“Have you ever composed a text message on your smartphone and had the app suggest the next word? It is amazing that, many times, the app is correct. How does it work? By sheer chance? Or by reading your mind?
“The fact that technology can often predict the next word you are going to type is possible only because your text message comes from your mind. The sentence you type is informative and meaningful because it is intelligently designed and therefore predictable.
“Scientists have recently found similar predictability in biochemical systems. Does this similarity mean that biochemistry is also intelligently designed? Before answering this question, let us look at one way that mathematicians characterize information in the sentences we type.”
Those are the opening three graphs of a fascinating analysis on Reasons To Believe by Dr. Zachary Leung on biochemistry and the case for Intelligent Design of the universe. Some of it may be a little dense for general readers, but if I figured it out, odds are you will as well. Guaranteed to give you a lot to think about.
You may have heard or read recently about a team of paleo-anthropologists and other researchers who found some string-like material at a dig in Southern France from the era when Neanderthals were around.
Why is this significant, especially if you work on Capitol Hill? Well, if Neanderthals had the intelligence and dexterity to create string, that says something fundamentally important about them and modern human beings. Are we exceptional, as we think?
Reasons to Believe biochemist Dr. Fazale Rana discusses this finding and its potential significance to our understanding of human origins in the following video. It’s a half-hour video, which is a good bit longer than the norm here on HillFaith, but it’s a fascinating topic that deserves serious attention:
Biochemist Fazale Rana’s boyhood hopes to become a major league baseball player ended when he moved up to the Babe Ruth League and discovered he couldn’t read the code.
The “code” in Rana’s case was the indicator in the third-base coach’s stream of signs to him just before he stepped into the batter’s box. Among much else, the coach’s signs were meant to ensure batter and runner were on the same page when the next pitch was thrown.
Gene-editing or altering DNA to achieve a desired change in the characteristics of a person yet to be born, is a technology that holds both great promise for bettering the human condition and of creating, unintentionally or otherwise, bio-monsters capable of unimaginable horror.
Molecular biologist Anjeanette Roberts points out on the Reasons to Believe blog that gene-editing has made big strides in the past six years, highlighted most notably in the recent case of a Chinese biologist who claimed to have altered successfully the genomes of three babies born of IVF processes to make them resistant to HIV. It appears his claims, however, were in error.
Even so, such developments pose huge ethical, political, technological and regulatory questions that sooner or later will have to be addressed by Congress, the courts and federal policymakers in the executive branch.
Philosopher Kenneth Samples gives the answer AND poses a huge question about chance and design
“Advancements in science, technology, and medicine over the last century or so have benefitted virtually all people. Scientific progress has lengthened human life spans and improved quality of life.
“These great strides prompt a provocative question: Why does science work? That is, why is the scientific enterprise so effective in delivering critical, reliable information about the natural world that can inform and benefit humankind?
“I have posed this question to many scientists I’ve met through the years. The answer I usually hear is something along this line: ‘It just does. Science is unique. It works.’
I think the reason that most scientists struggle to tell me exactly why science works is … Go here for the answer.
When Stephen Hawking wrote his best-selling “A Brief History of Time” in his quest to do away with God, the renowned Cambridge mathematician had to invent a second kind of time, which he called “imaginary” time.
The imaginary time was a necessary posit because Hawking knew that if there is the time we know of as part, present and future, then there must be a beginning of time and that means in turn there must be a creator of time. But that creator is exactly what Hawking wanted to do away with.
Dr. Hugh Ross is an astro-physicist, not a mathematician, but he and Hawking both wrote best-sellers on multiple aspects of the God question. Ross also is the founder of Reasons To Believe (RTB), an excellent apologetics think tank with an emphasis on relating faith and science.
“That God created the time dimension of the universe implies that he could create other time dimensions. Therefore, God could operate within as many time dimensions as he chooses,” Ross writes today on the RTB web site. If you have time — no, not a joke — I heartily encourage you to give a read to Ross on God and time.
The answer begins with understanding what it means to live outside of time
Astronomer Hugh Ross says the question of “who created God” is the query he is most often asked on social media. That’s understandable as every human being at one time or another likely has wondered the same thing.
“Every atheist scientist I’ve ever debated publicly has raised that issue,” Ross explains in a recent interview on Reasons to Believe. “There is a fallacy there. They are assuming that God is constrained in time like the universe is and all life in the universe.”
Ross notes that “any entity that is constrained to a single dimension of time, where time can’t be stopped or reversed, at some point must have a beginning or a creation event.”