Information Enigma: 21-minute video explains intelligent design

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.

Summary:

  • 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.

Is David French right to say that teachers who talk to 5-year-olds about sex aren’t “groomers”?

Sometimes, I get really annoyed with moral relativists for being too compassionate with predators. Whenever I feel like that, a trip to The Federalist to read their amazing women authors fixes me right up. They have so many great authors there. Right now, I am reading everything I can find by Elle Reynolds, Kylee Zempel, Jordan Boyd, Margot Cleveland and Joy Pullmann.

This article from the splendid Kylee Zempel at The Federalist is a must-read. I loved every word!

She writes:

The ranks of progressives and unmistakably pro-LGBT media — who spend their days throwing around insulting hyperbole like “Nazi,” “fascist,” and “silence is violence” — are being joined by so-called conservatives who’ve taken it upon themselves to lecture those to the right of them that ackshuuully it’s not appropriate to call the kids’ entertainment creators and state-sanctioned educators who insist on sexually indoctrinating 5-year-olds “groomers.”

Who are the so-called conservatives?

Here’s David French, who used to be conservative:

David French Groomer

And this guy from National Review, which used to be conservative:

National Review Groomer

Kylee continues:

Have the “conservatives” resisting the use of the “groomer” label forgotten about the concerted effort by gender activists to host drag-queen story hours for little children in taxpayer-funded libraries or “drag-tastic” camps at museums? Have they not seen the pornographic books introducing kids to gay sex and masturbation?

How about government schoolteachers’ documented cult-like allegiance to gay pride? The cover-up of sexual assault resulting from trans bathroom policies? Or the coaxing of children into sex confusion and dangerous gender-bending interventions and then hiding it from their parents?

Have they not heard stories of young people who internalized backward notions about human sexuality during their formative years, were utterly failed by every institution that should have helped them correct course, then underwent destructive procedures that left them full of regret, just disfigured shells of the unique and beautiful people they were created to be?

How about tongue-in-cheek confessions from choruses of gay men that they’ll “convert your children”? Or even manipulation by the president of the United States that those who don’t abide by LGBT orthodoxy “don’t see” and “don’t respect” transgender people and that so-called gender affirmation is the best way to keep kids “safe and healthy”?

There’s a word for adults who build trust with children then condition them in sexual matters without their parents’ consent or knowledge in order to manipulate them for their own pleasure: It’s groomer.

Kylee goes on to quote a list of grooming behaviors from the American Bar Association website. Among them, she finds exactly what the teachers are banned from doing, e.g. – “discussing sexually explicit information under the guise of education.”

She adds:

According to the website ChildHelp, which seeks to prevent child abuse, “grooming includes … gaining trust and access … playing a role in the child’s life, isolating the child, [and] creating secrecy around the relationship.” It goes on to say that signs of grooming include… “talking about sexual topics that are not age appropriate.”

So yes, this is a texbook definition of grooming. David French disagrees, but remember, in 2019, David French called “drag queen story hour” in schools “a blessing of liberty“. This isn’t his first time deflecting criticism of LGBT activists grooming children for sex with adults. He isn’t trying to protect children from predators. He isn’t a good man. He has given up on the male responsibility to protect the weak from predators. He would prefer to virtue signal to the secular left instead.

Open Secrets Teacher Unions
Open Secrets Teacher Unions

You have to focus on what groomer allies write about. They aren’t writing anything against the secular left. They aren’t writing about fathers losing their children to teachers who trans kids. They aren’t writing about parents being arrested for mis-gendering their children. They aren’t writing about the far-left LGBT radicalism of teachers. They aren’t writing about the labeling of parents who dissent from secular left indoctrination as “domestic terrorists”. Etc.

In every case, the fake conservatives have their sights firmly set on ordinary conservative parents, and their children. They want to protect the places where Democrats wield power – like public schools. And when the state comes along to seize the children of Christians, because those parents were supportive enough of LGBT rights, you can bet that the false conservatives will support that, too.

I’ve been writing about what the secular left is doing with children in the schools, divorce courts, etc. I also supported the candidate that pro-life groups endorsed in 2020. I’m a real conservative. David French is not a real conservative. Remember how he sided with far-left public schools against parents. He’s more interested in defending grooming of children for child abuse than your rights as a parent. Can we just judge him by his actions?

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse lectures on basic economics

Here is a podcast on basic economics from Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse.

About the speaker:

Dr. Morse is the founder of the Ruth Institute, a global non-profit organization focused on keeping the family together, protecting the rights of children and helping the millions of people who have been harmed by family breakdown.

She has authored or co-authored four books and spoken around the globe on marriage, family and human sexuality. Her work has been translated into Spanish, Chinese, Korean and Polish. Her newest book is The Sexual Revolution and Its Victims.

She earned her Ph.D. at the University of Rochester and taught economics at Yale and George Mason Universities.

A bit more about her economics credentials: Dr. Morse served as a Research Fellow for Stanford University’s Hoover Institution from 1997-2005. She received her Ph.D. in economics from the University of Rochester in 1980 and spent a postdoctoral year at the University of Chicago during 1979-80. She taught economics at Yale University and George Mason University for 15 years.

The MP3 file is here. (49 minutes)

Topics:

  • The study of economics is anti-postmodern – there is objective truth independent of what people think
  • The study of economics believes in fixed principles of human nature
  • Economics studies the allocation of scarce resources that have alternative uses
  • Economics studies how people exchange resources
  • How both people who engage in a voluntary trade always believe that they will be better off
  • How both people who engage in a voluntary trade both benefit from the exchange
  • How incentives motivate people to act
  • Understanding supply and demand
  • Understanding how “free” government services are rationed
  • Understanding opportunity costs
  • How prices signal producers to produce more or less, and consumers to buy or not buy
  • Market-driven prices versus price controls
  • The role of substitution
  • The necessity of allowing failure in a free market

The requirements of economic growth:

  • private property
  • contracts
  • the profit motive
  • competition
  • free trade
  • entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation
  • the rule of law

If you want to learn more about basic economics, I recommend picking up a book or two by Thomas Sowell – the first book I usually give away is “Intellectuals and Society”, and then next “Basic Economics”. You can find a good list of books on the website of The Institute for Faith, Work and Economics.

I think it’s important for Christians to understand basic economics, because so much of the impact we have depends not only on our personal finances, but on our ability to promote economics policies that will affect our personal finances. For example, whether you have a job or not depends on economic policy. Whether you can get food and other required resources depends on economic policy. Often, big-government regimes with poor economic policies (e.g. – North Korea) will make it impossible for you to have other liberties, like religious freedom.

Just think about how hard it would be for you to pursue a Christian life plan in a place like Venezuela, where your priorities would not be apologetics, but just finding food and avoiding death and theft at the hands of criminals.

Imagine it was you lost your job or couldn’t find work due to bad economic policy. Think of how that would affect your ability to even drive to church on Sundays, or purchase a Bible, much less being able to organize an apologetics event at the university and pay for a speaker to fly in and stay in a hotel. Economics is important for Christians to understand, because so much of our influence and effectiveness depends on it.