Biological Evidence for a Creator

April 30, 2017
biological-evidence-for-a-creator

Truth Revolution on

Topic Notes

Positive Evidences:

The elegant design of biochemical systems
Watchmaker Argument

Attempts to create life in the lab demonstrate the role intelligent agency plays in the origin of life
Prebiotic Chemistry
Synthetic Biology

Designs in biology and biochemistry inspire the development of new technologies
Biomimetics

Biological and biochemical systems appear to be designed for discovery
Eutaxological Argument

Biology’s Big Bangs
Origin of Life
Origin of Eukarya
Cambrian Explosion
Vertebrate Radiation Events

Resources

The Cell’s Design by Fazale Rana
Creating Life in the Lab by Fazale Rana
How to Build a Case for Biochemical Design (DVD) by Fazale Rana

Bible Contradiction

Abortion! A fetus is or is NOT a human being?
Psalms 139:13 and Jeremiah 1:5 vs. Exodus 21:22

Topics

                                


3 Responses to Biological Evidence for a Creator

  1. Jeff says:

    Thanks, Brett!
    I like your point that “I hope he would not argue that the English language is self-created because of how messy it is.” Great!

    2 more reasons why Genetic code may be “sloppy”:

    1) If the designer of code doesn’t code EVERYTHING, but instead designed a system that can perpetuate itself, that system may become messier over time. Likewise, God may have made perfect “genetic code” with Adam and Eve, but he doesn’t alter our DNA every generation. He designed human biological systems that respond to environment and perpetuate themselves.

    2) It might not be sloppy. There are things like “junk DNA” that scientists for years thought were wasteful parts… but we’re now find them useful! Perhaps we haven’t discovered the reasons why they exist, and therefore it only appears messy.

    Our show on “Junk DNA”: http://truthrevolution.tv/audioarchives/dr-rana-and-the-encode-project/

    • Brett Pippin says:

      Thanks, Jeff. Good show. It also occurred to me that the randomness might have been the intention of the code to increase diversity within species. This would likely increase the ability of animals and humans to survive varying climates and circumstances. This might be called “intentional randomness” like a Jackson Pollack painting.

  2. Brett Pippin says:

    I watched a debate between Fuzz and PZ Meyer. It would be cool to hear you address Dr. Meyer’s analogy to the painting, which I believe did not help his argument. In a nutshell he explained that the painting pointed to an artist. Things such as complexity, specificity and technique were his reasoning. His analogy breaks down in that if we know of no being capable of such artistry it might be something or someone we don’t know. We have just as much reason to believe their is a causal agent and not just a random process. He also mention that biological code is different and sloppier than computer code. He still is relying on a random process as a creator. But where did this begin? I hope he would not argue that the the English language is self-created because of how messy it is. I might have a computer with code that writes more “random” code and it could be sloppy. That doesn’t solve for the computer (the environment) and the language (raw materials) and the intentionality of the source code. Plus there are examples where genetic information (new code) is introduced unrelated to the old processes. Hit me up if you would like me to explain further.

    Thanks,

    Brett

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *