Thursday, March 24, 2011

The Message Within the DNA Code and the Question of 'Who Sent It?'

All across the globe, scientists have set up multi-million dollar facilities whose sole purpose is to scan the vast regions of space looking for distant radio signals. While some of these facilities come with steep price tags, the scientists who run them assure us that the price is well worth the cost.

And it appears the high investment has finally paid off. Scientists have announced that they have discovered a radio transmission from a far-away galaxy believed to have been sent by intelligent beings who, like us, are searching for other intelligent beings. The scientists are busy decoding the signal in hopes of interpreting the message contained within it. Regardless of the message contents, it is being hailed as a touchdown for the scientific community, evidence of intelligent beings aside from mankind.

The only problem is that I completely made this last part up. Yes, it's true that multi-million dollar facilities have dotted our globe for some time now, but the cost has not been recouped in the form of receiving transmission of any signal sent by an intelligent being. Not a single blip, bit of static, or scratch across the airwaves has been interpreted as evidence of an intelligent being.

Not from outer space, anyway.

But what if they had found one? No doubt the scenario would play out just as I had said it would, but with much more fanfare. And that would be fine, because it would be an exciting thing. The observance of solid, irrefutable scientific evidence of an intelligent mind existing somewhere other than with mankind. That would be exciting, right? Of course.

Why is it that if a radio signal were intercepted from deep in space, it would widely be held as evidence of an intelligent source, yet the DNA code is not? The question begs an answer: why isn't DNA, which is accept by virtually all scientists to be the conductor of all information in the human body as it relates to its make-up and functionality, not accepted as prima-facie (face value) evidence of an intelligent source? After all, if there is a message being passed through the DNA code (which there is), then there would necessarily have to be a place that the message originated from. In other words, there would have to be a mind that the message first originated from, and was then passed through the conductor called DNA.

This is very unpopular with many scientists because if we say that the DNA code is in fact a carrier of a well conceived message, it would necessitate an Original Sender of the message. This sends chills across many scientists necks because the very concept of intelligent design goes against the foundation in which they've built their careers on.

However, such a belief would be in perfect harmony because it does not violate the very principle that virtually all science is based on. The Law of Causality says that no 'effect' can be greater than its 'cause', and there must be a clear reason why the 'effect' is needed before the 'cause' initiates it. If we say that God is the originator of the message that is carried by the DNA code, then we have a Cause that is certainly greater than the 'effect', keeping in harmony with observable science.

Surely it would be hypocritical of us if we readily accept one message ("the effect") as being originated by an intelligent being ("the cause"), but not another.


  1. Mike, you post about science but you avoid talking about science with people who know about it and can contradict you. You haven't posted on reddit in 27 days, nor responded to my messages there. I conclude again that you are completely disinterested in the truth and are only interested in a soapbox for spouting unchallenged falsehoods.

    I won't bother to debunk this post until you show a smidgeon of interest in truth instead of just protecting your pre-existing viewpoint. It is a waste of time to lead a horse to water if it has decided not to drink.- smallpaul

  2. Smallpaul;
    First let me start off by saying I'm sorry that you've missed me. However, because I haven't posted to reddit in 27 days does not mean I am not talking about science with those who know about it and can contradict me. The facts of this post remain;

    1) No Effect can be greater than its Cause
    2) DNA is a message that acts as the building blocks of life
    3) Something must have caused DNA
    4) Every message must have a sender

    Who, then, sent it? I know what you'll respond with, “nobody had to send it, it was simply inevitable that we evolved based on our planetary conditions to form DNA the way we did.” You’ll probably also say that DNA has a lot of 'junk' codes in it. Neither of these are valid, and I'll explain way- after you make the assertions of course. Smallpaul, I would be more than glad to discuss the whole gambit of topics on my website, however for a host of reasons I won't list here, reddit will not be the forum. You can feel free to email me through the email listed just to the right side of the page. I generally respond quickly. However, I will reiterate my point listed above. Science, at its core, is the act of observing the world around us and finding out the adequate cause for the effect. What adequate cause caused the effect of DNA?

    Also, you assert that I'm only interested in a soapbox. This is completely accurate. It only bothers you because where you see random chance (despite the immeasurable odds), I see the hand of God at work. What I do is study science and its implications to Christians. You accuse me of only being interested in a “pre-existent viewpoint”, yet the same can be said about anyone (including yourself) who believes in evolution. How many times must it be proven false before it finally dies? Many of the worlds most brilliant scientific minds have long ago given up the idea known as macro-evolution, yet so many people, like yourself, still hold it as sacred text. But that’s not the point of this post. As for this post, the contradiction remains-we have a message, yet no sender? I hope this reply finds you well, and feeling good. I look forward to our discussions picking back up. However, will I ever drink of the water that is faulty science filled with omissions and guesswork, all in an attempt to cut God out of His creation? No. I am definitely proud to be the horse who's decided not to drink of that water.