The DNA of Intelligent Design

By Robert Arvay, AM THINKER

[…]
Much of the public is familiar with the term “DNA” because it is associated with court cases involving paternity lawsuits and criminal investigations. Few people are aware, however, that there is no proof that DNA does what many biologists have long been saying it does. DNA is clearly important to heredity, yes, but it is not the blueprint for your body. The evidence for that is potentially revolutionary in terms of science.

[…]
DNA guides the production of the molecular “bricks,” so to speak, of which our bodies are made, but knowing how bricks are made does not tell one how brick houses are made.  That is a vital point.  We still do not understand how nature produces such vastly complicated organisms as the human body.  We are not even close.  Indeed, even the most basic cell is said to be more complex than a jumbo jet airliner.  The information requirement alone exceeds the capacity of DNA.  The intricacy within simple cells cannot be explained by DNA alone.  Much more is needed — a new paradigm, perhaps.

[…]
The paradigm that has taken hold firmly in physical science is that nothing in the physical world is detectably influenced by anything outside the physical world. This strongly implies that for all practical purposes, only the physical realm exists and nothing else. Those who hold to that philosophy say that denial of the physicalist paradigm is based in superstition and religious myth. They say there is no evidence for anything outside the physical world, and certainly not for an interventionist, divine Creator.

Evidence has finally arrived — a lot of it — and it casts serious doubt on the physicalist paradigm. There is resistance, some of which involves a degree of censorship, but that is breaking down as younger scientists move into the field who are not tied down to the old ways, and some established scientists are running the gauntlet of peer criticism.

February 16, 2023 | 7 Comments »

Leave a Reply

7 Comments / 7 Comments

  2. It may surprise people to learn of the very great degree of ignorance which we have about the granular details of what takes place inside the cells of the human body. Of course, our knowledge is growing and we are much further along in our discoveries than we were 20yrs ago, but we are still guessing about a great deal of what we ‘know’ while we are also quite ignorant about much more than that which we can even offer a guess. To rephrase this, most of our knowledge of physiology is on the level of systems and tissues, and the knowledge of cellular mechanisms, including many details of reproduction, are far more obscured, though we are making subtle discoveries, expanding our knowledge, but at a incremental pace which, if described as being a relative snail’s pace, would be overstating the truth of it. This is even true of many of medications we routinely employ. While we may know what effect they have upon the body, we are often left guessing as to what the specific mechanisms are which bring about their effect.

    So while we should be amazed at what we have thus far been able to discern about the various mechanisms of the body and our ability to manipulate these mechanisms to affect a healthy benefit, we have to stand in awe of the great unknown which still evades our circumspection.

    For myself, my own exposure to the wondrous majesty of the body systems, and our limitation to grasp the finite details describing the ‘how’ of what we know is true, has not dimmed my respect for a divine actor in all of this, but, rather, it has very much confirmed my respect for the obviousness that nothing so complex and well controlled, while capable of compensating for crises and also capable of replication, could be the result of some chance meeting and blending of macromolecules to create the complex balance of systems and processes which allow us to draw breath, run a mile or even simply to think a simple thought. There are, of course, many who believe otherwise, but their rational support for such views as they hold have always failed but to leave me unimpressed.

    In fact, the wonder of the orderliness and detail of balance, which underlies the existence of man, animals and plants, is so very delicate and so wondrous and so intimidating, that I stand amazed that it could ever draw someone to believe less, rather than more, in a divine having played a role in the wonder we call life.

  4. I remember that Commentary held a symposium on evolution and David Berlinski made the case against it. One of his arguments involved the clock. He argued that if you are walking in the desert and you find a clock, you would not believe it evolved. You would believe it was created by some one or G-d.

    1

  5. The paradigm that has taken hold firmly in physical science is that nothing in the physical world is detectably influenced by anything outside the physical world. This strongly implies that for all practical purposes, only the physical realm exists and nothing else.

    I don’t think that, strictly speaking, this is accurate. While “test tube science” hasn’t detected any influence from outside of the physical realme, hasn’t mathematics (the supreme science?) and theoretical physics shown that it is impossible for the physical world, as we know it, to have arisen without intelligent intervention from outside of the physical world? To rely on a branch of science, which is still in the stone age, to provide the definitive verdict on intelligent design is short sighted at best.

    1