Here’s the third part of my summary of Dr. Stephen Meyer’s book, Signature in the Cell. Check the previous two blogs for the earlier part of the book.

Meyer then presents a positive case for intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life. He begins by saying there is no other adequate explanation as to the cause. Secondly, he claims there is experimental evidence to back up intelligent design as a cause. Here he mentions experiments that try to simulate prebiotic conditions; they “invariably generate biologically irrelevant substances.” In addition he says intelligent design is the only known cause of specified information. He concludes that ID provides the “best, most causally adequate explanation of the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life on earth.” He considers other forms of specified information, such as radio signals, books, hieroglyphics, and indicates that they always arise from an intelligent source, a mind rather than a strictly material process. In addition, Meyer refers to a groundbreaking book on design detection by William Dembski – The Design Inference. This book claims that we can detect the prior activity of other minds by the effects they leave behind, namely complexity and specification. His example is Mount Rushmore – the shapes etched in the rock face demonstrate intelligence behind them because they are complex and specific to four particular American presidents. Dembski’s theory applies to the cell’s information-processing system as well as to DNA itself. Even “junk DNA” has now been found to perform many important functions.

The last part of Meyer’s book defends the theory of intelligent design against various popular objections to it. Some complain that the case for intelligent design constitutes an argument from ignorance–if we don’t know how something works, we say God did it. But Meyer says that is not true. We already know from experience that intelligent agents do produce systems rich in information. This is an inference to the best explanation based upon our best available knowledge rather than an argument from ignorance. Another complaint about the design inference says, “If an intelligence designed the information in DNA, then who designed the designer?” He found it odd that anyone would argue it was illegitimate to infer that an intelligence played a role in the origin of an event unless we could also give a complete explanation of the nature and origin of that intelligence. It does not negate a causal explanation of one event to point out that the cause of that event may also invite a causal explanation. For example, nobody needs to “explain who designed the builders of Stonehenge or how they otherwise came into being to infer that this complex and specified structure was clearly the work of intelligent agents.”

A third complaint about ID is that it is simply religion masquerading as science. Critics say the theory is not testable and, therefore, neither rigorous nor scientific. But Meyer says different scientists and philosophers of science cannot agree about what the scientific method is, so how do they decide what does and does not qualify as science? He rebuts the critics in several ways. First, he says the case for intelligent design is based on empirical evidence, not religious dogma – information in the cell, irreducible complexity of molecular machines, the fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics. In addition, advocates of intelligent design use established scientific methods, especially the method of multiple competing hypotheses. For another thing, ID is testable by comparing its explanatory power to that of competing theories. As an example, Meyer refers to junk DNA. Neo-Darwinism says this is an accumulation of nonfunctional DNA through mutational trial and error while ID proponents claim that there must be some biological function in this so-called “junk.” It turns out that recent discoveries indicate this type of DNA performs a diversity of important biological functions. To further bolster the idea that ID is scientific, Meyer goes on to say the case for ID exemplifies historical scientific reasoning, it addresses a specific question in evolutionary biology (how did the appearance of design in living systems arise?), and it is supported by peer-reviewed scientific literature.

I am continuing a summary of the information in Dr. Stephen Meyer’s important book, Signature in the Cell. You can read the previous blog entry to see the first part of my report on this book, in which Meyer challenges the Darwinian view by examining the amazing discoveries made about the cell and DNA.

Meyer relates what scientists in the past had thought about biological origins and how they investigated these questions. He found it interesting that Watson and Crick were not doing experiments in labs, but that didn’t mean they were not doing science. Instead, they built models based on data they acquired from other sources, like scientific journals, other scientists, and other laboratories. In this way they were much like current advocates of intelligent design, who have been accused of not doing science. A brief story is revealing — when Meyer asked Fred Hoyle, a famous astronomer, about whether he thought the information stored in DNA might point to an intelligent source, Hoyle’s reply was, “That would certainly make life a lot easier to explain.” That’s interesting, coming from a non-theist. Meyer goes on to explain that modern science was specifically inspired by the idea that the universe is the product of a rational mind and that humans could understand it. He says historical scientists reasoned from clues back to causes, conferring unseen facts/events/causes in the past from clues or facts in the present. Based on this, he asks what causes now in operation produce digital code or specified information? Intelligent design must qualify as a possible scientific explanation for the origin of biological information because we know that intelligent agents produce specific information.

For the next 150 pages Meyer examines the competing explanations for the origin of biological information. He starts by examining the possibility that chance produced this information. Most people who advocate chance assume that life could not originate without biological information first arising in some form, which means they must explain where the DNA information came from or how proteins might have arisen directly without DNA. Many origin-of-life scientists realize how difficult it is to generate specified biological information by chance alone in the limited time earth has been around. But it’s even more difficult than this — building a living cell not only requires specified information, but it also requires a vast amount of information. For example, the simplest cell requires nearly 500 proteins and nearly 600,000 bases of DNA to assemble these proteins. One experiment in the late 1980s indicated the probability of achieving a functional sequence of amino acids in several known proteins by chance was about one  in 10 to the 63rd power (it’s about like picking one atom out of all the atoms in the universe). Another problem with chance was the discovery of the lack of a favorable prebiotic soup on primitive earth.

A biophysicist at San Francisco State University named Dean Kenyon came up with another explanation for the origin of biological information — self-organization., in which life might have arisen through a series of chemical transformations in which more complex chemical structures arose from simpler ones. However, one of his students asked him if his model could explain the origin of the information in DNA, and Kenyon realized that it could not.

Probably the most popular theory now of how life began (apart from intelligent design) focuses on RNA molecules; the premise is that RNA performed both as proteins and DNA. But there are huge problems with this theory — RNA is easy to destroy, it makes a poor substitute for proteins, and it doesn’t explain the origin of genetic information. It’s no wonder that Francis Crick said, “… in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”

Some time ago I read a powerful book that argues for the existence of a creator based on the tiny world of the cell. Years ago, scientists thought of the cell as a primitive and simple thing–a glob of protoplasm. But discoveries have since changed this view. To help explain these amazing findings, Dr. Stephen Meyer, a former geophysicist and college professor who leads the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, wrote Signature in the Cell. The book looks intimidating since it has over 500 pages of information, but it is an important book that many should read. Meyer focuses on the importance of the discovery in 1953 of the information-bearing capacities of the DNA molecule, what he calls the “signature in the cell.” For the next several blogs, I’d like to walk you through the book because it shows, on the molecular level, the incredible design so obvious in the universe today. This is a key way we can discuss our belief in the existence of God, based on the staggering amount of design all around us. Science is on our side.

His opening chapters define the scientific and philosophical issues at stake in the DNA enigma. Darwin had argued that the striking appearance of design in living organisms could be explained by natural selection working on random variations. But, thanks to Watson and Crick, scientists discovered the structure of DNA. They found that DNA stores information using a four-character chemical alphabet. This information is used to build crucial protein molecules and machines the cell needs to survive. This chemical alphabet functions like letters and a written language or symbols and a computer code. In fact, Bill Gates said, “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” Of course, the key question is how the information in DNA arose. You have to have information before you can build the first living organism. In the mid-1980s a controversial book came out called The Mystery of Life’s Origin by Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen. These three scientists came to the conclusion that no theory had explained the origin of the first life. They suggested that the information in DNA might have originated from an intelligent source.

Next, Meyer describes the mystery surrounding DNA in more detail. He tells in depth the story of Watson and Crick as they set about to understand the structure of DNA. By the mid-1950s scientists soon realized that DNA could store an immense amount of information. Meyer ties this in with information about proteins — they build cellular machines and structures, they carry and deliver cellular materials, they allow chemical reactions necessary for the cell’s survival. To do all this, a typical cell uses thousands of different kinds of proteins, and each one has a distinctive shape related to its function. These proteins are made of smaller molecules called amino acids. The structure of proteins depends upon the specific arrangement of its amino acids, but the question was what determined the arrangement of the amino acids. It was Francis Crick who suggested it was the precise arrangement of the four-character chemical alphabet found in DNA that determined the arrangement of amino acids. Scientists soon found there were mechanisms in the cell to transcribe, transport, and translate the information in DNA so that amino-acid chains could be constructed at certain sites. Like a production facility at Ford, the cell uses digitally encoded information to direct the manufacture of the parts of its machines. You can see animation of this process at signatureinthecell.com or in the DVD called Unlocking the Mystery of Life.

Here’s a big mystery — it takes DNA to make proteins, but it also requires proteins to make DNA; so how did the whole thing get started? Which came first, the chicken (nucleic acids) or the egg (proteins)? The author says scientists must now explain the origin of three key features of life — DNA’s capacity to store digitally encoded information, the complexity of the information in DNA, and the cell’s ability to process the information.

More to follow in a later blog.

I have been covering for the last couple of blogs a discussion that has focused on the exclusivity claims of Christianity. Many people in our pluralistic society today object to the idea that one thing might be true while other things might be wrong, especially in the area of religion and morality. It’s frustrating to deal with such mushy thinking, but that’s the atmosphere in which we live today. So, here is one last look at this issue before moving on to other things.

The relativist who sees all religions as pretty much the same has a word picture that is sometimes used to describe a pluralistic view of religions today. This is the famous “all paths lead to God” idea in which God is at the top of the mountain and various roads (religions) go up the mountain where they converge at the top. So, even though the paths look different, the roads/religions all end up at the same place. What’s wrong with this picture? It’s the same problem as with the blind men and the elephant story – where is the person who is telling the story? He or she is above the mountain, looking down at all the people working their way to the top. But only God has that view, so the person who tells the story apparently has the same viewpoint as God. That seems pretty arrogant.

As  a final thought, consider the differences between Christianity and other religions. Think about all the religions around us today–Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Scientology, Mormonisn, etc.  In these belief systems, followers are urged to chase after God (or improve themselves if there is no God) through good deeds and appropriate behavior. Only Christianity says God chases after us, and there is nothing we can do to earn his favor. As a fallen individual who only grows more aware of my shortcomings as I get older, I see the entire human race as needing that special grace that God shows us.

So much for the idea that Christians are arrogant. How can I look down on another person when I know I have sinned and desperately need a savior? In fact, I readily admit a Hindu may be a better father than I am, an atheist may do a better job in the classroom than I do, a Mormon may be more sacrificial toward his wife than I am. I’m not better than they are. Christianity makes us see our shortcomings as we depend on God’s grace.

One final thought – we Christians were not the ones who came up with the claim of exclusivity. It was Jesus himself who said this, so those who are offended by this belief need to argue with Jesus, who is generally seen as an admirable person. It makes it tougher to argue with him than to argue with individual Christians.

I am continuing my blog on the negative reaction by some to Christianity as an exclusive faith. People today bristle at the idea that Christians claim Jesus is the only way to God. In the past two blogs I mentioned every faith is exclusive, not just Christianity. In fact, it is disrespectful to all religions to say they teach the same thing as all the others do. The story of the blind men and the elephant does not prove pluralism when it comes to religions (that all religions are ways to God) because it assumes the narrator has special insight not granted to all the people of the world. In addition, we discussed the fact that there are only three families of religion (Eastern, secularist, and Jewish/Christian/Islam), so it’s not an impossible task to try to distinguish between the major religious beliefs. In this blog I want to focus on some of the reasons people raise an objection to the exclusive claims of Christianity. I don’t think it’s because of the claims by Christians. There are, instead, psychological factors at work in their lives.

For example, many people simply prefer there not to be a God. Consider the famous author Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World, who said the following:

“I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.”

An interesting, honest comment here – Huxley started first with his desire that there be no God and then worked out reasons to support his desire. For him and his friends, it came down to sexual freedom and the pursuit of political power. So much for the idea that people rationally complain about the exclusivity of Christianity and the existence of God.

Then there’s Thomas Nagel, Professor of Philosophy and Law at New York University. He echoes Huxley’s sentiments:

“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”

Again, think about what he’s saying. He admits having a prejudice that colors his rational thoughts. Notice that it’s Christians who are charged with wishful thinking when it comes to the existence of God. But the atheist is the one who wants there to be a universe with no God for them to be accountable to.

So, those who comment about our exclusive faith as if that turns them off may have key motives for dismissing all religions. If there is no special way to God, maybe there’s no God at all. Then they can live however they like–no humbling of themselves, no surrender to a higher power, no submission to a superior being.

In the previous blog  I started talking about something that really disturbs people today–the exclusive claims of Christianity. Let’s continue discussing this today.

Of course, any time people discuss exclusive claims of religions, the famous parable of the blind men and the elephant comes up. The story involves several blind men who feel different parts of an elephant, trying to decide what sort of beast it is. One describes the trunk as a snake, another feels the tail and says the animal is a rope, while another grabs the leg and says the animal is a pillar. An observer who is sighted says they are all describing the same beast, just focusing on different parts of it. The point, of course, is that all religions are actually describing the same God  even though they only have a portion of the truth.

But there’s something wrong with this analogy. If religious humans are the blind men, who is the sighted observer? How did this person get to this position of authority and insight? How is it that he or she can see, but the rest of us cannot? For someone to claim that all religions are the same, her or she is actually being arrogant: “You may not be able to see it, but I have a privileged position that allows me to understand the big picture here.” How did this person get to play God here??

We may feel overwhelmed in trying to look at all the different religions that exist, but it’s not as difficult as it appears on the surface. There are, in fact, only three great families of religion. First, there is the Eastern view, in which God is seen as an impersonal being. Secondly, there is the secularist religion, which sees chance as ruler over all. Finally, there is the Jewish/Christian/Islam religions, which tell of a God who is both personal and infinite. So, these three represent the most important worldviews that religions hold. It’s less overwhelming to consider these three families than to think of tackling what appears to be a dizzying array of religions.

It strikes me that lazy people come up with stories like the blind men and the elephant to relieve themselves of investigating the conflicting claims of religions.  I have a talk that tells of ways we can distinguish between religions and judge which is worthy of our devotion. Take a look at my audio resources and listen to “Can We Test Religions?” OK, let’s continue this issue in a future blog.

Some time ago I took a DVD called Towards Belief to our apologetics class and went through various topics it covered. For the next few blogs I’d like to cover a key question it tried to answer–are Christians arrogant for claiming Jesus as the only way of salvation? This idea that Christianity has an exclusive element to it is wildly unpopular among those who have bought into the idea that relativism rules–all truth claims are equally valid and there are many roads to God. But this relativistic view has some holes in it.

First, the claim of truth by Christians is not unique to one faith. All believers in every faith believe they have the truth. So do atheists. That’s why people believe what they believe – because they think it’s correct. I’m not sure why it’s only Christians who are ridiculed for this point.

Secondly, the DVD looked at the differences between religions. People who have not thought very carefully about this assume that most religions agree on major things and just have minor differences. However, that’s not true. Religions disagree about who or what God is, where people came from, why we are here, what happens to us when we die, what’s important in life. These are not minor issues at all. In fact, it is disrespectful to religions to say they all teach the same doctrines. It shows the person who makes this claim has not really looked at the individual beliefs of any religion.

In addition, the DVD pointed out the amount of laziness when it comes to discussions of religion. People who wave their hands and claim that “all religions are the same, so why bother to distinguish between them” are mentally lazy. The truth is out there, the differences are real, and we can all explore those differences if we take the time to do so. For example, we can look at the founders of each faith to see what their lifestyle was really like – Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Buddha. Yes, this will entail some work, but if our souls are on the line, it should be worth it.

We are facing a scourge in our society today–moral relativism. First, a definition. Relativists see no objective morality. Instead, moral opinions are like our tastes in ice cream–a personal preference. You like vanilla, I like chocolate. There are  no “oughts” out there.

This belief has had a huge negative impact on society today.  There is less emphasis on Western values (multiculturalism reigns–all cultures are equally valid and correct in their beliefs). It also suppresses free speech (don’t suggest one idea is better than another), creates mental laziness (no need to compare ideas), and leads to political correctness (don’t offend).

One type is cultural relativism, which says it’s society that determines moral beliefs, but there are  problems with it. Contrary to what it believes (that societies can’t agree on moral standards), there are shared beliefs among societies– rape is bad, it is noble to die for others, unjust killing is bad, it’s wrong to punish innocents. If  society determines morality, nothing is immoral. Think of slavery in 19th century. Also, if society determines morality, moral reformers are not heroes. That makes people like Corrie ten Boom, M. L. King, Gandhi, and Wilberforce immoral–seems crazy to believe that.

A second type, individual relativism, also has problems with it. For example, relativists can’t accuse others of wrongdoing (take child abuse–all they can say, “I don’t like it”). In addition, they can’t complain about the problem of evil. Here’s the problem C. S. Lewis encountered in his atheist days:

“My argument against God was that the universe  seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying that the world really was unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fantasies.”

One more problem for relativists–they can’t place blame or accept praise–why punish anyone? An additional problem has to do with using words like “unfair” or “unjust.” Those words have no meaning. Finally, they can’t promote an obligation of tolerance, since the term means to allow people to disagree. But disagreement indicates a difference of opinion in which someone may be right or wrong. These two terms don’t mean anything to a relativist.

This obviously only scratches the surface of moral relativism as a topic to be explored. I will touch on it again and again, I’m sure. People might want to read Greg Koukl’s excellent book on it–Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air.

I have been working on a new type of apologetics class for our church. We usually tackle specific topics during the spring and fall while taking the summer off. But I’d like to present a class I’m calling Apologetics 101 during the summer. This class, only four weeks long, would cover just the basics of apologetics for those who want the big picture–why we believe truth exists, what evidence there is for God, why we can trust the New Testament documents, who Jesus was and reasons to accept the fact that He really rose from the dead. I’ll be posting more info about the class soon.

I’m on a kick of finding interesting quotations. Here goes another batch on the resurrection of Jesus. Some good things . . .

Easter says you can put truth in a grave, but it won’t stay there.  – Clarence W. Hall

In truth, faith needs apologetics. It needs it to answer both the negative arguments of the resurrection and to construct positive arguments in favor of it. Apologetics will not create faith, but perhaps, for some, it will pave the way for it or make it possible. What is destructive of genuine Christian faith, in my opinion, is not apologetics, but unfounded beliefs, unjustified commitments. Unsound arguments are irrational leaps of faith. It is the aim of apologetics to prevent Christian faith from amounting to anything like that. – Stephen T. Davis

I know the resurrection is a fact, and Watergate proved it to me. How? Because 12 men testified they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, then they proclaimed that truth for 40 years, never once denying it. Every one was beaten, tortured, stoned and put in prison. They would not have endured that if it weren’t true. Watergate embroiled 12 of the most powerful men in the world-and they couldn’t keep a lie for three weeks. You’re telling me 12 apostles could keep a lie for 40 years? Absolutely impossible. – Charles Colson

The Gospels were written in such temporal and geographical proximity to the events they record that it would have been almost impossible to fabricate events. Anyone who cared to could have checked out the accuracy of what they reported. The fact that the disciples were able to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem in the face of their enemies a few weeks after the crucifixion shows that what they proclaimed was true, for they could never have proclaimed the resurrection under such circumstances had it not occurred. – William Lane Craig

The truth of the resurrection gives life to every other area of gospel truth. The resurrection is the pivot on which all of Christianity turns and without which none of the other truths would much matter. Without the resurrection, Christianity would be so much wishful thinking, taking its place alongside all other human philosophy and religious speculation. – John MacArthur

It will not do … to say that Jesus’ disciples were so stunned and shocked by his death, so unable to come to terms with it, that they projected their shattered hopes onto the screen of fantasy and invented the idea of Jesus’ ‘resurrection’ as a way of coping with a cruelly broken dream. That has an initial apparent psychological plausibility, but it won’t work as serious first-century history.

We know of lots of other messianic and similar movements in the Jewish world roughly contemporary with Jesus. In many cases the leader died a violent death at the hands of the authorities. In not one single case do we hear the slightest mention of the disappointed followers claiming that their hero had been raised from the dead. They knew better. ‘Resurrection’ was not a private event. It involved human bodies. There would have to be an empty tomb somewhere.

A Jewish revolutionary whose leader had been executed by the authorities, and who managed to escape arrest himself, had two options: give up the revolution, or find another leader. We have evidence of people doing both.

Claiming that the original leader was alive again was simply not an option. Unless, of course, he was. —N.T. Wright (from Who Was Jesus?)

Any position in which claims about Jesus or the resurrection are removed from the realm of historical reality and placed in a subjective realm of personal belief or some realm that is immune to human scrutiny does Jesus and the resurrection no service and no justice. It is a ploy of desperation to suggest that the Christian faith would be little affected if Jesus was not actually raised from the dead in space and time. – Ben Witherington III

Let us ban together to invent all the miracles and resurrection appearances which we never saw and le us carry the sham even to death! Why not die for nothing? Why dislike torture and whipping inflicted for no good reason? Let us go out to all nations and overthrow their institutions and denounce their gods! And even if we don’t convince anybody, at least we’ll have the satisfaction of drawing down on ourselves the punishment for out own deceit. – Eusebius

Either the men of Galilee were men of superlative wisdom, and extensive knowledge and experience, and of deeper skill in the arts of deception than any and all others, before them or after them, or they have truly stated astonishing things which they saw and heard. – Simon Greenleaf

It is of the very essence of Christianity to face suffering and death not because they are good, not because they have meaning, but because the resurrection of Jesus has robbed them of their meaning. ― Thomas Merton

The evidence for our Lord’s life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece as carefully as every judge summing upon a most important case. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead. – Thomas Arnold

I went to a psychologist friend and said if 500 people claimed to see Jesus after he died, it was just a hallucination. He said hallucinations are an individual event. If 500 people have the same hallucination, that’s a bigger miracle than the resurrection. – Lee Strobel