A professor of evolutionary Antelope Valley College has disclosed the strong likelihood of intelligent design and the appearance of life. The announcement came after a 3-hour presentation at the Lancaster Performing Arts Center of Catholic scientists and believers reasons which have submitted scientific evidence on models based on the Bible.
Matthew Rainbow, a biology professor with a PhD in the field of molecular biology and biochemistry, told a crowd of several hundred people who had been persuaded to change his point of view of the origins of life about six months before After the reading of books by Hugh Ross and Fazale Rana.
Rainbow Wednesday helped organize the event in the debate. The professor said that “now that I think about 60% I’m sure that the first forms of life were intelligently designed by a creator,” Rainbow said. “For 50 years, the best scientific minds in the world have tried to show where the first cell came to be, and we failed miserably to prove it …. If you try for 50 years and can not prove anything, it is a strong element test the old theory of a prebiotic soup now appears to be kaput. ” He referred to what many know as the “primordial ooze” that some evolutionary theorists have described as the birthplace of the first and simplest forms of life, with the evolution of all other forms. Ross and Rana, and now Rainbow, argue that none of these “soups” existed in the first place because there is no evidence of chemical elements that can be found, even in the oldest rock formations that lead evidence of the beginning of organic life. “If life originated in a prebiotic soup, should leave behind the signing of a chemical,” said Rana. “At this point, no one has any evidence that any prebiotic soup.” Rainbow said that his change has limits. “About 40% of me still kept the hope that it will still be able to show how life evolved spontaneously in the normal laws of physics and chemistry,” he said. “I continue to believe, even if God seems to have specially created the first life, I still believe that I can defend with force … that almost all the rest of life has yet evolved.” This limited movement came in the context of the struggle of Ross’ and Rana’s are exhibited in the most wide-ranging that the existence of a creator, or “transcendent agent” can be tested at a high level of probability using science. After reading their work, Rainbow said and concluded that “the laws of physics and chemistry can certainly be interpreted as strong evidence for intelligent design.” Rana and Ross spent three hours Wednesday night summarizing the work that their team has done since 1986. Ross, the founder of Reasons to believe, it creates the basis of cosmic organization “Model of Creation.” He has a Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of Toronto. The model is characterized by the movement of creation of “intelligent design,” which has been rightly considered unscientific, he said. “The Intelligent Design is not testable because intelligent design does not, yet, any model to explain the origin of life’s history and its details,” said Ross. “We have a model. We had a model even before the circulation of intelligent design existed.” Ross pointed out that his work does not prove the existence of God ever with 100% certainty. “Science is not able to provide proof of the absolute. Science can not provide absolute proof of the existence of any entity,” he said, but it is able to offer “measurable probability.” “When I married my wife 31 years ago, I told you it was a marriage without proof of its existence. All I had was a high probability,” he said. “I’ve been married to her for 31 years and performed a series of experiments. Now I can tell you that the probability is much higher.” The scientific method can also be applied to the existence of an entity that transcends time and space, he said, and, in particular, the God of the Bible that has the traits described in the Old and New Testaments. “The Bible contains about 10 times more content about the origin and structure of the universe than the rest of the sacred books combined the world of the great religions,” said Ross. (He knows because he controlled, he said.) “Why is it so specific, this gives the opportunity to put science to the test.” A creation model derived from the Bible should include a universe that emerges from a “beginning of singularity” – that is, a time when space, time, matter and energy into action where before there was nothing. “What is unique about the Bible (including the creation of stories) is that it speaks of God acting independently in space and time,” said Ross. The universe therefore should continually expand and cool over time, he said, adding that all three elements describe the observed universe as explained from exploring modern scientific. “For thousands of years, the Bible was the only text out there that speaks of an ever expanding universe,” he said. Based on astronomical observations and calculations used by Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity, such a universe has existed for about 14 billion years, Ross said. His model predicts that future scientific studies will produce the following results: will increase Evidence for a single start. Increase Evidence that the time is over. Increase the test that general relativity describes reliability cosmic dynamics. Strengthening of the theorems space-time theorems. The case of a link between causality and agent transcendent become stronger. Evidence for other miraculous events are found. “This is a model of what it is supposed to do, not only explain, but expect,” said Ross. A subset of its model will appeal to a concept of Ross called the “fine tuning” of the universe. Simply, it is said that the conditions necessary to sustain human life are so precise that the mathematical probability that one of them would occur randomly becomes effectively zero. These variables affect the Sun, the Moon, Jupiter, the Milky Way, the Earth, the galaxy district and dozens of other items dela situation of our planet, he said, concluding that when combined, such an improbable event can be explained only by the act of a creator. His model predicts that if there is a creator, the evidence for such fine-tuning will increase. Over the past 20 years, Ross said, is the tendency that science has produced. When Ross finished, Rainbow answered some questions. Its main application is not scientific but theological. “I’m not really agree with one thing you said, Dr. Ross.” But, “it’s one of your central thesis of the book is that the Jewish-Christian Scriptures reveal a surprising amount of what we might call the technical information about the cosmos …. It seems to me that if God really exists and is so interested in the technique of revealing information in the way in which they are established, then he would have done much better in job creation in the Bible – there are so many things that God might have to make it easier to understand. How come he did not do? “Rana said the Bible has been limited in its scope in order to reach a wider audience with an effective message. “This is a book that is communicating to hundreds of generations,” said Rana. “The Bible only uses a vocabulary that can communicate regardless of the generation that is reading. This limits the degree of scientific content,” especially if you want God to fit in a single volume. Rana, vice president for science apologetics, who has a Ph.D. in chemistry from Ohio University, asked a similar process for the life sciences – mainly biology and anthropology. The model of Creation for the beginning of life and the history of life starts with skepticism about the evolution from one species to another, he said. That does not exclude the adjustment within a species through sexual selection of a natural or degradation of a species through the loss of a limb or other attribute is not essential for life. In essence, he said, his organization is skeptical idea that evolution has the power to create. His study biblical theories about the beginnings of life – as praised by Rainbow – as well as the history of the animals and the emergence of ‘man. This, they argue, offers an interesting example of success. The model Rana for the appearance of human beings, is that they can be traced back to one man and one woman in one place in the Middle East between 10,000 and 100,000 years ago. In addition, it is expected that other hominids, such as Neanderthals, it would be found to be distinct enough to prevent them from becoming the modern man. Different scientific studies in genetic diversity offered by Rana that have emerged in recent years, trace human development to one man and one woman in a certain area of East Africa between 50.0000 and 200,000 years ago. The same pattern was discovered when scientists discovered patterns of mitochondrial DNA through the maternal line, a model of the Y chromosome through the paternal line and the dispersion of human parasites, said Rana. In reference to the hominids, he said that genetic research has enabled a number of samples to be mapped and compared with the human genome – including Neanderthals and the famous “Lucy”. All were tested in deviate too much from the human DNA to lead to the conclusion that led from one another. “It ‘s interesting that these great figures that are part of the human drama of evolution and are portrayed as such in the books of biology text were made as side branches,” he said. The model also provides Rana divisions in people’s behavior and of early hominids. He cited the descriptions of such a pause in work in the field of archeology / anthropology, including “the explosive advance” in the field of instrumentation, manufacturing processes, language, social structures, art, music and religion. “It ‘s an explosive emergence of sophisticated behaviors that I think reflect the image of God and is the type of model that you would expect, in fact, if men were created in God’s image,” said Rana. “At first hominids would display these elements do not.”