- by R. Totten - (C)1999

In thinking about evolution vs creation --and intelligent design (ID)-- since the time of Charles Darwin's Evolution of the Species, many philosophically naturalist scientists assumed that the smallest living things were structurally very simple. --Not true. --Actually, the total DNA and mechanistic intricacy of an E-coli bacterium (and what actually makes it "alive") is beyond current scientific comprehension. In addition, even today it is often assumed that these "simple" life-forms originated from non-life (abiogenesis) by natural chemical processes alone, apart from the creative work of any intelligent "chemist", and that evolution guided by natural selection produced all the complexity of life today. Such speculation is even the basis for supposing that there is most probably life on other planets throughout the universe. However, in reality, is such a neo-darwinist evolutionary scheme even remotely probable?

All biological life is very rich in what is called "information," and the basic question is : Could biological information possibly have initially originated (in any reasonable mathematical probability) by the random processes of nature without any intelligent intervention, ---or in contradistinction, is intelligent design (ID) the most probable and logical explanation for biological information in nature?

Attributes of Information: Complexity, Specificity and Functionality
COMPLEXITY

"Information theory" is a special area of mathematics which has developed a way to define and quantify information. When information theorists speak about "information", they are not merely referring just to "order" alone. Simple order in nature is seen in the structure of a crystal, such as in an ice crystal, because a large number of the same type of atoms or molecules bond together in a precisely structured way. ---As a matter of fact, one naturalistic theory of the origin of life, proposed by A.G. Cairns-Smith, proposes that life started out by building upon the order exhibited by crystals.

But the problem is this : Such mere basic "order" falls short of the degree to which "information" is highly "complex." We see this in the fact that the structure of a crystal (a la Cairns-Smith) involves merely the bonding of the same element(s) or molecule(s) over and over in a highly repetitious lineup, such as "A - A - A - A - A - A - A - A - ..." or "A B - A B - A B - A B - A B - A B - A B - A B - ..." or a quartz crystal is a repetition of the Silicon Dioxide molecule, "SiO2 - SiO2 - SiO2 - SiO2 - SiO2 - SiO2 - SiO2 - SiO2 ..."

However, in stark contrast, when you look at "information" (such as this sentence), the "order" is not repetitious ---it is largely aperiodic--- and its conveyance involves much higher level of complexity.

The information-levels in the repetitious letter-series' or the quartz-crystal is low, but the level of complex, specified information in the above sentence is much higher.

...Another example of "low-complexity" order, is : If we instruct a computer to print out "wrapping paper," we only need to program it with two simple commands: 1) "Print the word 'Joy' " and 2) "Do it again until the paper is filled." With this process, we end up with a high amount of order, but a low amount of information and complexity. ---However, in contrast, the letters in a written message (such as in this paragraph) convey information, but they do not repeat in a predictable, periodic pattern ---no one can write a systematized "formula" or algorithm which can prescribe and specify each letter (or element) in such an informational sequence --short of writing each word out. With "informational complexity," basically the entire sequence must be written out word-for-word from beginning to end.

SPECIFICITY

Concerning information's second characteristic, specificity : When information theorists speak about information as being "complex," they are not refering to just any complexity, because there are two sorts of complexity : "unspecified" and "specified."
...As an example of "unspecified complexity" : A wildly gnarled and knotted rat's-nest of string may be very complex and difficult to figure out how to get it unknotted, but it is very low in information because its structure is random and unspecified, whereby it does not matter where or how one type of jumbled knot or another is formed. ...However, in stark contrast, as an example of "specified" complexity : When someone uses a crochet hook to produce a fancy doily containing the words of a sentence around the edge and a picture of flowers in the middle, the knotted structure of the string is not at all random, but is highly "specified," so that the doily involves a high amount of information, and there is a necessary and particular sequential order for the proper assembly of parts, to produce the information-rich structure. The more informationally complex a structure is, the more "specified" instructions are required to describe it.
...For another example of "unspecified complexity" : If a dump-truck full of random Scrabble letters is poured out on a parking lot, the random mass of letters contains no significant information because it only exhibits unspecified complexity. ---HOWEVER, if an intelligence comes along and arranges the letters is a "specified" order, they can then spell out a large amount of information, because they now exhibit "specified complexity."

FUNCTIONALITY

Not only is information aperiodically complex, and it has non-randomly specified parts, but the third characteristic is, that it also performs a useful "function" as a result of its coordinated arrangement of cooperating parts.

...For example, the function performed by a written message, is to communicate ...and if the sequence of the letters were in a random (non-specified) order, there would be no function of communication, and no information would exist.
...For another example, the function performed by a picture in a newspaper, is to convey a visual image ...and if the proper positioning of the correct colors of dots were actually in a random (non-specified) order, there would be no portrayal of a picture, and no information would exist.
...To illustrate further, the function performed by an iron padlock depends on the specified complexity of the iron parts, which would be non-functional as a padlock if the iron parts were randomly shaped and improperly arranged and assembled. --With no function, there is no information.

In biology, the function performed by an enzyme (a protein) depends on the non-random specification of the sequence of amino acids which make up the protein, causing it to fold properly so as to perform a function useful to the life-form.

Now, if we are not able to discern any function in something (such as a message written in some unknown foreign language or an encrypted message), then we cannot establish that we are dealing with information ( ---for all we know it might be letters chosen at random--- ), but as soon as we detect and understand a "system" of parts with a complexity which is specified to perform a useful function (such as communication, or an image, or performing work), then we may be able to establish that we are dealing with some degree of complex specified information.

Information "Content"
Taken all together, when information theorists speak about "information", it is described as a systematic ordering and grouping of parts with "specified complexity" which is non-random, "aperiodic" (not repetitious) , and it performs a useful function. The elements (such as letters or nucleotides) which convey information must be specifically sequentially ordered from beginning to end. Basically, a structure's "information content" is the minimum number of directions necessary to describe or specify it, whether that structure is a crystal or a living organism. Crystals have low information content, but examples of things which are information-rich would be: human artifacts, computer programs, written messages, and ---most pertinent to the discussion in this article--- DNA and functional types (classes) of proteins. --The information in DNA and proteins must be laid out "word-for-word" --one nucleotide or amino acid at a time-- in order for the required information to be adequately described for a specified DNA sequence or for a specified functional protein.

DNA functions as the carrier of the informational instructions (much like letters in writing) for specifying the building of all the structures in living things, as well as the functions they carry out. There are no known laws of chemistry or physics which could (in any resonable probability, and without intelligent intervention) initially determine or dictate the sequential order of the nucleotides which build functional DNA / RNA in living things, nor the sequential order of the amino acids to build a functional class of proteins.

Although DNA and proteins bond together using perfectly normal chemical laws and forces, the informational sequences of those chemicals are not dictated or determined by some properties or laws of the chemicals ---in fact, it is the capacity of the building blocks of DNA and protein to occur in any conceivable order, which makes them useful for building DNA and protein. --Although some biologists have proposed that the sequences found in DNA and protein orginated from the differences in chemical bonding forces in the chemical building blocks, the many experiments designed to confirm such an idea have not turned up any significant ordering effects. As a result, a former proponent of "chemical sequencing" --Dean Kenyon (author of Biochemical Predestination,'69)-- has now rejected the theory on experimental grounds. All experiments to date indicate that the sequential order of the parts of DNA and recognized types (classes) of protein could not have even nearly come from just the forces and laws of physics and chemistry and random natural processes, any more than the informational sequence of the letters of this sentence could have been determined by the mechanics and electronics of the computer on which it was typed, ---such as by any random selections of letters. -- (For more on this issue, see my article on Abiogenesis)

NOTE: If anyone can come up with a schema of natural mechanistic properties and laws of chemistry and physics which (combined with chance, and NO intelligent design help ...such as chemists) could possibly account for the origination of bio-information which could have lead to the first living thing (not how it did happen), then they can submit their ideas to the "Origin of Life Prize" committee and collect the $1 million for doing so --and they will surely win a Nobel Prize as well.

So, the question here is: Could biological information (specifically in DNA / RNA and proteins) have first originated by random processes of chance in the chemicals in nature? --Probability analysis of complex specified information, described next, tells us overwhelmingly, "No."

Coming Up With "Proof"
Some explanation of what should be included in a "proof" of intelligently designed information is appropriate here: Technically, a "proof" is absolute, and with no possible exceptions, ...but when using probabilites, there could (strictly speaking) be a possible chance, however small, that an event may possibly occur. In what sort of an instance can we use probability calculations to create such a virtual proof that some body of information could not be the result of random chance selections?

First, FUNCTION: We must establish that the ordered parts in a system (grouping) of things work together in coordination to perform a useful function (for example a group of letters that communicate, or a group of amino acids which comprise a properly-folding protein).
Second, INFORMATION: We must establish that those ordered parts are complex, specified information (see above).
Third, NO MECHANISM: We must establish that there is no law of physics, or chemistry in the mechanisms of nature which could explain the ordering of the parts found in the functioning system.
Fourth, NO RANDOM ORDERING: We must establish that there are no random processes of chance which could explain the ordering of parts in the functioning system.
...The key is that we must eliminate the possibilities of any non-intelligent ordering process, and establish that the probability of something happening by chance is so extremely vanishingly small that the chance of such an occurrence is totally inconceivable, and essentially zero... therefore, it was designed by an intelligence. (It has been said, for instance, that there might "possibly" be a very slim chance that a kettle of water on a hot burner could freeze ...which illustrates the ridiculous nature of some objections to probability analysis).

Evidence and "proof" of intelligent design is used daily to make decisions in human affairs, in instances such as:

police detectives amassing evidence to implicate a suspect
forensic scientists placing a suspect at the scene of a crime
copyright infringement and proof of plaigiarism being proven by the matching of words, notes or digits
NASA and SETI scientists determining if a "signal" is from ET intelligence
insurance companies proving that some claims are fraudulent
statisticians determining whether a string of digits is random or not
---When you think about it, the detection of intelligent design is widely used every day, and many industries would go bankrupt without using this common technique of prooving it. After proving the intelligent design of things such as symbols and intentionally arranged events, some people have been clearly proven guilty, and thus sentenced to undergo capitol punishment.
If proving intelligent design is so ridiculous and impossible as a few scientists say it is, then they should have no objections to the person who publishes something exactly like their own research and writings, and then maintains that it was all "randomly" generated by some computer program which no longer exists.

Eliminating Random Chance using Statistical Probability
If you, reader, saw this present sentence spelled out in the middle of the many thousands of Scrabble-letters (from the dump-truck) spread out on the parking lot, could you prove mathematically beyond any reasonable doubt that the message did not get there by any random process of ordering by chance? ---If you thus rule out a random ordering of the letter-pieces, then you would know that this sentence must have come from an intelligence. --How could you prove it beyond any reasonable doubt? ...Such a proof is accomplished by probability analysis, as will be shown in this article in relation to proving the intelligent design of information. (Read here about how to figure probabilities.)

Now, we must remember that for something to be information, there is a requirement: If the set of parts is quite short, it lacks complexity to be sure that it constitutes information. For example, if we had a one-letter word, then there could easily be a very good chance that the word may have arisen from a random choice of letters. In such an instance, we could not make a good case for proving that the small word is actually information that came from an intelligent source ----because there is not enough complexity.

Secondly, the length of the string of letters must be of sufficient length to perform the function of communication. For example, the letter "A" is a word, but without being part of a phrase or sententence, we have no assurance that it actually functions to communicate anything.

Here's how we calculate the probability here: In the instance of the one-letter word, the chance that a computer could come up with that word by random letter-selection, is one chance out of 26, because there are 26 letters in the alphabet.

Going to the next step, if we take a specific two-letter word (such as "by"), the chance a computer could randomly choose the two letters together in one word (in the correct sequence) is the product of the two selections, ...so the chance of getting a specific two-letter word would be one chance out 26x26 (which equals 676). Likewise, the chance of randomly drawing a specific three-letter-word (such as "the"), would be one chance out of 26x26x26 (which equals 1756).

It is still very easy to conceive that the three-letter word could be randomly chosen in short order. --But the problem is: A three-letter word does not communicate much at all, and isn't a significant amount of information.

Going quite a bit further, however, if the level of complexity in a string of information is high enough (such as in this present sentence), then we can make a virtually air-tight case that this string of information could not have arisen (in any reasonable probabilty) by a random selection of letters, spaces and punctuations ----therefore, we would have a virtual "proof" that this information-set could not conceivably have arisen by random chance selections, but must have originated from an intelligence.

But how much information is necessary to solidly conclude that random selection is no longer reasonable, and intelligent selection is necessary? --That issue comes next:

The Criterion : The "Cosmic Limit" Law of Chance
To arrive at a statistical "proof," we need a reasonable criterion to judge it by : As just a starting point, consider that the French mathematician, Emile Borel, in his book, "Probabilities and Life" ('62; in chapters 2 &3), explains that any occurrence with a chance of happening that is less than one chance out of , is an occurrence with such a slim a probability that is statistically considered to be zero. ( is the number 1 with 50 zeros after it, and it is spoken: "10 to the 50th power"). Borel's appraisal seems quite reasonable, when you consider that is about the number of atoms which make up the planet earth. --So, overcoming one chance out of 1050 is like marking one specific atom out of the earth, and mixing it in completely, and then someone makes one blind, random selection, which turns out to be that specific marked atom. Borel's Law of Chance, states that any chance smaller than that, is statistically considered to be zero. Most mathematicians and scientists have accepted this statistical standard for many purposes.

However, for the purposes of this article, Borel's criterion is merely a starting point, because it is too small, considering the size of the cosmos. We will set a much tougher standard, which we will call our "Cosmic Limit" Law of Chance. --We'll establish that limit in the following way:

Since there are sub-atomic particles in the known physical cosmos, and
Since there are a maximum of interactions (oscilations/cycles) per second between any two of those sub-atomic particles, and
Since there are seconds in the supposed age of the cosmos (15 bill.yrs),
. . . if we mulitply the above three numbers out, we get the number . ----So, equals the total number of physical atomic interactions possible since the beginning of the universe (at the "Big Bang").

We could very reasonably let be our "Cosmic Limit" ---but just to play it safe and conservative, we'll make it 10,000 times bigger, and say that according to our "Cosmic Limit Law of Chance," any chance that is less than one chance out of is considered to be a chance of zero. Therefore, we can reasonably say that any event whose chance of occurrence is less than one chance out of has been virtually "proven" to be statistically impossible in all of the cosmos ( ...actually, in 10,000 such universes as ours).

After such a probabilistic analysis using the "Cosmic Limit" as a deciding point, the conclusion of "intelligent design" of a series of letters, or of a series of amino acids, has nothing to do with religious or sectarian beliefs, nor does it arise from general assumptions, but rather, it is a conclusion drawn from a logical mathematical analysis of probable cause and effect.

This similar sort of analysis can be unemotionally and logically applied to conclude that space signals come from ETs, or that plaigiarized text was stolen by intelligent design ...and it can also be used to demonstrate intelligent design in living things.

Some people have said that such probability analysis only disproves random chance selection, but does not prove intentional intelligent selection.
--How so?
If any mechanism or natural law applies along the way in a process, then this analysis agrees that those things must be taken into account, but
--IF we have reasonably and thoroughly ruled out any adequate mechanistic selection process, and there are no natural laws and properties in the matter which can explain the selection of the items in the series (and this analysis must always be open to that possibility), then it would seem that there are only two options:

...CHANCE or NOT CHANCE.

Is there any other option? --No. The objection to this analysis appears to be special pleading on the parts of those who desire to squirm out of the implications and not rationally follow where the evidence may lead. --This is an unscientific and hypocritical view.

Thus, if we have ruled out mechanism and "chance" assembly, the only thing left is NOT chance, which is the same thing as intentional selection ...which takes place by an intentional, thinking agent... an intelligent designer.

So, let's go on.

Mathematical Proof Of The Intelligent Design Of Proteins
In living cells, proteins are the "machines of life," which build the structures and facilitate (catalyze) the chemical reactions used by all life. Proteins are called "informational" molecules, because they each perform a "function" in living things (such as oxygen-transport by hemoglobin), and they are non-repetitively complex, and the sequential order of the building blocks (amino acids) of protein are highly specified ---so that if the proper sequence is changed much at all, function is lost.

Going further in our proof: There are no known laws (or properties) of physics or chemistry in nature, which would have been sufficient, by themselves, to originally dictate the sequential order of the amino acids in functional classes of proteins adequate to sustain life (so far as anyone has been able to reasonably conceive life). Similarly, there are no known laws (or properties) of physics of chemistry which could have originally dictated the sequential order of the nucleotides in the DNA required for the first life (and to build those first proteins of life) ---although, again, as scientists we must always remain open to the possibility that it may be demonstrated that there is a series of natural events in nature (unaided by intelligent design) which would accomplish the origination of all 20 required amino acids along with the sequential ordering of them to construct the proteins (&/or the DNA) required for life. Any scientific approach must be able to be negated, and this is the way that this "proof" is able to be negated. (See my article on Abiogenesis)

Thus, in our proof, we move on to the possibility of the random assembly of proteins: To look most simply at the probability of the random assembly of a protein, note that proteins are made of 20 amino acids, which are linked together into strings or "chains" (polymers). Therefore, if we grant that the supposed "primordial soup" on the early earth had all 20 amino acids available for protein-building, then the chance that the first five amino acids required to build a specific functional protein might randomly bond together in the correct order, would be one chance out of 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20, which equals one chance out of 3,200,000.

Now, of course, this chance is still not that hard to overcome when you suppose that there were many trillions of each of the amino acids present in the primordial soup, along with trillions of trials taking place at the same time, as well as billions of years for trial and error to get the correct five together. ---The problem is: proteins (from any known functional class) are made of 50 to 1000 amino acids, with the average protein being about 300 amino acids long, so we need to assemble at least 50 amino acids. ---As we continue adding each new amino acid to the chain by random selection, we must continue to multiply one chance out of 20 for each one. Finally, the chance to have assembled 50 amino acids randomly into the correct sequence to build a single functional ("folded") protein, would be: one chance out of (which is a 1 with 65 zeros) ...and is about the number of atoms in a galaxy. ---So, mark one of those with an "x" and find it by chance.

For a more refined discussion on the probabilities involved in randomly assembling a functional (properly "folding") protein, click on the following link for Dr. Michael Behe's article on:

Functional Classes of Proteins are Highly Isolated
In the above article, Dr. Behe explains how observed experimental results, gotten from the analysis of actual proteins, have confirmed that "the odds of finding a folded protein are about one in . . .all proteins that have been examined to date, either experimentally or by comparison of analogous sequences from different species, have been seen to be surrounded by an almost infinitely wide chasm of unfolded, nonfunctional, useless protein sequences."

---This would mean, for example, that even if an ocean of primordial soup (having the volume of a trillion earths) were densely filled with protein-building amino acids ---and in that ocean there conceivably assembled one small funtional protein at random, then all the rest of that immense ocean of such chemicals would most probably be totally bound up in "junk" sequences of amino acids, which would be useless for building functional "folding" proteins.

And Behe goes on to say, "The conclusion that a reasonable person draws from this is that the laws of nature are insufficient to produce functional proteins and, therefore, functional proteins have not been produced through a nondirected search."

This research confirms, then, that the random processes of nature appear inadequate to assemble even one functional protein of life as we know it, without the work of an intelligence to assemble the amino acids into the complex specified informational sequences required by living things.

Irreducible Complexity of "Life" Information is Proof of Intelligent Design in Nature
Even though the chance of the random assembly of a single type of protein is more remote than the limit set by Borel's Law of Chance (with a threshold set at one chance in ), still, if we use our "Cosmic Limit Law of Chance", the random assembly of one such protein might possibly be within reach. However, the problem for neo-darwinian naturalists is: There is much more to the simplest conceivable life-form than just one protein. Even the smallest bacteriophage codes for about nine proteins -----but a bacteriophage is not capable of independent life. Evidence indicates there is no independently self-sustaining, metabolizing, reproducing lifeform which would require any less than 100 proteins ...to wit:

Biochemist Harold Morowitz estimated that the "minimum" self-replicating cell would include:

Five proteins required for making of cell-membrane fats and structures;
Eight proteins for a very simplified and basic form of energy metabolism;
Ten proteins required for the production of the nucleotides (building-blocks for making DNA) and for the actual production of DNA; and then, finally,
About eighty proteins as part of an apparatus for the production of all the cell's proteins.

So, the minimal cell would require at least 100 proteins (of moderate length). Morowitz writes: "This is the smallest hypothetical cell that we can envisage within the context of current biochemical thinking. It is almost certainly a lower limit." Morowitz is basically saying, that this simplest proto-cell could not stand to lose even two or three of the 100 proteins described, and still continue to stay alive and reproduce ...otherwise, by definition, it would not consist of the "minimum" of proteins required.
The above situation, is essentially one called "irreducible complexity," which has been described in living biochemical systems, by Siegfried Scherer (1983), and also by Michael Behe ("Darwin's Black Box", 1996). In a nutshell, Behe says, a system is irreducibly complex if it is "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning" (p.39). In Behe's book, he illustrates irreducibly complexity by using a common mouse-trap, which is basically made of a wooden base, a wire hammer, a spring with extended ends that press against the base and hammer, a holding bar to hold the hammer back when the trap is set, and a pressure-sensitive catch which, when slight pressure is applied to it, releases the holding bar to spring the trap. This trap system is irreducibly complex, because if any of the five basic parts is missing, the trap will not function. If this trap were to "evolve" it would all have to evolve all at once in order to function. You could not evolve the spring and trap a few mice; and evolve the catch and trap a few more; etc. By definition, the minimum number of parts must be present all at once, or there is no function for evolution to work with.

In the case of Morowitz's minimal cell (if he is right about what is truly minimal), then even six proteins would not be enough to carry on metabolism to keep the minimal cell alive ---and yet, experimental evidence (from actual proteins analyzed) confirms that the chance of one functional protein assembling by random processes, is one chance out of , ...and, thus, the chance of two functional proteins occurring together at the same time and in the same place would be one chance out of (the product of times itself).

If you recall, one chance out of is our "Cosmic Limit of Chance" which we calculated. Therefore, even with all the time and matter in the universe since the Big Bang, there is a zero probability that even two properly functional proteins could assemble beside each other in the same place by random processes of chance in nature ...and this is only two proteins of the minimum 100 proteins required for the most basic life-form conceivable. Not even the smallest bacteriophage codes for only two proteins ...but still, even it could not assemble by random processes.

In addition, Michael Behe describes other information-rich structures in microbiology, which are "irreducibly complex." These could not have (as Darwin said) "been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications", because all of the parts of the system must necessarily be present to have any function for evolutionary selective advantage to take place. Behe cites such microbiological structures as the cilium and the flagellum. With regard to our proof of the high improbability of the random assembly of proteins, consider that a cilium is made of more than 200 different kinds of proteins, and if only 5% of those proteins have evolved, the cilium is non-functional (and, thus, not selected for by evolutionary natural selection). How did the first 5 or 10 of those 200 necessary proteins develop correctly in the direction of cilium construction, if even the first two proteins have a zero chance of random assembly in all the time and matter in the universe?

As another example, a "minimal" flagellum, requiring about 6 different proteins for it's construction, would be (by definition) irreducibly complex ---and if even one of those 6 proteins were missing, there would be no function. How did the complex specified information in the DNA initially arise in order to specify the building of the very first cilium or flagellum?

Therefore, in light of overwhelming evidence, random "trial and error" searching would fail to originate any significant amount of complex specified biological information ...and if random processes did not accomplish it, then the only other logical possibility, is non-random activity. In the same way, if un-guided assembly fails to initially originate information, then the only other logical possibility, is guided assembly. Obviously, if we are looking at "non-random" and "guided" assembly, then this would be the intentional and willfuly directed action of an intelligence. Complex specified biological information must be the result of intelligent design. This is a logical scientific conclusion ...even though empirical science does not (so far as we know) help us to determine the identity of the designer(s) in nature.

Michael Denton (an evolutionist at the time) wrote: "If complex computer programs cannot be changed by random mechanisms, then surely the same must apply to the genetic programmes of living organisms. The fact that systems in every way analogous to living organisms cannot undergo evolution by pure trial and error and that their functional distribution invariably conforms to an improbable discontinuum comes, in my opinion, very close to a formal disproof of the whole Darwinian paradigm of nature. By what strange capacity do living organisms defy the laws of chance which are apparently obeyed by all analogous complex systems?" (Denton's, "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis", '85).
...Indeed.

Other Alternatives Sought By Evolutionists
Some neo-darwinian evolutionists have attempted to overcome the astronomical odds resulting from honest and open mathmatical analyses of the chances of abiogenesis, and they have done this by proposing that DNA or RNA formed first before the proteins. --But what does this accomplish? One way or another the "information" must originate in order to direct the building of proteins, and if it had to arise by chance processes anywhere along the line, then the calculation of the chances of probability would turn up the same results, because the four nucleotides would have to be properly sequentially ordered in order to direct the building of the first functional proteins.

Nothing is gained. We would still be asking basically the same questions: How did the informational sequential order of the nucleotides in DNA / RNA initially arise so that they could code for the building of functional proteins which carry on the minimal processes and build the minimal structures of life?

(Regarding RNA as being possibly the first step to make life, Philip Johnson writes, "The obstacles to prebiotic RNA synthesis were reviewed in 1989 in a lengthy article by G.F. Joyce in Nature. Joyce concluded that RNA is "not a plausible prebiotic molecule, because it is unlikely to have been produced in significant quantities on the primitive earth" " (Darwin on Trial, '93, p.108).
Still others, most notably A.G. Cairns-Smith, have proposed that templates made of clay may have formed the basis for organic molecules to arrange themselves along the line-up of the crystals in the clay. But what would specify the proper ordering of comlex specified bio-information? People speak of little mineral "replicators", but fail to show experimentally how this could possibly develop a mechanism leading to the biological information required for life.

The question still remains: How could complex specified biological information first originate? Why and how could the clay crystals be arranged in the correct sequential order to afford a template for the correct sequential order of the biological molecules (whether they be nucleotides or amino acids)? There is no experimental evidence to date that any siginificant ordering of bio-molecules could overcome the odds of randomness. The biochemist Klaus Dose speaks about this mineral origin of life scenario, and says, "This thesis is beyond the comprehension of all biochemists or molecular biologists who are daily confronted with the experimental facts of life" (Dose, '88).

It is often thought that natural selection would choose in favor of any tiny steps that are successfully taken along the way to the development of life. --However, those who suppose this to be a help for their theory, forget that natural selection only selects on operative functionality (not any future or merely possible function), --and for biological function to exist, there are minimal numbers of parts organized into structures in living things (a la Morowitz & Behe) which are necessarily directed by a minimum of complex specified information. Natural selection cannot work without function --and an irreducibly complex system has no function until all the parts (as a minimum) are there to begin with.

Conclusions: Scientific and Religious
Scientific Conclusions

And so, random operations of chance totally fail in the origination of any significant amount of complex specified information, and we can mathematically rule random origination out --whether regarding sentences made of Scrabble-letters, or the words in this essay, or the text in a plaigiarized work. We do this by a rigorous mathematical analysis of the sequential pieces in a sizeable piece of functional information.

---This is a purely scientific and mathematical analysis and conclusion, and IF we cannot be quite rigorous about arriving at such a conclusion, then we only have hunches and oppinions to go by as to whether a string of suspected "information" is a random occurrence or not (unless the writer or originator is discovered or confesses the act).

But we can quite rigorously and scientifically demonstrate (through probability analysis) that the specified complex order in such information is not the result of random ordering or chance occurrence. So, having ruled out random chance, the opposite of "randomness" and "chance" ---is NOT chance ---which is the same as intentionality and willful purposefulness. We can scientifically and mathematically demonstrate that someone has intentionally assembled the complex specified information.

NOTE: Regarding Plaigiarism, we can rigorously and scientifically do the math and prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a continuous sequence of 100 or more letters and spaces which is identical to a previous work (and not attributed to the original work), was plaigiarized. Case closed. No doubt or equivocating.

In this way, we can --for example-- analyze and conclude that the sentences made of Scrabble-letters were assembled by purposeful, thinking intelligence(s). --This is a conclusion of Intelligent Design. This can be scientifically and mathematically determined by a cold analysis of the information alone as evidence. It has nothing to do with religious or spiritual views.

Similarly, we can solidly conclude that the words of this present paragraph could not possibly have been the result of a random selection of letters, spaces and punctuation. Intelligent design of its complex specified information can be scientifically and mathematically determined by analysis of the information itself, without the testimony (or specific identity) of the author being discovered or revealed. Such analysis would be a scientific and mathematically substantiated conclusion, and is not related to any religious viewpoints.

And --in the same way-- we can analyze and conclude that Intelligent Design has taken place in the origination of the information contained in the DNA of living things. Intelligent design of the complex specified information in DNA can be scientifically and mathematically determined by analysis of the information itself. This would be a scientific and mathematically substantiated conclusion, and is not related to any religious viewpoints.

Detecting and demonstrating Intelligent Design of complex specified information is a purely scientific and mathematical conclusion arising from the cold and logical analysis of the phenomenon of complex specified information itself.

Intelligent Design in living things is a scientific and testable determination, because it can be disproven --for example-- by demonstrating that there are some properties or laws of chemicals or physics which can explain the sequential ordering of the information in the DNA.

--It can also be disproven if the random arrangement and ordering of parts in a sequence is reasonably probable.

-- It can also be disproven if the natural selection of random changes and additions to the DNA can explain the accumulation and ordering of the biological information in DNA.

However --after careful consideration of these issues-- if random arrangement and sequencing of parts is mathematically ruled out as described here, then Intelligent design is the remaining option. Thus, it would seem that anyone with an open mind to the facts of the situation would deduct that an intelligent designer is the only logical explanation for the initial origin of at least some of the complex specified information in biological systems. This conclusion is not arrived at by irrational faith, but the deduction comes from a calm evaluation of empirical facts rigorously verified in the laboratory and analyzed by accepted logic and mathematical probability procedures.

Limits of the Intelligent Design Conclusion

Beyond the basic determination that some complex specified information came from an intelligent designer, science is then quite limited:

The determination of ID cannot tell us whether the designed item is very well designed. Perhaps there are some qualities about the design which are less than ideal, and could be better.

The determination of ID very possibly cannot tell us the name(s) of the designer(s).

ID very possibly cannot indicate the motivation of the designer in assembling the information. Maybe there is planned obsolescence in the design.

The determination of ID very possibly cannot tell us much about the personal qualities of the designer(s) --whether the designer(s) are very kind, or good, or extremely powerful, etc.

-- Because of such limitations with ID, the science classroom cannot rationally go beyond the limitations of the capabilities of ID to simply indicate that some information was produced by an intelligence. -- Such on-going discussions and implications would be better left to philosophers and theologians.

Historical or Religious Conclusions

Although proof of intelligent design may be demonstrated quite rigorously, the personal identity of the designer(s) is not a scientific issue. It is a personal issue, such as whether the writer of the Scrabble sentences will reveal himself. It may also be a historical issue, as whether another person witnessed the making of the sentences. It is not a scientific issue, per se.

Though we have come up with very nearly an air-tight proof that intelligent design in nature is a factual reality, the specific identity of the designer does not seem to be (as yet) apparent from an investigation of only nature and biological things. It does not appear that we can necessarily conclude that the designer is an omnipotent being, since all of the designed things we might consider are finite things, for which a finite designer could be adequate

My Personal Conjecture

It is my personal religious and philosophical opinion that the information in living things involves a complexity of design in living things which is far beyond the current capabilities of mankind. Therefore, the designer of DNA --and life itself-- must be extremely intelligent.

Furthermore, in view of the design which is evident in the Cosmos (and in the fine-tuning of the Big-Bang, for instance), it would be necessary for the designer to be unimaginably powerful.

Therefore, The probability of God not existing is 1of

Which is 1 out of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000