From Moshe Averick at the algemeiner in a post titled, “Atheistic Science is Rapidly Sinking in the Quicksand“:
One gram of DNA – the weight of two Tylenol – can store the same amount of digitally encoded information as a hundred billion DVD’s. Yes, you read correctly, I said a hundredbillion DVD’s. Every single piece of information that exists on the Earth today; from every single library, from every single data base, from every single computer, could be stored in one beaker of DNA
And later in conclusion:
The proponents of the “almost miracle” camp implicitly showcase their narrow mindedness by not considering the obvious alternative to a lucky break in the “Monte Carlo casino” game: Intelligent Design. If the probability of life emerging randomly is “virtually zero” as Monod puts it, then it isvirtually certain that it did not emerge by chance; it is virtually certain that it emerged through Intelligent Intervention.
One gram of DNA can hold roughly the same amount of information as a hundred billion DVDs?
You don’t say.
Well, surely an intelligent being created this … this … THIS … DNA.
Surely.
Let’s say for a second, intelligence created this one-hundred billion DVDs of information holding DNA. Let’s agree that a mysterious mastermind cobbled together life long ago, and over time, it evolved into a treasure trove of life’s diversity.
Or let’s say that intelligence literally spoke the universe, the planets (including Earth) into existence and thus dappled this planet with life in one fell swoop of a week.
Let’s marvel at nature.
Wow.
Whoa.
Awesome!
Look at the peacock and the jellyfish. The horse and the locust.
Look at the magnolia tree, her flowers, and the various orchids.
Their sheer beauty and magnitude of complexity will dumbfound the dumbest rock.
That intelligent author of DNA’s code wrote the most beautiful, living things into existence.
And, yet, that same author took responsibility and ownership of the Bible, both old and new testaments, and the Koran,
If human DNA maintains a level of 50% noncoding DNA (or Junk DNA), how much of the bible or the koran do we designate “non-coding” “junk”?
I’m not a proponent of an atheism that is informed by science. Science doesn’t make me turn down the offer of religious thought.
If evolution were proven false tomorrow, today or yesterday, it wouldn’t change that the bible isn’t authored by genius.
I don’t view nature as “genius” either. It has a disastrous success rate.
It has failed much more than succeeded, as evidenced giving credence to an article written by a Rabbi about how the mysteries of science must mean “God did it.”
Jeremy,
I don’t quite understand why you conflated the two issues of a creator of life and the Torah (or the Koran for that matter). They are two completely separate issues and must be approached in different ways. After a lifetime of non-belief, famed atheistic philosopher Antony Flew became a “believer” after investigating the origin of life issue. He did not become a believing Jew or Christian. One has nothing to do with the other. The same holds true for Chandra Wickramasing, longtime collaborator of Sir Fred Hoyle. He states that as a scientist he was “brainwashed” to believe that one could never bring supranatural causes into science. He writes that although the idea makes him uncomfortable there simply is no other reasonable explanation for the origin of life. If there is serious disagreement about the nature, truth, and usefulness of the Torah, then by all means, let’s have the discussion. But first let’s dispense with scientific articles of faith that are just as ridiculous as what religious believers are constantly accused of advocating.
Thanks for your comment, Rabbi.
It should be seen as conflated that I would suppose that all arguments for design are based on holy literature.
I’m simply connecting that the divine is supposedly responsible for holy literature AND for biology.
I do not base disbelief on whether science is true or not. Regardless of whether you name one or a thousand people who have changed their minds, it wouldn’t quite matter.
If the proof of an intelligent designer is founded in mind-boggling nature of DNA, you’ve set your standard for intelligent design much too low.
I’m not pompous enough to know the intricacies of science. And, you can’t possibly have the brain capacity to out-smart a scientist by rushing to this conclusion without full examination of the content.
Your logic, from the outset, is extremely flawed. It’s boring. It’s been addressed by minds much more brilliant than yours.
I do not accept or reject any of science. It’s not faith. If science has or has not an explanation for the origin of life, it does not inform that an intelligence’s existence is just as implausible as any argument you can conjure.
Good luck. I wish I could admire your work, but it’s flimsy and juvenile at best.
Thanks again!
To make a stronger point, one need only look as far as your comments on your post to see deconstruction and destruction of your argument.