[AUTHOR'S NOTE: Another in the series of articles explaining how evolution theory requires luck or intent in order to be reconciled with existential science knowledge and current understanding. The original content has been reformatted and lightly edited to make it easier to read.] DNA: the ultimate source code In my writings as Atlanta Creationism Examiner, I have never pretended to be a scientist. On the other hand, for two decades I wrote computer software for a living, so I am considered an expert by many in the field of software development and application programming. In college I was taught “Computer Science”, called Management Information Systems in Business school, but I never really considered programming software a “science.” Science seems to take place most often in an ivory tower paid for by government grant. By the same token, I saw very little management of information systems in the real world. Our code more behaved like electronic assistants to help do a job as opposed to decision makers who told you how. If there's any one thing that I know about computer software that will always be true, it's that you cannot guess what will happen inside the machine simply be reading its source code. If something is in code, it is a form of software. That means it has been designed. Look, I know how software works; I have created applications that remains in use today, years after leaving the business. I know the computer is no smarter than its programmer. I wrote banking software, translation tools, financial applications, email service providers … [Read more...]
The conjecture of evolution theory
[AUTHOR'S NOTE: This is the second installment of the series of articles originally published at Examiner.com while I was writing as the Atlanta Creationism Examiner. Lightly edited and re-formatted from the original version.] The conjecture of evolution theory Change occurs constantly. It’s impossible to deny. However, the word “evolution” is often used analogous with virtually all “change”. That definition is much too ambiguous. The philosophical theory called evolution describes an ambiguous process by which new life forms allegedly are created if given enough time. I will repeat the question I have invited my biologist friends to answer: Assuming “evolution” is true, how does sexual reproduction create a new genome that alters a creature’s morphology to be different enough from its parents to be called a new animal (or plant)? What magic elixir or ingredient besides time causes or allows for this sort of change (I have somewhat mockingly referred to as shape shifting) to occur? Surely we can all agree that for Archaeopteryx to evolve into another creature or vice versa, there has to be some point in time where the “base” parent animal (stealing terminology from my objected-oriented past) can be differentiated from the “derived” child animal as a fundamentally different organism, correct? Surely some explanation other than sexual reproduction can account for different morphologies in variant organisms derived from DNA? In layman’s terms -- at some point in time, my zoologist friends have got to be able to say the offspring of an Archaeopteryx is … [Read more...]
The “facts” of evolution theory
[AUTHOR'S NOTE: This was another article originally published as the Atlanta Creationism Examiner, the first in a short series written shortly before the publication of my book Counterargument for God. The purpose of the series was to explain my alternative to Darwin's theory of natural selection as the best potential explanation for the origin of new species, based on the existing evidence. Although my alternate hypothesis involves a supernatural intelligence capable of designing the universe and life within, it is called iterative creation. Other articles in this series include The conjecture of evolution, Compounded improbabilities, and Iterative creation. This morning an atheist acquaintance on the internet inspired publication of this piece (originally written in 2012) by accusing me of advocating intelligent design as a scientific theory. The reality is that my argument is almost the polar opposite extreme -- iterative creation is a philosophical hypothesis that competes with the philosophy known as "macro" evolution to explain the existing scientific evidence, which consists of DNA analysis, the known fossil record, and comparative anatomy.] The "facts" of evolution This might take a while. The argument from authority, which could also be called the argument of superior intellect, gets old after a while. You don’t have to convince me that you’re smart. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You only need to convince me that you’re right. Then I'll actually believe what you tell me. A new Facebook friend tried to help me, sending a link to … [Read more...]
The philosophical argument for God
This post represents the other bookend to the effort I made to illustrate why waxing philosophical on the question as to whether or not God exists is an extraordinarily tricky problem to tackle, no matter what your personal opinions (atheist, theist, agnostic) on the subject might be. Especially simplistic arguments fail to reveal the true complexity of the argument as a whole. To illustrate the gravity and true scope of the problem, I recruited the smartest person I know, an honest-to-God scientist recognized worldwide in his specific field of expertise, for an unbiased and unvarnished evaluation of the science and logic used in my article, focused on my own argument for God in particular to expose any and every perceived weakness in my reasoning. What follows next is primarily my friend's analytical feedback and constructive criticisms of my argument through our subsequent correspondence, which I've converted into an article to further elaborate on what we started... No matter what you actually believe, your worldview will be at least partially based on faith, whether you are a scientist, an atheist, or someone like me. Even if that faith is limited to yourself -- you've put faith in something, but not in nothing. The scientist places his or her faith in the scientific method and personal skill set to discern between illusion and reality. The atheist trusts intellect and reason will ultimately lead to evidence that validates their lack of belief in a supernatural God, while the theist has faith that his or her intellect is surpassed by something far … [Read more...]
Waxing philosophical
[To shorten this to a somewhat more palatable length, the original post was split in half. Because my intention was to present a solid philosophical argument to a philosopher, I decided to recruit an honest-to-God scientist to "moderate" the discussion and keep all of us honest. It turns out that my scientist friend didn't really like anybody's effort to make a coherent argument for God. Our correspondence will be included in the followup post, to be titled "The Philosophical Argument for God."] Some questions have easy, straightforward answers: What is the sum of three plus four? How old are you? What did you have for dinner? Do you like chocolate? How many roads must a man walk down, before you can call him a man? Okay, so maybe that last question wasn't that easy or straightforward, but it turns out the answer is 42.* Other questions, for example such as our existential questions, may not have one clear and correct answer to existential questions such as: Does God exist? What happens when we die? How did this universe originate from nothing? What existed prior to the Big Bang? How was life created from inanimate matter? However, just because these other questions are extraordinarily more difficult to answer doesn't mean we shouldn't even bother to put out any effort looking for the answers. These are some of the most consequential questions we could ever seek to answer, because the truth could change the way we live our lives from day to day. Philosophy professor Dr. Alex Malpass recently caused a minor sensation on the internet when he tackled the … [Read more...]
