subject to Darwinian evolution. The manufacturing and controlling of the lenses were obviously biological processes, with an unknown number of DNA-produced proteins for collecting and processing the raw materials to manufacture the precision lenses and create the refracting interface between the two lenses. The lenses do not decompose as any other animal’s lens would, so they are subject to rigorous scientific investigation and determination of optical properties based on the actual lenses, from which inferences can be made as to their use. [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p74.]

· Finding a trilobite lens without knowing its source would undoubtedly lead to the conclusion that the lens had been designed (re-read the preceding paragraphs if this is doubted). Since no immediate precursors of trilobites have been found, Darwinists are without any evidence as to how an organism with an eye as complex as a trilobite could have arisen, especially in such a relatively short time. [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p74.]

· Concerning the Cambrian explosion, “Of course, scientists wedded to a purely materialistic explanation will instinctively deny the very possibility of top-down intelligent causation. Yet we regularly employ precisely this mode of explanation, especially when we encounter the kinds of patterns and features that we see in the fossil record. Indeed, we see in the fossil record several distinctive features or hallmarks of designed systems, including: (1) a quantum or discontinuous increase in specified complexity or information; (2) a top-down pattern of innovation in which large-scale morphological disparity arises before small-scale diversity; (3) the persistence of structural (or “morphological”) disparities between separate organizational systems; and (4) the discrete or simultaneous emergence of functionally integrated material parts within novel organizational body plans. When we encounter objects that manifest any of these several features and we know how they arose, we invariably find that a purposeful agent or intelligent designer played a causal role in their origin. Thus, when we encounter all these same features in the fossil record, we may infer-based upon established cause-and-effect relationships and uni1 ormitarian principles- that the same kind of cause operated in the history of life. In other words, intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation of the specific features of the Cambrian exploslon , and the features of this explosion in turn attest to the activity and power of a purposeful intelligence. ” [Mey03p390] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p74, 75.]

· For example, biologist Richard Lewontin writes “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” [Lew97] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p87.]

· Dawkins writes: “Designoid objects look designed, so much so that some people – probably, alas, most people – think that they are designed These people are wrong.. . the true explanation-Darwinian natural selection-is very different”. [Daw96Cp4-5] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p87.]

· “Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof Such research begins by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago … The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the ‘apparent design’ in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. ” [IdWeb] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p89.]

· “Atheism is religion, and the group … was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being. ” [App05] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p90.]

· Francisco Ayala, a former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, has stated: “The functional design of organisms and their features would therefore seem to argue for the existence of a designer. It was Darwin’s greatest accomplishment to show that the directive organization of living beings can be explained as the result of a natural process, natural selection, without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent. ” [Aya94p323] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p90.]

· Atheist and science historian Will Provine writes: “As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism. ” [Pro99] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p90.]

· Anything other than naturalism is dismissed by biologist George Wald by admitting “I will not believe that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible: .􀁌pontaneous generation arising to evolution.” [Wal58] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p90.]

· Michael Ruse states that evolution is “a full-fledged alternative to Christianity … Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. ” [RusOO] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p90.]

· On rare occasions, the divine even seems acceptable, such as that in Science: “The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life — such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars -also has led some scientists to 5peculate that some divine influence may be present. ” [Eas97] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p90.]

· Often Darwinism becomes a de facto religion. “Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshiped. .. To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts. “[Gra77p 1 07] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p90, 91.]

· “Our theory of evolution has become … one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus ‘outside of empirical science’ but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas … have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.” [Ehr67] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p91.]

· Wolfgang Smith (mathematician, physicist, and philosopher of science) writes: “I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb. In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted world view to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe.” [Smi92] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p91.]

· Yockey writes concerning publication of the Miller-Urey [Mil53] paper that they “asked Destiny for confirmation of their faith. The editors of the Journal Science did not realize that they were publishing religious apologetics. ” [Y oc95p 186] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p91.]

· Michael Denton. “It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science- that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes.” [Den98pxviii] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p91.]

· “Evolution was accepted in the nineteenth century not because it explained everything perfectly but because it accounted for the facts better than any other theory … The idea that the cosmos is a unique whole with life and mankind as its end and purpose makes sense and illuminates all our current scientific knowledge. It makes sense of the intricate synthesis of carbon in the stars, of the constants of physics, of the properties of water, of the cosmic abundance of the elements … No other world view comes close. No other explanation makes as much sense of all the facts. ” [Den98p385] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p91.]

· Agnostic Bill Schultz writes “‘intelligent design’ arguments do not in any way support any assertion of the existence of some supernatural deity … it is entirely consistent with what we currently know about our universe for some external but natural intelligence to have ‘designed’ our universe to be what it is. Such intelligence would be mighty indeed, but it would still be just another powerful alien, or a group of such aliens, and not in any way a god or gods. ” [Sch99I] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p92.]

· Fred Hoyle was an atheist when he wrote “The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems … cannot in our view be generated by what are often called ‘natural’ processes… There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible … The correct position we think is … an intelligence, which designed the biochemicals and gave rise to the origin of carbonaceous life … This is tantamount to arguing that carbonaceous life was invented by noncarbonaceous intelligence. ” [Hoy81 E] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p91.]

· “All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind’s eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose at all.” [Daw96Bp5] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p93.]

· “The time has come to take seriously the fact that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day. In particular, we must recognize our biological past in trying to understand our interactions with others. We must think again especially about our so-called ‘ethical principles. ‘ The question is not whether biology-specifically, our evolution-is connected with ethics, but how. As evolutionists, we see that no justification of the traditional kind is possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will … In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding … Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place.” [Rus91] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p93, 94.]

· Even Richard Dawkins admits “there are two reasons why we need to take Darwinian natural selection seriously. Firstly, it is the most important element in the explanation for our own existence and that o.fall life. Secondly, natural selection is a good object lesson in how NOT to organize a society. As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian. But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it. I approve of looking after the poor (very un-Darwinian). I approve of universal medical care (very un-Darwinian). ” [Daw08L] This is in contrast to his statement “I want to persuade the reader, not just that the Darwinian world-view happens to be true, but that it is the only known theory that could, in principle, solve the mystery of our existence.” [Daw96Bpxiv] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p94.]

· Pagels writes that so powerful is the scientific-experimental “method that virtually everything scientists know about the natural world comes from it. What they find is that the architecture of the universe is indeed built according to invisible universal rules, what I call the cosmic code-the-building code of the Demiurge. Examples of this universal building code are the quantum and relativity theory, the laws of chemical combination and molecular structure, the rules that govern protein synthesis and how organisms are made, to name but a few. Scientists in discovering this code are deciphering the Demiurge’s hidden message, the tricks he used in creating the universe. No human mind could have arranged for any message so flawlessly coherent, so strangely imaginative, and sometimes downright bizarre. It must be the work of an Alien Intelligence! … Whether God is the message, wrote the message, or whether it wrote itself is unimportant in our lives. We can safely drop the traditional idea of the Demiurge,for there is no scientific evidence for a Creator of the natural world, no evidence for a will or purpose that goes beyond the known laws of nature. Even the evidence of life on earth, which promoted the compelling ‘argument from design ‘for a Creator, can be accounted for by evolution. .. So we have a message without a sender. ” [Pag88] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p97.]

· “The feature of living matter that most demands explanation is that it is almost unimaginably complicated in directions that convey a powerful illusion of deliberate design.” [DawOl] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p97.]

· “A Designer is a natural, appealing and altogether human explanation of the biological world But as Darwin and Wallace showed, there is another way, equally appealing, equally human, and far more compelling: natural selection, which makes the music of life more beautiful as the aeons pass. ” [Sag60] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p97.]

· “The kind of explanation we come up with must not contradict the laws of physics. Indeed it will make use of the laws of physics, and nothing more than the laws of physics.” [Daw96Bp15] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p97.]

· “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve this paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design.” [Daw96Bcover] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p97, 98.]

· “Darwin’s theory is now supported by all the available relevant evidence, and its truth is not doubted by any serious modern biologist. But, important as evidence is, in this article I want to explore the possibility of developing a different kind of argument. I suspect that it may be possible to show that, regardless of evidence, Darwinian natural selection is the only force we know that could, in principle, do the job of explaining the existence of organised and adaptive complexity. ” [Daw82] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p98.]

· “Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life … even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory.” [Daw96Bp287-288] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p98.]

· “The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. Even if the evidence did not favour it, it would still be the best theory available!” [Daw96Bp317] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p98.]

· Paul Davis (professor of theoretical physics) writes: “The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly … even ifyou dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life – almost contrived — you might say a ‘put-up job.'” [DavWiki] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p98]

· Philip Skell, chemist and member of the United States National Academy of Sciences, writes: “Darwinian evolution- whatever its other virtues- does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit. None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however, mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in .fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs.” [Ske05] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p98]

· “Yet, under ordinary conditions, no complex organic molecule can ever form spontaneously, but will rather disintegrate, in agreement with the second law. Indeed, the more complex it is, the more unstable it will be, and the more assured, sooner or later, its disintegration. Photosynthesis and all life processes, and even life itself, cannot yet be understood in terms of thermodynamics or any other exact science, despite the use of confused or deliberately confusing language.” [Str77] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p98, 99.]

· “Once we see that life is cosmic it is sensible to suppose that intelligence is cosmic. Now problems of order, such as the sequences of amino acids in the chains which constitute the enzymes and other proteins, are precisely the problems that become easy once a directed intelligence enters the picture … So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true. ” [Hoy82] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p99.]

· “The Darwinian theory is wrong and the continued adherence to it is an impediment to discovering the correct evolutionary theory. ” [Hoy99] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p99.]

· ”The failure of purely physical theories to describe or explain information reflects Shannon’s concept of entropy and his measure of ‘news. ‘ Information is defined by its independence from physical determination: !fit is determined, it is predictable and thus by definition not information. Yet Darwinian science seemed to be reducing all nature to material causes.” [Gil06] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p99.]

· “Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source.” [Mey04] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p99.]

· “Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs.” [Gra77p8] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p99.]

· “There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [oflife] really is. The most famous example … is the exhibition on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in text-book after text-book. Now I think that this is lamentable, particularly when people who propose those kind’! of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff” [Eld85] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p99, 100.]

· “It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner … Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are p!,ychological rather than scientific. ” [Hoy81 Ep 130] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p100.]

· “A Chinese paleontologist lectures around the world saying that recent fossil finds in his country are inconsistent with the Darwinian theory of evolution. His reason: The major animal groups appear abruptly in the rocks· over a relatively short time, rather than evolving gradually from a common ancestor as Darwin’s theory predicts. When this conclusion upsets American scientists, he wryly comments: ‘In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin. ‘ … one reason the science educators panic at the first s ign of public rebellion is that they fear exposure of the implicit religious content in what they are teaching. An even more compelling reason for keeping the lid on public discussion is that the officialn eo-Darwinian theory is having serious trouble with the evidence. This is covered over with the vague claim that all scientists agree that ‘evolution has occurred. ‘ Since the Darwinists sometimes define evolution merely as ‘change, ‘ and lump minor variation with the whole creation story as ‘evolution, ‘ a few trivial examples like dog-breeding or fruit fly variation allow them to claim proof for the whole system. ” [Joh99] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p100.]

· Michael Polanyi turned to philosophy at the height of his scientific career when he saw how ideologies were being employed to hinder free scientific expression and inquiry. Polanyi argued life is not reducible to physical and chemical principle, but rather, “the information content of a biological whole exceeds that of the sum of its parts.” [PolWeb] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p100.]

9      Why Intelligent Design?

· “Biological functionality is turning out to be much more highly specified and precise than we had originally envisioned. .. biology is really a science of engineering, where the constraints for bio–functionality are extreme – to the point that nearly every molecular interaction is remarkably precise and tightly controlled. Molecular biology is much like a jigsaw puzzle where each piece must be specifically shaped to fit with the other pieces around it. ” [Bra03] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p104.]

· Dawkins writes: “The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer. But Charles Darwin showed how it is possible for blind physical forces to mimic the effects of conscious design, and, by operating as a cumulative filter of chance variations, to lead eventual[ly] to organized and adaptive complexity, to mosquitoes and mammoths, to humans and therefore, indirectly, to books and computers.” [Daw82] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p107.]

· “Limiting science to a predetermined set of acceptable explanations naturally begs the question, ‘What if there is no natural explanation?’ What if, in fact, an intelligent agent was responsible for DNA, etc.? Science would.forever miss it and would continue to squander intellectual and financial capital on finding naturalistic answers that do not exist. Scientific progress depend\· heavily upon discovering blind alleys and rejecting failed theories. This is simply the way that science works, and thus, ID theory should be seen as invigorating, not stifling, scientific investigation. ” [Bow07] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p107, 108.]

الحمد لله الذي بنعمته تتمّ الصَّالِحات

أضف تعليقاً

إملأ الحقول أدناه بالمعلومات المناسبة أو إضغط على إحدى الأيقونات لتسجيل الدخول:

WordPress.com Logo

أنت تعلق بإستخدام حساب WordPress.com. تسجيل خروج   / تغيير )

صورة تويتر

أنت تعلق بإستخدام حساب Twitter. تسجيل خروج   / تغيير )

Facebook photo

أنت تعلق بإستخدام حساب Facebook. تسجيل خروج   / تغيير )

Google+ photo

أنت تعلق بإستخدام حساب Google+. تسجيل خروج   / تغيير )

Connecting to %s