In the previous article on DNA as evidence for Intelligence behind the origin of Life, we showed that Intelligence is the only known cause to produce the effect in question, namely the origin of information in the DNA. But many people claim that this cannot be proved as there is no experimental evidence to show this. However this is not true.
We previously showed in the article Does Synthetic Genetics provide evidence for Darwinian Evolution? That Synthetic genetics, infact, provides experimental evidence for Intelligent Design and not Darwinian evolution. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer provides more examples of this in his book, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design from the simulation experiments of various kinds that scientists have performed for now over fifty years in an attempt to demonstrate the plausibility of some favored origin-of-life scenario. He explains
These experiments inadvertently demonstrated not only the power of mind over matter, but also the necessity of a mind to arrange matter into structures relevant to life.
Discussing about the conclusions that can be drawn from the experiments, he says
If these experiments were fables, they would have a moral: minds can produce biologically relevant structures and forms of information, but without mind or intelligence little, if any, information arises.
He mentions three types of experimental results that confirm this.
- Prebiotic Simulation Experiments
- Evolutionary Algorithms
- Ribozyme Engineering
In Prebiotic Dr. Meyer, points out
In these and many other ways, investigators must routinely manipulate chemical conditions both before and after performing “simulation” experiments in order to protect them from destructive naturally occurring processes. These manipulations constitute “profoundly informative intervention[s].” Every choice the investigator makes to actualize one condition and exclude another—to remove one by-product and not another—imparts information into the system. Therefore, whatever “success” these experiments have achieved in producing biologically relevant compounds occurs as a direct result of the activity of the experimentalist—a conscious, intelligent, deliberative mind—performing the experiments.
As for Evolutionary Algorithms, he points out
some of these programs succeed by the illicit expedient of providing the computer with an information-rich “target sequence” and then treating relatively greater proximity to future function (i.e., the target sequence), not actual present function, as a selection criterion.
In Ribozyme Engineering, he points out
So what supplies this gap in ribozyme engineering experiments? What causes a molecule possessing merely possible indicators of a future selectable function to be preserved? The investigators themselves—the ribozyme engineers.
Each of these manipulations again constitutes an “informative intervention,” since at every crucial stage ribozyme engineers select some options or possible states and exclude others. By using their knowledge of the requirements of polymerase function to guide their search and selection process, ribozyme engineers also impart what Robert Marks calls “active information” with each iteration of replication.
These experiments clearly show, not only the causal adequacy, but also the need for intelligence. Thus we conclude that the origin of life points towards an Intelligent Cause, rather than a material cause.