There is a huge debate and controversy these days about whether Scripture should be our primary authority or not. After all, there are a lot of scholars who have come up with some pretty compelling theories regarding science that are hard to argue against. Or so goes the claim. How can we take the Bible seriously when we have all these scientific studies that show things differently than what the Bible says? Are the studies of nature wrong, or is the Bible not meant to be taken as written, and what God actually meant would be revealed through nature? Since “creation” and “Scripture” “cannot contradict,” is the science wrong or is our understanding of Scripture wrong? Which way do we turn?
In the Christian community, there are “Old Earth Creationists” who comprise the bulk of the academics today, the seminaries, and universities who consistently and adamantly bow before the “man of knowledge,” the “scientist,” because there is nothing in this world that trumps modern academia today. Last week, I wrote about this “man of knowledge,” quoting Martyn Lloyd-Jones about it, and I basically asked this question: why are these scientists, who predominately do not consider God in any of their thinking, given such high platforms, other than they had been chosen to be the ones to replace God? Who made these scientists so prominent? They did. Who taught these scientists what they know? They did. It’s all a self-promotion and a deifying of self in this system. Now to be fair, there are genuine and true scientists still out there seeking what God actually did when He created this universe and then judged this planet with a global flood during Noah’s time. But they are few today.
What does the Bible say about creation, namely man’s studies of creation because they are not the same? One thing should be clear: the Bible always puts Scripture ABOVE any of man’s academic studies and the fields themselves. Never is Scripture shared with any other authority. You never find such a notion, and anyone who claims it can always puts that authority above Scripture. They are never held equal even when tried. It doesn’t matter what the authority is or the field of study. Any attempt to make it equal to Scripture has failed because either Scripture won outright, or the false authority was put ahead by false teachers.
Many people cite Psalm 19:1, “The heavens declare the glory of God” as a prooftext that God created the earth over millions of years. The logical leap in that claim is simply astounding, but I would argue that they should read the rest of the Psalm. The first six verses of Psalm 19 describe what the Psalmist sees in his day and calls it part of God’s creation. But then look at vs 7. “The Law of the Lord is perfect….” Perfect. That term is never used to describe creation, especially after the curse of sin. “Very good” is used, and while God did a perfect job, creation, obviously, was corruptible. But Scripture is not. Many try, however, and what they put forth is a product that does not resemble what God did. Man’s sin brought a curse upon the earth. No amount of human tampering can actually harm the Bible – individual physical books maybe, but the actual content of the message, no. Not in the long run.
People don’t realize that this physical creation we study is going to burn in fire. Even when that happens, God’s Word is going to remain until all is fulfilled. The only time any of us will not need a Bible is when we are in paradise with God being with Him and enjoying Him forever. All our scientific studies are just wood, hay, and stubble. They will burn, too. They gain us nothing. And I say that as a science teacher. I love science. I love studying and learning how things operate. But what good does it do us? We have technology, but that has both its benefits and problems. If our technology suddenly died, we’d all be dead. We wouldn’t know how to live or breathe. How did people for 5900 years survive without air conditioning? Think about that.
The more I engage in academia and the more I see the futility of it, I see what Solomon saw: “Vanity, vanity! All is vanity!” Paul saw it. He looked at all his accolades and all his studies, and he would have been the top dog of the top dogs. None were his equal. And he threw it all away as dung because the search for the knowledge of Christ was so far above and beyond the rest. Just think about it. You can study science and creation for ten million years and long before that limit, you will hit the wall, the end of knowing all possible things regarding creation. It is finite. You can know all there is to know about biology, history, archeology, geology, astronomy, etc., and you will hit the limit. But if you study just Scripture, you could do so for all eternity and never begin to reach the depths of its riches. That’s just Scripture. What about God Himself? That is the one reason we will never be bored in heaven and in paradise: we will still be finite people learning about the infinite God.
Look at Psalm 29. This psalm alone is a worship song that puts the voice of God above all things seen in nature. The creation was never designed to be worshiped but to reveal the glory of God. What we see in nature gives us no excuse to reject God but points us to the fact that there is a God who left a record on earth. But God’s voice, His Word, is always superior to anything in nature itself, let alone our very feeble, weak, and low understanding of how it works.
I am not saying to not study anything other than Scripture, but I am saying there is a priority. Paul did not forget everything he ever learned. He simply put it in its proper place. Any knowledge that is not explicitly found in Scripture is only worth pursuing if it uplifts and proclaims Scripture and glorifies God. For me, the study of science is fun and awesome, not because it fills my head but because it leads me to worship. Many people today do not look at our world and worship God. They worship science, themselves, mankind, or the creation itself. God is an afterthought at best. They are not worth following.
Go after God. Seek Him and seek His knowledge. He has revealed His secrets of creation to those who have sought His face and His glory for the benefit of others, but He confounds the self-proclaimed wise and lets them think they are getting something when they actually have nothing. That is one of the reasons why the scientific community today has hardly done a thing in 100 years. Technicians have improved technology, but only condensing (making smaller) and improving what we have, not actually inventing anything “new” or discovering anything worth writing home about. God is not going to share His glory with another, especially that of His creation. Don’t feed those who demand that He does.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
Many of us know Psalm 14:1: “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” I was reading through the Psalms some time back in the Legacy Standard Version and saw something interesting. The LSB uses the New American Standard Bible as the base and sought to get an even more accurate word-for-word translation to include using “Yahweh” for “Lord” and “slave” instead of “servant.” But in Psalm 14:1, it includes the term “wicked.” The LSB says “The wicked fool says in his heart…” That caught my attention.
One thing I know about Scripture, it does not distinguish between “wicked” and “fool” here. The addition of “wicked” is simply an additional descriptor of a fool. There are not “wicked fools” and “righteous fools.” Fools are wicked, period. That is one of the points here. Psalm 14:1 is not merely talking about full atheists who openly and abjectly reject God’s existence; it also includes those who DO believe in God but live their lives as though He is not around to see and assess each word, thought, deed, and motive.
Let me be clear. Every one of us has been such a fool and lived as such a fool. Read the very end of the verse: “There is none who are good.” We are all wicked in our sinful state that is in such defiance of God that to even acknowledge His existence makes us cringe. And in the pride and stupidity of mankind, people have bought the lie that to deny God’s existence and role is “enlightenment.” The most “educated” people that the world praises think they can figure things out without God; time and time again they prove to be utter idiots. They are constantly wrong, always changing their story with “new evidence” but absolutely refusing to consider the time-proven truths that have always remained.
Look at how the Bible describes the sin-cursed mind.
"The shocking discovery can be best grasped in the following twelve different negative New Testament words that describe the ruin of man's intellectual capacity.
1. Romans 1:28: debased
2. 2 Cor 3:14: hardened
3. 2 Cor 4:4: blinded
4. Eph 4:17: futility
5. Eph 4:18: darkened
6. Col 1:21: hostile
7. Col 2:4: deluded
8. Col 2:8: deceived
9. Col 1:18: sensuous
10. 1 Tim 6:5: depraved
11. 2 Tim 3:8: corrupted
12. Titus 1:15: defiled
- Richard Mayhue: Think Biblically! page 39
This is the mind of the “wicked fool” of Psalm 14:1, and this is the mind of each of us apart from Christ. And yet, as a Church today, we have so embraced the “academic” of this world that we have failed to see this is their mind. It does not matter how many degrees they have. All education is capable of is instructing one fallen man by another fallen man on what fallen men think they have discovered. In reality, education to a sinful person just makes him more sophisticated in his ability to sin. That’s not true learning. And yet we have been so conditioned to listen to these people without question that when the Bible says one thing, the knee-jerk reaction is, “What about all these scientists? How can they be wrong?” The answer to that is they are nearly ALWAYS wrong. They are almost never right. And the few times they are right is when they are forced to admit what a CHRISTIAN has revealed and they have no alternative way to explain it. This is true in science, history, archeology, and everything. Most of the time, the only time the consensus ever says something correct is when they are forced to agree to what an individual discovered, most of the time by those seeking the mind of Christ in what He did and how He did it.
Martyn Lloyd-Jones saw the dangers in this over 70 years ago in his sermon “The Narrow Way”:
"The Christian Church in her utter folly during this present century has been recognizing a new authority, and the new authority, of course, is the man of knowledge, the man of culture, and particularly the man of scientific knowledge; and the church has been at great pains to do everything she can to please this new authority.
This man of learning must never be offended, and in order to please him and duplicate him, the church has been ready to take things out of the Bible. She rejects and throws out the whole of the first three chapters of Genesis. Much of the other history throws out all the miracles. She'll throw out anything in order to make her message pleasing and acceptable to this new authority, the man of knowledge, the man of learning, the man of science."
Yet what does the Bible say about this “man of knowledge”? It calls them all foolish, blind, and ignorant. And guess what? These so-called “great intellectuals even admit it. Listen to this:
“The practice of real-life science is much like figuring out the correct passageway through a maze. Not those printed mazes where you can see from the start where the exit lies, but one that you find yourself inside of, where the exit can only be found by experimenting with different routes.”
- The Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth, page 177
Talk about blind people leading blind followers! I’m listening to these guys and thinking, “How can anyone take this seriously?” And then I realize the depravity of man and the desperation to hear anything except what God says no matter how irrational it is. It is foolishness to leave God out of the equation. There is no rationality in any knowledge apart from God.
God is omniscient. He knows everything. – literally everything. He cannot learn because there is nothing for Him to learn. There is no one who can teach God. God has made sure that every single person has innate, pre-programmed knowledge of Him. No one has any excuse. As I have watched many people make their arguments either against God’s existence or without God’s input, I hear people who know full well that God is there, but they just don’t want His say on the matter… and yes, that includes many professing Christians. We have all done it. Some of us still do it. We need to repent of that mindset, especially if we want to be actually intelligent.
Don’t be fooled by the idiocy of the self-proclaimed intellectual. They do know what they speak of and unless their claims have their roots in what God has revealed, it will not only be wrong but it will be out of sin and wicked rebellion against Him. The wicked person may be able to say something correct from time to time, but the Bible is crystal clear we are not to sit at their feet or take any counsel from such people, and we will be blessed if we do not. Trust the Lord; do not rely on your own understanding. Doing the latter is not worth it.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
When Paul said that he determined to know nothing but Christ and Christ crucified, he did not say he intentionally forgot everything else. Instead, he was saying that of everything he said and did, his goal was to get to Christ. Little showcased this better than Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill, where he started with the religions of the Athenians and then used the “Altar to the Unknown God” to showcase the ignorance of Athenian philosophers and then point to Jesus Christ.
Charles Spurgeon once spoke of a young preacher who had his mentor in the audience. After the sermon, the young preacher asked about how it went. The old mentor said that despite the proper exegesis, despite the great tone and voice, and despite the images and illustrations, it was a poor sermon. Why? Because there was no Christ. The young preacher said Christ was not in the text. The mentor replied that as there is a road from every village to London, there is also a road from every text to Christ and the job of the preacher is to find that road and even make one if he has not seen one yet.
Preaching should have one key thrust: to showcase and reveal Christ and to proclaim the Gospel. That is one thing I greatly appreciate about Answers in Genesis as a ministry: they purpose to make the Gospel the goal of what they do and what they share. While they emphasize dealing with origins, their stated goal and purpose is to help people believe that Genesis can be believed and therefore so can the Gospel. It is also a problem I have with other “ministries” where the goal and purpose is to promote self. And don’t get me wrong: the big creation organizations are very capable of stepping off that goal and starting to view every other creationist and organization as competition.
In March, I went to the Grand Canyon with the Engage Truth Ministry and many of their Worldview Academy students. The morning sessions were about getting the Biblical worldview side of the canyon, and the afternoon was about evangelism on the South Rim. The science was awesome, but the evangelism was the most amazing part. In our small groups, we asked some basic questions about how the canyon was formed, but then we went straight to the Bible and the Flood. We began explaining how the Flood and the aftermath are the only things that make sense of it. In my particular group, the bulk of those we spoke with were already Christians but none of them had made the connection between the Bible and the canyon before. They were very grateful to us for sharing our faith and helping them make that connection.
The best part of it was when we went to the geology museum. We got there just in time for an older lady to do her scheduled talk about the canyon and how it formed. It was so full of lies and bad science that it was very difficult for me to not interrupt. But I did not want to embarrass this poor old woman who was speaking from a script. So after the presentation, I took our group outside to debrief them and we just got a fire under our bellies. We went back and then presented what we had learned from the morning and then presented the Gospel in their own museum. Many from the audience there thanked us. Some were Christians, some were not, but they said it made absolute sense. We did have some scoffers who didn’t have the courage to engage with us. But it was incredible. Again, the goal was to present Christ and to present the Gospel. That day, a pastor from Phoenix came up to us and specifically thanked us for what we did.
If Paul could tie an altar to an unknown god to the Gospel, and we can tie a location like the Grand Canyon to the Gospel, we can connect just about anything to the Gospel. We can use any starting point and carve away a message to showcase the Gospel. Now there are limitations to this. I remember in my schooling days I thought we could showcase the connection between Star Wars and the Gospel, and the reality is yes and no. Many people have made a connection between Harry Potter and the Gospel (I have not read the books, only seen movies 1-5). Even the very popular TV Show “The Chosen” can be used to showcase the Gospels, even though it is a fictional supposition of what some of the backstories could have been. Now I am careful about justifying making a connection with a pragmatic basis, so one does need to be careful here.
The point here though is whatever tool you are using, get to the Gospel. Don’t let the tool replace the Gospel or supplement the Gospel; just use it as a connection point to pave and carve your way to Jesus. Even though we have some great tools, when a preacher or evangelist is doing his job correctly, and the person is intently listening, that person should be thinking more about Jesus than any other topic. In the Gospels, when people talked about Jesus, they did talk about their problems, but they talked more about Jesus than they did themselves. We need to do the same. When we get to Heaven, the focal point will be Jesus, so let’s start practicing now and making Jesus the center of every discussion and the target of every topic.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
From the moment of his creation, man was given dominion over the earth, to subdue it and to bring it into subjection, all the while being fruitful and multiplying. These are the first commandments and responsibilities given to mankind. While many sermons have dealt with Genesis 1:28 in numerous different ways, my church’s primary teaching elder made some statements in a recent sermon that triggered me to write this post.
In most sermons I’ve heard, the message from this verse is about man having control over the animals and the power to do science and create technology. Then man is to be productive and have lots of children. But the past couple months, this verse has been gnawing at me. The whole notion of making the home and the family structure to be productive and little self-sustaining “kingdoms” as opposed to mere places for rest and entertainment has gotten my attention. The comments the teaching elder made about man’s role in having dominion over the earth while also being fruitful have magnified my understanding of Scripture to a new level, and I’ve been chewing on how to put these concepts to practice.
First off, man has dominion over the earth. He has the authority to use and control the earth and life and bring it to order. There are a number of people who suggest that this idea of dominion actually means that life outside the garden was actually a wreck, indistinguishable from what sin actually did, and so man was given instructions to “set it in order.” I have serious problems with such ideas. For one, it teaches that God is a lousy creator and needs man to finish the job because God left it messy. It is another ploy to keep man from being responsible from what is wrong with this world.
That’s actually not what “have dominion” actually means in this context, which is pre-sin. It more accurately means that man is to take the creation and put it to good use, and man has done that. We have created technology and built roads and houses and lakes and mountains and done all sorts of good things.
But man in his sinful hubris tries to play the God-role, too. Man is made to be a steward of the earth, but it is God who actually owns and ultimately controls it all. Man thinks he is both the problem with this world (which both Evolution and Creation teach) but also thinks he is the savior of the world (which only Evolution teaches). Just watch the Sci-Fi channel. How many disaster movies are out there that pits man against this insanely big disaster, and yet with our modern technology we have the great ability to solve this disaster that wipes out cities and continents? It’s actually comical when you think about it. Man thinks he can solve the “climate change” issue and as I watch the weather completely confound our “experts,” I can picture God up there saying, “Oh, you think you can control that? Well, try this.” Yes, man has dominion over the earth, but only as stewards or managers, not as owners. Let us not forget our place. While we are indeed the pinnacle of creation, we are still a mere creation. We are not gods and we’ll never be like God.
But in light of my elder’s teachings, namely on how the home turned from a place of production into a place of consumption, he made a comment that I had heard many times but never in the context of this verse. In our day of technology, we are not controlling or having dominion over the technology. Instead, it is having control over us. I have heard many preachers address this issue regarding money and treasures here on earth. John Piper says, “I don’t think it’s wrong to have a lot of money. I just think it’s wrong to want to keep a lot of money.” Voddie Baucham says, “I’m not against you having things. I’m against things having you.” It’s the same issue, but I had never heard it in context of Genesis 1:28. Instead of man having dominion over technology and science, the sinful results we face is this technology and science has us.
It is easy to see this in the context of our TV, games, social media, internet, cell phones, etc. We are addicted to technology, and our lives simply will shut down if we go without it for long. That is one aspect, but the general trend is to overreact to that and want to throw out all technology. Some preachers have thrown out their TVs, smashed their games, and limited their phones to the bare minimum. I won’t say that is wrong, but I won’t say it is right either. That is between each person and God. The issue is not technology; the issue is who has control. If we are ruled by sin and self, technology and science will control us quickly and easily. But if we are ruled by the Holy Spirit, we will be able to use technology to its fullest.
But an angle I will take to this teaching even further is the studies of science itself. I am a physics teacher, and I have seen so many people actually deify science. Where did man come from? Science has the answer. Where are we going? Science has the answer. Why are we here? Science has the answer. Who are we? Science has the answer. Who has the authority? Science does. This is not what God designed us to do. I love science. Don’t read what I am not saying; science is an awesome tool. But it is a tool. So many have made science their entire epistemology. They don’t do science, nor do they have any dominion over science. Science rules them. Nature is their god, and it has led to some of the most stupid and deadly decisions ever made. When science and nature and technology control us, we are actually practicing a form of pantheism, the worship of nature.
Be careful. We are to control science, not let science control us. And science can only be under control when we are under the control of God, submitted and yielded to Him. God will not unlock the deepest secrets of the creation to those who despise His name and seek to steal His glory. He’ll give them to those who love Him, seek to honor Him, and keep both God and nature in their rightful places. May we learn how to put technology under our control as we submit to the rightful rule of God our Master. Next week, I’ll look at the other half of this verse in how to be fruitful and multiply.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
by Steve Risner
"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb." -Psalm 139:13
We began a discussion on information found in genetic material last week. We determined that “instructions” is probably a more accurate description than simply information. We’re talking about a specific kind of information here—coded instructions for building and maintaining highly complex machines. According to Webster’s Dictionary: “Information: what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things or the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (such as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects, (1): a signal or character (as in a communication system or computer) representing data, (2): something (such as a message, experimental data, or a picture) which justifies change in a construct (such as a plan or theory) that represents physical or mental experience or another construct.”
Note that DNA is used here by the dictionary as an example. Yet our evolutionist/atheist friends have no idea what is meant when a creationist refers to “information.” But to my point that a better word to use is instructions, let’s look at the meaning of that word: instructions are detailed information telling how something should be done, operated, or assembled. This is according to the Oxford dictionary. Can we see how this applies to information found in DNA? DNA isn’t the instructions. It’s the storage medium used for these instructions, and it accesses the specific instructions that are needed when they’re needed. The process is mind-blowing.
These instructions are not something that is a natural or materialistic phenomenon. As we discussed briefly last time, we’re not describing information you can gather from nature. We are talking about information that is found in coded form and stored within every living thing we find. It’s detailed coded instructions for doing very specific things. A former East German scientist, J. Peil, writes this concerning how information is not just a physical thing:
“Even the biology based on a materialistic philosophy, which discarded all vitalistic and metaphysical components, did not readily accept the reduction of biology to physics… Information is neither a physical nor a chemical principle like energy and matter, even though the latter are required as carriers.” (You can read all about this topic at this link).
From the above link to the book In the Beginning Was Information, you will also find other well-regarded scientists and mathematicians speaking on what information is and is not. Norbert Wiener, the American mathematician, said decades ago that, “Information is information, neither matter nor energy. Any materialism which disregards this will not survive.”
What does this mean? Simply put, this information or these instructions are not just physical occurrences that just happen. Information like this is something an intelligence must produce. In the case of genetics, there is an intelligent creator of the information and an intelligent recipient that decodes the information and follows the instructions—building and maintaining a living thing. It cannot be stressed enough that information or, more specifically instructions, are not a property of matter, and it cannot be explained through material or natural processes. Like using an alphabet, we can arrange the letters we have assigned specific sounds to and make words that, again, have predetermined meanings. The letters and words are not naturally occurring things we find in nature. They are just markings. But an intelligent agent has decided that certain markings will represent certain sounds and, when arranged properly, will create words that have specifically predetermined meanings.
Claude Shannon was a mathematician who first described information, founding what’s known as Information Theory. His work has been used by many in the field of information to describe what information is and what its use is. But Shannon’s definition of information exclusively concerns the statistical properties of sequences of symbols; meaning is completely ignored. This is a limitation in this original or classical information theory because it doesn’t explain meaning or intent. It follows that this concept of information is unsuitable for evaluating the information content of meaningful sequences of symbols.
By limiting ourselves to just the statistical evaluation of information, we fail to understand or even concede the existence of meaning. When looking at the statistical analysis of a certain bit of information, we are simply looking at how many letters or words made up a sentence, what alphabet is used, and how often are words or letters employed. This has nothing at all to do with the actual meaning of the text. In fact, there could be no meaning of the text using this type of analysis. It could just be a random series of letters and spaces. To put this in terms related to living things and genetics, we would be looking at how many bases were used to make the strand of genetic material, what bases are possible (this is the guanine, cytosine, thymine, and adenine discussed in last week’s post), and how often are they used. It would not help you at all in determining what the section of DNA was used for—what its purpose is. The statistical level of information is the first level and is not very useful in this context.
The next level of information would be syntax. Syntax includes all the properties of the process of setting up the information in question. Here we are concerned with the symbols used and the rules governing how they’re made—which ones are appropriate etc. Again, meaning is not taken into account here. This could be the level of information, however, that mechanisms within the cell are used to deter copy errors when replication is occurring. Perhaps that’s too broad an idea. It’s just a thought.
Here we can discuss the conditions for determining if a code is being employed. There are three things that define a code all are necessary for something to be a code (sometimes there’s a fourth): a unique set of symbols must be used, the symbols must be arranged in an irregular fashion, the symbols must be arranged in a clear structure, at least some symbols must occur repeatedly (this one is often necessary but not always).
As opposed to the “necessary conditions” listed above, there is only one sufficient condition: the code must be able to be decoded meaningfully. Are your wheels turning about how this applies to genetics?
Next, we have the third level of information: semantics. This level does take meaning into account. What do the symbols mean when arranged in specific ways? For something to actually be information, it must have meaning. This is in contrast with Shannon’s idea of information. He believed even noise in a communication was information. In other words, if you were listening to the radio and there was static in the signal, that was information by his definition. In terms of meaning, that is obviously not true. In fact, such noise can corrupt a communication and render it unable to convey information—the meaning is lost. This is why our statements I quoted last time were nonsensical in this conversation. Things like, “Information comes from all over the place.” Or “I have a geology degree and can read information directly from an exposed rock face.” The rock face is not trying to tell anyone anything. Nature is not submitting information to us via some form of communication so we can understand her. We can extract information—gathering it through our senses to educate ourselves about it. But this nothing, literally, like, say, reading an encyclopedia or a newspaper or instructions that came with your new entertainment center.
DNA is a storage medium for this coded information, which is really instructions for developing and maintaining a living thing—a highly complex machine. All suitable ways of expressing meanings are called languages. Information can be transmitted or stored in material media only when a language is available. Genetic information is stored in DNA. What does that mean? It means the genetic code meets the criterion for it being considered first a code but also a language. A language must have an intelligent source. A code even more so must have an intelligent source and an intelligent recipient to decode the information and apply meaning to it. This is what happens within living things (in their cells) all the time. It’s a continuous process of finding the needed instructions stored in the DNA, unzipping the DNA to make RNA, using the specific piece of genetic material to generate a specific number of a specific protein, and zipping it back up and starting the process again somewhere else along the chain.
The next level of information after semantics (meaning) is pragmatics. This essentially means the actions required by the information. Information was defined by Werner Strombach (author of An Introduction to Systematic Philosophy and The Laws of Our Thinking: An Introduction to Logic) as a structure which achieves some result in a receiving system. These concepts are easily applicable and appreciated in how genetic information works inside a cell. DNA is continuously causing different actions to happen at the cellular level which impacts how an organism is functioning. It takes the stored instructions and dictates actions based on a series of 4 different chemicals that are ordered specifically to achieve precise results.
The final level of information, apobetics, implies information has a purpose. This ties in with the previous level of information nicely. The purpose of the information found in the genetics of an organism dictates specific actions occurring at specific times. In short, survival is the purpose. Survival of the individual as well as the survival of the species seems to be equally important aspects here.
I bring this long, wordy description regarding the levels of information up because atheists will frequently say goofy things like I quoted last time about information—it’s all over the place or you can get information from a rock or some such thing. But they are only focusing on Shannon’s description of information which, in the context of genetics and living things, is pointless. There is little similarity between the information one may gather from something in nature—something that is not trying to express that information but is simply just there—and the information housed in genetics that has an intended purpose and a specific plan in mind for the organism. Don’t fall for their silly expressions concerning information and information theory. Shannon had some great thoughts on the idea of information but his book on the topic was written 75 years ago. We’ve learned a great deal since then. The fact that evolutionists want to be stuck in 1940’s ideas on information so they can avoid a real conversation about it says quite a bit, in my opinion.
Much of this information was described by Dr. Werner Gitt in his book, In the Beginning Was Information. I highly recommend it.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
by Steve Risner
"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb." -Psalm 139:13
I’ve recently been in a conversation with some unbelievers concerning “information.” This is an interesting topic. The existence of coded information within the genome of every living thing (highly complex and specified information that dictates the development and maintenance of the most sophisticated machines known to us) is something no evolutionist I’ve encountered can adequately respond to. They will try. They will make up weird and embarrassingly silly things to “debunk” this idea, but it’s a fact that coded information—which is both complex and specific—can only come from an intelligent source. On the other end of that, there must be an intelligent recipient to decode the information and use it to build and maintain these highly complex machines (I’m speaking, of course, of living things here). These are very detailed instructions we’re referring to within genetic material.
As I’ve said, I’ve seen very silly and really remarkable things shared on this topic in response to information being a key factor in the debate on origins between Biblical Christianity and atheism. Unfortunately, there are way too many Christians who fight for the side of atheism, but that’s another topic for later.
DNA is a storage medium that houses the instructions for building and maintaining the most sophisticated machines known to us. The source of this highly specific, very complex, and sophisticated information seems to be an issue for someone claiming that natural and mindless processes birthed it. How do coded instructions for the development and maintenance of extremely complex machines (like living things) arise, if not from an intelligent source? These are some of the amazing things people who want to discard the Biblical narrative on creation will say in response to this issue about the information housed within the DNA of every living thing on earth. These are direct quotes from people online:
“I have a geology degree and can read information directly from an exposed rock face.”
“Because in reality, information did not come first and was produced by natural processes.”
“What is needed is time and space, not intelligence.”
“It [information] comes from all over the place.”
“All information moves or is stored in the form of some code or other.”
“Yes, it’s called code… that doesn’t make it code though.”
“A weathered rock has information. Show me the mind that produced it.”
I hope we can all see how most if not all of these statements are just silly. Saying you can take “information” from a rock or from “all over the place” and suggesting this is even similar to the instructions found in DNA is absurd. Determining what a rock is made of or how it got where you’ve found it has nothing to do with coded information that details how to build complex machines. This seems to be the best they have in response, which is not good for them.
For the instructions we’re talking about, they are coded. To be coded means there is a system of symbols that are used to represent something of an assigned meaning. This code is highly complex, of course, and is more sophisticated than any code we’ve developed. It’s far more complex than the binary computer code every computer on earth utilizes – much more complex, in fact. There are 4 nucleotides or bases that are found in DNA or RNA (RNA is just a single strand of DNA). These are guanine, cytosine, adenine, and thymine. They are frequently represented as G, C, A, and T, respectively. Certain arrangements of these bases in a strand of DNA codes allow for certain things to be made—namely proteins but other highly complex molecules as well. The fact that the genetic code is, in fact, coded information, is beyond debate at this point. It’s called the genetic code. It has bases found within it that do not mean anything except when they are assigned meaning in specific groups. DNA stores these instructions and accesses the specific parts of the code that are needed at the right time to generate the right molecules in the right amount. It’s amazing. DNA will “unzip” into a shorter strand of RNA. It will then read the strand of genetic code forwards or backwards or sometimes will splice different pieces together to generate the needed biochemistry.
These instructions are specific. This seems obvious, but I’m always asked when I suggest this, “What does specific mean?” Well, the definition is to explain or describe something clearly and exactly. The instructions for building proteins are long and detailed. They must be precisely built in order to do their predetermined job. Here are some basics for building a protein.
Proteins are made of amino acids. There are 20 different amino acids. Three bases or nucleotides (the G, T, A, and C we discussed earlier) are needed to create one amino acid. Most proteins we’ve found are between 50 and 2000 amino acids. This means a length of DNA (which has been “unzipped” into RNA) 150 bases long is needed to make the simplest protein—which is highly complex and must be built exactly the right way. There are a number of folds that each protein has that must be correct or the protein is not right. All the amino acids that make these proteins are “left-handed,” which just means of the two mirror images of any given structure, the “left-handed” version is the only one we use for life. That’s an important hurdle for evolutionists as well, but that’s for another time.
But many of the proteins of life are much larger than that. A protein with 2000 amino acids would require bases in a length and specific order of 6000 nucleotides! Two thousand 3-letter combinations that are all exactly in the right order to generate one protein. Keep in mind some of these proteins are required for protein manufacturing, so there’s another hurdle for the evolutionist who believes in abiogenesis. How do proteins that require other proteins to be built find their way into existence? Which ones came first? When does the job of building a specific protein end? Why does the system “turn off” when it’s got enough of whatever protein it was manufacturing?
Genetic material is also complex. That, too, seems to have a very basic definition but, again, I am asked what that means. Most of the time when atheists are bringing up these questions, it is to trip you up or confuse you. Don’t fall for their games. They’re in a losing battle here and they know it, so they need to distract as much as they can. Complex simply means that the whole is made up of complicated or interrelated parts.
This is very easily demonstrated with genetics. There are countless molecular machines involved in the work of our genes. According to Dr. Bruce Alberts at cell.com, “We now know that nearly every major process in a cell is carried out by assemblies of 10 or more protein molecules. And, as it carries out its biological functions, each of these protein assemblies interacts with several other large complexes of proteins. Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.” This is exactly what complex means. This statement is speaking more broadly about cellular function, but the same is true just for the work that goes on inside the nucleus (or very close by to the nucleus) of a cell.
Each of these molecular machines can be built out of multiple proteins, which are themselves built out of dozens to hundreds or even thousands of amino acids. The spliceosome, for example, is a molecular machine that is comprised of some 50 proteins and 5 snRNA molecules. It’s enormous. If it’s built incorrectly, it doesn’t work. It has numerous interrelated parts that work together. We can easily see how the inner workings of a cell and, more specifically, what genetic material is doing inside a cell, are highly specific (it’s not randomly performing functions willy nilly) and complex (the intricate network of interworking parts is mind-boggling).
Next time, I’ll get into what information is and why the coded instructions found stored in the DNA molecules of each living thing on earth is very ordered, complex, specified data containing the instructions for building and maintaining a living thing—a highly sophisticated machine.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
