“I believe so strongly in this new understanding of Evolution and the origin of life itself, that I’ve organized a $3 million prize for anyone who can achieve the breakthrough.”
— Perry Marshall, Author, Evolution 2.0
- Could the war between Darwin and Design be over? Or is it just beginning?
- The 4 Forces of Evolution 2.0, Proven by 21st Century Science
- Post-Darwin Discoveries in Genetics Reveal Evolution is Directional
- DNA as Code – and every Code We Know Today, was Created by an Intelligent Being
- Prove the Creationists Wrong: $3 Million Prize
- Can We Continue This Conversation?
Here’s where we’re at with Evolution: The last HUGE, culture-wide breakthrough in our understanding of evolution and where we came from happened on November 24, 1859, with the publication of Charles Darwin’s On The Origin Of Species.
Get 3 Free Chapters of the book.
To Darwin and his followers, the truth is clear as day. Species evolve and adapt to their environment.
Life is a a random, thoughtless process driven by “survival of the fittest.”
This flew in the face of the Western religious view of a loving, personal God, who planted us on Earth as stewards of His creation.
The rift has only grown between those who believe in Darwin’s model of evolution — now assembled into a secular religion of Darwinism…
…vs. religious creationists — who believe everything from a literal interpretation of Genesis up to God fine-tuning and even engineering evolution itself.
These two camps broad camps — Darwin, and Design — have been at war ever since. With Evolution 2.0, the war is over. Or is it just beginning?
I hope by sharing some of the core concepts of the book Evolution 2.0, that you will be encouraged to go deeper, read the book, and decide for yourself how the evidence stacks up.
And importantly, what that means for you, and our understanding of evolution and the origin of life.
Sometimes the only way a puzzle gets solved is when someone looks at it with fresh eyes. Perry Marshall is an engineer who started to investigate biology. His book could signal the start of a paradigm shift in the battle between Darwinian evolution and creation/ID. Maybe the war is over. Respond, criticise and debate it… just don’t dismiss it.
Justin Brierley, Host of the Unbelievable? radio program & podcast London, UK
The 4 Forces of Evolution 2.0, Proven by 21st Century Science:
- Evolution is NOT always slow or gradual, it’s fast and takes leaps.
- Evolution is NOT accidental or random, it’s organized.
- Evolution is NOT purposeless, it’s adaptive.
- Natural selection is not the star of the show, Natural Genetic Engineering is.
I don’t come to the Evolution debate with an agenda. I’m on a personal quest for truth. I seek to understand. Yes, I grew up in the world of Young Earth creationism. And then I went on to become an engineer and business consultant, taking very scientific approaches to both.I’ve spent the last decade burrowing into this question. Longer than it would’ve taken to get a Ph.D. in any relevant subject. I’ve gone down every rabbit hole I could find, and come out with every verifiable truth and model of the cosmos and the origin of life that held up to scrutiny.
I’ve integrated 21st Century scientific studies of genetics into this new understanding of Evolution. Today, solidly documented discoveries fly in the face of pure Darwinian evolution. Scientific experiments with world-tilting results that Neo-Darwinists are forced to ignore, lest their entire conception of the world come tumbling down.
What I’ve found may shock you. In this book we consider proven, uncontroversial facts of life and genetics in 21st Century science. These facts demolish the old-school Darwinian equation that “Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Evolution.” That equation leads to extinction, not evolution.
A very readable book and a devastating attack on the neo-Darwinist orthodoxy that evolution is nothing but natural selection acting on random variation.
Peter Saunders, co-director, Institute of Science in Society, and Emeritus professor of Applied Mathematics, King’s College, London
Post-Darwin Discoveries in Genetics Reveal Evolution is a Formulaic Process.
These discoveries include Transposition (1944), Horizontal Gene Transfer (1951), Epigenetics (1990s), Symbiogenesis (1910), and Whole Genome Duplication (known long before Darwin; fully defined in 1972).
All are biochemical processes that allow our genes to evolve in real time. And it’s not random — as best we can tell right now, it’s purpose-driven and highly organized.
Take the case of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. You get an infection. You start taking an antibiotic to fight it. The disease realizes it needs to get the antibiotic out of its cells. So it borrows the genetic code for a pump from your cells.
And suddenly it’s able to pump out the antibiotics you’re trying to use to kill it. By purposefully borrowing genetic “pump” code from your cells, bacteria develop antibiotic resistance. Fast.
What does this suggest? Well, at the very least, our understanding of random chance and circumstance leading to the emergence of human intelligence is inadequate. Modern science suggests something more. A mathematical process drives it all.
I explore these discoveries — and consider what they mean for our understanding of Evolution — in great detail in my new book, Evolution 2.0. You can click here to buy it from Amazon.com. You can also buy or request it at your local bookstore; it’s in stock at Barnes & Noble.
If you’d like to learn more about Evolution 2.0, you can keep reading, and you can also use the sign-up form on this page to receive select highlights from Evolution 2.0 by email.
Mr. Marshall is making an invaluable contribution toward more open and honest discussion on the subject of evolution versus creation. The book is well written, often witty, and is extremely thought provoking.
I pre-ordered a few copies of Evolution 2.0 for our grandchildren. It is amazing that this ‘non-biologist’ has analyzed life phenomena at the cellular and molecular levels to such depth and width by applying information gained by cutting-edge methods in the life sciences.
Dr. Kwang Jeon, Editor, International Review of Cell and Molecular Biology, and Professor Emeritus, Department of Biochemistry, University of Tennessee
DNA as Code…
One of the foundational principles of Evolution 2.0 is that DNA is a code. Watson and Crick said so themselves, in their Nobel Prize-winning explanation of the genetic code. DNA is a database of information that carries the instructions for creating life between an information source and its destination.
DNA is not life itself. Nor is it the proteins it creates as the building blocks of life. This code is part of a larger communication system, which includes a source of information, a transmitter that encodes the message, the code as the signal that is passed, a receiver that decodes the message, and a destination.
Here’s a diagram from Claude Shannon’s 1948 paper defining how communications systems work:
Language is code. We use words as a way of encoding thoughts, feelings, and images. We pass those words through written or verbal communication. The person who reads or hears our language decodes and interprets the words to try to understand our message.
Computers use code. A JPG picture is encoded into 1s and 0s and stored on your hard drive, or passed through wires from one computer to another. When a user opens the file, those 1s and 0s are decoded, and displayed on screen as the picture.
Snowflakes are not code. For all the complexity and patterns in a snowflake, it is not a code. It doesn’t contain information. There is no source of information, nor is there a receiver. It’s simply a crystalline structure defined in its uniqueness by the laws of physics. By understanding that DNA is code, a larger question is raised…
Evolution 2.0 weaves seemingly dry, technical, even incomprehensible topics into a tight, fascinating story around his own scientific and spiritual journey—revealing empirically valid and truly astonishing facts about DNA. These facts turn mainstream evolution on its head.
D. Bnonn Tenant, ThinkingMatters.org.nz
Every Code That Has Come to Exist In The Present Day Was Created by an Intelligent Being.
Put very simply, I have yet to find a single example of a code matching the above model — as DNA does — that was created spontaneously and not by an intelligent being. And it’s not for lack of trying. I debated this for well over five years on what was the largest atheist discussion forum on the Internet, Infidels (details below).
Later, I offered readers of my blog $10,000 to solve it. I never got a single submission – not until August 2015. (It didn’t qualify, but it was noteworthy nonetheless.) There are no communications systems that exist today — codes we clearly know and are able to scientifically confirm their origins — that were not created by intelligent life.
DNA is the only code and communications system that we know to exist today with origins that are…A total mystery!
This is a truth everybody from the most devout atheist or Darwinist, all the way through to the adamant Intelligent Design or even Young Earth Creationist ought to agree on.
We do not have any clear and definite understanding as to the origin of DNA. We only know that every other communication system on the planet stems from intelligent life. In my book, you won’t find an answer for the origin of life.
While Evolution 2.0 gives greater context and understanding to the mystery, it does NOT solve it. Science today has told us a lot about how genes change and evolve, and the world with them. What it hasn’t answered is where it all came from. That remains a mystery. But that doesn’t mean we don’t ask.
With considerable wit and amazing insight, Marshall delivers a compelling and forceful synthesis that sets a new standard for discussions about the relationship between science and faith. The result is no less than astonishing. Mark McMenamin, Professor of Geology, Mount Holyoke College
Everything we know about codes suggests that DNA is designed. I suppose I could just declare “God did it. That settles it.” But instead I want to honor science by searching for an answer.
Make $3 Million By Proving Codes Don’t Need Designers.
As part of the release of Evolution 2.0, I’ve expanded a challenge I’ve been running since 2005. (More on the origins of this prize in the book excerpt below, titled, “Fistfight on the #1 Atheist Website in the World.”)
Since 2009, I’ve offered a cash prize for anyone who can show me a single example of code that does not come from a mind. If you get the book, and/or sign up for the Evolution 2.0 email highlights on this page, you’ll get full details on this contest. Including the 11 criteria your discovery must meet in order for it to win the prize.
But what you should know is that this prize has expanded from a $10,000 “personal curiosity” prize to a very substantial $3 million (and possibly up to $10 million), if your discovery meets certain criteria. If someone makes this discovery, it has profound implications.
It may lead help us solve the Origin of Life problem — even prove DNA could indeed occur spontaneously. That was my personal reason for seeking this out.
However, it also has implications for Artificial Intelligence. This would revise our fundamental understanding of physics and biology. The commercial value of this discovery would potentially be hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars. It could be one of the greatest discoveries of 21st century science.
I’ve spent more than 10 years seeking the answers on my own. And now I request your help. I want you to prove to me that information can be created without a mind — without intelligent life to develop it. Even though it would prove the core premise of Design advocates wrong, I’d be happy to have the truth — wherever it leads.
Standing on the knife-edge between traditional evolutionary theory and Intelligent Design, this book will inflame both dogmatic Darwinists and Creationists. It’s irritating to both because it’s friendly to the idea of evolution itself, and because it judges Darwinism too close-minded and reductive.
Jean-Claude Perez, author, Codex Biogenesis and retired IBM Biomathematics and Artificial Intelligence Interdisciplinary Researcher
May We Continue This Conversation?
The material you’ll find in Evolution 2.0 has been my obsession for the last 10+ years (and really, much of my life). Even while I was building a successful career as a best-selling business author and consultant, my secret passion was this project.
This is what kept me up at night. I’ve helped thousands upon thousands of businesses grow, and yet I consider Evolution 2.0 to be my most important work. To understand how life works, how evolution (really!) works, and where we all came from.
Get 3 Free Chapters of the book.
Whether you’re an atheist, a traditional Young Earth creationist, or anything between, I hope that you’ll look at what I’ve discovered in my quest for an understanding of Evolution 2.0.
And think about it. Really think about it. And perhaps join in the conversation. It starts when you pick up a copy of the Evolution 2.0 book on Amazon, or through your favorite bookseller. And you can fill out your name and email address here to get the Evolution 2.0 email highlights, going even deeper than I could on this page.
When I read Perry’s book, my world tilted. Not only did I learn stuff nobody’s talking about, I realized my God was way bigger than I ever gave Him credit for. Long-held, preconceived notions about science, life, and the Bible were shattered. Perry taught me never to fear the truth, and for that I’ll always be grateful.
Jethro Frank, age 19, East Chain, Minnesota
Evolution 2.0 Book Excerpt:
Fistfight on the #1 Atheist Website
in the World
BY THE TIME I’d made my discoveries about information, DNA, and life’s origins, my brother Bryan had become agnostic. He had little interest in “evangelizing” his views, to me or anyone else. As I began to unearth answers, Bryan grew less willing to spar with me. In the interest of preserving our relationship, he was reluctant to continue to engage these questions. Frankly, he wasn’t all that qualified to have a deep scientific discussion anyway, since his schooling wasn’t in science.
But I still needed a sparring partner. Deep down, what I really wanted was to be able to punch someone and get them to punch right back. Someone really smart. Someone relentless, who wouldn’t indulge any of my nonsense, someone who would challenge every fact and assumption I’ve shared so far. Iron sharpens iron. I knew that I might come up with all kinds of views that could satisfy my own belief system. But we’re all prone to self-deception.
I had come to an early conclusion that codes require designers. My scientific background spurred me to see if this would survive the scrutiny of others. I knew the internet could supply all the debate partners I could ever want. And even though most people obviously were not going to be the Ultimate Sparring Partner, there were surely a few out there somewhere. Needles in haystacks.
Without having motivated people to bounce ideas off of, I could not develop ideas about evolution and Origin of Life that would survive scrutiny.
Since I made a living consulting on Google AdWords, I used Google’s advertising system to place ads on the internet. I took my intellectual pursuit to market, with ads such as this one:
Did the Universe Come from God?
Interpreting the Latest Results
These ads appeared all across the web, especially on sites related to science and astronomy. I drove traffic to the Cosmic Fingerprints website as well as to my other site, CoffeeHouseTheology.com, where visitors could opt into email series with names like “Seven Great Lies of Organized Religion” and “Where Did the Universe Come From?”
In the first year alone, 30,000 people signed up for those emails. Every reply went straight to a dedicated email box. It seemed like everyone who got my emails felt an irresistible urge to argue with me about something.
A flood of website traffic opened thousands of conversations with challenging people—not just laypeople, but biologists, doctors, physicists, people of hugely diverse backgrounds. It was rather unusual. I was buying traffic to the tune of 1,000-plus visitors a day, instead of waiting for visitors to just show up. I was provoking people with a series of automated messages, then getting their replies.
Within a few years that list swelled to more than 150,000 subscribers. This put me in a very unique position of encountering a vast range of views. I was getting hundreds of emails every month from people of every conceivable belief system and opinion: Darwinists, Intelligent Design advocates, Young Earth Creationists, atheists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Christians, New Agers, and mystics.
Everyone had an opinion about evolution. I was answering something like a hundred emails a week, and invariably, one or two of those exchanges would go deep.
I was sometimes outwitted by my opponents. These conversations shifted some of my views. For example, I had begun with a knee-jerk reaction against all living things having a common evolutionary ancestor, simply because of my Young Earth upbringing.
But then I read hundreds of conversations with people of all stripes, about things like whale feet and blind mole rats and pseudogenes and a hundred other things. Then, eventually, the remarkable discoveries of Barbara McClintock and Lynn Margulis. The evidence they offered slowly persuaded me that the case for some kind of evolution was credible.
I saw another kind of value in opening this up to the general public: Albert Einstein said, “It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid” (905). This was also a place where I was learning to explain my own ideas to everyday folks.
My crazy experiment had the additional advantage of taking place in complete privacy. That was because one-to-one email is so personal. In the beginning, this was not taking place on a blog or a public discussion forum. Real names and email addresses, not screen names. Whenever someone wanted to converse, I insisted on honest dialogue and respect, not name calling.
Not everyone could abide by those rules! (It is impossible to have an honest dialogue with an anonymous person. This is why discussion boards almost always deteriorate into name-calling slam-fests. For that reason, on my blog I demand that people use their real names. This makes our discussions infinitely more civil.)
Our conversations explored a huge range of questions. One guy I conversed with was a columnist on one of the world’s largest atheist websites, studying philosophy at a large university. Our conversation eventually mushroomed into a 120-page Microsoft Word document getting passed back and forth dozens of times as we responded to each other’s challenges.
I spent many hours every week sifting through questions, responding and seeing if the positions I took could bear scrutiny. I figured, if anybody can overturn my discoveries, sooner or later that person is going to show up—it’s just a matter of time!
I cannot possibly express how much I learned by doing this. I got a generous sampling of the beliefs of thousands of people all over the world, and obtained a deeper appreciation for the principle that wherever possible, you should prefer a simple explanation over a complex one—especially after witnessing the elegance of a crisp, one-paragraph idea versus four pages of ramblings!
For the first year or two, I chose to be neutral on evolution. Up to this point evolution had been a secondary question for me, taking a back seat to Origin of Life and Origin of Information.
A year into this journey, one of my friends, Andy Martin, heard about my Origin of Information research. He invited me to speak at Willow Creek, the largest church in Chicago. He was the organizer of TruthQuest, their monthly forum for people who enjoy talking about tough questions, including evolution. In June 2005 I gave a talk at Willow called “If you can read this, I can prove God exists” and posted the MP3 and transcript at www.CosmicFingerprints.com/proof.
That 2005 talk was the result of one solid year of presenting my ideas online. Hundreds of people had pounded the slag off my facts in private before I presented them in public. But I still dreaded opening my Cosmic Fingerprints email box, because I always knew I was in for a fight. My email conversations were neither easy nor fun. My learning curve was so steep, sometimes I got whiplash.
Atheists and Infidels
A few months after I posted my talk, a gentleman named Rob sent me an email. He was a fervent evangelical atheist. He had listened to my 2005 talk and came out swinging: “Perry, I see right through your sophistry and pseudoscience . . .”
We began an intense exchange. After a couple of weeks, he got flustered. One day in August 2005 Rob posted a link to my talk at Infidels. org—at that time, the world’s largest online atheist community. (The Infidels forum was later taken over by a different website.) Rob basically said by way of introducing me to Infidels, “Be nice to this guy while you rip him to shreds.”
I laid out my theory for the infidels to gorge upon:
- DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
- All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
- Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
I’d be lying to you if I said I wasn’t nervous. My anxiety was off the charts. One of me, hordes of them. One slip of the foot and they’d eviscerate my sorry carcass like a pack of wolverines.
The anger and hostility was so thick you could cut it with a knife. Infidels was Grand Central Station for nonbelievers in God. These guys were motivated. I thought, It’s do-or-die time, Perry. If there’s a hole in your theory, sooner or later these guys will find it. What happened was fairly surprising . . .
Before this, I would never have imagined that a group of college-educated men and women would actually try to tell me that DNA isn’t really a code.
But that’s exactly what they did.
The atheists tried to tell me DNA was not a code. Then they tried to tell me a snowflake is a code! (If it is, what does it say?)
A lot of their arguments sounded sort of like this one from “Greyline”:
[Perry] is trying to pretend like DNA is code, and not chemical reactions. There’s no need to bring in communication theory or the semantics of the word “code,” or to make analogies with computer programming or languages or anything else. I do understand the usefulness of comparisons, but to base an entire argument on an analogy (like pmarshall’s) serves no purpose. Just get back to basics—DNA is a chemical that self-replicates, imperfectly, and is therefore subject to natural selection. The result is what we call “life,” in all its varied forms. Designer not required.
I spent an entire afternoon in the Oak Park, Illinois, library sifting through a stack of biology books two feet high. I cited textbook after textbook (313, 211, 215, 512, 311, 302) that explained how DNA is not just chemical reactions but is formally a code, and why it is a code based on universal definitions. I quoted Watson and Crick’s acceptance speech at the Nobel Prize ceremony in 1962, where they were recognized for their discovery of the genetic code (303).
That trip to the library established the definitions I gave you in chapter 7. But no matter what I said, how detailed my explanations or how many references I cited, the Infidels would not accept it.
They lambasted me for taking the dictionaries and textbooks literally. Soon the moderator stepped in and began challenging me, too. I answered his every question; eventually he went silent and refused to respond. (A sidebar in chapter 7 gives a precise explanation for why the pattern in DNA is a code, and why the word code is not an analogy.) I limited myself to standard scientific reasoning and firmly established definitions from engineering and biology.
I wasn’t ramming religion down their throat. I strictly limited my discussion to established science.
The end result of all this hot debate? After months, and eventually years, not a single hole punched in my research… even though this was an “open book test.” Every opponent had ready access to all the books, websites, and scientific papers on the web—and still they could not counter with any evidence.
They steadfastly refused to accept any fact that might seem to support any kind of purpose in nature. After months of discussion, the Infidels, logic seemed to run something like this:
- God does not exist.
- Code implies God.
- Therefore DNA is not code.
It only took a few weeks for the atheists to run out of arguments and grow repetitious, but I spent two more years answering every single question and addressing every objection. I posted an exhaustive Q&A summary at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dna-atheists/. You can click to six different pages that address all the major points if you’re so inclined. You can also click to the Archive.org snapshot of the forum.
Eventually I was thankful for my fistfight on the world’s largest atheist website—even though I hated it at first. The debate tremendously clarified my definitions and strengthened my case. Without the Infidels, this book would not be possible.
All this further persuaded me that all we presently know about Origin of Life clearly infers a designer. I came to this conclusion because of the utter absence of any chemical explanation for Origin of Information. The logical inference was: (1) The pattern in DNA is a code, (2) all the codes whose origin we know are designed, so (3) therefore we have every reason to believe DNA is designed.
None of the thousands of people I interacted with offered hard evidence to support any other explanation. I posted these points on my blog, www.cosmicfingerprints.com. I bought even more clicks on Google and began to receive tens of thousands of visitors each month to the website.
Arguments about my challenge exploded across hundreds of websites, blogs, and forums. The Infidels forum continued and eventually surpassed 100,000 page views. Doubters poured in from all over the globe and challenged me. The debates would go ’round in circles, sometimes for months.
Just like on Infidels, people still would insist snowflakes are codes; DNA isn’t really a code; molecules are codes; sunlight is code. On and on it would go. Some people were not willing to accept Claude Shannon’s basic definitions and have a discussion on common ground.
One day while conversing with an especially stubborn skeptic, I had a crazy idea: Perry, why don’t you offer him $10,000 if he can show you a naturally occurring code. Tell him precisely what he needs to give you. Give him 10 grand if he can deliver it.
What happened next was even more interesting. (Continued in the next chapter of Evolution 2.0.)
Evolution 2.0 is a modern philosophical marvel unlike anything I have read in my years of study. It allowed me to put down my guard. The author was not compelling me to believe in an ideology, but rather taking me alongside his journey of self-discovery. I came into this book hesitant. As a staunch creationist I found myself trying to fight with Marshall early on, but his arguments and presentation were flawless and compelling. It was refreshing to see someone examine both sides honestly.
Marie Sarantakis, Comparative Religion Scholar, Carthage College