Tag Archives: Intelligent Design

Can One “Prove” God?

In my last blog I noted an endorsement of my new book, Proofs of God, from the Discovery Institute in Seattle, the world’s leading proponent of intelligent design. The author of that review, David Klinghoffer, loved the book but doubted one can “prove” God. Let’s look at that today. I’ve seen other comments insisting God cannot be proved. These comments reflect confusion about the nature of proof, and a misunderstanding of what I am saying. I claim modern science “proves” the existence of God. So what do I mean by that, and what is the debate about?

To prove anything you have to start with certain fundamental truths, certain unprovable assumptions. They are sometimes called axioms, sometimes postulates. You start by assuming some things are true, then use that foundation to prove other things are true. What you can prove rests on, depends on, your starting truths.

As the third chapter of my book makes clear, my logical proof of God starts with three assumed truths. The first is that there is an objective reality. Things are real; we are not beings in some sort of computer simulation. My second assumed truth is that our senses generally provide accurate information about that reality, about our world. We can trust clear signals from our senses. If we run into a stone wall, we say that “proves” both that the wall exists and that it is hard. If scientists around the world find all living creatures contain coded groups of atoms we call DNA, we say that “proves” the existence of DNA.

These two assumed truths are the foundation of the scientific method. If you deny them, you deny all of science – all that the human race has ever figured out by observation, experiment, and reason. My first two assumed truths are so fundamental that one rarely talks about them. If you agree scientists have “proved” that DNA is real, you are agreeing with my first two assumed truths.

My third assumed truth is that if there is only one explanation for something, then that explanation is true. If, in all of science and in all of history, there is only one explanation for something, then I assume that explanation is true. In my book I give the example of a person who puts money in a securely locked safe, and comes back the next day and finds the money is gone. She would know someone had stolen the money. She would not say that an invisible money-eating monster got hungry, because there is no historical evidence of invisible money-eating monsters, and there is no scientific reason to think they exist.

With these three assumed truths, it is straightforward to prove human beings were designed. Science has found fantastic technology in all life, and especially in human beings. Plants have sensors that detect variations in both light and temperature. Some fish, turtles, and even butterflies detect both the direction and intensity of the Earth’s magnetic field, coupled with navigation systems that allow them to travel thousands of miles and return to the same field, stream, beach, or tree. This technology is complex almost beyond imagination – much more advanced than anything humans have created. We are only beginning to understand how DNA works, with overlapping layers of information.

In all of human history and experience, only an intelligent being can create technology. In all of science, there is no other known explanation for the existence of technology. Chance is pathetically inadequate. No one has ever seen new technology created by chance, and the odds against that ever happening are fantastic.

Therefore, using my third assumed truth, the technology of life was designed. I call that designer God. This does not prove that the God of the Bible exists, but it does prove that there is a greater intelligence that designed life. This gets one to “first base,” so to speak. You have to accept that humans are created beings.

Darwin’s theory is zombie science. As I show in my book, it is a dead delusion, it has been disproven in multiple ways. Almost all top scientists know this, and all the computer simulations show that mutations reduce information, they don’t create it. You can’t get advanced technology by keeping the best mistakes.

So there you have it. God is real, and we know that as sure as we know anything in this world. Our society is confused and hostile to God. But science tells us God is real.

Thanks for reading.

Doug Ell

ID Made Sassy

The Discovery Institute is the world’s leading proponent of Intelligent Design. Their scientists include Stephen Meyer (Darwin’s Doubt, Signature of the Cell), Michael Behe (Darwin’s Black Box, A Mousetrap for Darwin), Michael Denton (Evolution Still a Theory in Crisis), and Douglas Axe (Undeniable).

I was delighted to receive their endorsement of my new book, Proofs of God.

Click here for their review: I invite you to check it out; it showcases many of my book’s best cartoons. It also understands and highlights my purpose, which was to translate the science to make it accessible to young readers, and to all others who may be uncomfortable with technical details. To date, I have not had a single person tell me they were unable to understand my book.

Thanks for reading. Together we can change the world, and free it from this pathetically depressing Atheist paradigm of a meaningless universe. God is real.

Doug Ell

Proofs of God

It’s been six and a half years since my first book, Counting To God – A Personal Journey Through Science to Belief — was published. It “counts” through seven areas of modern science, seven areas where experimental evidence confirms the existence of God. I consulted with top scientists to make sure everything was correct. I did my best to present the overwhelming case, based on recent discoveries in the last few decades, that all life was created and designed, and this universe was designed. To date, no one has ever challenged me on any of the science; no one has ever suggested I got any of the facts or analysis wrong.

But I was told my book was not an easy read. “Put in more pictures,” said my minister. I worked on how to make the subject fun and enjoyable. The result is my new book – Proofs of God: A Conversation Between Doubt and Reason – recently published by Covenant Books. It is now on Amazon and Barnes and Noble (and on Ingram for retailers), although as of now the full details are not on the links. An e-book version should be out in the next month or so. Click here for the Amazon listing.

As the title suggests, it’s a dialogue between two characters – Doubt and Reason. They argue, they tease, they joke, they challenge. I hired a cartoonist/illustrator to create a dozen or so illustrations. Boxes highlight key quotes and concepts. I kept it short, 133 pages with large font. Over the internet, I found a cover designer in Eastern Europe (not sure exactly where she lives, but she did a great job).

Proofs of God

In my view, the book absolutely does prove the existence of God. I show, using numbers (no formulas, just simple powers of ten), common sense, and logic, that there is no explanation for the technology of life other than it was designed. I show the “cumulative selection” argument used to get around this is nonsense; I show why Darwin’s theory has no scientific basis and is plainly rejected by the evidence; and I show that life and this universe could not have arisen by chance. If you’ve ever wanted a short, easy-to-read book on the scientific evidence for God, this could be your book.

The publisher wanted to price it at $19.95, but I talked them down to $11.95. For that I had to give up on color illustrations, but the illustrations are still powerful. I will donate any profits to Christian causes. If you like the book, please help me by recommending it to others and please, please give me a good review on Amazon. It’s amazing how helpful good reviews can be.

Did I mention that it makes a good Christmas gift?

Thanks for reading,
Doug Ell

New Marvels from ENCODE

ENCODE stands for Encyclopedia of DNA Elements. It is hundreds of scientists worldwide working to understand the human genome, working to understand how our 3.2 billion letters of DNA code build and operate a human being. Perhaps more than any other set of scientific discoveries, the ENCODE findings lead to the undeniable conclusion that human beings were designed, and God is real.

I noted initial findings of ENCODE in my book (Counting To God, pp. 128, 155-157, 201). Darwin’s theory is that all living creatures “evolved” through a process of mutation and selection, a process of keeping the best mistakes in our DNA. Because of Darwin’s theory that we were created from a series of random mutations, prior to ENCODE many scientists believed the vast majority of human DNA, as much as 98%, was useless “junk.” ENCODE shattered this delusion. In September 2012 the front page of the New York Times announced “The human genome is packed with at least four million gene switches that reside in bits of DNA that once were dismissed as ‘junk’ but that turn out to play critical roles in controlling how cells, organs, and other tissues behave.” The lead paper in Nature noted that scientists were able to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the human genome.

These initial ENCODE findings provoked angry responses from Darwinists. One admitted “if ENCODE is right, then Darwin is wrong.” In December 2012 ENCODE drove a second stake through Darwinian theory, when it reported that human DNA contains at least two layers of information.

The new findings are even more amazing. ENCODE now reports “staggering complexity” in human DNA, “much more complex” than they imagined, so much so that “it’s very hard to get over the density of information.” This short video explains the new findings:


Staggering complexity and dense information can only come from a mind. As my book shows, it is mathematically ridiculous to believe that one can get complex code from random mistakes. That mutations destroy information, not create information, is common knowledge yet commonly ignored.

The arrow of modern science points directly to God. When we were less informed, when we didn’t fully understand the laws of chemistry and physics, when we were ignorant of the wonders of DNA and the complexity of life, we developed superstitions to deny God, superstitions like Darwinism and the multiverse. But as our knowledge advances, as the technology of life and design of the universe come ever sharper into focus, ever more clear and stunning with each passing year, the old superstitions must go. As the light of science grows brighter, we see God more clearly.

Thanks for reading. I hope you will share the good news of modern science. Together we can defeat the atheist paradigm of a meaningless world.

Doug Ell

Is Genesis History?

Last month I gave a talk in Florida on the book of Genesis. The subject was whether key events in Genesis, including Adam and Eve and a global flood, actually took place. The 53 minute video is below if you are interested.

As you may know, my views are contrary to what you read in the newspaper. If you are not open to a different interpretation of the scientific evidence, you should not watch this video.

Mendel’s Accountant

Given the confusing and radically opposed arguments on evolution, wouldn’t it be nice if there were an analytic tool to settle the debate? Wouldn’t it be nice if there were a computer program that carefully modeled the effects of mutation and survival of the fittest for hundreds of generations?

That program has existed for 10 years, and is called “Mendel’s Accountant.” The program tracks all the mutations that occur among individuals in a modelled population using a process the authors call “genetic accounting.” Accumulating mutations get mixed into various combinations along each chromosome. Since children randomly inherit half of their father’s and half of their mother’s genome, some mutations are immediately lost. When it comes time to reproduce, some individuals fail to reproduce because they carry a greater load of harmful mutations. These individuals and their genomes are eliminated, similar to the way Charles Darwin imagined natural selection to work. The program is extremely flexible, and can model various rates of selection and fitness.

Mendel’s Accountant is the most accurate software available for realistically simulating evolutionary genetic models. It was created by the Institute for Creation Research. Crude forerunners of this software were created earlier by evolutionists, but, since the software did not support their theory, they abandoned it.

Mendel’s Accountant shows that mutations accumulate in a highly linear manner. In other words, almost all mutations do not have a noticeable effect on fitness, they “sit below” the selection threshold. This results in a continuous increase in the number of mutations in each succeeding generation. It means that all genomes decay over time. Natural selection can only remove the worst mutations, and the majority of mutations, the mutations that are only slightly deleterious, accumulate relentlessly and without limit. These “nearly neutral” deleterious mutations accumulate like rust on a car. Even though an individual spot of rust does not affect the fitness of a car, accumulating rust spots will eventually destroy it. There is no way, for the human race or any other species, to get rid of slightly deleterious mutations.

In other words, the arrow of evolution is down, not up. Evolution means “change over time,” and that certainly does occur. But average fitness declines with each generation. In “Genetic Entropy,” Cornell Professor John Sanford estimated that average human fitness declines by 1% each generation.

There is no peer-reviewed paper that even attempts to refute the methods or conclusions of Mendel. After a decade, this silence proves Darwin’s theory is wrong. It cannot explain the origin of complex genetic information. The arrow of evolution is down, not up.

Thanks for reading. Please share the good news of modern science with others. Together we can defeat the empty Atheist paradigm of a meaningless world.

Doug Ell

Big Lies

There are lies, damn lies, and Big Lies. By “Big Lies” I mean lies so evil they change the course of civilization. Big Lies must be carefully spun, as a famous person once explained:

[I]n the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the imprudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.

You need to start with a kernel of credibility, and then spin a lie so outlandish people will not believe it could be false. If you do this right, they will continue to believe the lie even when facts are “brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.” I find this quote brilliant. The author is Adolf Hitler.

At the intersection of science and religion, I see three Big Lies. The greatest is you can get advanced technology by chance. This is the Darwinian delusion, the modern version of which is that, through random mistakes in DNA coding, through mutations, you repeatedly get new, fantastically advanced technology, like eyes, navigation by the earth’s magnetic field, even the human brain. The kernel of credibility here is that yes it is theoretically possible to randomly generate a piece of new working code, just as it is theoretically possible for the same person to win every mega lottery year after year. Even though simple math shows this ridiculously unlikely, even though it seems obvious that when you insert random typos in a book it is not likely to transform into a better book, even though all the computer simulations show this process does not generate new technology, even though the transitional forms predicted by this model do not appear in the fossil record, even though every scientist today is aware that the Darwinian mechanism cannot generate new technology, still the Big Lie persists. It has been proclaimed so loudly for so long that though facts have “been brought clearly to their minds,” people still “doubt and waiver” and continue to think Darwinism must be true.

The second Big Lie is like the first – science and religion are in conflict. This builds on the first lie. It argues that, since Darwin has replaced God in the design of living creatures, there is no need of God in other areas of science. There is an invented nonsense theory that a universe can be created from nothing without God. There is an invented nonsense theory that the laws and constants of physics can be perfectly designed without God. There is an arrogant refusal to admit life could not have started without God. My book – Counting To God – exposes these and other lies that science is contrary to religion. I believe my book is a scientific proof of the existence of God, in the sense that, if we can know anything from science, then science tells us God exists.

The third Big Lie follows from the first two. It is that those who believe in God must do so on blind faith, without facts. The first Big Lie claims God didn’t create living creatures, the second Big Lie extends the first to claim that you don’t need God for any of the wonders of creation, and the third Big Lie asserts God is unnecessary, a concept invented by ignorant people.

Hitler’s Big Lies – such as racial superiority and the legitimacy of German aggression – led to the deaths of perhaps 20 million people, including at least 6 million Jews. Hitler’s Big Lies spawned a worldwide conflagration. Yet I believe the three Big Lies at the intersection of science and religion are worse. They have corrupted for over a century, and have lured billions into hopeless lives. Depression, suicide, and drug/alcohol abuse are at all-time highs, especially among the young.

For a Big Lie to corrupt, people have to want to believe it’s true. Hitler’s lies were embraced by a population who wanted to avenge the first World War, who wanted to believe in racial superiority. Today many people don’t want there to be a God. They don’t want moral rules, limits on what they should do or say, and they certainly don’t want to get out of bed and go to worship. Many people will tell you that, even if the existence of God were an absolutely proven scientific fact (which to me it is), they would still “continue to think that there may be some other explanation.”

Friends don’t let friends be Atheists. Let us fight the Big Lies together, and defeat the Atheist paradigm of a hopeless world. Tell people science reveals God. Share the truth.

Thanks for reading.

Doug Ell

The Language of Plants

Where does human language come from? There is no known mechanism as to how human speech “evolved.” No theories are supported by evidence. Even noted linguist Noam Chomsky admits that there is no clear path for the “evolution” of human speech.

What about animals? Many species have intricate systems of communication. Blue whales, the largest animals on Earth, sing songs that travel hundreds of miles. Bees use a “wiggle dance” to tell other bees where to find nectar. The dances are complex, and various wiggles tell other bees how far and in what direction. Somehow, without attending a single dance class, the bees know how to do and understand precise dances that give three dimensional directions. It strikes me as ridiculous to claim that these and hundreds of other animal “languages” were developed through any step-by-step process of trial and error, of keeping the best mistakes.

Language is a subject Darwinian evolutionists prefer to ignore. Do you really think blue whales got together to decide what their songs mean? That bees sat around and agreed that shaking the thorax means the nectar is south? We have left plausibility far behind.

And then there is communication between plants. Yes plants! Some plants, when attacked, give off signals that tell other plants to create chemicals to discourage attacking animals. Plant communication was laughed at when first discovered, but dozens of rigorous scientific studies reveal a hidden world of communication, and there is much more to be learned. I don’t see how any rational person could claim plant communication “evolved.” We are talking about organisms without brains and generally without the capacity to move. Note that the plant being eaten gains no evolutionary advantage by warning other plants.

For plants to communicate, both plants have to know that a certain signal, chemical or other, means that certain steps should be taken. You need that agreement, and you need mechanisms to send and receive the signals – for humans, vocal cords and ears. Then you need the ability to take action – for the plants, increase production of compounds designed to discourage predators. The system is obviously irreducibly complex; if you take away any of the parts the system no longer works. The pieces could not have separately “evolved.”

Only God could have designed human eyes, ears, and vocal cords, and given us the gift of language. Only God could have designed communication systems for animals, and for plants.

And so I ask you to use your gift of language, your ability to communicate through speech, writing, and actions, to spread the good news of modern science. As I have noted in post after post, modern science absolutely reveals the existence of God. Together we can spread a message of hope, and defeat the Atheist claim that we are chemical scum, and the universe is a meaningless place. Those who deny obvious facts are without excuse. As St. Paul wrote two thousand years ago:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Romans 1:18-20 (emphasis added).

I think God made systems that allow plants to communicate to reveal his power and glory. When you look closely at “the things that have been made,” you see God.

Thanks for reading. I’ve been dealing with medical issues that have slowed me and my posts down. But the science of God and creation keeps growing, and I have much more to share.

Doug Ell

The Irony of Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawking was exceptional. He fought ALS for 55 years, perhaps longer than any other person. Despite being confined to a wheelchair for most of his life, and unable to communicate fully, he made significant contributions to physics.

But Hawking had a blind spot when it came to God. Even though his own discoveries pointed to God, he refused to believe.

He died March 14 at age 76. When he was born, most people thought the universe was eternal – that it had always existed. Hawking helped change that view, helped convince others the universe had a beginning. As I show in Chapter 7 of Counting to God, this now undeniable scientific conclusion points to a first cause, a cause outside of time and space. It points directly to God. Yet Hawking refused to accept his own evidence. In an interview, he stated:

Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation.

But his problem, and the problem of every other Atheist, is that there is no scientific experiment or fact-based theory that can explain a universe created from nothing. One of the most respected laws of physics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, states that mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed. Hawking denied the First Law. He wrote “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”

Voltaire wrote: “To the living we owe respect, to the dead we owe only the truth.” The truth is Hawking’s statement is one of the most illogical statements ever made. As English mathematician John Lennox pointed out, it is triple nonsense. First, where did gravity come from? “Who put it there? And what was the creative force behind its birth?” Second, how can a law of physics create something from nothing? “The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone has to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up.” Third, what was the torch, the first cause, to start the process? “Who lit it, if not God?”

Hawking’s books sold millions, but many languished unread on coffee tables. It wasn’t just because they were difficult; it was because in key ways they didn’t make sense. Hawking tried to use math and geometry to avoid the question of how time began. He compared asking what happened before the universe was created to asking what’s south of the South Pole. He invented a concept of “imaginary time,” where time has multiple dimensions like the surface of the Earth. But imaginary time is just that, imaginary. It’s cute math to deny God, but without a shred of scientific evidence.

The fine-tuning of the laws of physics, Chapter 8 of Counting to God, was another major problem for Hawking’s Atheism. In his youth, he developed a formula that showed how fine-tuned gravity had to be for the universe to not fly apart and to not collapse on itself. Paul Davies used that formula to compute that the gravitational constant was fine-tuned to at least one part in a number with 60 zeros. Getting that precision by chance is like picking a special, marked marble out of a pile of marbles 100 light years in diameter, big enough to include thousands of stars. Hawking knew that. He wrote:

The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. . . . The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.

Yes, fine-tuning is a “remarkable fact.” It is also remarkable, and ironic, that Steven Hawking could prove fine-tuning but not accept God.

His story was worthy of a movie, and indeed became one in the award-winning 2014 film The Theory of Everything. But because Hawking rejected God, he missed the true theory of everything. It has three letters: G O D. Only God can explain a universe created from nothing. Only God can explain the fine-tuning of the universe. Only God can explain the enormous amount of information needed to build every living creature.

Thanks for reading. Have a blessed Easter.

Doug

The Glory of the Peacock

Have you ever seen a peacock? The tail – “train” – opens like a fan, and explodes with colors and patterns. Here’s a short video:

The sight is glorious.

How did the peacock get its tail? The secular world insists all creatures “evolved” by a process of keeping the best mistakes, by mutations that just, “accidentally,” happened to create incredible technology. I’ve shown mathematically why that theory, Darwin’s “goo-to-you” theory of evolution, is nonsense, why mutations only destroy information; they can’t create it.

Darwin knew nothing about DNA and genes, but he did know his theory did not explain the peacock. The oversized, glorious tail of the peacock slows it down. The tail does not help the peacock get food, avoid predators, or otherwise survive. How did such a beautiful tail “evolve” without God? In 1860, a year after he published his theory, Darwin wrote:

“The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!”

Eleven years later Darwin tried to solve the problem. He invented a “theory of sexual selection.” The basic idea was that the peacock’s tail had the value of attracting females (peahens), and therefore had “evolved” without God. In other words, Darwin claimed that peacocks with sexier tails had better luck with the peahens, and passed on their genes to the next generation. It’s a “just-so” story worthy of Kipling, and does nothing to explain how the whole process got started, where the information and technology came from to build the first peacock tail, but it was enough of a fig leaf to satisfy generations of Darwinists that the problem had been solved.

Until a research team tested it. After a seven year study, researchers announced in 2007 that “the peacock’s train is not the object of female sexual preference – contradicting Darwin’s theory of sexual selection.” In other words, females mated with “poor-quality” peacocks as often as with “flashy, high-quality” peacocks. Darwin’s ‘theory of sexual selection’ fails to explain the very thing Darwin concocted it for! More hard scientific evidence (like the rejection of “junk” DNA and the absence of intermediary forms in the fossil record) that Darwin was wrong.

And the colors! Those brilliant, iridescent colors of the peacock don’t come from dyes. They are produced by super small geometric structures of atoms, designed to intensify certain wavelengths of light. To design that structure, and to build the factories to produce and assemble it, is stunning, futuristic technology.

Just like Darwin in 1860, evolutionary biologists today should feel sick looking at the glory of the peacock. A glory that reflects, in a very small way, the glory of God.

Thanks for reading. Please share the good news of true science. Together we can change the world.

Doug