Why Does the Information in DNA Point to God?

...The chance arrangement of information in DNA is prohibitively improbable, and there are no chemical or physical laws at work to dictate its existence. We are left, then, with a paradox: the laws and forces of nature cannot produce information, but information is required for life to begin. As Paul Davies laments, “we are still left with the mystery of where biological information comes from . . . If the normal laws of physics can’t inject information, and if we are ruling out miracles, then how can life be predetermined and inevitable rather than a freak accident? How is it possible to generate random complexity and specificity together in a lawlike manner? We always come back to that basic paradox.”

Given the utter inability of chance or natural law, and our observations related to the origin of information, intelligence is the best explanation. But this requires us to look for an intelligent source transcending the limits of the physical universe. Scientists trying to account for information by staying “inside the room” seem to be rejecting the obvious. In order to create information, the author of this information must have the ability to select between possible alternatives. This ability to choose selectively requires intelligence, will, and purpose. Unguided physical processes simply cannot accomplish the task. German engineer and IT specialist, Werner Gitt summarizes it this way: “A necessary requirement for generating meaningful information is the ability to select from alternatives and this requires an intelligent, volitional entity . . . Unguided, random processes cannot do this—not in any amount of time—because this selection process demands continuous guidance by intelligent beings that have a purpose.”

The selection process required in the creation of information requires an intelligent, volitional free agent. That’s why the information in DNA most reasonably points to the existence of God. For a much more thorough description of this evidence, please refer to God’s Crime Scene, Chapter Three – The Origin of Life: Does the Text Require an Author?

For the whole article, click the following link:

 Why the Information in Our DNA Points to the Existence of God

Evolution Made Everything?

 

Dear friends:

Here is a short short skit to illustrate a dialogue between an atheist, a theist 
( thiests are those who believe that God exists) and an enquirer. Interesting to read?

[On stage, three people: ‘theist’, ‘first atheist’ and ‘second atheist’ engaged in an argument. Enter left ‘enquirer’ wearing a duffle coat and a puzzled expression].

Enquirer:

Excuse me interrupting, but can you tell me who made everything?

Theist:

Yes; God made everything.

First atheist:

Oh? So who made God?

Second atheist:

We made God.

Theist:

Then who made us?

First atheist:

Evolution made us.

Theist:

Who made evolution?

Second atheist:

It’s part of everything; ‘everything’ made evolution.

Enquirer:

Excuse me interrupting … but who made everything? Oh, never mind.

[Enquirer exits the way he came in, wearing an even more puzzled expression].

For more, click the following link.

http://whomadegod.org/book/sooty-and-the-universe/

Can a multiverse disprove God ?

1. A multiverse would not disprove God

Before we start exploring what’s wrong with a multiverse, we notice that if scientists could confirm that there were multiple universes, this would not disprove the existence of a creator God. What it would do (or might do) is to take away one argument for God’s reality – the argument from fine-tuning. It would still leave open the question of whether there is a God.

This is why a scientist and theologian like David Wilkinson can be relaxed about the possibility of a multiverse:

‘I don’t worry about a God who creates many universes. The God who creates this universe with a hundred billion stars in each of a hundred billion galaxies is big enough for me to try to struggle with as a concept.  A few more billion galaxies wouldn’t be too worrying to me. It’s just a few noughts at the end of what is already a very long number.’

2. There is no evidence for a multiverse

The biggest single objection to the idea of multiple universes is that there is (at least, so far) no evidence for it. Richard Dawkins says that

‘Scientific belief is based on publicly checkable evidence.’[1]

But he also advances multiple universes as an explanation for cosmic fine tuning, without any supporting evidence.  This is self-contradictory.

As Rodney Holder says:

‘Curiously enough someone like Richard Dawkins says ‘no, I believe in a multiverse. That will explain [the fine tuning].’ On the other hand, Richard Dawkins tells you that you should only believe things on the basis of evidence. Well, there’s a massive contradiction there within the thought of Richard Dawkins.’...

3. A multiverse undermines scientific inquiry

The idea of a multiverse undermines all scientific inquiry: for example, imagine you see some highly improbable event (all the molecules of air in the room suddenly arrange themselves in one corner, leaving a vacuum everywhere else). Well, so what? We live in a multiverse. Even the most unlikely of events are bound to happen somewhere. The problem is that you can use a multiverse to explain away absolutely anything. This has the potential to put a stop to scientific inquiry.

4. Even a multiverse may not be able to account for fine tuning

We instinctively feel that if there are enough universes, anything is possible. This is a good example of our instincts letting us down:

Even if scientists did discover conclusive evidence for a multiverse, this would not necessarily be enough to account for the fine-tuning. As John Polkinghorne says:

Simply by having a large or indeed an infinite array of universes you couldn’t be sure that you’d get one that was right for life.  I mean, for example, there are an infinite number of even numbers, but never in that collection will you find a number with the property of oddness.  So it’s not clear that having an infinite collection means you’ve got everything you might want.

So an infinite number of universes may not be enough to solve the fine-tuning problem.

5. A multiverse may just push the problem up a level

If the existence of a multiverse could somehow be proved, this may just push the problem of fine-tuning up a level: we would still need to ask why the laws that govern the multiverse produce such a massive range of diversity as to guarantee that complicated life like ours is possible in at least one universe?

6. The Multiverse is a very extravagant idea...

         ( To finish reading this article and for further discussions please click the following links.)

Is a multiverse a better explanation than God for cosmic fine tuning?

   bethinking.org - Science + Christianity - Fine Tuning the Multiverse Theory