“Perry, what did you say to the customer yesterday?”

Oh-oh. Must’ve done something wrong.

“Um, I offered to help. Their indicator lamp assembly has a light bulb and two identical resistors. I sent the engineer a message:

‘Two resistors in a row is a bad idea. If it’s OK with you, we’ll swap your two resistors for one resistor of double the value. That will save you money and space.’

“But he never replied back.”

The guy had called Fred instead, and chewed him out. Now it was MY turn to get chewed out. Fred glared at me:

“Perry, did anybody ASK you your opinion?”

“Uh, no.”

“He called me yesterday. He was furious. In fact we almost lost his business.”

“What???”

“He uses those two resistors because 600 volts would arc across one, but not two. The second, “redundant” resistor, the one you think is dumb, is an elegant way to solve the problem. And it only costs 2 cents.”

Fred continued: “Perry, do NOT offer our customers opinions ever again, unless they specifically ASK YOU what you think.”

Lucky I didn’t get fired.

I never imagined my mistake that day would grant me a key insight on “Junk DNA.”

But in fact a small group of very vocal scientists made the same mistake… for 40 years. It wasn’t indicator lights, it was DNA. They proclaimed: “Your genome is full of useless repeated segments and leftover evolutionary garbage. 97% of your genes are Junk DNA.”

That run-in with Fred made me wary of that. Unless and until researchers can build a entire cell or an eye from scratch, they’re in no position to be certain that any of our DNA is “junk.”

Systems have delicate tradeoffs. Some have amazing performance but are extremely difficult to manufacture. Sometimes a minor change in materials would make a huge boost, but it’s made out of ‘unobtanium.’ Sometimes you have to make a compromise between 15 competing priorities.

In just the last six months, a new group of scientists have published an overwhelming amount of new evidence. The ENCODE project (“Encyclopedia of DNA Elements”) was launched in 2003 to find all the functional elements of the Human Genome.

The New York Times announced: “Bits of Mystery DNA, Far From ‘Junk,’ Play Crucial Role” and went on to say:

“The human genome is packed with at least four million gene switches that reside in bits of DNA that once were dismissed as “junk” but that turn out to play critical roles in controlling how cells, organs and other tissues behave. The discovery, considered a major medical and scientific breakthrough, has enormous implications for human health because many complex diseases appear to be caused by tiny changes in hundreds of gene switches.”

Science magazine’s report was entitled, “ENCODE Project Writes Eulogy for Junk DNA.” There is no such thing as junk when it comes to DNA.

But do you know what the biggest, most practical problem is with a “Junk DNA” theory?

How are you going to get anyone to study something that everyone thinks is junk, even though it’s not?

How are we ever going to get important funding for studying the genetics of birth defects, cancer, aging and disease when the secret is hidden in “junk” ?

We can only guess how much great research was halted in its tracks during the 40-year reign of Junk DNA. A two-generation shadow in the history of science.

It’s time to stop shooting ourselves in the foot. We’ve made the mistake long enough. Spread the word and let’s study ALL the genome in earnest – not just the parts we already understand.

Perry Marshall

For decades, up to 98% of our DNA was said to be useless leftovers from eons of random mutations. But now the New York Times reports quite the opposite:

“The human genome is packed with at least four million gene switches that reside in bits of DNA that once were dismissed as “junk” but that turn out to play critical roles in controlling how cells, organs and other tissues behave.”

The article describes brand new implications for fighting diseases like cancer and multiple sclerosis. Because of this, a more fitting term for the mysterious regions of DNA that don’t code for proteins is “dark matter,” a term borrowed from astronomy. In astronomy, dark matter is the target of intense investigation.

Extreme Darwinists have taken extreme offense at this. Larry Moran, a biologist at the University of Toronto, complains: “I’m up to my ears trying to convince sane people that the ENCODE papers are wrong….junk DNA is alive and well. In fact almost 90% of our genome is junk.”

Now… in my humble opinion, every scientist’s job is to find out why living things have certain features. And determine what they do. I don’t see how Larry or anyone else can do their jobs properly when they start out by assuming that 90% of anything in our bodies is “junk.”

But let’s set that aside for a minute. Let’s give Larry Moran the benefit of the doubt. Let’s say 90% of our DNA really is junk.

Since human DNA contains 750 megabytes of data (same as a CD), and if 90% is junk, then the remaining 10%, the only part that actually does anything, is 75 megabytes.

Did you catch the olympics and the incredible athletes? DNA contains most (though not all) of the instructions for building those amazing bodies. Gymnasts, dancers, sprinters, weightlifters, human machines in top condition, living works of art.

This means all of the plans for building their eyes, ears, legs, brains, hearts, muscles, circulatory and nervous systems – all the instructions for 200 different kinds of tissue, fit in a 75 megabyte file.

WOW. A Youtube video of the British women cyclists breaking a world speed record takes more hard drive space than that.

Windows 8 occupies 16,000 megabytes – 20X more than the human genome. Mac OS needs 5,000 megabytes, that’s 7X more space than the human genome. I don’t know anybody thinks Windows 8 is more impressive than an Olympic athlete. Macs are great, but they’re not as durable or versatile as the guys who built them.

Holy mackerel Batman, those scant 75 megabytes that actually do something must employ the World’s. Most. Amazing. Data Compression Scheme. Ever.

When I foolishly assumed the Human Genome was 1/20th the size of Windows 8, I was impressed. But now that I’ve learned from Larry Moran that it’s actually 1/200th the size of Windows 8, I’m friggin’ astonished.

Thank you Mr. Moran. Your faith in miracles has certainly strengthened mine.

Perry Marshall

When we stop believing in God we don’t stop believing. We can’t. We are actually incurable. Something takes God’s place, but is not better than God! We “stand for God or fall for anything”. False prophets and way-out teachers thrive when Christianity becomes unfashionable.

Despite the usual suggestion of godless television the Christian faith does not breed fanatics or fools. It is stabilizing, civilizing, and progressive, a bulwark against mind-twisting obsessions which undermine the character of a nation. Faith in God can be destroyed, but not faith. It is always there. Scripture says it is the gift of God. It is our other faculty.

We can see, hear, feel, taste, smell – and believe. Believing is our spiritual sight, of hand, or hearing. It is under our own control. Jesus always talked about faith as our responsibility. He praised those who believed and warned those who did not. This touches us all. He said “Anyone who believes in me may come and drink! For the Scriptures declare, ‘Rivers of living water will flow from his heart.” (John 7:38).

God bless you.”

-Reinhard Bonnke

Em 1931, Kurt Gödel desferiu um golpe devastador nos matemáticos de sua época

Em 1931, o jovem matemático Kurt Gödel fez uma descoberta-marco, tão poderosa quanto qualquer coisa que Albert Einstein desenvolveu.

A descoberta de Gödel não se aplica somente à matemática, mas literalmente a todos os ramos da ciência, lógica e conhecimento humano. Ela tem verdadeiramente implicações que abalam a Terra.

Estranhamente, poucas pessoas sabem qualquer coisa sobre ela.

Permita-me contar-lhe a história.

Os matemáticos adoram provas. Eles estavam furiosos e chateados por séculos, porque eles eram incapazes de PROVAR algumas das coisas que eles sabiam que era verdade.

Por exemplo: se você estudou geometria no colégio, você fez os exercícios onde você prova todos os tipos de coisas sobre os triângulos, baseado em uma lista de teoremas.

Aquele livro de geometria do colégio é feito sobre os cinco postulados de Euclides. Todos sabem que os postulados são verdadeiros, mas em 2500 anos ninguém imaginou um meio de prová-los.

Sim, parece sim perfeitamente razoável que uma linha possa ser estendida infinitamente em ambas as direções, mas ninguém tem sido capaz de PROVAR isso. Nós só podemos demonstrar que eles são um conjunto de 5 suposições razoáveis e de fato necessárias.

Grandes gênios matemáticos estavam frustrados por mais de 2000 anos porque eles não podiam provar todos os seus teoremas. Havia muitas coisas que eram “obviamente” verdade, mas ninguém conseguia imaginar um meio de prová-los.

No início dos anos 1900, entretanto, um tremendo senso de otimismo começou a crescer nos círculos matemáticos. Os matemáticos mais brilhantes do mundo (como Bertrand Russell, David Hilbert e Ludwig Wittgenstein) estavam convencidos que estavam rapidamente se aproximando de uma síntese final.

Uma “Teoria de Tudo” unificada, que finalmente amarraria todos os pontos soltos. A matemática seria completa, à prova de balas, hermética, triunfante.

Em 1931, este jovem matemático austríaco, Kurt Gödel, publicou um artigo que de uma vez por todas PROVOU que uma única Teoria de Tudo é realmente impossível.

A descoberta de Gödel foi chamada de “O Teorema da Incompletude”.

Se você me der alguns minutos, eu lhe explicarei o que ele diz, como Gödel o descobriu e o que ele significa – em português simples e direto que qualquer um pode entender.

O Teorema da Incompletude de Gödel diz:

“Qualquer coisa em que você pode desenhar um círculo ao redor não pode ser explicada por si mesma sem se referir a algo fora do círculo – algo que você tem que assumir mas não pode provar.”

Você pode desenhar um círculo ao redor de todos os conceitos no seu livro de geometria do colégio. Mas eles são todos feitos sobre os 5 postulados de Euclides que claramente são verdade mas que não podem ser provados. Esses 5 postulados estão fora do livro, fora do círculo.

Você pode desenhar um círculo ao redor de uma bicicleta, mas a existência dessa bicicleta depende de uma fábrica que está fora do círculo. A bicicleta não pode explicar a si mesma.

Gödel provou que há SEMPRE mais coisas que são verdadeiras do que você pode provar. Qualquer sistema de lógica ou números que os matemáticos possam trazer sempre se baseará em pelo menos umas poucas suposições que não podem ser provadas.

O Teorema da Incompletude de Gödel não se aplica somente à matemática, mas a tudo que está sujeito às leis da lógica. A incompletude é verdade na matemática, e é igualmente verdade na ciência, na linguagem ou na filosofia.

E, se o Universo é matemático e lógico, a Incompletude também se aplica ao Universo.

Gödel criou sua prova começando com o “Paradoxo do Mentiroso” — que é a afirmação:

“Eu estou mentindo.”

“Eu estou mentindo” é autocontraditória, já que, se é verdade, eu não sou um mentiroso, e, se é falsa, eu sou um mentiroso, então é verdade.

Então Gödel, em um dos movimentos mais engenhosos da história da matemática, converteu o Paradoxo do Mentiroso em uma fórmula matemática. Ele provou que qualquer afirmação requer um observador externo.

Nenhuma afirmação sozinha pode completamente provar a si mesma como verdadeira.

O seu Teorema da Incompletude foi um golpe devastador no “positivismo” da época. Gödel provou o seu teorema preto no branco, e ninguém podia discutir com a sua lógica.

Ainda assim, alguns de seus amigos matemáticos foram para o túmulo negando, acreditando que de alguma forma ou outra Gödel deveria certamente estar errado.

Ele não estava errado. Era mesmo verdade. Existem mais coisas que são verdade do que você pode provar.

Uma “teoria de tudo” – seja na matemática, na física ou na filosofia – nunca será encontrada. Porque é impossível.

OK, o que isso então realmente significa? Por que isso é superimportante, e não apenas um factoide geek?

Isso é o que significa:

• Fé e Razão não são inimigas. Na verdade, o exato oposto é verdade! Uma é absolutamente necessária para que a outra exista. Todo o raciocínio ao final leva de volta à fé em algo que você não pode provar.
• Todos os sistemas fechados dependem de algo fora do sistema.
• Você pode sempre desenhar um círculo maior, mas existirá sempre algo fora do círculo.
• O raciocínio de um círculo maior para um menor é “raciocínio dedutivo.”

Exemplo de um raciocínio dedutivo:
1. Todos os homens são mortais
2. Sócrates é um homem
3. Portanto, Sócrates é mortal

• O raciocínio de um círculo menor para um maior é “raciocínio indutivo.”

Exemplos de raciocínio indutivo:

1. Todos os homens que conheço são mortais
2. Portanto, todos os homens são mortais

1. Quando eu largo objetos, eles caem
2. Portanto, há uma lei da gravidade que governa objetos de caem

Note que quando você se move do círculo menor para o maior, você tem que fazer suposições que não pode provar 100%.

Por exemplo: você não pode PROVAR que a gravidade sempre será consistente todas as vezes. Você só pode observar que ela é consistentemente verdadeira toda vez. Você não pode provar que o Universo é racional. Você só pode observar que fórmulas matemáticas como E = mc² parecem sim descrever perfeitamente o que o Universo faz.

Praticamente todas as leis científicas estão baseadas no raciocínio indutivo. Estas leis apoiam-se em uma afirmação de que o Universo é lógico e baseado em leis fixas que podem ser descobertas.

Você não pode PROVAR isto. (Você não pode provar que o sol virá amanhã de manhã também.) Você literalmente tem que usar a fé. Na verdade, a maioria das pessoas não sabem que além do círculo da ciência existe um círculo da filosofia. A ciência está baseada em suposições filosóficas que você não pode provar cientificamente. Realmente, o método científico não pode provar, só pode inferir.

(A ciência originalmente surgiu da ideia de que Deus fez um Universo ordenado que observa leis fixas e que podem ser descobertas.)

Agora por favor considere o que acontece quando desenhamos o maior círculo possível – ao redor de todo o Universo. (Se existem múltiplos universos, nós estamos desenhando um círculo ao redor deles todos também.):

• Tem que existir algo fora desse círculo. Algo que nós temos que assumir mas não podemos provar.
• O Universo como nós conhecemos é finito – matéria finita, energia finita, espaço finito e 13,7 bilhões de anos de idade.
• O Universo é matemático. Qualquer sistema físico sujeito a medição executa a aritmética. (Você não precisa conhecer matemática para fazer uma adição – você pode usar um ábaco em vez disso e ele lhe dará a resposta certa todas as vezes.)
• O Universo (toda a matéria, energia, espaço e tempo) não pode explicar a si mesmo.
• O que quer que esteja fora do maior círculo não tem limites. Por definição, não é possível desenhar um círculo ao redor dele.
• Se desenharmos um círculo ao redor de toda a matéria, energia, espaço e tempo e aplicar o teorema de Gödel, então saberemos que o que está fora desse círculo não é matéria, não é energia, não é espaço e não é tempo. É imaterial.
• O que quer que esteja fora do maior círculo não é um sistema – i.e. não é um conjunto de partes. De outra forma poderíamos desenhar um círculo ao redor delas. A coisa fora do maior círculo é indivisível.
• O que quer que esteja fora do maior círculo é uma causa não-causada, porque você sempre pode desenhar um círculo ao redor de um efeito.

Nós podemos aplicar o mesmo raciocínio indutivo à origem da informação:

• Na história do Universo, nós também podemos ver a introdução da informação, cerca de 3,5 bilhões de anos atrás. Ela veio na forma do código genético, que é simbólico e imaterial.
• A informação teve que vir de fora, já que a informação não é conhecida por ser uma propriedade inerente da matéria, energia, espaço ou tempo.
• Todos os códigos cuja origem conhecemos são projetados por seres conscientes.
• Portanto, o que quer que esteja fora do círculo maior é um ser consciente.

Em outras palavras, quando adicionamos a informação à equação, concluímos que a coisa fora do maior círculo não só é infinita e imaterial, como também é consciente.

Não é interessante como todas estas coisas soam suspeitamente similar a como os teólogos têm descrito Deus por milhares de anos?

Então é dificilmente surpreendente que entre 80 e 90% das pessoas do mundo acreditam em algum conceito de Deus. Sim, é intuitivo para a maioria do pessoal. Mas o teorema de Gödel indica que é também supremamente lógico. De fato, é a única posição que alguém pode tomar e ficar nos domínios da razão e da lógica.

A pessoa que orgulhosamente proclama: “Você é um homem da fé, mas eu sou um homem da ciência” não entende as raízes da ciência e a natureza do conhecimento!

Interessantemente à parte…

Se você visitar o maior website ateu do mundo, Infidels, na página inicial você encontrará a seguinte declaração:

“O Naturalismo é a hipótese que o mundo natural é um sistema fechado, o que significa que nada que não seja parte do mundo natural o afeta.”

Se você conhece o teorema de Gödel, você sabe que todos os sistemas lógicos devem contar com algo fora do sistema. Então, de acordo com o Teorema da Incompletude de Gödel, o Infidels não pode estar correto. Se o Universo é lógico, ele tem uma causa externa.

Assim, o ateísmo viola as leis a razão e da lógica.

O Teorema da Incompletude de Gödel prova definitivamente que a ciência não pode jamais preencher suas próprias lacunas. Nós não temos escolha a não ser procurar fora da ciência por respostas.

A Incompletude do Universo não é a prova que Deus existe. Mas… É a prova de, para se construir um modelo racional e científico do Universo, a crença em Deus não é somente 100% lógica… ela é necessária.

Os 5 postulados de Euclides não podem ser formalmente provados e Deus também não pode ser formalmente provado. Mas… assim como você não pode construir um sistema coerente de geometria sem os 5 postulados de Euclides, você também não pode construir uma descrição coerente do Universo sem uma Primeira Causa e uma Fonte de ordem.

Assim, fé e ciência não são inimigas, mas aliadas. Tem sido verdade por centenas de anos, mas em 1931 este jovem magricelo matemático austríaco chamado Kurt Gödel provou.

Em nenhuma época na história da humanidade a fé em Deus tem sido mais razoável, mais lógica ou mais amplamente apoiada pela ciência e pela matemática.

Perry Marshall (traduzido para o português por Mateus Scherer Cardoso)

“Sem matemática nós não podemos penetrar profundamente na filosofia.
Sem filosofia nós não podemos penetrar profundamente na matemática.
Sem ambas nós não podemos penetrar profundamente em nada.”

Leibniz

“A matemática é a linguagem pela qual Deus escreveu o Universo”

Galileu

Leitura adicional:

“Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel” (em inglês) por Rebecca Goldstein – biografia fantástica e uma grande leitura

Uma coleção de citações e notas sobre a prova de Gödel’s da Miskatonic University Press (em inglês)

A descrição formal do Teorema da Incompletude de Gödel’s na Wikipédia (em inglês)

Ciência vs. Fé na CoffeehouseTheology.com (em inglês)

Teoria da Informação: “If you can read this, I can prove God exists” (em inglês)

Invariably you hear this retort:

“Aw, that’s just a god-of-the-gaps argument.”

For many, that’s the end of the discussion.

The retort usually comes with a sneer: “Don’t be stupid. People used to think that weather came from God. Now we know it comes from heat, cold, moisture and chaos. People used to think God hung the stars on a sphere in the sky. Now we know about gravity and orbits. People used to think God created man. Now we know man came from primates.”

You know the drill.

It’s not always obvious that this retort is a tacit admission that the person making the god-of-gaps argument did score a point. Some god-of-gaps arguments are quite persuasive.

I’ve been making a god-of-gaps argument right here on this website since 2005, in the form of a syllogism:

1. The pattern in DNA is a code.
2. All codes we know the origin of are designed.
3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.

Regardless of what position you take in the debate, I have some things to say about this which might surprise you. I hope you’ll stick with me for a few minutes because this goes to the very roots of how we practice science, and what science is capable of in the first place.

Let’s start with my syllogism. It doesn’t say “designed by who.” The genetic code could have been designed by aliens. It could have been designed by some entity or process we have no knowledge of. However it doesn’t take a genius to connect the metaphysical dots.

So far in 8 years nobody’s punched a hole in this argument. As god-of-gaps arguments go, it’s pretty sturdy. It’s rooted in the fact that codes require specific choices to be made which you cannot derive from the laws of physics. It is different than most god-of-gaps arguments because it’s an ontological argument: Coded information is not even known to exist without an act of intelligence.

When I presented this to my skeptical brother Bryan, he immediately disliked it. He said to me, What do you expect scientists to do, Perry… throw up their hands and say ‘Gee, I guess God did do that. Time to go home, there’s nothing else for us to investigate!’?

If you don’t have a strong scientific orientation, if you’re a fairly religious person, you might say “Yes, I think scientists should rein in their bloated egos and give God some credit for the amazing world He made.”

But if you do have a strong scientific orientation, you know the scientist would be abdicating his responsibility. “God did it” takes a scientist’s job away. If there’s any possibility that a naturalistic explanation might be found, the scientist’s job is to find it.

I shouldn’t have to explain the benefits of sticking to these rules. Almost all scientific discoveries have practical applications. Sooner or later we get better medicine, smarter doctors, better computers, better cars, and a better life, because we understand the laws of nature better with each passing year.

Modern science has no earthly idea where life came from and anyone who suggests otherwise is either deluded or picking your pocket. But these rules still apply even with utterly daunting questions like the Origin of Life.

Personally I think the evidence we have points to the Origin of Life being a “second singularity,” an event as unique and miraculous as the Big Bang itself. In fact I’ve never seen any evidence to the contrary.

Nevertheless I must respect any scientist who endeavors to bridge the gap between life and non-life. That gap, after all, may someday get filled. If and when it is, countless valuable insights and new technologies will ride along as a bonus.

Someone may overturn my syllogism. In the spirit of science I will celebrate when they do. Why? Because the universe once again turns out to be even more impressive than we’d previously thought.

OK, then what about God?

To answer this question we have to go back to the roots of “methodological naturalism” itself. Methodological naturalism is the scientific practice of always assuming the laws of nature are consistent. It assumes they’re sufficient to explain the normal and customary operation of the world.

To my knowledge, the earliest statement of naturalistic thought in ancient times comes from Wisdom of Solomon 11:21, which was written 2,500+ years ago, says, “Thou hast ordered all things in weight and number and measure.” This is found in the apocrypha, i.e. the books of the Catholic Bible.

This came from Jewish theologians who believed that God made a world that was self-sufficient. It didn’t require His constant tinkering in order to operate.

This was not seen to conflict with the assertion that God is also present in the world and does miracles. On the contrary, naturalism itself is defined in terms of miracles. Naturalism is the regular and customary order of things. Miracles are when God shows up and does something that is not the regular and customary order of things.

I’ve witnessed many miracles up-close and in-person. I document a half dozen here, with links to peer reviewed papers that report healing of blind and deaf people in controlled studies. I see no conflict between the job of a scientist and the active exercise of the supernatural by real human beings in past and the present.

What if a scientist does witness a miracle? If he’s working in his professional capacity, he’ll start by searching for a naturalistic explanation. On the other hand as a whole human being he is also free to say, “I conclude that it was a miracle.” If he believes a miracle has happened, then by definition he can’t reduce what happened to scientific process.

Prehistoric vs. Modern Miracles

If every species of plant and animal was the result of a miraculous act of God thousands or millions of years ago, then we cannot investigate how antelopes evolved into giraffes.

However, if life evolved from a single cell, and if the process of evolution was not guided by God, then there is an evolutionary algorithm at the heart of living things that is truly astounding. However antelopes evolve into giraffes, we ought to get busy and find out how it works.

I’ve shown in other parts of this blog that evolution cannot possibly be the result of random accidents. Evolution is engineered. Therefore I cannot think of any field of study ripe with more promising discoveries than evolution itself.

I believe God wants to use science to teach us as much about Himself as possible. Most theologians would agree. And I believe the way we make those discoveries is through naturalistic investigation via the scientific method.

It’s deeply ironic that many modern evangelical Christians believe that plenty o’ miracles happened 2000+ years ago and 6000+ years ago, but they don’t believe miracles happen today. (They sure didn’t get that from the Bible.)

What if you flip that around? The way you prove miracles exist is by doing what Jesus said: Laying hands on people and healing them. (Most American evangelical churches do not do this.) I think miracles began in earnest with the ancient prophets, and in the meanwhile, God had granted life its own amazing natural engineering capabilities long before.

After all, which is harder?

1) Building a zebra and beaming it onto the savannah, Star-Trek style,

or

2) Designing a cell that builds an ecosystem for a zebra to live in – then builds the zebra too?

or even

3) Designing a universe that gives birth to a cell that builds an ecosystem for a zebra to live in – then builds the zebra too?

An accurate understanding of evolution – one that acknowledges the engineering capabilities of cells, the ability for organisms to adapt to their environment – offers a far more impressive view of God than anything the Young Earth Creationists ever envisioned.

Many religious people have taken the bait from the atheists who claim evolution got rid of God. Now they’re forever selling from their heels.

What a con. Every organism that has the ability to self-replicate and evolve exceeds anything humans know how to engineer. The real question is: Why is it even possible for a universe to even give rise to such things? Why is the universe so incredibly orderly? Why does it obey mathematical laws? Why is it logical?

There’s a huge difference between proximal explanations and ultimate explanations. Science is incapable of disproving or eliminating God, because science cannot even explain itself. In science we have to take on faith the assumption that the universe is logical and consistent. Surely it must be that way for a reason.

So I’ve come to these conclusions:

1. Any theory that takes a job away from a scientist is probably wrong.
2. Any theory that attempts to eliminate God as an ultimate explanation is probably wrong.

These two statements stand forever in tension with each other. The solution to the God of the Gaps problem is for us to always assume ultimate intentionality and order. Yet at the same time we can never announce we’ve reached the end of the scientific rabbit hole. There’s always another layer of order to discover.

Robert Boyle, the world’s first modern chemist, said this around 1675: “… the universe being once framed by God, and the laws of motion settled, and all upheld by his perpetual concourse, and general providence; the same philosophy teaches, that the phenomena of the world, are physically produced by the mechanical properties of the parts of matter; and, that they operate upon one another according to mechanical laws.”

In closing, I want to point out that there is one time-honored assumption in science that is currently failing:

Materialism.

Materialism insists that the fixed laws of physics explain everything. In Darwinism, it is assumed that blind physical processes combined with natural selection explain the diversity of life.

What we know from bioinformatics and the last 50 years of genetics is, every cell in the world is purposeful, teleological, and has built-in DNA self-programming and adaptive features. Non-living things are not teleological; living things are. Evolutionary processes are. We see purposeful direction and natural engineering in living things.

The prevailing scientific paradigm has no room for this. The old guard resists new research because materialists had been assured for 150 years that Darwin got rid of God. Darwin accomplished no such thing. Darwin uncovered an even bigger mystery that is only beginning to come to light now. Darwin thought cells were blobs of goo; he had no idea they’re tiny supercomputers armed with sensors and equipped with digital signal processing.

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” -Hamlet

I vehemently disagree with Neo-Darwinists who insist evolution is a simple process of random mutation + natural selection + time. Their theory of randomness is anti-scientific.

As an electrical engineer, I sympathize with the Intelligent Design movement in its insistence that design is detectable and that design is a proper scientific discipline. Every university in the world has multiple departments that teach design, after all.

But I disagree with the ID movement’s tendency to ascribe everything we don’t understand to direct divine agency. Like many other areas of theology, we have no choice but to live in the tension between the natural and the divine.

Einstein said, “There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.” I submit to you, dear reader, that even the regularities and natural systems of science are, themselves, enduring miracles.

Perry Marshall

P.S.: The worst way to counter a god-of-gaps argument is with dodges and shell games. Example: Richard Dawkins, on radio station WBUR in Boston, glibly proclaimed that life was a “happy chemical accident.” This statement, and many theories that are much more substantive than that, still engage in wholesale avoidance of the question. When there’s a gap, the honest thing to do is admit it.

“Where I’m not buying evolution in large scale, again goes back to the collection (or lack) of “transitionals” to prove this happened on a grander scale. All need to be in place for the large scale to have existed.

It’s one thing to make claims on microorganisms (and I can see it justified). It’s a far greater stretch to make the other areas fit.

This is not to say they can’t (God has that intellect), but proof that they did is very sparse at best call.”

My reply:

There are few transitional forms because they don’t exist. That’s because evolution is not usually gradual. Just like in human technologies, it’s almost instantaneous.

The proof of evolution is not the fossil record, it’s in the lab.

We can and do observe new species in real time – in the lab and in the field, in micro organisms and plants and animals. This happens through large leaps where you get a new species in 1-2 generations (through Horizontal Gene Transfer, Whole Genome Duplication and Inter-Species Hybridization). These mechanisms are well understood today, and they are very much purposefully adaptive and quite non-Darwinian.

Darwinists are in no hurry to tell you about any of this stuff, because once you take this into account they’re no closer to getting rid of God than they were 200 years ago. (These things don’t prove God, but what they do prove is that evolution is teleological. None of these things occur through random copying errors of DNA – far from it!)

And sadly, ID people aren’t in a hurry to tell you about these mechanisms either, because many of them deny common descent. The truth is in the middle, and the truth is 100% compatible with a theistic view. I submit to you that a God who creates an entire evolutionary process is far more impressive and inspiring than a God who merely creates a plant or an animal.

PDF Handout

HUNTSVILLE ALABAMA - NASA has announced their choice of evolutionary biologist, Dr Richard Dawkins to head the team that will be studying and analysing the UFO that landed intact in the Arizona desert six months ago.

Why Professor Dawkins? His research program came cheaper than all the other candidates for the post. The aerospace experts, quantum physicists and cosmologists were rejected because high on their research agenda was the costly question, “Where did it come from?”

Professor Dawkins will be saving the American tax payers millions of dollars in wasteful research by bringing his scientifically verified answer to this question from the outset, “It’s origins were just a Happy Chemical Accident.”

An un-named though reliable source at the CIA told our reporter, “We already know where the alien space craft came from, but that must remain classified information. National security could be endangered. With Dr Dawkins, we can be sure that he won’t go prying in forbidden areas. He has a world class reputation as the man who has a peer-reviewed aversion to origins. That’s why our official line is, and will remain, “Source – a Happy Chemical Accident.”

Dr Dawkins has made it work for evolution. He’ll make it work here. In the good old Cold War days we could have said it was a Soviet hoax, but times have changed, alas. Conspiracies are out, accidents are in. They are more scientific.”

PHOENIX ARIZONA - Starbucks Corporation will be presenting their new coffee in Arizona next week. It will be served free throughout the state between 6 and 8pm in what they are calling their new “Happy Chemical Accident Hour.”

Samir Rahis, head of Starbucks secretive R & D section revealed that the coffee’s ingredients are selected on a random basis from a massive selection of coffees from all over the world. He explained, “Thanks to our ground-breaking Random Coffee Percolator, nobody will know the origins of their coffee. Each cup will be a unique Happy Chemical Accident and the FDA can go jump in a lake.”

WASHINGTON DC - A new defense is being tried before the Supreme Court next month. Hundreds of prisoners on Death Rows throughout the country have been grouped in a unique class action by the New York lawyer, Ricardo D’Occins. His defense argument will be unique in judicial history, “Not guilty by reason of a Happy Chemical Accident”.

Speaking on the Daily News he explained, “Everybody accepts that Life came about by a Happy Chemical Accident. Our Supreme Court judges need to recognise that what’s good for the Origins of Life is good for the Cause of Death. My clients are all on Death Row on account of a Happy Chemical Accident. I believe they will all be free men by next week.”