The scientific method is used every day in forensic science to determine whether an event in a crime scene was an accident or by design and intention. Mathematical probability is a scientific argument and is frequently used in determining many issues of scientific inquiry.

The scientific method cannot be used to prove events which occurred outside of human observation. No one observed the origin of the universe by either chance or design, but scientific evidence via mathematical probability can be used to support either a chance or design origins for the universe.

If you went to an uninhabited planet and discovered only one thing, a cliff carved with images of persons similar to what we find on Mt. Rushmore, you cannot use the scientific method to prove that these images came about by design or by chance processes of erosion.

Mathematicians have said that any event with odds of 10 to the 50th power or over is impossible even within the entire time frame of the supposed billions of years popularly assigned for the age of the universe.

The odds of an average protein molecule coming into existence by chance is 10 to the 65th power. That’s just one protein molecule! Even the simplest cell is composed of millions of them.

Protein molecules are made of smaller molecules known as amino acids. In order for a protein molecule to work the amino acids have to be together in a precise sequence, just like the letters in a sentence. If they are not in the right sequence then the protein molecule won’t work.

It has been shown that the basic building blocks of life, such as amino acid molecules, can come into existence by chance, but it has never been shown that these basic building blocks can come together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules.

Once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic code (or program) and biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells with their own DNA and protein molecules. The problem is how did DNA, proteins, and life come about when there was no already existing directing code and mechanisms in nature.

It seems that the cell is irreducibly complex. For example, without DNA there can be no RNA, and without RNA there can be no DNA. And without either DNA or RNA there can be no proteins, and without proteins there can be no DNA or RNA. They’re all mutually dependent upon each other for existence! It could not have gradually evolved! Evolutionists generally believe that it took one billion years for the first life form or cell to have evolved. That belief, although still taught as gospel in many elementary and secondary schools, cannot be sustained by modern science.

An amazing fact is that there are left-handed and right-handed amino acids. In life all the protein molecules have to be made up of left-handed amino acids as well as be in the right sequence. If a right-handed amino acid gets into the mix the protein won’t work.

DNA, the genetic code, also is made up of various smaller molecules (nucleic acids) that have to be together in a precise sequence in order for the DNA to work. There are left-handed and right-handed sugar molecules making-up nucleic acids. In order to get a working DNA molecule the various nucleic acids have to be not only in a precise sequence but they also have to contain only right-handed sugar molecules. If a nucleic acid with a left-handed sugar molecule gets into the mix then the DNA won’t work.

The great and well-known British scientist Frederick Hoyle showed that the probability of the simplest form of life coming into being by chance is 10 to the 40,000th power. You don’t have to be a theologian to respect such numbers!

In the midst of arguments over evolution and intelligent design, it is amazing how many in society, including the very educated, believe that scientists had already created life in the laboratory. No such thing has ever happened.

All that scientists have done is genetically engineer already existing forms of life in the laboratory, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it will only be through intelligent design or planning so it still wouldn’t help support any theory of life originating by chance or evolution.

If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane.

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot fully explain the origin of such order.

What about natural selection? Natural selection cannot produce anything. It can only “select” from what is produced. Furthermore, natural selection can only operate once there is life and not before. Natural selection is a passive process in nature.

Even the recent news of artificial life is not creation of any life. In artificial life, scientists, through intelligent design, build a DNA molecule from “scratch” and then implant that DNA into an already living cell. Genetic engineering and artificial life projects all happen by intelligent design – not by chance. Just ask the scientists behind the projects!

Science cannot prove that we are here by either chance or design, but the scientific evidence can be used to support one or the other.

It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory. No one is being forced to believe in God so there’s no real violation of separation of church and state.

But, when all the evidence is presented it should show beyond all reasonable doubt that life didn’t originate by chance but by design.

The Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) offers excellent articles, books, and resources from Master’s or Ph.D degreed scientists showing how true science supports creation.

HT: Pravda

Chuck Colson

Christian Post | by Chuck Colson | 4/22/2010

… Christians are rightly concerned that extremists have turned Earth Day into “Worship-Earth Day.”

Just listen to a few of these suggestions for Earth Day 2010 that some of the more radical groups are proposing: taking down “global eco-criminals” like Exxon-Mobil; having school kids meditate about the Spirit of Life (that’s “Spirit of Life” with capital letters); seeking international cooperation on reducing the human population; or working for, and I quote, the “ultimate, inevitable, and necessary dismantling of industrial civilization.”

We Christians certainly do not want to be yoked with new agers, neo-pagans, or folks who just downright hate humanity. But there’s no reason for us to surrender creation care to them, either.

Our faith, our Christians worldview, tells us that the earth is good precisely because God created it and declared it good. It is worthy of our care, and indeed, we were commanded to tend it. Wasteful and immoderate use of natural resources is not a Christian virtue.

We must also realize that creation care begins with the care of the crown of creation: man, alone among living things, created in the image of God. In creating a clean sustainable environment, we do so primarily for humanity’s benefit.

That’s why we reject out of hand environmental proposals that endanger human well-being-proposals that could doom millions, especially in developing countries, to poverty, disease, and hunger.

You see, how you approach environmentalism-or, as I would say, environmental stewardship-all depends on your worldview. If the universe really did come about by chance and purely natural causes, then man is worth no more and no less than any other living thing. In fact, the creation would be man’s creator. So care for creation would be much more important than care for man.

But that is not the Christian worldview.

One of the best books I’ve ever read on the environment and this issue is produced by the Acton Institute and the Cornwall Alliance. It’s called Environmental Stewardship in the Judeo-Christian Tradition. We have a few copies available, and if you would like a free copy, please call us at 1-877-3-CALL-BP.

So again, happy Earth Day. Celebrate that God has created such a beautiful planet, populated by humans created in His own image, and that He has called us to tend His creation as His stewards.

HT: Christian Post

by Bob Lonsberry | 4/22/2010

Earth Day is a crock.

It is the high holy day of the environmentalism cult and I choose not to engage in that particular brand of idol worship.

I choose not to worship the earth as if it were a god and I were a savage. I am its steward, not its slave. I wasn’t created for it, it was created for me.

Man exists not as an accidental product of earth’s evolution, the earth exists as a home for man. It did not produce us, it was produced for us.

God made the heavens and the earth, and he made them for a purpose – and humankind is that purpose.

The problem with Earth Day is that it gets everything bass ackwards. It views the planet as the priority, when in actuality humankind is the priority and purpose. The earth was created by God, but man was created in God’s image.

The environmentalists’ perversion of the relationship between man and nature seeks to turn things completely upside down, fostering confusion and degeneracy. Applied through government mandate, the principles of environmentalism choke off human progress and prosperity.

They also deny the fact that the earth is a gift to man from God.

And it has been stocked with the things that are necessary to support human needs for as long as God intends for humans to populate this planet.

Coal, for example, is not some evil substance interlarding the earth as a temptation to energy excess. It is, rather, a gift from God to give us light and heat, to fuel our industry and better our lives. The oil and gas fields around the world are not environmental cancers, they are miraculous aids to transportation, manufacturing and physical comfort.

They are all blessings.

They are causes for rejoicing.

But those who would leave them in the ground, who would turn their back on their bounty, are showing indifference and ingratitude. They are spitting in the face of the God who provided these resources for us.

Granted, we are not to be despoilers of the earth, we are to be its stewards. It is not moral to waste or to be filthy, to destroy just to destroy, to leave things – large or small – in an ugly and dangerous state. And we should take care of what we are responsible for. Good farming, construction, logging, drilling and mining practices conserve our resources so that they last longer and are used more efficiently.

We should turn off the lights when we leave a room, conserve water, protect our soil and let nothing whatsoever go to waste. We should reuse our trash when possible and produce less trash in the first place.

We should let some trees stand and some vistas go untouched by the hand of man. The beauty of nature is of practical worth, it is in and of itself a resource that – in balance – should be preserved. We should only kill things that we’re going to eat, or which are going to eat us. We can also kill things that are messing with our stuff – like bugs on our crops and mice in our houses.

But it’s got to stay in balance, and the needs of man must always trump. The world doesn’t stop for a snail darter or a spotted owl or some obscure species of desert wildflower.

We are shepherds of the earth. That means we must protect it and watch over it and keep it safe.

But we have to remember the context and purpose of that protection. The shepherd, after all, watches over the sheep so that he can shear their wool and eventually eat them. His stewardship is self-serving and fully directed toward his own self-interest.

And so is ours.

Earth Day is a great day to remind ourselves of the bounty of the earth, especially when managed under the ingenious hand of industry. It is a day to thank God for the richness of this earth, which supports us all so well. It is a day to worship the God who made the earth – but not the earth itself.

And it is a day to redouble our efforts to resist the paganism of our day, the cult of environmentalism. It is scientifically and morally wrong, it is nothing but the worship of a very large idol.

I don’t go along with it. And, I wager, neither do you.

HT: Bob Lonsberry

Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVkdQhNdzHU

We are supposed to believe that chaos and random actions created the most complicated code in nature and produced life out of nothing.