Hitler, in his book Mein Kampf, praised one American, and only one American. He described him as the single only great man in that country. He spoke about how the sinister tentacles of the Jewish world conspiracy had even reached the New World. These are Hitler’s exact words:

it is not only the Old World that he [the Jew] holds thus enmeshed, the same fate menaces the New. It is Jews who govern the stock exchange forces of the American Union. Every year makes them more and more the controlling masters of the producers in a nation of one hundred and twenty millions; only a single great man, Ford, to their fury, still maintains full independence.

High praise indeed and sadly, I have to say, Henry Ford would have been flattered by Hitler’s comment. As the commentary on my edition of Mein Kampf written by Professor Cameron Watt, of London University, wrote Henry Ford was himself a bitter anti-semite with his own paper, the Dearborn Independant.

Taking a different tack to Henry Ford to the one that the Führer had taken, John Lennox, in his book God’s Undertaker, looked at Henry Ford’s because of his invention of his famous car, as if he was God. What if God was one of us? An interesting idea but one I think that’s already been done.

Tag words: Adolf Hitler; Mein Kampf; Henry Ford; Professor Cameron Watt; John Lennox; God’s Undertaker; God; Pierre-Simon; Marquis de Laplace; Napoleon; Austin Farrer; Sir Isaac Newton;Richard Dawkins; Michael Poole; Peter Atkins; DNA; Professor Dean Kenyon; Biochemical Predestination; Stephen Meyer; The Return of the God Hypothesis; Bill Gates; Microsoft Corporation; Kenneth Miller; intelligent design; Charles Sanders Peirce; Richard Feynman; Stephen Hawkings; deduction; abduction; inference to the best explanation;

… we  would in all likelihood deduce on visiting a remote planet if we found a succession of piles of perfect cubes of titanium with a prime number of cubes in each pile in ascending order — 2,3,5,7,11, etc. We would see at once that here was an artefact produced by an intelligent agent, even though we had no idea what kind of intelligent agent it could possibly be. The piles of cubes are in themselves much 'simpler' than the intelligence that made them, but that fact does not prevent our deduction of intelligent origin as a reasonable inference to the best explanation. We instinctively infer 'upwards' to an ultimately intelligent causation rather than 'downwards' to chance and necessity.

So wrote John Lennox in his book God’s Undertaker. And who would disagree?

Tag words: John Lennox; God’s Undertaker; SETI; Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence; Carl Sagan; Contact; Richard Dawkins; DNA; inference to the best explanation; Massimo Pigliucci; Christian de Duve; Judge Jones; Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District; naturalism; God of the Gaps; Pierre-Simon Laplace; Napoleon;

An anonymous person, once jokingly remarked:

One of the main evidences that there is intelligent life out there is that it has not tried to contact us!

Or as Monty Python put it in their Galaxy Song

“pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth”

We now know, thanks to advances in science, that every living thing has its own operating system. And those operating systems are extraordinarily complex. Even the operating system of the simplest cell. To function at all, and more importantly properly, the operating system needs the right information. The question that materialist scientists (atheist) can’t answer is where that information came from. Stephen Meyer says that it comes from outside the universe – from an intelligent designer. And he says he can prove that to a scientific standard. So I’m giving to give him a shot to do just that.

And so we begin...

Tag words: Stephen Meyer; The Return of the God Hypothesis; John Lennox; God’s Undertaker; Plato; Socrates; Anthony Flew; God; David Hume; Christianity; miracles; Big Bang; universe; singularity; worldview; Charles Sanders Peirce; abduction; abductive inferences; Copernicus; heliocentric theory of the solar system; Galileo; Napoleon Bonaparte; inference to the best explanation; method of multiple competing hypotheses;

Bill Bryson, in his book, The Body - A Guide for Occupants tells us:

Your cells are a country of ten thousand trillion citizens, each devoted in some intensively specific way to your overall well-being. There isn't a thing they don't do for you. They let you feel pleasure and form thoughts. They enable you to stand and stretch and caper. When you eat, they extract the nutrients, distribute the energy, and carry off the wastes — all those things you learned about in school biology — but they also remember to make you hungry in the first place and reward you with a feeling of well-being afterwards so that you won't forget to eat again. They keep your hair growing, your ears waxed, your brain quietly purring. They manage every corner of your being. They will jump to your defence the instant you are threatened. They will unhesitatingly die for you — billions of them do so daily. And not once in all your years have you thanked even one of them. So let us take a moment now to regard them with the wonder and appreciation they deserve.

All of those things that your body does for you is through using the information in your DNA RNA and proteins that reports to your body what it needs to know, what to do, when to do it and how to do it. And as I said before atheists and Christians both agree on that biological stuff of what your body does. What secular scientists and Christian scientists don’t agree on is where your body got that information from? So would you like to know?

Tag words: Bill Bryson; The Body - A Guide for Occupants; DNA; Richard Dawkins; The Blind Watchmaker; Stephen Meyer; The Return of the God Hypothesis; Bill Gates; Watson and Crick; Francis Crick; Charles Darwin; John Lennox; God’s Undertaker; Leslie Orgel; DNA enigma; Peter Lipton; Charles Lyell; Henry Quastler; Hubert Yockey; Dembski; Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence; SETI; Carl Sagan; Human Genome Project; Francis Collins; Gene Myers; Bible;

In 1994, biologist and textbook writer, Kenneth Miller wrote:

The human genome is littered with pseudo-genes [DNA sequences thought to have lost a function they once had], gene fragments, 'orphaned' genes, 'junk' DNA, and so many repeated copies of pointless DNA sequences that it cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design. If the DNA of a human being or any other organism resembled a carefully constructed computer program, with neatly arranged and logically structured modules each written to fulfill a specific function, the evidence of intelligent design would be overwhelming. In fact, the genome resembles nothing so much as a hodgepodge of borrowed, copied, mutated, and discarded sequences and commands that has been cobbled together by millions of years of trial and error against the relentless test of survival.This was the assertion that was the basis of Richard Dawkins 1976 book, The Selfish Gene. If 97% of DNA was junk DNA, nothing more than a parasite as Dawkins called that 97%, then that unequivocally proved that evolution was the unintelligent, unguided way life advanced not the nonsense of an old bearded man in the sky doing brilliant design work as our loving creator God. But Kenneth Miller and Richard Dawkins were getting ahead of themselves. That wasn’t the last word on the subject – what came next should have entirely turned them around to accepting an intelligent God – but no surprises, when most secular atheists are proven to have gotten it wrong, they kick the can down the road and invent a new reason why they’re still right.

Tag words: Kenneth Miller; DNA; junk DNA; Richard Dawkins; The Selfish Gene; God; Walter Isaacson; The Code Breaker; Jennifer Doudna; Jack Szostak; Human Genome Project; Jonathon Wells; Zombie Science; Philip Kitcher; ENCODE; EN-Cyclopedia Of DNA Elements; RNA; Long Interspersed Nuclear Elements; LINEs; Short Interspersed Nuclear Elements; SINEs; Dan Graur; W Ford Doolittle; Alexander Palazzo; T Ryan Gregory; Arthur Keith; Edward Larson; Summer for the Gods; John William Draper; Andrew Dickson White; History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science; A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom; Galileo; Giordano Bruno; James Orr; Science and Faith;

The Jurassic Park series of movies tells the story of human beings using existing living genetic material as the basis for substantially recreating long extinct dinosaurs. It’s purely fictional, but scientifically this is possible. But the huge advantage there is that they’re working with life that already exists.

RNA World – the theory advanced by atheist scientists to show that life could happen without God, is less likely to be able to happen. They have to show that life could begin without God. How is that going for them?

Tag words: Jurassic Park; RNA World; God; Richard Dawkins; DNA; Stephen Meyer; Return of the God Hypothesis; Aleksandr I. Oparin; Theodosius Dobzhansky; Christian de Duve; RNA; Walter Isaacson; The Code Breaker; proteins; Francis Crick; little green men; Walter Gilbert; John Lennox; God’s Undertaker; human genome; single nucleotide polymorphisms; SNPs; Snips; Psalm 139; Jonathon Wells; Zombie Science; junk DNA; Susumu Ohno; W. Ford Doolittle; Carmen Sapienza; Leslie Orgel;

Is there a danger that modern atheist scientists are taking science away from a discipline that only follows the evidence and making it into a religion instead?

some scientists and philosophers have been led, albeit unwittingly, to re-deify the universe by endowing matter and energy with creative powers that they cannot be convincingly shown to possess. Banishing the One Creator God they would then end up with what has been described as the ultimate in polytheism — a universe in which every particle has god-like capacities.

Tag words: One Creator God; Darwin’s Theory of Evolution; DNA; Professor Dean Kenyon; Biochemical Predestination; Stephen Meyer; The Return of the God Hypothesis; RNA; proteins; Allan Sandage; self-organized; The Mystery of Life's Origin; John Lennox; God’s Undertaker; Evolutionism; Professor D. M. S. Watson; Francis Crick; God; Anthony Flew; Plato; Socrates; Follow the evidence wherever it leads; sequence specificity; Bonding affinities; Richard Lewontin; RNA world;

Could a butterfly flapping its wings in Asia, have caused life on earth to have come into existence?

Tag words: Big Bang; John Lennox; God’s Undertaker; Michael Denton; Jacques Monod; Cambrian Explosion; God; DNA; RNA; amino acids; A I Oparin; Stanley Miller; simple cell; proteins; Jack Szostak; Paul Davies; Sir Fred Hoyle; Richard Dawkins; Ilya Prigogine; Isabelle Stengers; Stephen Meyer; Dean Kenyon; GK Chesterton; Bertrand Russell;

Did Watson and Crick, when they discovered the structure of DNA accidentally let God’s foot in the door, something materialist evolutionary biologists had worked for generations to stop happening. There must be an answer explaining the data in DNA that doesn’t mean that intelligent design, God, is the answer. So what bright ideas did they come up to work around that elephant in the room? Or did they think that all life on earth just got lucky, unlike the punk in Dirty Harry who surrendered to Detective Harry Callaghan who, it turned out, was holding an empty Magnum 44 – the most powerful handgun in the world.

Tag words: Watson and Crick; DNA; God; evolutionary biologists; Barry Commoner; central dogma;John Lennox; God’s Undertaker; Jack Szostak; Bill Gates; Genetic Code; Werner Loewenstein; Stephen Meyer; The Return of the God Hypothesis; design without a designer; sequence hypothesis; the DNA enigma; Richard Dawkins; Charles Darwin; Ilya Prigogine; Signature in the Cell; Christian de Duve;

There are two world views about how life began. The first is the materialistic view of the world – the no God view. Crick’s central dogma which I summarised in Part 15 of this series in these words, is a key part of the modern world of the atheist scientists.

"DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us." In 1970, Jacob wrote that an organism is the realization of a "genetic program" written in DNA sequences.

But if the analysis below is right, then that materialist worldview is totally wrong:

One very important implication of the existence of alternative splicing and error repair mechanisms is that DNA would appear to depend on life for its existence, rather than life on DNA, thus calling in question the common notion that life originated in an RNA to DNA to life sequence (the RNA-world scenario).

… there is no basis in known chemistry for the belief that long sequences of reactions can organize spontaneously - and every reason to believe they cannot.

DNA did not create life; life created DNA.

This one screams God as the creator of life.

Tag words: Francis Crick; central dogma; DNA; RNA; protein; RNA-world; God; Barry Commoner; John Lennox; God’s Undertaker; mRNA; spliceosome; Bill Bryson; The Body – A Guide for Occupants; Stephen Meyer; The Return of the God Hypothesis; entropy; Walter Isaacson; The Code Breaker; God of the Gaps; Big Bang; Darwin’s Theory of Evolution;