Information and Intelligent Design

In August 2006, college math professor John Mark Henry gave an intriguing talk at Oak Hill Chapel in French Village, MO. Professor Henry’s talk was an extension of the talk he gave about a year ago at the memorial service for Dr. Carl Painter. He focused on Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism, while looking at the extraordinary claims of evolutionists.

John pointed out that natural selection and mutation cannot generate new information. Natural selection isn’t really survival of the fittest, but rather “death to the unfit.” So those life forms that don’t “make it” represent a loss of information. Inherently, natural selection is a sorting process that eliminates the unfit and thereby loses information.

The proposed mechanism of mutation, which is championed by neo-Darwinists, is also a loss function. Cosmic-radiation-induced mutations, chemical mutation, or any other form of DNA/RNA code changes with this mechanism can be thought of as a random chance change similar to one driving a screw-driver through a computer motherboard, or firing a bullet into an internal combustion engine and expecting good things to happen. Mutations destroy information; they introduce  random breakages.

So, coupling natural selection and mutation together yields the same result: loss of information. Darwinists and neo-Darwinists have not proposed a working theory that is capable of generating information. The proposed processes cannot produce complexity. The burden of proof is on the person making the outlandish statement.

If a person states that their mother can bench-press 2000 pounds, he should not expect the audience to prove that his mother can’t. The burden of proof is on the person that proposes the outlandish statement. As it should be when someone suggests that natural selection and mutations can account for the information required to generate new life forms. The evolutionist only has a groundless statement.

Two old stories are still being put forth in biology text books as evidence of natural selection: the white/black moths, and Darwin’s finches. In both cases there is no permanent change; there is a slight shift in population densities due to some environmental factor. At the beginning of the observation there were black and white moths; at the end of the experiment there are black and white moths. In fact, Kettlewell used stick pins to place dead moths on the tree trunks to see whether or not birds would be able to pick off the easier to find moths. They did. Those that study moths say moths do not land or live on trunks. They tend to live in the leaves in the upper branches of the trees they inhabit.

During the wet summers on the Galapagos Islands there are more short-beaked finches than during the dry, but as the cycles change the population simply fluctuates. It might be interesting to know that the finch beak length variation is 1/60th of an inch, maximum. I would guess this measurement is not above the noise-floor of measuring the beak of a living bird. A husband and wife team spent 20 years measuring a variety of structures of the finches: their height, eye size, etc. To what benefit ?

But there is a trump card that the evolutionist loves to play. He says that given enough time anything can happen. He might not understand it, it might be mysterious, it isn’t explainable, but millions if not billions of years allows anything to happen.

John Henry gave this quote:
“Given enough time:
the impossible becomes possible,
the possible becomes probable,
and the probable becomes inevitable.”

So once again the “adult-size fairy tales of Mother Earth and Father Time” blind the minds of the simple.

Share your thoughts