The DNA of Intelligent Design

Resistance — by scientists — to new scientifically demonstrated evidence becomes even more stubborn when their motivation is not science at all, but ideology.  Evidence is not proof, of course, but when a large body of evidence is systematically moving in the direction of a new paradigm, scientists must take note of that and critically re-examine their own bias.  The evidence is increasing, and the direction is clear; it leads toward divine involvement in the physical world.

Once an outdated scientific paradigm has become established, it can survive for lifetimes, even when subsequent scientific discoveries cast reasonable doubt on it.  To some degree, this is because, once many books and journal articles, including textbooks, have been published, a considerable investment has been made — not just in terms of money, but in terms of reputation and prestige.

Despite their embarrassment, scientists do on occasion overturn longstanding theories in favor of better ones, albeit often after much resistance — because facts eventually become irrefutable.

A current example of this regards the well known science of heredity — specifically, the topic of DNA.  Much of the public is familiar with the term "DNA" because it is associated with court cases involving paternity lawsuits and criminal investigations.  Few people are aware, however, that there is no proof that DNA does what many biologists have long been saying it does.  DNA is clearly important to heredity, yes, but it is not the blueprint for your body.  The evidence for that is potentially revolutionary in terms of science.

This was first brought to my attention by a science blogger named Mark Mahin, whose source material is extensive, well documented, and clearly presented.  My further inquiries into this led me to some of the most highly reputed scientists in the field, including authors Dr. Stephen Meyer and Dr. Michael Behe, and also the highly esteemed mathematician Dr. John Lennox, all of whom vigorously contest the current paradigm.  Their arguments are presented cogently in an interview on YouTube.

Further inquiries led me deeper into reference material, at the layman level, on cellular physics, including numerous astounding videos such as the one presented at this TED talk.  The evidence can no longer be ignored.  DNA, while of central importance in genetics and heredity, is only a small part of the whole story.  There is much more needed than DNA to explain the bigger picture.  DNA is a coded language that produces proteins, the basic building blocks of life — but there is little or no evidence that it does much more than that in terms of structuring the body.

DNA guides the production of the molecular "bricks," so to speak, of which our bodies are made, but knowing how bricks are made does not tell one how brick houses are made.  That is a vital point.  We still do not understand how nature produces such vastly complicated organisms as the human body.  We are not even close.  Indeed, even the most basic cell is said to be more complex than a jumbo jet airliner.  The information requirement alone exceeds the capacity of DNA.  The intricacy within simple cells cannot be explained by DNA alone.  Much more is needed — a new paradigm, perhaps.

Why, then, do so many scientists insist that DNA is the "blueprint of the human body"?  It cannot be.  Indeed, blueprints are produced by designers, not the other way around.  Who is the designer of DNA?

That question might explain why this subject is controversial.  As Mahin points out on his blog, quoting French biologist François Jacob in his 1970 book The Logic of Life: A History of Heredity, "[d]o you see this egg?  With it you can overthrow all the schools of theology, all the churches of the earth."

There you have it.  The reason is not scientific; it is philosophical anti-theism.

The paradigm that has taken hold firmly in physical science is that nothing in the physical world is detectably influenced by anything outside the physical world.  This strongly implies that for all practical purposes, only the physical realm exists and nothing else.  Those who hold to that philosophy say that denial of the physicalist paradigm is based in superstition and religious myth.  They say there is no evidence for anything outside the physical world, and certainly not for an interventionist, divine Creator.

Evidence has finally arrived — a lot of it — and it casts serious doubt on the physicalist paradigm.  There is resistance, some of which involves a degree of censorship, but that is breaking down as younger scientists move into the field who are not tied down to the old ways, and some established scientists are running the gauntlet of peer criticism.

The idea that the Creator mentioned in the Declaration of Independence as the author of our rights and freedoms is as revolutionary now as it was in 1776.  It is needed, now perhaps more than ever.  I would urge those who resist that idea to do what they have been telling us to do: follow the science.

Image via Public Domain Pictures.

If you experience technical problems, please write to