In my earlier blog, I posited a syllogism, or logical formula, that deduces God’s existence from the information found in DNA. It went like this:
1. All living things contain specified complexity (information) within their DNA
2. This type of complexity can only be derived from a source of intelligence
3. Therefore, all living things are derived from a source of intelligence
It’s not hard to see how premise #3 naturally follows from the first two, but some have argued against it’s validity, or whether the premises themselves are in fact true. Some suggested that premise #2 is an appeal to ignorance because, they surmise, we don’t know if information can only be derived from a source of intelligence. How, they ask, do we know that this is our only source? In response I’d like to offer the following points.
First, no human anywhere, has ever observed specified complexity, that is a type of complexity that is specified to convey a function, much like software code, or literature, occurring without having been produced by an intelligent mind. This seems obvious as it’s hard to look at a traffic sign saying “Right Turn Only” or turn the newspaper page to see the words “Boston Wins Again!” and think that these statements were somehow created without a mind behind them. So why is it an appeal to ignorance to deduce the same thing from genetic information? Not only does genetic information carry the same traits as the above mentioned messages, it’s far, far more complex and absolutely beyond anything that human intelligence could ever create. This is why secular scientists like Carl Sagan and Fred Hoyle adopted the idea of “panspermia”, or that life on earth was somehow seeded by advanced extra-terrestrial beings. This science fiction, apart from having no evidence behind it, only pushes the sequence back one step as we would be forced to then ask how their life originated.
Here is what we’re left with. DNA contains information, this information clearly implies a mind, or intelligence behind it. However because this Mind implies a supernatural Creator of life, skeptics are remiss to accept the obvious and so claim that I’m appealing to only one possible cause for the genetic information whereas there could be more. Here’s the thing, we don’t know of any other cause for this kind of information, if there were I’d gladly take down my blog and recant what I’m saying. If the science didn’t destroy the naturalists worldview this wouldn’t be so hard to accept- we observe something in nature, we know of only one kind of cause for this type of observation, therefore we infer that this kind of cause is responsible for what we observe. Granted, other causes could come out of the woodworks (in some alternate dimension) and if they did we would see which cause explains our observation better, but there’s no need to posit other causes if we know of one that already exists. Far from making any appeals to ignorance, this syllogism is appealing to what is already known, which is kind of how science works.
If we’re only aware of one cause of this kind of information, then it seems reasonable enough to say that there is only one cause for this kind of information. This isn’t a situation where multiple variables could be factored in as potential causes, we don’t even have the brain power to imagine or propose any viable theories as to how DNA could have arisen naturally. It’s sad that some of the brightest minds in our world who seem so earnest about science can step over something so beautifully powerful when it doesn’t agree with their preconceived worldview. That we have a Creator is clearly evidenced in our natural world, and the more we follow His footprints the greater the depths of His brilliance will become manifest to our sight.