It may be surprising to learn that a star orbiting the Milky Way Galaxy’s black hole has produced evidence for one of the most tested and implication-laden theories of science—general relativity—but that’s what’s happened. An international team of astronomers, equipped with sophisticated measuring instruments, has analyzed data they’ve captured from recent measurements of the star’s orbit and provided evidence buttressing the idea of a cosmic beginning and, hence, a causal agent. I’ll explain the findings in this post and will discuss the philosophical implications in next week’s entry.

Implications of a Beginning
Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity gave astronomers their first indication that the universe had a beginning, implying a cosmic Beginner. As I demonstrated in my first full-length book, The Fingerprint of God, a straightforward solution of the equations of general relativity demonstrated that the universe was expanding.¹ Early twentieth century astronomers recognized that this cosmic expansion implied a cosmic beginning with consequent philosophical inferences.² The most fundamental of these inferences was that a cosmic beginning implies that something or Someone caused it.

In the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, astronomers and physicists deduced powerful space-time theorems from general relativity.³ These theorems establish that even space and time are created entities, implying that a Causal Agent beyond space and time created our universe. Hence, increasing evidence for the veracity, reliability, and generality (ubiquitous applicability) of general relativity (including weak, strong, and extremely strong gravitational field tests) also provides increasing evidence for the God of the Bible and for a biblical cosmic creation model.

Weak and Strong Gravitational Field Verifications of General Relativity
As I have documented in my book The Creator and the Cosmos, 4th edition, general relativity has passed every conceivable weak gravitational field test with flying colors.⁴ In two recent Today’s New Reason to Believe blogs I described how observations of gravitational waves emitted as a result of two neutron stars merging to produce a black hole and two black holes with masses equal to 29 and 36 times the Sun’s mass merging to make a black hole of mass 62 times the Sun’s mass established the validity of general relativity for strong gravitational fields. You can watch a computer animation of a neutron star merging event here.

Extremely Strong Gravitational Field Tests of General Relativity
However, until very recently, tests of general relativity in the vicinity of extremely strong gravitational fields had been lacking. The orbit of the star S0-2 (also known as S2) around the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy provides such a test.

S-stars are nuclear burning stars with masses greater than the Sun that formed in star clusters near the galactic center, escaped from their clusters, and migrated into close orbits around our galaxy’s supermassive black hole, Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*). Figure 1 shows the S stars that most closely orbit the supermassive black hole.

Of all S stars, S0-2 has the closest orbit about Sgr A*, with an orbital period of only 16 years. Also, at 13.6 times the Sun’s mass it is the most massive of the S stars. Hence, it is by far the best star for astronomers to use in testing the validity of general relativity in an extremely strong gravitational field.

Figure 1: S-stars in the Vicinity of Sagittarius A* (SgrA*), the Supermassive Black Hole at the Center of Our Galaxy
The cross just below and left of the star S2 marks the position of the Milky Way Galaxy’s supermassive black hole.
Image credit: M. Habibi et al., Astrophysical Journal 847, id. 120.

In May 2018, S0-2 reached the point of closest approach in its orbit about Sgr A* at a distance 120 times farther than Earth is from the Sun. At that time, its orbital velocity was 2.7% the speed of light or 18 million miles per hour (29 million kilometers per hour)! In March and September of 2018, S0-2 passed through its maximum and minimum velocities, respectively, along the line of sight with Earth. An international team of 29 astronomers observed these three velocity events with three different high precision spectroscopic instruments attached to three different telescopes (the W. M. Keck Telescope, the Gemini North Telescope, and the Subaru Telescope).⁵ All three instruments and all three telescopes were used for all three events. Their observations, combined with slightly less precise measurements of S0-2’s orbit from 1995–2017 (I reported on these previous measurements in a blog posted on April 2, 2018), yielded an unprecedented extremely strong gravitational field test of general relativity.

Groundbreaking Test Results
This test was unprecedented not only in its accuracy, but also in its elimination of systematic uncertainties (uncertainties due to instrumental or measuring technique offsets). The team in their current and previous sets of measurements used four different imaging telescopes and nine different spectroscopic instruments. Furthermore, they were able to determine maximum possible systematic uncertainties by observations of bright radial velocity (velocity along the line of sight with Earth) standard stars of the same spectral type as S0-2.

The team ascertained that the combination of the maximum systematic error and maximum random error in their radial velocity measurements was 20 kilometers per second. Since the range of radial velocities the team observed for S0-2 from March 2018 to September 2018 was 6,000 kilometers per second, the team produced an excellent test of general relativity.

Measurements resulting from the test established that the redshift parameter, γ = 0.88±0.17, which is consistent with general relativity (γ = 1.0) and excludes Newtonian models (γ = 0.0). That is, general relativity contrasted with Newtonian models has been affirmed with a statistical significance of five standard deviations. To put it another way, general relativity “is 43,000 times more likely than the Newtonian model in explaining the observations.”⁶

The team’s measurements also constrained two other important characteristics of the Milky Way Galaxy. First, they established that the Milky Way Galaxy’s supermassive black hole has a mass of 3.964±0.047±0.026 million times the Sun’s mass, where the 0.047 is the probable random error and 0.026 the calculated systematic error.⁷ Second, they determined that the distance from Earth to the galactic center is 7,946±50±32 parsecs (25,916±163±98 light-years), where the 50 parsecs is the probable error and the 32 parsecs is the calculated systematic error.⁸

The previous best measure of the mass of the Milky Way Galaxy’s supermassive black hole was 4.02±0.16 million solar masses.⁹ The previous best estimate of the distance to the galactic center based on an average of different measuring methods and a comparison of different statistical techniques was 8,122 parsecs (26,490 light-years).¹⁰

Although these technical details might seem superfluous for nonexperts, they show the rigor and scope of the work that excites researchers. Thanks to the team’s measurements and analysis of the orbit of S0-2 about our galaxy’s supermassive black hole, the validity and reliability of general relativity have now been established for the full range of gravitational field strengths. This comprehensive verification further strengthens the case for a cosmic beginning—and for a Causal Agent beyond space and time who created our universe.

I’ll explain in next week’s post how there might be possible loopholes for escaping the implications of a cosmic beginning and how the team’s extensive research addresses them. I also will explain how the team’s research combined with another new set of measurements largely resolved the recently claimed discrepancy in the cosmic expansion rate and removed consequent doubts in certain big bang creation models. Finally, I will address the implications of a slightly smaller supermassive black hole in our galaxy’s core.

Featured Image: Map of the Milky Way Galaxy
The black dot shows the location of our galaxy’s supermassive black hole. The yellow dot shows the location of the Sun.
Image credit: Caltech/JPL/R. Hurt

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The Bible starts with a remarkable claim: the universe began to exist. However, a recent paper generated press that seems to undermine this important biblical statement.₁ Various popular sources ran headlines like “Big Bang Bombshell: Did Dark Matter Come BEFORE Birth of Universe?,” “Dark Matter May Have Existed before the Big Bang, New Math Suggests,” and “Dark Matter May Be Older Than the Big Bang.” Some of the coverage even hints that scientists might not understand the universe as well as previously thought. Will science rebuff a biblical claim? Let’s look at this discovery and see what it tells us about the universe and how well the Bible describes it.

Isn’t the Big Bang the Beginning of Everything?

If the big bang is the beginning of the universe, how could dark matter originate before it? Well, the term “big bang” carries two meanings. According to scientists’ best understanding, the universe started in an extremely hot, dense state from which it expanded and cooled down over the last 14 billion years. Thus, the first meaning of “big bang” refers to the development of the universe from this initial hot, dense state without making any statement on how the universe came to be in this state. The big bang model provides the best explanation of how that initial hot, dense state transformed into the galaxy-filled universe that astronomers observe today.

The second usage of the term refers to the idea that, when running time into the past, one eventually encounters a singularity where the laws of physics break down. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose developed a powerful theorem showing that if a few conditions apply (like general relativity describing the universe and energy behaving a certain way) to the universe at all times, then the singularity genuinely exists and it represents the beginning of the universe. One should keep this distinction in mind when reading about whether the big bang means the universe had a beginning or not.

Specifically, the new discovery uses “big bang” with the first meaning in mind. Researchers have postulated a hypothesis that dark matter originated before the time when our understanding of physics gives us a relatively clear picture of how the universe behaves.

Inflation before the Big Bang

Many cosmologists and physicists would argue that the conditions necessary for the Hawking-Penrose theorem to hold don’t actually apply for two different reasons. The first reason concerns the condition that general relativity (GR) describes the universe. While GR has passed every observational test thrown at it, GR is inherently a classical, not quantum, theory. This means that GR likely gives way to a more fundamental quantum theory of gravity necessary to describe the initial hot, dense state. Proponents presume that the correct quantum theory of gravity will remove the singularity of GR, but for now we have no idea if this is true.

The second reason concerns the condition related to how energy behaves. Observations of the universe have affirmed the big bang model while revealing some issues known as the horizon problem, oldness-flatness problem, and magnetic monopole problem. Scientists also realize that an epoch of rapid, geometric expansion called inflation would solve these problems. However, this epoch of inflation occurs prior to the big bang models (as in the first usage). Additionally, how inflation works violates the energy condition required for the Hawking-Penrose theorem to hold. As such, incorporating inflation into big bang models appears to remove the big bang (second usage).

What about Dark Matter?

For over 80 years, scientists have made observations indicating that our universe contains an unusual form of matter that we detect only (currently) through its gravitational interactions. Because it emits no detectable light, scientists call this stuff dark matter. As of now, scientists have suggested numerous candidates to explain dark matter, but they possess no direct evidence for which explanation is correct. The research article behind all the headlines above simply proposed a new explanation for dark matter generated during the inflationary epoch. Obviously, future observations are necessary to see if this new proposal has any merit.

The Bottom Line

Simply positing a model where things happen before the moment when physics constrains our knowledge does not remove the evidence pointing to a beginning. Investigations of dark matter, inflation, quantum gravity, and the like represent the frontiers of scientific research. Consequently, these areas pose the most difficult—and most fun—scientific problems. I look forward to resolution of these problems and expect further affirmation of “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

Resources

• To explore all the issues regarding the scientific case for a beginning of the universe, check out my latest book, Escaping the Beginning? Confronting Challenges to the Universe’s Origin?.

By Ken Wolgemuth

Radiocarbon dating is one of the best-known tools used by geochemists to obtain an age of ancient materials such as wood, bones, charcoal, and coral reef limestone. The method is suitable for samples less than 50,000 years old, and can be applied to disciplines like geology, paleontology, anthropology, and archaeology. Famous artifacts and sites dated with carbon-14 include the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hezekiah’s tunnel.

The dating of all biblical artifacts and sites is valuable for improving our understanding of Scripture, and dating the Dead Sea Scrolls helps establish the credibility of the Old Testament Messianic prophecies. For example, Isaiah 53 paints a vivid picture of the pain endured by “a man of suffering.” This man is “pierced,” “crushed,” and “slaughtered” despite his innocence. Rather, declares the prophet, “the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Christians believe that Jesus’s death fulfilled this prophecy. Indeed, it is difficult to miss the parallels between Isaiah’s man of suffering and Christ’s crucifixion. Because of this, skeptics have long argued that Isaiah 53 must have been written after the death of Christ. Radiocarbon dating of The Great Isaiah Scroll in the 1990s placed the texts between 351 and 230 BC—well before Christ’s time on Earth.

Here I will describe how three independent processes are integrated to give confidence in the reliability of the carbon-14 dating method: radioactive decay of carbon-14 (physics and chemistry), the growth of tree rings (biology), and annual layers of sedimentation (geology). It is ideal to have multiple lines of evidence!

Radioactive Decay and Tree Rings

The first process is the radioactive decay of carbon-14. The known half-life of carbon-14 is 5,730 years. These atoms are produced by collisions of cosmic rays with nitrogen in the upper atmosphere. The resulting carbon-14 combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, which growing plants take in for photosynthesis. When the plant dies, the resupply of carbon-14 is cut off and the concentration declines as the carbon-14 decays into nitrogen. Animals ingest the carbon-14 into their tissues until they die and then the carbon-14 declines. In both plant and animal matter, carbon-14 decays at a predictable rate based on its half-life.

The second process is the growth of tree rings. Each year of a tree’s life, rapid growth in the spring results in a light-colored layer in the trunk followed in autumn and winter by a darker layer. This process yields a method to count years into the past. In fact, the oldest known living tree is a bristlecone pine located in the White Mountains of California. This tree was discovered to have more than 5,000 annual rings, representing that many years. (It is in the same area as the tree nicknamed “Methuselah,” which was identified as the oldest tree for many years until recently.)

Dendrochronologists (scientists who study tree rings) can count beyond the age of individual trees by “cross-dating” the rings of multiple trees (see figure 1). Patterns in ring growth from trees in the same region can be aligned like bar codes. This overlap can provide a record extending much further into the past than the lifetime of any one tree. Using this method, scientists in Europe have produced an uninterrupted, overlapping, and cross-dated tree-ring record back to 14,000 years. (See red line in figure 3, by Davidson and Wolgemuth).

Figure 1: Cross-dating tree rings. Patterns in ring growth from trees growing in the same region are aligned like bar codes to extend the count back in time. Image credit: Gregg Davidson and Ken Wolgemuth

Lake Suigetsu Varves

The third process is the sedimentation of annual layers called varves. Lake Suigetsu is part of a multi-lake system on the west coast of Japan that is dramatically unique for the study of climate history—so unique it’s nicknamed the “Miracle Lake.” Core samples from Lake Suigetsu show varves in alternating dark and light stripes (see figure 2). For long periods of time, the bottom waters of Lake Suigetsu were anoxic (no oxygen), which prevented burrowing organisms from disrupting the sediments.

Figure 2: Photo of Lake Suigetsu varves. See Lake Suigetsu here. Image credit: Gregg Davidson and Ken Wolgemuth

River flow into adjacent Lake Mikata serves to trap coarse-grained sediment before the fine-grained sediment passes into Lake Suigetsu. This creates the dark layers. Each spring, algal blooms grow and produce tiny shells that rain down on the lake floor. This results in the light layers.

As with tree rings, age can be determined from counting the annual varves. One interval of Suigetsu core does not have varves from a time when bottom waters were oxygenated. Fortunately, the varve record overlaps the tree-ring record, – from 10,000 to 14,000 years – allowing varves and tree rings with the same carbon-14 content to line up (see figure 3). The majority of samples measured for carbon-14 were leaves and twigs found between the varves. In figure 3, varves are identified as (tiny) green circles and data from tree rings are in red. You can see that there are about 4,000 years of overlap between the tree rings and the varves. This overlap provides a superb opportunity to verify that the sedimentary couplets in Lake Suigetsu are varves—that is, the light and dark layering is indeed annual. Together, the tree-ring and varve count traces a history of nearly 50,000 years.

Notice that the red and green line of carbon-14 data is squiggly. This result is expected because the cosmic rays bombarding the earth vary over time. Therefore, to obtain a calendar age in years, this reference line is prepared first from the carbon-14 content in the tree rings and in the leaves among the varves as shown in figure 3. Then, for a sample of unknown age, its carbon-14 content is entered on the vertical axis, and the calendar age is determined from the horizontal axis entirely from counting the tree-rings or varves. So, if you can count tree rings/varves, and a laboratory measures the carbon-14, you can determine the calendar age on the horizontal axis – no complex half-life equation required.

Figure 3: Tree ring and varve count vs. carbon-14 content. The solid lines represent the window for conventional expectations. Image credit: Gregg Davidson and Ken Wolgemuth. (For the full description, see figure 10 in the Davidson and Wolgemuth paper referenced in resources.)

Still another confirmation of the tree-ring count and carbon-14 age comes from a specific volcanic eruption 10,000 years ago. Argon-argon dating of an ash bed from the Lake Suigetsu core is consistent with the age determined by tree-ring counting. In other words, the ash is next to leaves in the varves that have the same amount of carbon-14 as a 10,000-year-old tree ring! (See figure 4.)

Figure 4: Carbon-14 dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ar-Ar dating of an ash bed from the Lake Suigetsu core are consistent with ages determined by tree-ring counting. Image credit: Gregg Davidson and Ken Wolgemuth

Carbon-14 dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls is also consistent with the age determined by tree-ring counts that date back to 351 to 230 BC. This means we have the intersection of three completely independent methods tied together for one coherent result. Multiple lines of evidence support the conclusion that Old Testament prophecies, like Isaiah 53, predate the life of Christ. God has given us some very powerful tools to understand the past, including this history of His Scriptures.

* I want to thank Mark McEwan and Arnold Sikkema for assistance in clarifying the text. Thanks to the Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation, who first published this article as a pamphlet at https://www.csca.ca/pamphlets.

Resources

• Gregg Davidson and Ken Wolgemuth, “Testing and Verifying Old Age Evidence: Lake Suigetsu Varves, Tree Rings, and Carbon-14,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 70, no. 2 (June 2018): 75–89, https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2018/PSCF6-18Davidson.pdf.
• Gordon Schlolaut et al., “Event Layers in the Japanese Lake Suigetsu ‘SG06’ Sediment Core: Description, Interpretation and Climatic Implications,” Quaternary Science Reviews 83 (January 1, 2014): 157–70.
• R. A. Staff et al., “Integration of the Old and New Lake Suigetsu (Japan) Terrestrial Radiocarbon Calibration Data Sets,” Radiocarbon 55, no. 4 (2013): 2049–58; Christopher Bronk Ramsey et al., “A Complete Terrestrial Radiocarbon Record for 11.2 to 52.8 kyr B.P.,” Science 338, no. 6105 (October 19, 2012): 370–74.
• Carol Hill, Gregg Davidson, Tim Helble, and Wayne Ranney (eds), The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth: Can Noah’s Flood Explain the Grand Canyon? (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2016). See chapter 19.

Imagine you’re flying over the desert, and you notice a pile of rocks down below. Most likely, you would think little of it. But suppose the rocks were arranged to spell out a message. I bet you would conclude that someone had arranged those rocks to communicate something to you and others who might happen to fly over the desert.

You reach that conclusion because experience has taught you that messages come from persons/people—or, rather, that information comes from a mind. And, toward that end, information serves as a marker for the work of intelligent agency.

Image credit: Shutterstock

Recently, a skeptic challenged me on this point, arguing that we can identify numerous examples of natural systems that harbor information, but that the information in these systems arose through natural processes—not a mind.

So, does information truly come from a mind? And can this claim be used to make a case for a Creator’s existence and role in life’s origin and design?

I think it can. And my reasons are outlined below.

Information and the Case for a Creator

In light of the (presumed) relationship between information and minds, I find it provocative that biochemical systems are information systems.

Two of the most important classes of information-harboring molecules are nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) and proteins. In both cases, the information content of these molecules arises from the nucleotide and amino acid sequences, respectively, that make up these two types of biomolecules.

The information harbored in nucleotide sequences of nucleic acids and amino acid sequences of proteins is digital information. Digital information is represented by a succession of discrete units, just like the ones and zeroes that encode the information manipulated by electronic devices. In this respect, sequences of nucleotides and amino acids for discrete informational units that encode the information in DNA and RNA and proteins, respectively.

But the information in nucleic acids and proteins also has analog characteristics. Analog information varies in an uninterrupted continuous manner, like radio waves used for broadcasting purposes. Analog information in nucleic acids and proteins are expressed through the three-dimensional structures adopted by both classes of biomolecules. (For more on the nature of biochemical information, see Resources.)

If our experience teaches us that information comes from minds, then the fact that key classes of biomolecules are comprised of both digital and analog information makes it reasonable to conclude that life itself stems from the work of a Mind.

Is Biochemical Information Really Information?

Skeptics, such as philosopher Massimo Pigliucci, often dismiss this particular design argument, maintaining that biochemical information is not genuine information. Instead, they maintain that when scientists refer to biomolecules as harboring information, they are employing an illustrative analogy—a scientific metaphor—and nothing more. They accuse creationists and intelligent design proponents of misconstruing scientists’ use of analogical language to make the case for a Creator.¹

In light of this criticism, it is worth noting that the case for a Creator doesn’t merely rest on the presence of digital and analog information in biomolecules, but gains added support from work in information theory and bioinformatics.

For example, information theorist Bernd-Olaf Küppers points out in his classic work Information and the Origin of Life that the structure of the information housed in nucleic acids and proteins closely resembles the hierarchical organization of human language.² This is what Küppers writes:

The analogy between human language and the molecular genetic language is quite strict. . . . Thus, central problems of the origin of biological information can adequately be illustrated by examples from human language without the sacrifice of exactitude.³

Added to this insight is the work by a team from NIH who discovered that the information content of proteins bears the same mathematical structure as human language. To this end, they discovered that a universal grammar exists that defines the structure of the biochemical information in proteins. (For more details on the NIH team’s work, see Resources.)

In other words, the discovery that the biochemical information shares the same features as human language deepens the analogy between biochemical information and the type of information we create as human designers. And, in doing so, it strengthens the case for a Creator.

Further Studies that Strengthen the Case for a Creator

So, too, does other work, such as studies in DNA barcoding. Biologists have been able to identify, catalog, and monitor animal and plant species using relatively short, standardized segments of DNA within genomes. They refer to these sequences as DNA barcodes that are analogous to the barcodes merchants use to price products and monitor inventory.

Typically, barcodes harbor information in the form of parallel dark lines on a white background, creating areas of high and low reflectance that can be read by a scanner and interpreted as binary numbers. Barcoding with DNA is possible because this biomolecule, at its essence, is an information-based system. To put it another way, this work demonstrates that the information in DNA is not metaphorical, but is in fact informational. (For more details on DNA barcoding, see “DNA Barcodes Used to Inventory Plant Biodiversity” in Resources.)

Work in nanotechnology also strengthens the analogy between biochemical information and the information we create as human designers. For example, a number of researchers are exploring DNA as a data storage medium. Again, this work demonstrates that biochemical information is information. (For details on DNA as a data storage medium, see Resources.)

Finally, researchers have learned that the protein machines that operate on DNA during processes such as transcription, replication, and repair literally operate like a computer system. In fact, the similarity is so strong that this insight has spawned a new area of nanotechnology called DNA computing. In other words, the cell’s machinery manipulates information in the same way human designers manipulate digital information. For more details, take a look at the article “Biochemical Turing Machines ‘Reboot’ the Watchmaker Argument” in Resources.)

The bottom line is this: The more we learn about the architecture and manipulation of biochemical information, the stronger the analogy becomes.

Does Information Come from a Mind?

Other skeptics challenge this argument in a different way. They assert that information can originate without a mind. For example, a skeptic recently challenged me this way:

“A volcano can generate information in the rocks it produces. From [the] information we observe, we can work out what it means. Namely, in this example, that the rock came from the volcano. There was no Mind in information generation, but rather minds at work, generating meaning.

Likewise, a growing tree can generate information through its rings. Humans can also generate information by producing sound waves.

However, I don’t think that volcanoes have minds, nor do trees—at least not the way we have minds.”

–Roland W. via Facebook

I find this to be an interesting point. But, I don’t think this objection undermines the case for a Creator. Ironically, I think it makes the case stronger. Before I explain why, though, I need to bring up an important clarification.

In Roland’s examples, he conflates two different types of information. When I refer to the analogy between human languages and biochemical information, I am specifically referring to semantic information, which consists of combinations of symbols that communicate meaning. In fact, Roland’s point about humans generating information with sound waves is an example of semantic information, with the sounds serving as combinations of ephemeral symbols.

The type of information found in volcanic rocks and tree rings is different from the semantic information found in human languages. It is actually algorithmic information, meaning that it consists of a set of instructions. And technically, the rocks and tree rings don’t contain this information—they result from it.

The reason why we can extract meaning and insight from rocks and tree rings is because of the laws of nature, which correspond to algorithmic information. We can think of these laws as instructions that determine the way the world works. Because we have discovered these laws, and because we have also discovered nature’s algorithms, we can extract insight and meaning from studying rocks and tree rings.

In fact, Küppers points out that biochemical systems also consist of sets of instructions instantiated within the biomolecules themselves. These instructions direct activities of the biomolecular systems and, hence, the cell’s operations. To put it another way, biochemical information is also algorithmic information.

From an algorithmic standpoint, the information content relates to the complexity of the instructions. The more complex the instructions, the greater the information content. To illustrate, consider a DNA sequence that consists of alternating nucleotides, AGAGAGAG . . . and so on. The instructions needed to generate this sequence are:

1. Add an A
2. Add a G
3. Repeat steps 1 and 2, x number of times, where x corresponds to the length of the DNA sequence divided by 2

But what about a DNA sequence that corresponds to a typical gene? In effect, because there is no pattern to that sequence, the set of instructions needed to create that sequence is the sequence itself. In other words, a much greater amount of algorithmic information resides in a gene than in a repetitive DNA sequence.

And, of course, our common experience teaches us that information—whether it’s found in a gene, a rock pile, or a tree ring—comes from a Mind.

Resources

• “Digital and Analog Information Housed in DNA”
• “Biochemical Grammar Communicates the Case for Creation”
• “DNA Barcodes Used to Inventory Plant Biodiversity”
• “iDNA: The Next Generation of iPods?”
• “Harvard Scientists Write the Book on Intelligent Design—in DNA”
• “DNA: Digitally Designed”
• “Biochemical Turing Machines ‘Reboot’ the Watchmaker Argument”
• “Does New Approach Solve the Origin-of-Life Problem?”