Science, just like a cheap bottle of wine can be an acquired taste. Today however, there may not be enough time to acquire it, unless of course you’re a neo-Darwinist, then there’s always enough time to acquire whatever it is you desire: sub-atomic particles, atomic particles, atoms, chemicals, amino acids, polypeptides, proteins, RNA, DNA, living organisms, complete organs and organ systems, symmetrical body plans, digital watches, cell phones, Lamborghinis whatever you want. In fact, I’d be willing to argue that you can “explain” virtually every material process and agent with evolution.

But what about something immaterial, like information? We can speculate until the cows come home about the hardware, but the software? That’s a different animal altogether, and that is where we’re headed today. But before presenting the challenge complex specified information (CSI) presents to naturalistic evolution, some background is in order.

On page 315 of The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin writes:
“Many of the views which have been advanced are highly speculative, and some no doubt will prove erroneous…False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long…”

This statement made in reference to his own work shows a great deal of humility and foresight on the part of Darwin. Despite his dogged commitment to naturalism, he was wise enough to know that given science’s limited ability to test his theory, subsequent discoveries might render certain aspects of it impotent.

Now to be sure, evolution was a theory “ahead of its time.” But the technological advances of the last 150 years have finally caught up with Darwin, and they are confirming exactly what he foretold—that some of his views would “no doubt prove erroneous.”

Just one example of this is the discovery of the CSI embodied in the DNA molecule. The scientific elite are so baffled by it; they won’t even address the problem in the textbooks. This is worth noting because the general consensus among evolutionary biologists is that in order to create life you only need three things: a building-block molecule; a medium in which chemical reactions can take place; and energy. But the test cases in which scientists have attempted to create life utilizing this recipe have been, without exception, failures. Life requires more than just hardware, a suitable environment, and energy. It requires information to put the various building blocks in place. The kind of complex information we see at work in the genetic code cannot be reproduced with blind chance, because of the nature of information itself.

Quoting from theoretical physicist Erwin Schrödinger; James D. Watson, the co discoverer of the chemical structure of DNA writes, “The language of life might be like Morse code, a series of dots and dashes. [Schrödinger] wasn’t far off. The language of DNA is a linear series of As, Ts, Gs, and Cs.” I like Schrödinger’s analogy for DNA as Morse code because at its heart is the nature of information. We’ll use his model to illustrate that what we observe with respect to the genetic code is an example of design.

When Schrödinger used Morse code as a blueprint for the genetic code’s information structure, he was really giving us a deeper lesson on the nature of information. You see in order for a code or language to have any meaning, you have to have the surprise effect of a language convention superimposed on the symbols. Rhetorically speaking, suppose you and I decide that we can work out the entire alphabet (itself another code) using a linear series of dots and dashes (Morse code). After we agree on the meaning of our code, I can then send you the message: “… — …” and you’ll know the message is “SOS” and its meaning is “distress.” In both cases, (Morse code and the alphabet) I’m using a language convention to say, “let this = that.” Moreover, our code is arbitrary, meaning there is no natural law to account for it. Without a set of rules embodied in a language convention those dots and dashes mean nothing. The same is true for our alphabet. The only way the sequence has any meaning is if information is “infused” into the symbols by way of convention, where an intelligence says, “let a linear series of three dots, three dashes, and three dots = SOS” and beyond that, “let SOS = distress.” Now let’s apply this to the genetic code.

To synthesize proteins, complex structures within a cell read the genetic code, interpret the sequences, and translate the information into the appropriate amino acids. That sequence will determine what amino acid is to be used in protein synthesis. For example, the base triplet sequence GCC, designates the amino acid, alanine, or to borrow from Schrödinger, GCC = alanine. And a unique convention exists for every amino acid the body uses in protein synthesis. There is also punctuation in the form of start and stop bits.

The implications of this are staggering, because each base triplet sequence isn’t the corresponding amino acid, but each coded sequence signifies the amino acid to be used, just as “SOS” signifies the message bit “distress.” Such conventions are axiomatic and cannot be explained without the infusion of complex specified information, in which intelligences agree on the value of the symbols in question.

In conclusion, evolutionary biology must come to terms with the nature of information; its importance with respect to living systems; and its implications regarding intelligent causation. Otherwise Darwin’s legacy will continue to be a state sanctioned religion, attended by a powerful “scientific priesthood.” But what makes these high priests unique is that they teach people Matter is their creator. Moreover, when truth is in bad taste because it conflicts with our biases, we know we have reached the point of the absurd. In this case, naturalism holds, despite the evidence. How ironic it is that in those humble beginnings nearly a century and a half ago, Darwin’s prophetic words continue to warn us to be wary of such things. “False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long…”

Editor's Note: A lengthier version of this piece entitled, "Reverse engineering the Darwinian Priesthood" was published with endnotes in 2005.