In looking at the creation, and thinking about evolution vs intelligent design (ID)-- since the time of Charles Darwin's Evolution of the Species, many philosophically naturalist scientists assumed that the smallest living things were structurally very simple.

--But they were wrong.

Actually, the total DNA and mechanistic intricacy of a mere E-coli bacterium (and what fundamentally makes it "alive") is even beyond current scientific comprehension. In addition, even today it is often assumed that such "simple" life-forms here on earth originated from non-life (abiogenesis) by natural chemical processes alone, apart from the creative work of any intelligent "chemist," and that evolution --guided by natural selection-- produced all the complexity of life today. Such speculation is even the basis for assuming that there is most probably life on other planets throughout the universe. However, in reality, is such a chemical scheme for the beginning of life even remotely probable? --- To address this issue, we will consider the structure of the DNA in living things, and analyze it using Intelligent Design theory.

The High-Jacking of Intelligent Design (ID)

As we work on this issue, it is unfortunate that news of some educational and litigation argumentations concerning ID has given a false notion of its basic import, implying that is basically "biblical creationism" in disguise --which it is not!

-- Rather, Intelligent Design should be seen as a scientific method of analysis which can be applied to various lines of information --from mathematical concepts, to writing, to DNA-- and any attempts at naming the source(s) of that information, goes beyond and outside the pure science of Intelligent Design theory and into a secondary area of suppositional/philosophical implications or historical information and testimony.

I addition --ID has virtually nothing to say about things such as the age of the earth, or "flood geology," or the biblical "days" of creation.

At any rate, testing for Intelligent Design depends first on the existence of significant "information," which must be strictly defined.

"Information theory" is a special area of mathematics which has developed a way to define and quantify information ---which has certain characteristics. Note, that a significant amount of actual information has all three of these attributes:

1. COMPLEXITY

When information theorists speak about "information", they are not merely referring just to "order" alone. Simple order in nature is seen in the structure of a crystal, such as in a quartz-crystal, because a large number of the same small grouping of atoms or molecules bond together in a repetitively structured way.

But the problem is this : Such mere basic "order" falls short of the degree to which "information" is highly "complex." We see low information content in the structure of a crystal, which involves merely the bonding of the same few element(s) or molecule(s) over and over in a highly repetitious lineup, such as "A - A - A - A - A - A - A - A - ..." or "AB - AB - AB - AB - AB - AB - AB - AB - ..."
or a frost-crystal is a repetition of the water molecule, "H2O - H2O - H2O - H2O - H2O - H2O ..."
or a quartz-crystal is a repetition of the Silicon Dioxide molecule, "SiO2 - SiO2 - SiO2 - SiO2 - SiO2 - SiO2 - SiO2 - SiO2 ..."
These all exhibit high order, but low information content.

However --in stark contrast-- when you look at actual "information" (such as this sentence), the "order" is not repetitious --it is largely aperiodic-- and its conveyance involves much higher level of complexity in its ordered parts (letters, in this case).

The information-level in the repetitious "H2O" series of the frost-crystal is relatively low, requiring only one item (a water molecule) repeated over and over --so that you have the same amount of information in one molecule of water as there is in a whole field of snow. --However, the information-level of the complex, specified "information" in this current sentence is much higher, requiring every word and letter in it.

We must remember that a structure's "information content" is the minimum number of directions necessary to describe or specify it --so that, thus, the minimum number of items required to clearly describe and specify this sentence, is the whole sentence spelled out letter-by-letter, but the information-content of a very large quartz-crystal is adequately represented by a single molecule.

...Another example of "low-complexity" order, is : If we instruct a computer to print out "wrapping paper," we only need to program it with two simple commands: 1) "Print the word 'Joy' " and 2) "Do it again until the paper is filled." With this process, we end up with a high amount of order, but a low amount of information. ---However, in contrast, the letters in a written message (such as in this paragraph) convey information, but they do not repeat in a predictable, periodic pattern ---no one can write a systematized "formula" or algorithm which can prescribe and specify each letter (or element) in such an informational sequence --short of writing each word out. With "informational complexity," basically the entire sequence must be written out word-for-word from beginning to end.

2. SPECIFICITY

Concerning information's second characteristic, specificity : When information theorists speak about information as being "complex," they are not referring to just any complexity, because there are two sorts of complexity : "unspecified" and "specified."

...As an example of "unspecified complexity" : A wildly gnarled and knotted "rat's-nest" of string may be highly complex and very difficult to describe, or to figure out how to reproduce another one just like it, or even to get it unknotted --however, it is very low in information because its structure is random and unspecified, whereby it does not matter where or how one type of jumbled knot or another is formed.

...However, in stark contrast, as an example of "specified" complexity : When someone takes a different string and uses a crochet hook to produce a very fancy doily containing the words of a sentence around its lacey perimeter --and a picture of flowers and leaves in the middle-- the knotted structure of the string is not at all random, but is highly "specified," so that the doily involves a high amount of information, in which there is a necessary and particular sequential order for the proper assembly of parts (knots) to produce the information-rich structure. The more informationally rich and complex a structure is, the more "specified" instructions are required to describe it.

...For another example of "unspecified complexity" : If a large swimming pool full of randomly mixed Scrabble letters (each letter in equal amounts) were spread out on a parking lot, and randomly lined up in rows --the random lines of letters would be very complex, but would probably contain no significant amount of information because they only exhibit unspecified complexity.

Complexity by itself (without specificity) is never sufficient to constitute "information."

---HOWEVER, if a person (an intelligence) comes along and re-arranges the rows of previously random letters into a newly "specified" order to communicate something, they can then spell out a large amount of information, because the re-arranged letters now exhibit "specified complexity," with the purpose and function of communication.

3. FUNCTIONALITY

Not only is information aperiodically complex, and it has non-randomly specified parts, but the third characteristic is, that it also performs a useful "function" as a result of its coordinated arrangement of cooperating parts. --We are looking for "Functional Complex Specified Information" (FCSI).

...For example, the function performed by a written message, is to communicate ...but if the sequence of the letters were in a random (non-specified) order, there would be no function of communication, and no information would exist.
...For another example, the function performed by a picture in a newspaper, is to convey a visual image ...but if the proper positioning of the correct colors of dots were actually in a random (non-specified) order, there would be no portrayal of a picture, and no information would exist.
...To illustrate further, the function performed by an iron padlock depends on the specified complexity of the iron parts, which would be non-functional as a padlock if the iron parts were randomly shaped and improperly arranged and assembled. --With no function, there is no information.

In biology, the function performed by an enzyme (a protein) depends on the non-random specification of the sequence of amino acids which make up the protein, causing it to "fold" properly (into the right shape) so as to perform a function useful to the life-form. --Such a protein constitutes FCSI.

Now, if we are not able to discern any function in something (such as a message written in some unknown foreign language or an encrypted message), then we cannot establish that we are dealing with information ( ---for all we know it might be letters chosen at random--- ), but as soon as we detect and understand a "system" of parts with a complexity which is properly assembled and "specified" to perform a useful function (such as communication, or an image, or performing work, or the work done by a properly-folding protein), then we may be able to establish that we are dealing with some degree of "functional complex specified information" (FCSI).

In Summary: Without a significant amount of functional, complex, specified information (FCSI) --as described above--, there can be no relevant discussion of Intelligent Design.

Note on "FUNCTIONALITY": A challenger has supplied two strings of digital bits (such as 01011010010100101000100001010111... etc.). One string is supposedly random, while the other contains information (supposedly). They might even be encrypted. -- The challenge is for Intelligent Design theory to determine which one has functional information. -- However... ... Intelligent Design theory is an analytical tool to determine if a string already recognized as being functional complex specified information (FCSI) in some amount, could have possibly resulted from a random assembly of the parts, or if it must have originated from an intelligence. That is what ID theory is supposed to do as a tool: Rule out random assembly of parts. ID's purpose as a tool is not to determine if a string functions to effectively do some work (such as communicate a message) in the first place. The ability to perform some level of function must first be recognized by the investigator. --This is a matter of the defintion of true information: It is Functional, Complex, Specified Information (FCSI). --Then, having identified the existence of FCSI, ID theory presented here can mathematically analyze the functional string of information to determine if it could possibly have arrisen by random processes. If someone gives a challenge, and argues that ID theory must do what it is not designed to do, then this merely creates a "straw man" which is easy to knock down --but only because the challenge is irrelevant to what ID is supposed to do. --Such a "straw man" argument is a logical fallacy. This is like arguing that a mathematical calculator must translate English into Spanish --or the calculator is not a valid tool for doing any sort of analysis. Such an argument against the calculator is obviously not valid. --Neither is such a challenge against ID. One of the unknown strings of digits may be recognized (or revealed) as performing some function (eg. communicate), and then ID theory can be used to determine whether the string could reasonably result from a random ordering of parts, or if it most probably comes from an intelligence. --If the informational string is encrypted or unrecognizable, then an outsider might well not be able to determine if it has a function, and it would be beyond the reach of ID analysis. --But this does not invalidate ID as a scientific tool, but merely reveals a limitation of its usefulness.

SETI researchers today are searching the universe for communication signals from Extra-Terrestrial intelligences. --So, if they were to receive a number-series from a space-signal, how would they know beyond a reasonable doubt that it was actual "information," and not just random pulses? How would they have more than just their personal "hunches" to go on, and their emotional desires to receive such a signal? Is there a fairly rigorous way to essentially "prove" that complex, specified information has been received --which would indicate an intelligent source?

Well, if SETI researchers picked up ticks: * ** *** repeating the numbers 1 through 3 in the correct sequential order for an hour or so, this would be modestly interesting evidence that perhaps an informational sequence was being received. Some people would be very excited, but others would not (including me).

--However, the researchers would have evidence to produce a virtually conclusive proof of complex specified information from intelligence if they then also received the following 200 decimals in sequential order:

3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751 058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679 82148086513282306647093844609550582231725359408128 48111745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196

Some might recognize that series as the first 200 decimals of the number "pi," which has "functionality" in geometric calculations, and which is quite complex, and which must occur in a very "specified" order. These 200 decimals would qualify as "functional, complex, specified information" (FCSI). Intelligent Design theory may then be employed to basically "prove" in a rigorous way (putting hunches and emotions aside) that this series was from an intelligence --though we might not know the identity of the sender(s) of the information, which is mostly irrelevant... the science is still sound.

--However, if only the numbers 1 - 2 - and 3 were coming in repeatedly, then Intelligent Design theory could also be employed to indicate that we cannot solidly conclude that this is most probably a string of information (FCSI) from intelligence.

This is an example of Intelligent Design theory in action. --Such a use of ID theory would not at all be a "religious" or "faith" discussion, but would be a purely scientific one, using logical and probability analysis. It is strictly methodical science, because the hypothesis (intelligent design of a functional grouping of specified information) is repeatedly testable, verifiable, and it is also falsifiable, because someone could perhaps produce new empirical experimental evidence demonstrating that there is probably a random or non-intelligently guided natural source for the "informational" series.

This is the scientific method at work. There is not a hint of religion or Biblical creationism in it.

... Any testing of information for Intelligent Design must be basically no different than this case.

Next we will consider:

Analyzing Bio-Information using ID

All biological life is very rich in "functional, complex, specified information" (FCSI), and the basic question is : Could biological information --in the form of DNA-- possibly have initially originated (in any reasonable mathematical probability) by the random processes of nature without any intelligent intervention, ---or (in contradistinction) is intelligent design (ID) the most probable and logical explanation for perhaps some of the biological information in nature?
- - - (Note: If an intelligent designer is detected as the source of some bio-information, it cannot be the function of ID to look for an identity of that designer.)

When information theorists speak about one set of "information", it is described as a systematic ordering and grouping of parts with "specified complexity" which is non-random, "aperiodic" (not repetitious) , and it performs a useful function (FCSI). The elements (such as letters or nucleotides) which convey information must be specifically and correctly ordered in their sequence from beginning to end.

Basically, a structure's "information content" is the minimum number of directions necessary to fully describe or specify it, whether that structure is a crystal or a protein. Crystals have low information content, but examples of things which are information-rich would be: human artifacts, computer programs, written messages, and ---most pertinent to the discussion in this article--- DNA and functional types (classes) of proteins. --The information in DNA and proteins must be laid out "word-for-word" --one nucleotide or amino acid at a time-- in the proper order for the required information to be adequately described, in order to produce the specified function. If pieces are missing, or the order of parts changed much, the information (and its function) is altered or destroyed.

DNA functions as the carrier of the informational instructions (much like letters in writing) for specifying the building of all the structures in living things, as well as the functions they carry out. Although the parts of DNA and proteins bond together using perfectly normal chemical laws and forces, there are no known laws or properties of chemistry or physics which could probably (without intelligent intervention) initially dictate, determine or produce the sequential order of the nucleotides which build functional DNA / RNA, nor produce the sequential order of the amino acids to build a functional class of proteins ---in fact, it is the capacity of the building blocks of DNA and protein to occur in virtually any conceivable order, which makes them useful for building DNA and protein. --In short: There is nothing known in the physics or chemistry of matter which could initially produce the FCS information in DNA, RNA or proteins.

Some biologists have proposed that the informational-sequences found in DNA and protein originated from the differences in chemical bonding-forces in the chemical building blocks, however, the many experiments designed to confirm such an idea have not turned up any significant ordering effects. --As a result, Dean Kenyon (author of "Biochemical Predestination," 1969) --a former proponent of "chemical sequencing"-- has now rejected the theory on experimental grounds. All experiments to date indicate that the sequential order of the parts of DNA and recognized types (classes) of protein could not have even nearly come from just the forces and laws of physics and chemistry and random natural processes, any more than the informational sequence of the letters of this sentence could have been determined by the mechanics and electronics of the computer on which it was typed, ---such as by any random selections of letters. -- (For more on this issue, see my article on Abiogenesis)

NOTE: If anyone can come up with a schema of natural mechanistic properties and laws of chemistry and physics which (with NO intelligent design help ...such as chemists) could possibly account for the chance origination of bio-information which could have lead to the first living thing (not how it did happen), then they can submit their ideas to the "Origin of Life Prize" committee and collect the $1 million for doing so --and they will surely win a Nobel Prize as well.

So, the question here is: Could biological information (specifically in DNA / RNA and proteins) have first originated by random processes of chance in the chemicals in nature? --A good way to answer this is through probability analysis of the complex specified information.

Some explanation of what should be included in a "proof" of intelligently designed information is appropriate here: Technically, a "proof" is absolute (based on deductive reasoning), and with no possible exceptions, ...but when using a large amount of empirical evidence (and probabilities), there could (strictly speaking) be a possible chance, however small, that an event may possibly occur. In what sort of an instance can we use probability calculations to create such a virtual proof that some body of information could not be the result of random chance selections?

• First, FUNCTION: We must establish that the ordered parts in a system (grouping) of things work together in coordination to perform a useful function (for example a group of letters that communicate, or a group of amino acids which comprise a properly-folding protein).
• Second, INFORMATION: We must establish that those ordered parts are complex, specified information (see above).
• Third, NO MECHANISM: We must establish that there is no law of physics, or chemistry in the mechanisms of nature which could explain the ordering of the parts found in the functioning system.
• Fourth, NO RANDOM ORDERING: We must establish that there are no random processes of chance which could explain the ordering of parts in the functioning system.

...The key is that we must eliminate the possibilities of any non-intelligent ordering process, and establish that the probability of something happening by chance is so extremely vanishingly small that the chance of such an occurrence is totally inconceivable, and essentially zero... therefore, it was designed by an intelligence. (It has been said, for instance, that there might "possibly" be a very slim chance that a kettle of water on a hot burner could freeze ...which illustrates the ridiculous nature of some objections to probability analysis).

A Note about "PROOF": Actually, something which has a totally formal "proof" is based on deductive reasoning which is absolute and cannot possibly have any other answer, such as a "proof" in geometry or algebra which is based on definitions, assumptions and theorems as the basis for the inescapable conclusions of logical deduction. But such "proofs" are not technically possible for things in the physical world in which we live, because nature only offers us empirical evidence. Using empirical evidence, we can only use inductive reasoning to reach conclusions, which can never be 100% for sure. For example, we cannot conclude 100% for sure that the sun will rise again tomorrow, even though it has done so for many years previously --and it probably will rise tomorrow. Similarly, we do not know absolutely that the "laws" of chemistry of physics (for example) will hold 100% the same from day-to-day, even though they have done so for millennia. It's only that they have done so thus far for perhaps many years, so we conclude and (based on inductive reasoning) that this situation will most probably continue for many years to come, but this is not an absolute deductive "proof" that such will be the case, because these "laws" might change tomorrow. So, we live by probabilities... and we conclude by inductive reasoning that such "laws" will PROBABLY be the same a day or a year from now. With such reasoning, though, there is at least a small chance of change (or break-down) in the "laws" of all physical things with which we deal... and maybe a larger chance of falsity with many other things. One cannot prove absolutely (by deductive reasoning) that the speed of light or the force of gravity will be the same tomorrow as it is today; one is only going by past evidence, which does not make absolute "proof" possible for future situations. So, again, one is left with probabilities. In the natural world of empirical evidence, even though one cannot produce an absolute deductive "proof" in the technical sense of the word, if one has a large amount of solid empirical evidence, one may use probabilities to produce a "virtual proof" which is very highly probable. - - - Thus, I speak of "virtual" proof in this article, which is not an absolute deductive proof... but the proof here is much more solid than that the sun will rise again tomorrow.

Evidence and "proof" of intelligent design is used daily (though not in a rigorous, mathematical way as here in this present article) to make decisions in human affairs, in instances such as:

• police detectives amassing evidence to implicate a suspect
• forensic scientists placing a suspect at the scene of a crime
• copyright infringement and proof of plagiarism being proven by the matching of words, notes or digits
• NASA and SETI scientists determining if a "signal" is from ET intelligence
• insurance companies proving that some claims are fraudulent
• statisticians determining whether a string of digits is random or not

If proving intelligent design using probability is so ridiculous and impossible as a few scientists say it is, then they should have no objections to the person who publishes something almost exactly like their own research and writings, and then maintains that it was all "randomly" generated by some computer program (which --conveniently-- no longer exists).

If you, reader, saw this present sentence spelled out among the thousands of lines of Scrabble-letters (from the big swimming pool mentioned earlier) spread out on the parking lot, could you prove mathematically beyond any reasonable doubt that the message did not get there by any random process of ordering by chance? This article proposes a clear-cut and conclusive way to do so. ---If you thus rule out a random ordering of the letter-pieces, then you would virtually know that this sentence must have come from an intelligence. --How could you prove it beyond any reasonable doubt? ...Such a proof is accomplished by probability analysis, as will be shown in this article in relation to proving the intelligent design of information. (Read here about how to figure probabilities.)

Now, we must remember that for something to be information, there is a requirement: If the set of parts is quite short, it lacks complexity to be sure that it constitutes information. For example, if we had a two-letter word, then there could easily be a very good chance that the word may have arisen from a random choice of letters. In such an instance, we could not make a good case for proving that the small word is actually information that came from an intelligent source --because there is not enough complexity.

Secondly, the length of the string of letters must be of sufficient length to perform the "function" of communication --something must be communicated. For example, the letters "to" make a word, but without being part of a phrase or sentence, we have no assurance that it actually functions to communicate much of anything.

Here's how we calculate the probability here:
... In the instance of the one-letter word, the chance that someone would come up with that one specific word, "A," by random letter-selection (with each letter equally likely to be chosen), is one chance out of 26, because there are 26 letters in the alphabet.

Going to the next step, if we take one specific two-letter word (such as "by"), the chance someone could randomly choose those two letters together in the correct sequence (with each letter equally likely to be chosen), is the product of the two selections, ...so the chance of getting a specific two-letter word would be one chance out 26x26 ---which equals one chance out of 676.

(Of course, IF we are not targeting one specific word, but are looking for any two-letter English word --there are 96 of them-- we have a 14% chance of getting one of those 96 words with a random draw of two letters... and such facts will be taken into consideration later in the discussion regarding proteins as well.)

In like manner, the chance of randomly drawing one specific three-letter-word (such as "the"), would be one chance out of 26x26x26 ---which equals one chance out of 1756.

It is still very easy to conceive that the three-letter word could be randomly chosen in short order. --But the problem is: A three-letter word does not communicate much at all, and isn't a significant amount of information.

Going quite a bit further, however, if the level of complexity in a string of information is high enough (such as in this present sentence), then we can make a virtually air-tight case that this string of information could not have arisen (in any reasonable probability) by a random selection of letters, spaces and punctuations ---therefore, we would have a virtual "proof" that this information-set could not conceivably have arisen by random chance selections, but must have originated from an intelligence.

But how much information is necessary to solidly conclude that random selection is no longer reasonable, and intelligent selection is necessary? --That issue comes next:

To arrive at a statistical "proof," we need a reasonable criterion to judge it by :

As just a starting point, consider that the French mathematician, Emile Borel, in his book, "Probabilities and Life" ('62; in chapters 2 &3), explains that any occurrence with a chance of happening that is less than one chance out of 10⁵⁰, is an occurrence with such a slim a probability that is statistically considered to be zero. (10⁵⁰ is the number 1 with 50 zeros after it, and it is spoken: "10 to the 50th power"). Borel's appraisal seems fairly reasonable, when you consider that 10⁵⁰ is about the number of atoms which make up the planet earth. --So, overcoming one chance out of 10⁵⁰ is like marking one specific atom out of the earth, and mixing it in completely, and then someone makes one blind, random selection, which turns out to be that specific marked atom. Borel's Law of Chance, states that any chance smaller than that, is statistically considered to be zero. Most mathematicians and scientists have accepted this statistical standard for many purposes.

However, for the purposes of this article, Borel's criterion is merely a starting point, because it is much too small for what we are doing here, considering the size and age of the cosmos. Thus, we will set a much tougher and ultimate standard, which we will call our "Cosmic Limit" Law of Chance. --We'll establish that limit in the following way:

• Since there are 10⁸⁴ sub-atomic particles in the known physical cosmos, and
• Since there are a maximum of 10²⁰ interactions (oscillations/cycles) per second between any two of those sub-atomic particles, and
• Since there are 10¹⁷ seconds in the supposed age of the cosmos (15 bill. yrs),

. . . if we multiply the above three numbers out, we get the number 10¹²¹. ----So, 10¹²¹ equals the total number of sub-atomic interactions possible since the beginning of the universe (at the "Big Bang").

We could very reasonably let 10¹²¹ be our "Cosmic Limit" ---but just to play it safe and conservative, we'll make it 10,000 times bigger, and say that according to our "Cosmic Limit Law of Chance," any chance that is less than one chance out of 10¹²⁵ is considered to be a chance of zero. Therefore, we can reasonably say that any event whose chance of occurrence is less than one chance out of 10¹²⁵ has been virtually "proven" to be statistically impossible in all of the cosmos ( ...actually, in 10,000 such universes as ours).

After such a probabilistic analysis using the "Cosmic Limit" as a deciding point, the conclusion of "intelligent design" of a series of letters, or of a series of amino acids, has nothing to do with religious or sectarian beliefs, nor does it arise from general assumptions, but rather, it is a conclusion drawn from a logical mathematical analysis of probable cause and effect.

This similar sort of analysis can be unemotionally and logically applied to conclude that space signals come from ETs, or that plagiarized text was stolen by intelligent design ...and it can also be used to demonstrate intelligent design in living things.

Some people have said that such probability analysis only disproves random chance selection, but does not prove intentional intelligent selection.
--How so?
If any mechanism or natural law applies along the way in a process, then this analysis agrees that those things must be taken into account, but
--IF we have reasonably and thoroughly ruled out any adequate mechanistic selection process, and there are no natural laws and properties in the matter which can explain the selection of the items in the series (and this analysis must always be open to that possibility), then it would seem that there are only two options:

...CHANCE or NOT CHANCE.

Is there any other option? --No. The objection to this analysis appears to be special pleading on the parts of those who desire to squirm out of the implications and not rationally follow where the evidence may lead. --This is an unscientific and hypocritical view.

Thus, if we have ruled out mechanism and "chance" assembly, the only thing left is NOT chance, which is the same thing as intentional selection ...which takes place by an intentional, thinking agent... an intelligent designer.

So, let's go on.

In living cells, proteins are the "machines of life," which build the structures and facilitate (catalyze) the chemical reactions used by all life. Proteins are called "informational" molecules, because they each perform a "function" in living things (such as oxygen-transport by hemoglobin), and they are non-repetitively complex, and the sequential order of the building blocks (amino acids) of protein are highly specified ---so that if the proper sequence is changed much at all, function is lost.

Going further in our proof: There are no known laws (or properties) of physics or chemistry in nature, which would have been sufficient, by themselves, to originally dictate the sequential order of the amino acids in functional classes of proteins adequate to sustain life (so far as anyone has been able to reasonably conceive life). Similarly, there are no known laws (or properties) of physics of chemistry which could have originally dictated the sequential order of the nucleotides in the DNA required for the first life (and to build those first proteins of life) ---although, again, as scientists we must always remain open to the possibility that it may be demonstrated that there is a series of natural events in nature (unaided by intelligent design) which would accomplish the origination of all 20 required amino acids along with the sequential ordering of them to construct the proteins (&/or the DNA) required for life. Any scientific approach must be able to be negated, and this is the way that this "proof" is able to be negated. (See my article on Abiogenesis)

Thus, in our proof, we move on to the possibility of the random assembly of proteins: To look most simply at the probability of the random assembly of a protein, note that proteins are made of 20 amino acids, which are linked together into strings or "chains" (polymers). Therefore, if we grant that the supposed "primordial soup" on the early earth had plenty of all 20 amino acids (in equal amounts) available for protein-building, then the chance that the first five amino acids required to build a specific functional protein might randomly bond together in the correct order, would be one chance out of 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20, which equals one chance out of 3,200,000.

Now, of course, this chance is still not that hard to overcome when you suppose that there were many trillions of each of the amino acids present in the primordial soup, along with trillions of trials taking place at the same time, as well as billions of years for trial and error to get the correct five together.

---The problem is: proteins (from any known functional class) are made of 50 to 1000 amino acids, with the average protein being about 300 amino acids long, so we need to assemble at least 50 amino acids. ---As we continue adding each new amino acid to the chain by random selection, we must continue to multiply one chance out of 20 for each one. Finally, the chance to have assembled 50 amino acids randomly into the correct sequence to build a specific functional ("folded") protein, would be: one chance out of 10⁶⁵ (which is a 1 with 65 zeros) ...and 10⁶⁵ is about the number of atoms in a galaxy. ---So, mark one of those with an "x" and find it by chance.

(At this point, we should recall the discussion of randomly choosing letters for words ...that there is (for example) a 14% chance of drawing the letters to make any of the 96 two-letter words. --However, in talking about proteins, the analogy is much closer to the following: ...What is the chance of randomly drawing Scrabble letters (from the swimming pool mentioned above) so that they spell the following word: Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis (...This word means: A lung (pneumono) disease (osis) caused by the inhalation of very (ultra) fine (microscopic) volcanic silicon dust.) The chance of randomly drawing out the letters of this 45-letter word in the correct order, is about one chance out of 1065. (This is supposedly the longest word in the English language). As a result, any other string of 45 letters is not a word, and does not function as a word. --It is non-information. It is garbage. This 45-letter word is a good illustration of the protein situation in living things, because the chances of the random assembly of functional (or properly "folding") proteins are far out-numbered by the possible "garbage" sequences of amino acids that could be randomly assembled, as you can read next:

For a more refined discussion on the probabilities involved in randomly assembling any functional (properly "folded") protein, click on the following link for Dr. Michael Behe's article on:

In the above article, Dr. Behe explains how observed experimental results, gotten from the analysis of actual proteins, have confirmed that "the odds of finding a folded protein are about one in 10⁶⁵ . . .all proteins that have been examined to date, either experimentally or by comparison of analogous sequences from different species, have been seen to be surrounded by an almost infinitely wide chasm of unfolded, nonfunctional, useless protein sequences."

---This would mean, for example, that even if an ocean of primordial soup (having the volume of a trillion earths) were densely filled with all 20 of the protein-building amino acids (in equal amounts) ---and in that ocean there randomly assembled one small functional protein at random, then all the rest of that immense ocean of such chemicals would most probably be totally bound up in "junk" sequences of amino acids, which would be useless for building "folded" (functional) proteins.

And Behe goes on to say, "The conclusion that a reasonable person draws from this is that the laws of nature are insufficient to produce functional proteins and, therefore, functional proteins have not been produced through a non-directed search."

This research confirms, then, that the random processes of nature appear inadequate to assemble even one functional protein of life as we know it, without the work of an intelligence to assemble the amino acids into the complex specified informational sequences required by living things.

Some darwinists have put forward a fallacious criticism of arguments similar to the one advanced in this present WorldView Site article, by offering an explanatory illustration much as follows: --- "Suppose we have a deck of cards before us. There are about 1068 (a one with 68 zeroes after it) different orderings of the 52 cards in the deck. Any of the 52 cards might be first, any of the remaining 51 second, any of the remaining 50 third, and so on. This is a tremendous number, but it's not hard to devise even everyday situations that give rise to much larger numbers. "Now if we shuffle this deck of cards quite well, and then examine the resulting order, we would be justified in concluding that the probability of this particular ordering of the cards having occurred is approximately 1 chance in 1068. This is a very small chance. ---But we would not be justified in concluding that the result of this shuffle could not have possibly resulted in this specific ordering, just because its probability is (a priori) so very tiny ---because, obviously, some ordering had to result from the shuffling, and this particular one did! And then --one shuffle after another-- we have new card-orderings which the probability calculations show to have almost "no chance" of occurring, according to the Intelligent Design advocates. But they keep occurring. --So, we see "highly improbable" things happening repeatedly --in fact, all the time. Here is where the above criticism fails: The card-shuffling illustration assumes that basically ANY ordering of the cards is an acceptable outcome --and, comparing it to life-chemistry, this would be the equivalent of saying that almost any ordering of the amino acids would work to build a functional protein. So, whatever one might randomly come up with is basically "easy" to achieve --no matter how "unlikely" the probability calculations might make it seem. However, the critic unwittingly brings out the correct perspective when he says we are basically looking for one "particular ordering of the cards" --because the research just previously cited in this article (esp. from Behe), points out that --in reality-- only about one specific sequence of amino acids out of 1060 possible sequences is adequate to produce a properly folding protein which could be used by actual life. The rest are junk, and useless to life. Therefore --to more accurately represent the life-chemistry situation-- the card-illustration should actually be restricted to say that there are only a few specific orderings of the cards which are the acceptable outcomes of the random shuffles of cards. That is, only about 24 out of the 1068 possible outcomes will do. --For example, the only good outcomes in cards would be: a well-shuffled deck must randomly end up with all four suits in proper numerical order starting with the Ace, then the 2, then the 3, etc., on up through to the King. All four suits must be so ordered. --Specificity is required. It is the same with the "functional complex specified information" (FCSI) of life. Such a critic's smoke-screen may sound good on the surface, but it misses the mark.

Even though the chance of the random assembly of a single type of functional (folding) protein is more remote than the limit set by Borel's Law of Chance (with a threshold set at one chance in 10⁵⁰), still, if we use all the time and matter in the universe, the random assembly of one such protein might possibly be within reach. --However, the problem for neo-darwinian naturalists is: There is much more to the simplest conceivable life-form than just one protein. Even the smallest bacteriophage codes for about nine proteins --but a bacteriophage is not capable of independent life. Evidence indicates there is no independently self-sustaining, metabolizing, reproducing life-form which would require any less than 100 proteins ...to wit:

Biochemist Harold Morowitz estimated that the "minimum" self-replicating cell would include:

• Five proteins required for making of cell-membrane fats and structures;
• Eight proteins for a very simplified and basic form of energy metabolism;
• Ten proteins required for the production of the nucleotides (building-blocks for making DNA) and for the actual production of DNA; and then, finally,
• About eighty proteins as part of an apparatus for the production of all the cell's proteins.

The above situation, is essentially one called "irreducible complexity," which has been described in living biochemical systems, by Siegfried Scherer (1983), and also by Michael Behe ("Darwin's Black Box", 1996). In a nutshell, Behe says, a system is irreducibly complex if it is "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning" (p.39). In Behe's book, he illustrates irreducibly complexity by using a common mouse-trap, which is basically made of a wooden base, a wire hammer, a spring with extended ends that press against the base and hammer, a holding bar to hold the hammer back when the trap is set, and a pressure-sensitive catch which, when slight pressure is applied to it, releases the holding bar to spring the trap. This trap system is irreducibly complex, because if any of the five basic parts is missing, the trap will not function. If this trap were to "evolve" it would all have to evolve all at once in order to function. You could not evolve the spring and trap a few mice; and evolve the catch and trap a few more; etc. By definition, the minimum number of parts must be present all at once, or there is no function for evolution to work with.

In the case of Morowitz's minimal cell (if he is right about what is truly minimal), then even six proteins would not be enough to carry on metabolism to keep the minimal cell alive ---and yet, experimental evidence (from actual proteins analyzed) confirms that the chance of one functional protein assembling by random processes, is one chance out of 10⁶⁵, ...and, thus, the chance of two functional proteins occurring together at the same time and in the same place would be one chance out of 10¹³⁰ (the product of 10⁶⁵ times itself).

If you recall, one chance out of 10¹²⁵ is our "Cosmic Limit of Chance" which we calculated. Therefore, even with all the time and matter in the universe since the Big Bang, there is a zero probability that even two properly functional proteins could assemble beside each other in the same place by random processes of chance in nature ...and this is only two proteins of the minimum 100 proteins required for the most basic life-form conceivable. Not even the smallest bacteriophage codes for only two proteins ...but still, even it could not assemble by random processes.

In addition, Michael Behe describes other information-rich structures in microbiology, which are "irreducibly complex." These could not have (as Darwin said) "been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications", because all of the parts of the system must necessarily be present to have any function for evolutionary selective advantage to take place. Behe cites such microbiological structures as the cilium and the flagellum. With regard to our proof of the high improbability of the random assembly of proteins, consider that a cilium is made of more than 200 different kinds of proteins, and if only 5% of those proteins have evolved, the cilium is non-functional (and, thus, not selected for by evolutionary natural selection). How did the first 5 or 10 of those 200 necessary proteins develop correctly in the direction of cilium construction, if even the first two proteins have a zero chance of random assembly in all the time and matter in the universe?

As another example, a "minimal" flagellum, requiring about 6 different proteins for it's construction, would be (by definition) irreducibly complex ---and if even one of those 6 proteins were missing, there would be no function. How did the complex specified information in the DNA initially arise in order to specify the building of the very first cilium or flagellum?

Therefore, in light of overwhelming evidence, random "trial and error" searching would fail to originate any significant amount of complex specified biological information ...and if random processes did not accomplish it, then the only other logical possibility, is non-random activity. In the same way, if un-guided assembly fails to initially originate information, then the only other logical possibility, is guided assembly. Obviously, if we are looking at "non-random" and "guided" assembly, then this would be the intentional and willfully directed action of an intelligence. Complex specified biological information must be the result of intelligent design. This is a logical scientific conclusion ...even though empirical science does not (so far as we know) help us to determine the identity of the designer(s) in nature.

Michael Denton (an evolutionist at the time) wrote: "If complex computer programs cannot be changed by random mechanisms, then surely the same must apply to the genetic programmes of living organisms. The fact that systems in every way analogous to living organisms cannot undergo evolution by pure trial and error and that their functional distribution invariably conforms to an improbable discontinuum comes, in my opinion, very close to a formal disproof of the whole Darwinian paradigm of nature. By what strange capacity do living organisms defy the laws of chance which are apparently obeyed by all analogous complex systems?" (Denton's, "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis", '85).

...Indeed.

Some neo-darwinian evolutionists have attempted to overcome the astronomical odds resulting from honest and open mathematical analyses of the chances of abiogenesis, and they have done this by proposing that DNA or RNA formed first before the proteins.

But what does this accomplish? --One way or another the specified "information" must originate in order to direct the building of proteins, and if it had to arise by chance processes anywhere along the line, then the calculation of the chances of probability would turn up the same results, because the four nucleotides would have to be properly sequentially ordered in order to direct the building of the first functional proteins.

Nothing is gained by such an alternative.

... We would still be asking basically the same questions: How did the informational sequential order of the nucleotides in DNA / RNA initially arise so that they could code for the building of functional proteins which carry on the minimal processes and build the minimal structures of life? --Chance processes (as part of any undirected natural properties of chemistry and physics) do not appear to be adequate at all to explain the origin of any such information.

(Regarding RNA as being possibly the first step to make life, Philip Johnson writes, "The obstacles to prebiotic RNA synthesis were reviewed in 1989 in a lengthy article by G.F. Joyce in Nature. Joyce concluded that RNA is "not a plausible prebiotic molecule, because it is unlikely to have been produced in significant quantities on the primitive earth" " (Darwin on Trial, '93, p.108).

Still others, most notably A.G. Cairns-Smith, have proposed that templates made of clay may have formed the basis for organic molecules to arrange themselves along the line-up of the crystals in the clay. But what would specify the proper ordering of complex specified bio-information? People speak of little mineral "replicators", but fail to show experimentally how this could possibly develop a mechanism leading to the biological information required for life.

The question still remains: How could functional complex specified biological information (FCSI) first originate? Why and how could the clay crystals be arranged in the correct sequential order to afford a template for the correct sequential order of the biological molecules (whether they be nucleotides or amino acids)? There is no experimental evidence to date that any significant ordering of bio-molecules could overcome the odds of randomness. The biochemist Klaus Dose speaks about this mineral origin of life scenario, and says, "This thesis is beyond the comprehension of all biochemists or molecular biologists who are daily confronted with the experimental facts of life" (Dose, '88).

It is often thought that natural selection would choose in favor of any tiny steps that are successfully taken along the way to the development of life. --However, those who suppose this to be a help for their theory, forget that natural selection only selects on operative functionality (not any future or merely possible function), --and for biological function to exist, there are minimal numbers of parts organized into structures in living things (a la Morowitz & Behe) which are necessarily directed by a minimum of complex specified information. Natural selection cannot work without function --and an irreducibly complex system has no function until all the parts (as a minimum) are there to begin with.

Scientific Conclusions

And so, random operations of chance totally fail in the origination of any significant amount of functional complex specified information (FCSI), and we can mathematically rule random origination out --whether regarding sentences made of Scrabble-letters, or the words in this essay, or the text in a plagiarized work. We do this by a rigorous mathematical analysis of the sequential pieces in a sizeable piece of functional information.

---This is a purely scientific and mathematical analysis and conclusion, and IF we cannot be quite rigorous about arriving at such a conclusion, then we only have hunches and opinions to go by as to whether a string of suspected "information" is a random occurrence or not (unless the writer or originator is discovered or confesses the act).

But we can quite rigorously and scientifically demonstrate (through probability analysis) that the specified complex order in such information is not the result of random ordering or chance occurrence. So, having ruled out random chance, the opposite of "randomness" and "chance" ---is NOT chance ---which is the same as intentionality and willful purposefulness. We can scientifically and mathematically demonstrate that someone has intentionally assembled the functional complex specified information.

NOTE: Regarding Plagiarism, we can rigorously and scientifically do the math and prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a continuous sequence of 100 or more letters and spaces which is identical to a previous work (and not attributed to the original work), was plagiarized. Case closed. No doubt or equivocating.

So, using Intelligent Design theory and probability analysis, we can --for example-- conclude that the sentences on the parking lot made of Scrabble-letters were assembled by purposeful, creative intelligence(s). If we received a sufficient amount of FCSI from outer-space, we could employ ID theory to solidly conclude that it was from intelligence(s). --These would be scientific conclusions, which can be logically and mathematically determined by a cold analysis of the information alone as evidence. It is testable and repeatable. It is falsifiable by new evidence which might demonstrate a non-intelligent source for the information. --ID theory can and should be applied regardless of religious or spiritual views or implications.

Similarly, we can solidly conclude that the words of this present paragraph could not possibly have been the result of a random selection of letters, spaces and punctuation. Intelligent design of its FCSI can be scientifically and mathematically determined by analysis of the information itself, without the testimony (or specific identity) of the author being discovered or revealed. Such analysis would be a scientific and mathematically substantiated conclusion, and is not related to any religious viewpoints.

And --in the same way-- we can analyze and conclude that Intelligent Design has taken place in the origination of the information contained in the DNA of living things. Intelligent design of the FCS-Information in DNA can be scientifically and mathematically determined by analysis of the information itself. This would be a scientific and mathematically substantiated conclusion, and is not related to any religious viewpoints.

Detecting and demonstrating Intelligent Design of FCSI is a purely scientific and mathematical conclusion arising from the cold and logical analysis of the phenomenon of FCSI itself.

Intelligent Design in living things is a scientific and testable determination, because it can be disproved --for example-- by demonstrating that there are some properties or laws of chemicals or physics which can explain the sequential ordering of the information in the DNA.

--It can also be disproved if the random arrangement and ordering of parts in a sequence is reasonably probable.

-- It can also be disproved if the natural selection of random changes and additions to the DNA can explain the accumulation and ordering of the biological information in DNA.

However --after careful consideration of these issues-- if random arrangement and sequencing of parts is mathematically ruled out as described here, then Intelligent design is the remaining option. Thus, it would seem that anyone with an open mind to the facts of the situation would deduct that an intelligent designer is the only logical explanation for the initial origin of at least some of the FCSI in biological systems. This conclusion is not arrived at by irrational faith, but the deduction comes from a calm evaluation of empirical facts rigorously verified in the laboratory and analyzed by accepted logic and mathematical probability procedures.

So, while ID is increasingly being recognized as a fact in nature by growing numbers of scientists, the discussions and debate about ID are following the pattern of past scientific revolutions and paradigm shifts. People are resisting and struggling against it, and trying to banish it out of "scientific" discussion and research ---but the logic of ID theory combined with the evidence in nature is quite solid.

Limits of the Intelligent Design Conclusion

Beyond the basic determination that some FCSI came from an intelligent designer, science alone is then quite limited:

The determination of ID cannot tell us whether the designed item is very well designed. Perhaps there are some qualities about the design which are less than ideal, and might conceivably be better.

The determination of ID very possibly cannot tell us the name(s) of the designer(s).

ID very possibly cannot indicate the motivation of the designer in assembling the information. Maybe there is planned obsolescence in the design.

The determination of ID very possibly cannot tell us much about the personal qualities of the designer(s) --whether the designer(s) are very kind, or good, or infinitely powerful, etc.

-- Because of such limitations with ID, the science classroom cannot rationally go beyond the limitations of the capabilities of ID to simply indicate that some information was produced by an intelligence. -- Such on-going discussions and implications would be better left to philosophers and theologians.

Historical or Religious Conclusions

Although the scientific proof of intelligent design may be demonstrated quite rigorously, the personal identity of the designer(s) is not a scientific issue, and is outside the realm of scientific inquiry. It is a personal and historical issue, such as whether the writer of the Scrabble sentences has revealed or will reveal himself. It may also be a historical issue, such as whether another person witnessed the making of the sentences. Such an issue is not a scientific one, per se.

Though we have come up with very nearly an air-tight scientific proof that intelligent design in nature is a factual reality, the specific identity of the designer does not seem to be apparent from an investigation of only nature and biological things. It does not appear (for example) that we can necessarily conclude that the designer is an omnipotent being, since all of the designed things we might consider are finite things, for which a finite designer could be adequate. There are also many other things that we may not be able to necessarily conclude about the identity of any designer by only looking at the information in natural things. These items are beyond the scope of science.

My Personal Conjecture ...beyond Science

It is my personal philosophical and religious opinion that a large amount of the information in living things involves a complexity of design which is far beyond the capacity of evolution/natural selection to produce it, and also far beyond current designing capabilities of mankind. -- Therefore, the designer of DNA --and life itself-- must be extremely intelligent.

Furthermore, in view of the design which is evident in the Cosmos (and in the fine-tuning of the Big-Bang, for instance), it would be necessary for the designer to be unimaginably powerful!!

---These are just examples, but still, if you will read further in this website, you may agree that there is an excellent body of evidence which indicates that the Bible is a supernaturally produced piece of literature, ...and the Bible claims to identify the living God (and Jesus Christ) who did the intelligent designing of all things. If you want to read about such evidence concerning the Bible, click on this link: "Prophecy Proves the Bible's Authority."

Relevant Further Reading (links):

DNA and Other Designs - by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer
Intelligent Design is not Optimal Design - by William A. Dembski
Why Evolutionary Algorithms Cannot Generate Specified Complexity - by William A. Dembski
DNA, Design, and the Origin of Life - by Charles B. Thaxton, Ph.D.
Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information, by W.A. Dembski, in ARN Web-Site, 1998.
How to Calclate Probability - by Dr. Hale

• Other Old Earth (& Universe) Creationist Sites:
• The Testimony of a Formerly Young Earth Missionary - Dr. Joshua Zorn
  
• Old Earth Evidences - by Hill Roberts
  
• The Creation Date Controversy - by Dr. Hugh Ross - Addressing the "fears" of biblicists.
  
• The Origins Solution - Some sound answers in the creation-evolution debate.
  
• Christianity and Science Resource Center - Christianity is to be based on reality, facts and reason.
  
• The "SCIENCE SPEAKS" newsletter - God speaks through His creation.
  

NOTE: ...You, dear reader, are valuable and loved by God, . . .and that's why Jesus Christ came.