Evolution, the theory that all life is the result of purely undirected processes, is probably false.

Science is a methodological approach to understanding the properties and behaviors of the physical world. The scientific method relies on hypothesizing based on already known facts, making predictions based on this hypothesis, and testing the hypothesis via experimentation. The scientific "truth" is that scientific theory which best explains the phenomenon in question, where "best" is defined as "most adequate." Unfortunately, this can often be subjective. Nevertheless, when applicable cases arise, mathematics can be useful in determining the explanatory power of a particular theory. Evolution is just such a case. Thanks to recent discoveries about the digital code contained in DNA and the protein products of that code, it is now possible to quantify the probabilities of such structures arising by chance. In a competition between Evolution and Intelligent Design (the hypothesis that the genetic information contained in DNA is the result of an intelligent cause, as opposed to an undirected one) Evolution fails the mathematical test completely. As humans, we know that intelligent agents can assemble digital code with relative ease. In other words, we already know that intelligence is causally adequate to explain the origin of biological information. Evolution is quite a different matter. It has been postulated that the physics of chemistry are virtually "rigged" to produce life. Many scientists view this as a foregone conclusion. However, there is little scientific evidence to back this up. The idea that the laws of chemistry virtually guarantee life was pioneered by Dr. Dean Kenyon, who co-authored the book "Chemical Predestination." He has since renounced the idea, based on a lack of evidence. It is true that chemical attractions exist between the sugar and phosphorus of nucleotides, but no attraction exists between the nucleotide bases. It has also been pointed out that, if such an attraction existed, it would result in predictable repetitions in the DNA code, which would make life impossible, not probable. Thus, evolutionists are left with pure chance as an explanation for the first living organism. Fortunately for us, it is possible to quantify, at least to a degree, such probabilities. For any DNA sequence of a given length there are a limited number of base pair combinations that will produce functional proteins. According to Dr. Stephen Meyer, who wrote a comprehensive article on the subject of the Cambrian Explosion entitled "The Origin of Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" (link provided below) the ratio of functional to non-functional nucleotide base sequences coding for a relatively small 100 amino acid protein is an astonishing 1 in 10^65. For an average size protein 150 amino acids in length, the probability drops further to 1 in 10^77. These probabilities are so low that abiogenesis begins to sound absurd. Still, the earth is extremely old, a fact around which evolutionists have formed their own kind of religion, wherein God is simply replaced by "time." Time, according to these temporal neophytes, makes even the most ridiculous impossibilities possible. There is a problem, though. According to evolutionists themselves, life was represented exclusively by single celled organisms for around 3.5 billion years of earth's history. Then, suddenly, around 500 million years ago, at least half of the current 40 animal phyla mysteriously appeared in the fossil record. There were virtually no fossil predecessors to any of these animals in older strata. Even the oldest estimate of the length of the Cambrian explosion puts it at a piddling 15 million years. In other words, the billions of years that evolutionists have been hiding behind for decades has vanished. Still, 15 million years may seem like quite a bit of time, that is, until one actually explores the biomolecular implications of the explosion. The jump from single to multicelled organisms is not to be taken lightly. Multi-celled organisms require specialization of cells. In a sponge, one of the most simple multi-celled organisms, there are four basic cell types. Each cell type requires its own unique array of proteins in addition to the basic proteins required for all life. This means that in a period of 15 million years at the MOST, countless proteins, each representing a miraculous improbability of 1 in 10^65 power at least, would have had to arise RANDOMLY and CONCURRENTLY. This is simply beyond what any rational human being can be expected to believe. Another incredible aspect of the Cambrian explosion, in addition to the jump from single to multi-celled organisms, is that of novel animal forms. Animals of radically different shape require cells of different shapes and sizes, as well as function. The shape of cells is determined by the arrangement of the cytoskeleton and its constituent parts, such as the centriole, and protein anchors in the plasma membrane. While many of these protein parts are coded for by DNA, their precise arrangement is not. Thus, the shape of the cell is not determined by DNA. (See citation 2) Instead, cells inherit their shape from their parent cell. The arrangement of protein anchors, for example, is simply the result of the pinching off of a portion of the plasma membrane of the parent cell during cytokinesis to form the plasma membrane of the daughter cell. The implications of this are enormous. If a cell's shape is not determined by DNA, or solely by DNA, then no matter how much time was available for a population's DNA to mutate, it would NEVER result in the novel animal forms that arose during the Cambrian Explosion. Thus, not only is Evolution improbable relative to Intelligent Design (and, by extension, inferior) it is also biochemically IMPOSSIBLE. Considering the complexity and specificity of the information contained in the cell and the fact that intelligence is the only KNOWN cause of information, it is FAR more probable that, if evolution occurred at all, it was guided by intelligence. Ergo, Intelligent Design. There are a number of objections I have encountered to the theory of Intelligent Design in the past few years. One of these is that Intelligent Design is too simple, and that its acceptance would bring an end to a whole field of biology. However, as Chet Raymo pointed out "If something can be explained simply, in a familiar way, then it is best to avoid more exotic explanations." Inventing exotic explanations is the province of UFO enthusiasts and conspiracy theorists the world over, and should have no place in science. But t his is precisely what has happened. Rather than using the most obvious explanation, intelligence, scientists have invented a wildly exotic explanation for life, one that attempts to explain away information itself. Another objection that is frequently fielded is "But science can't touch God! It can't go touch the supernatural. Science deals with materialistic explanations only." This statement betrays a basic lack of understanding of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design makes no reference to God, only to intelligence. God is, indeed, supernatural, but as each of us knows, intelligence is not at all supernatural. The real source of this objection is not scientific, but ideological. Intelligent Design has unmistakable theistic implications, and atheists don't like that. As a result, they attack Intelligent Design by saying that it's just "Re-heated Creationism" and "A covert attempt to get Creation back in the classroom. If one takes this stance toward ID, then one must take a similar stance toward Evolution. Evolution has atheistic implications, and could just as easily be a covert effort to get atheism taught in the classroom as fact. That is precisely what has happened. 1. http://www.discovery.org... 2. Harold, F.M. 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms, and the order of life. Oxford University Press, New York