Information Enigma: 21-minute video explains intelligent design

Can random mutation and natural selection create new functional information?
Can random mutation and natural selection create new functional information?

The video is here:

I have read and listened and watched a lot of material on intelligent design, but I have never seen so much value packed into such a short lecture. I really hope you’ll watch this and that it’s helpful to you.


  • the big question when discussing the origin of life: where did the information in living systems come from?
  • Until 530 million years ago, the oceans were largely devoid of life
  • In a 10 million year period, many new forms of animal life emerged
  • New biological forms of life require new information
  • the discovery of DNA shows that living systems work because cells have information that allows them to build the components of molecular machines: cell types, proteins, etc.
  • can random mutation and natural selection create new functional information?
  • normally, random mutations tend to degrade the functionality of information, e.g. – randomly changing symbols in an applications code does not usually introduce useful new functions, it usually renders what is there non-functional
  • the majority of possible sequences will NOT have functions, so random mutations will more likely give you non-functional code, rather than functional code
  • example: a bicycle lock  with 4 numbers has many possible sequences for the 4 numbers, and only one of them has unlock functionality, the rest have no functionality
  • if you have lots of time, then you might be able to guess the combination, but if the lock as has 10 billion numbers, and only one combination that unlocks, you can spend your whole life trying to unlock it and won’t succeed
  • how likely is it to arrive at a functional protein or gene by chance? Is it more like the 4-dial lock (can be done with lots of time) or the 10 billion dial lock (amount of time required exceeds the time available)?
  • the probability is LOW because there is only one sequence of numbers that has unlock function
  • consider a short protein of 150 amino acids has 10 to the 195th power possible sequences
  • if many of these sequences of amino acides had biological function, then it might be easier to get to one by random mutation and selection than it is with a lock that only unlocks for ONE sequence
  • how many of the possible sequences have biological function?
  • Thanks to research done by Douglas Axe, we now know that the number of functional amino acid sequences for even a short protein is incredibly small…
  • Axe found that the odds of getting a functional sequence of amino acids that will fold and have biological function is 1 in 10 to the 77th power
  • Is that number too improbable to reach by chance? well, there are 10 to 65th atoms in the entire Milky Way galaxy… so yes, this is a very improbable outcome
  • can random genetic mutations search through all the sequences in order to find the one in 10 to the 77th power one that has biological function? It depends on how much guessers we have and how many guesses we get in the time available
  • even with the entire 3.5 billion year history of life on Earth, only about 10 to the 40th organisms have ever lived, which far smaller fraction of the 10 to the 77th total sequences
  • even with a very fast mutation rate, you would not be able to reach a functional protein even with all that time, and even with all those organisms

I was once having a discussion with a woman about the research that Axe did at the Cambridge University lab. He published four articles in the Journal of Molecular Biology. I held out one of the papers to her and showed her the numbers. She said over and over “I hate the Discovery Institute! I hate the Discovery Institute!” Well, yeah, but you can’t make the Journal of Molecular Biology go away with hating the Discovery Institute. JMB is peer-reviewed, and this was experimental evidence – not a theory, not a hypothesis.

We have been blessed by the Creator and Designer of the universe in this time and place with overwhelming evidence – an abundance of riches. For those who have an open mind, this is what you’ve been waiting for to make your decision. For the naturalists who struggle so mightily to block out the progress of experimental science, they’ll need to shout louder and shut their eyes tighter and push harder to block their ears. Maybe if they keep screaming “Star Trek” and “Star Wars” over and over to themselves, they will be able to ignore the real science a little longer.

6 thoughts on “Information Enigma: 21-minute video explains intelligent design”

  1. OK, but why, re “[m]aybe if they keep screaming “Star Trek” and “Star Wars” over and over to themselves ..”, the (gratuitous to me) bashing of Trekkers and whatever is the equivalent term re Star Wars ? Granted the implicit theological backdrop to Star Wars – the Force, dark side – is sub-Christian dualism, heretical, and akin to Manichaeism. Also granted the general, with rare exceptions, dearth of challenges to the presumption of an asymptotic approach to a utopian society with secular humanistic values coupled with philosophical naturalism implicit in Star Trek. But is there good evidence of correlation between enthusiasm for such futuristic fictions and rejection of the Gospel, or even just rejection of theism ? For some Pilgrims their Progress is a tortuous path through some strange places. Speaking from personal experience.


    1. It’s just my personal experience of atheists. I have had multiple atheists challenge theism by quoting Star trek stuff to me like “doesn’t the transporter in Star trek prove that souls don’t exist?” Etc. And they know so much more about the science fiction than any actual science.


      1. Oh man that’s funny. That’s really freaking funny.
        It’s like… “Captain Picard himself said souls don’t exist. Soooo… I’ve got all the proof I need “


  2. “the big question when discussing the origin of life: where did the information in living systems come from?”

    Atheist Answer: Ignore the question and start with already existing life forms and start from there instead. Then talk about how horrible Ken Ham and company are greatest evils unleashed on humankind and how ID proponents are incognito Ken Hams disguised to look like real scientists. Then assert that the only real scientists are philosophical naturalists and point out it’s illegal to teach any other view.


  3. How many atheists mock Christians over and over with the words “invisible sky-daddy”, and yet claim that MOTHER Nature caused all life to begin/evolve through random mutation and natural selection?? In other words, sky-MOMMY did it all? Or maybe Gaia (MOTHER Earth)??

    I think there’s an element of moral rebellion going on here. Who’s more likely to whip your butt growing up if you mouthed off or didn’t do your chores: Mom or Dad? And if you grew up with both, who was the final authority in the home? And did you ever run to Mom to escape a spanking?

    I think a lot of these atheists disbelieve in “sky-daddy” and instead cling to a nice, safe, IMPERSONAL “Mother” Nature precisely because they want to avoid moral accountability in the end. “Some mean old grump in the sky who dishes out rules and punishments? Not for me! I’ll stick with Mommy!”

    And I think that this may be a factor whether they had a good relationship with their real father growing up or not.


    1. Yeah, when you hear the old man in the sky nonsense(if the person is not a kid) .. you have officially ran into wilful stupidity that has become so biased against truth that they are no longer functioning as a rational being.

      neil degrasse tyson speaks like this. When thousands upon thousands of some of the most intelligent human beings that have ever existed, including Isaac Newton, Tyson’s hero, and Gottfried Leibniz who’ve expounded on the nature of God as the “Mind” of reality – – and this witless manchild Tyson deceives himself and others by portraying God as literally an old guy in the sky, then this fool has fully revealed himself.

      If they have to completely lie about what we believe, they’ve unwittingly demonstrated they don’t believe they have enough to refute you.

      I always say, we must understand many of these ignorant people entered the scientific fields concerning Origins *Because they are atheists. If they know they’ll never turn to God, then we’re asking them to confirm their own doom. Who consents to their own doom? Such is explanation for such pathological bias.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s