The most famous, passionately argued, longest-running debate

In June 2005 I delivered my lecture “If you can read this I can prove God exists” and posted it on my website.

Today, I have to thank a brotherhood of evangelical atheists for making it world-famous.

A few months after I posted my talk, a gentleman named Rob sent me an email that said, “I see right through your sophistry and pseudoscience…” and an intense discussion began.

After a couple of weeks he got flustered, so he went to the largest atheist discussion board in the world, Infidels. He posted a link to my talk and basically said, ‘be nice to this guy while you rip him to shreds.’

I’d be lying to you if I said I wasn’t nervous. I was nervous. (Wouldn’t you be?) One of me, dozens of them. One slip of the foot and they’d eviscerate my sorry carcass like a pack of wolverines.

If you spend any time on Infidels, you’ll see – it’s not like those guys are real big on manners. The anger and hostility is so thick you can cut it with a knife. The Infidels website is six thousand pages of rage and spitting vitriol.

It’s do-or-die time. If there’s a hole in my theory, sooner or later these guys will find it.

And I really did fear that at some point someone would pin me down on some technicality. Or at the very least, that I would screw up or say something I didn’t mean and there would be some disaster I’d have to recover from.

Nope. That’s not what happened. What happened was actually a little surprising.

Let’s just say… they used to intimidate me. They don’t anymore.

I called their bluff.

Before this happened, I couldn’t have imagined that any group of self-respecting, educated men and women would actually try to tell me that DNA isn’t really a code. But that’s exactly what they did. (It is formally, scientifically and literally a code. See explanation here.)

They tried to tell me DNA was not a code – then tried to tell me a snowflake is a code – at the very same time!

They mocked me for taking science books and dictionaries literally. They called me every name in the book. One guy got so furious that the moderator had to delete his posts and ban him from the forum.

But after years of trying, they have not punched a single hole in the argument.


The argument begins with an open question “Did DNA come from natural processes, or was it designed?” and it goes like this:

1. The pattern in DNA is a code (by definition)

2. All other codes we know the origin of are designed (by observation)

Therefore we can explore five possible conclusions:

a) Humans designed DNA
b)  Aliens designed DNA
c) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously
d) There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates information
e) DNA was Designed by a Superintelligence, i.e. God.

(a) requires time travel or infinite generations of humans.  (b) could well be true but only pushes the question back in time.  (c) may be a remote possibility, but it’s not a scientific explanation because it doesn’t refer to a systematic, repeatable process. It’s nothing but an appeal to luck.  (d) could be true but no one can form a testable hypothesis until someone observes a naturally occurring code.  So the only systematic explanation that is consistent with science is (e) a theological one.


3. To the extent that scientific reasoning can prove anything, DNA is proof of design.


That’s it. That’s the argument. It’s that simple.

It’s so elegant, it’s irrefutable. It’s airtight.

There is nowhere for the atheist to go, except to say “I don’t know.”

Which is the truth. We don’t know, we can only infer.

All these guys understand that once they admit they don’t know, I’ll say, “Congratulations. Welcome to the world of agnosticism. Honest inquiry is now possible.”

Die-hard members of Infidels are profoundly committed to their atheist beliefs. They are just as devout as members of any religious sect. They won’t go there.

So they just endlessly argue that DNA really isn’t a code…. or it’s only a code in our imaginations…. or that rocks and snowflakes and cosmic rays are codes. Or that it’s not permissible for rational people to draw these sorts of silly conclusions.

I spent 2 years answering every single question and addressing every objection. I posted an exhaustive Q&A summary at You can click to six different pages that carefully address all the major arguments.

I noticed that one by one, the ‘smart ones’ dropped out. The moderator refuses to answer any of my questions, even though I’ve answered every single one of his.

One guy said, “If you quote Hubert Yockey one more time, I’m going to scratch your eyes out.”

One guy, screen name “Robert Webb” eventually showed up. He’s an atheist but he’s also a computer programmer and he called them on it. He said, “Perry’s definitions are correct, points #1 and #2 are right and you’re never going to prove him wrong.” They lashed out at him for saying that, and accused him of secretly arguing my side.

So far as I can tell, most of the ones who are still hanging in there haven’t actually read or listened to my presentation. They just go around in circles and call me names.

I stop by every few months and answer questions. Meanwhile this has become the most viewed, longest-running thread in the history of Infidels.

I have proven God exists, and… the place where this has been most thoroughly articulated is the largest atheist website in the world.

I love it!

God has a sense of humor, doesn’t He?

I’ve learned a lot from this. In no particular order, here’s what I’ve observed:

1. When people are backed into a corner and do not want to change their beliefs. They go into denial. No amount of logic, evidence, scientific findings or proof can change their minds. I guess somehow I had thought that if you put enough peer-reviewed, non-controversial textbooks, definitions and examples in front of them they would admit that I could be right.

Nope… not the case. If someone doesn’t want to believe something, there is nothing you can do to change their minds.


2. Most people do not know that science is based on inference. The idea that there is a law of gravity is inferred from 100% consistent observations. You can’t literally prove it. Belief in all scientific laws rests on faith in something you cannot prove: Namely, that the universe operates according to fixed discoverable laws.

3. Many people also do not know that the core belief of science – that the universe operates according to fixed discoverable laws – was originally a religious idea. To the best of my knowledge, this idea was first introduced 3000 years ago by Solomon, who wrote “Thou hast ordered all things in weight and number and measure.” (Wisdom of Solomon 11:21)

4. People who are well informed about things like the inner workings of computer systems – hardware and software engineers, for example – almost never challenge me on Information Theory.

The ones who argue are science wannabes, not professionals. People who think that watching the Discovery Channel or the latest Evolution show on PBS makes their opinions scientific.

5. When people feel threatened they abandon facts and resort to name-calling and emotional tirades. They accuse you of practicing “pseudoscience” and they say that you’re an “idiot” and a “creationist”.

They quote passages from the latest Richard Dawkins bestseller as though it were a Holy Book.

6. The real reason some people believe that life was caused by random accident is they have a very, very hard time fathoming that an all-knowing God would allow the world to be so messed up. This is a moral judgment, not a scientific position. “Accidents happen, therefore it’s all an accident.”

This at least appears to relieve them of having to explain why there is evil in the world. (Perhaps that’s true. But the problem is, it leaves them with no objective definition of what is good.)

7. Theologians gave birth to science in the middle ages. People who believed the world operated according to fixed, discoverable laws, began to search for those laws. People like Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, Mendel, Boyle, Maxwell and even Einstein saw science as a way of studying the mind of God.

Science itself got started in ancient Rome, Greece, China and in Islam – but it never went anywhere in those cultures. Why? I would like to suggest that none of those cultures had a theology that described a systematic universe. But Christianity did teach that the universe was systematic and discoverable and that’s why science succeeded in the West after failing everywhere else.

8. Because of my websites and, I have had literally thousands upon thousands of email conversations with people about science, religion, morality, and all of kinds of deep questions. People from literally every single country in the world, every religion, every race and belief system you can imagine.

And I can assure you – NOBODY argues more stridently than the atheists. Nobody.

Militant atheism is most zealous form of religious fundamentalism in the world today. And yes, based on all my conversations and experiences I do classify atheism as an extremist religion. I’ve heard all the usual objections to that but I just don’t buy them. Modern atheism is not the least bit interested in discovering the truth, it’s only interested in making disciples.

A common stereotype of Muslims, for example, is that they are dogmatic and belligerent. But almost none of the Muslims I have ever encountered are actually like that! Atheists overwhelmingly are.

They’re combative and not only do they fail to show respect, they display burning contempt and derision for religious people. Atheists are more dogmatic about what they believe than anyone else I’ve ever encountered. Again, that’s my own experience from answering thousands of emails and debating in the Infidels forum.

9. Many people perceive science and religion as being in a war with each other. It’s a false war that has been largely invented and perpetrated by a tiny minority of extremely angry people. These people have perpetrated a lot of myths, too – for example they tell you that people believed the earth was flat until 500 years ago.

Wrong. People have known the earth was round for 2500 years.

You may not have known that prior to the mid- to late-1800’s there was far less hostility between science and religion. Yes there are the Galileo vs. the Church stories, but we have an exact reversal of that today: Scientists who are persecuted by secular institutions because of their religious beliefs. I predict that some day the present hostility will subside.

10. Atheists are very good at going on the attack. But they are astonishingly weak when they are called to defend what they believe (i.e. that life was a random accident; that the big bang happened for no particular reason at all; that there’s an infinite number of other universes somewhere.) I’ve found that when I press them for answers, they usually at some point suddenly vanish, never to return.

A very popular biologist, author and prominent atheist spokesman (he is referenced more than 200,000 times on the Internet and was a featured speaker at the 2010 World Atheist Conference in Melbourne Australia) subscribed to this very email series you’re reading right now. He sent me an email just the other day. He said:

“You’re insane, and you’re ignorant. You can stop sending me your foolish twaddle, your info is now in my filters.”

I kindly asked him if I could post his name and his comments on my website. No response.

That’s it. Total refusal to engage.

You know why?

Because he knows he can’t win.

I realize that I am not being terribly kind to atheism here (though I am not being unkind to anyone either). Atheism needs to be challenged by people of all beliefs, to account for itself. The infidels debate and this website is an open challenge for atheists to provide evidence for the things they believe in.

Tossing around words like “rational inquiry” and “science” and “non-sequitur” is no substitute for sound reasoning, actual practice of science, and the use of logic. If atheism is going to wear the robe of science and reason, it’s time for us to expect it to answer science questions, not evade them. We need to demand reasons, not non-reasons. Open factual discussion, not name-calling.

And… if the atheist doesn’t know, let’s allow him to admit he doesn’t know, and be kind to him when he makes that admission.

And once he is open to following the evidence wherever it leads, let us welcome him into the world of honest and rational inquiry.

Perry Marshall

P.S.: If you doubt what I am saying here – go to the Infidels site and see for yourself. Read every single post in the 5+ year thread. Read every reference you can find to this anywhere on the Internet. If after that you still think that my argument has been dismantled by the Infidels and I’m doing a cover-up job, then come back here and post your questions. Please read the FAQ first.

P.P.S.: I haven’t posted on the Infidels board in a long time. Why? Because it’s been years since anyone there has presented any kind of new rebuttal to my argument. If and when they do, I’ll be happy to re-engage.

240 Responses

  1. Jon says:

    (You know I couldn’t resist!)

    You said…

    “Belief in all scientific laws rests on faith in something you cannot prove: Namely, that the universe operates according to fixed discoverable laws.”

    I thought you said you didn’t have a mistrust in Science? According to this statement, you don’t trust Science. The universe does operate according to fixed discoverable laws, no faith in involved in accepting this. This is the truth.

    So can you say that you don’t trust in the truth?

    You said…

    “Science itself got started in ancient Rome, Greece, China and in Islam – but it never went anywhere in those cultures. Why? None of those cultures had a theology that described a systematic universe. Christianity did teach that the universe was systematic and discoverable and that’s why science succeeded in the West after failing everywhere else.”

    But it did fail when minds like Copernicus and Galileo started to discover that the Universe did not adhere totally to the Holy Text. The reason? Because the bible was written before these discoveries in Science and they just did not know. When they tried to confront the Church, they were surpressed.

    • I trust science. Most people are not aware that their trust in science requires faith in things that are unprovable. I am up front about it. I think science is EXTREMELY trustworthy.

      You seem resistant to the idea that scientific laws are inferred, not proven. I would suggest you to to Wikipedia or a similar place and carefully study the difference between proof and inference.

      Copernicus and Galileo did not believe that science disagreed with the Bible. They argued that science disagreed with the church’s interpretation of the Bible.

      • Jon says:

        Faith is used in the absence of Truth. Science is the search for truth. When we as a people discover something uncovered by Science, then it is true. Faith has no place Science and yet you claim it does. So this shows me you are not a man of science.

        I admire your passion and your website does look cool but I don’t think I can continue with these discussions. I’m afraid that from everything I have read of yours, you do not trust or even understand Science. I know you will probably block my communications or kick me out of the group and that is your right, your website.

        By the way, it is INSULTING to the memory of Carl Sagan and his message for someone with your beliefs to have his picture posted on your site. He would saying the same thing I would!

        Please remove that image.

        • roger drake says:

          JON, I don’t know if you are still out there. No date and time was given for your response. You say, faith has no place in science. What to you mean by faith?
          Faith is similar to theory in that we think something has happened or something has caused something else but we don’t as yet have all the facts. We search to discover the facts. We have faith in God’s word because it has been proven to be 100% accurate. God says He created the earth in six days and we believe it is true even if we could not prove it or understand how He did that. Science and the evolutionist say life evolved from a single spark in a distant primordial sea. They have absolutely no proof but in their minds it must be true because. . . they are scientists! Personally, Carl Sagan was a little insulting to me. He continually referred to our beginnings in the distant stars and we really had no purpose on earth except to exist and take up space. God says our purpose is very clear. We were created to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. I encourage you in your search for the truth. You will be rewarded if you keep an open mind.

          • Qqccho says:

            Hi Roger,
            You wrote

            “He (Sagan) continually referred to our beginnings in the distant stars and we really had no purpose on earth except to exist and take up space”

            I agree with Sagan if the sentence is correct. We are here doing what He the Creator (neither God) meant for us to do; to live- notice PLS that I don’t say Exist (dead bodies exist right?) and get clever as evolution continues its path in order to get to know Him some time in the future when our Intelligence will come to the point to make us as intelligent as He is. We’ll get to that moment thanks to science and knowledge. It sounds odd but I don’t find any other valid reasons for us to be in this Universe. I don’t think the Creator will go through the whole process for nothing less…”We were created as his image….” but we still are in the process of being and learning. If we just pray or serve him uniquely loosing precious time in our short existence on this world we’ll never get smart enough to really get to know Him. Bear in mind that the Creator himself gave us this opportunity- to be able to evolve our given intelligence capabilities as time rolls on. Perhaps this was not given but ordered to us. Maybe this was the original Creator’s plan. Recall we’re the only ones and that we’re doing it- getting smart. Just image science in a hundred years or in a thousand if knowledge is double every few.
            That is the purpose of Man on earth- to truly Reach Him not only to see Him through the distance or taking meaningless space up.
            It is hard to believe that the Creator could’ve created the Universe just for the fun of it neither for His exaltation or to serve Him. He doesn’t need that. Would any Father do this with his own children? No way. He neither. Although science has nothing to do with Gods or Heavens it is the tool that will take us over Him.
            At least we’ll know where we’re going, proof by proof, evidence by evidence, step by step. With just praying you’re nowhere-closed eyes.
            Of course I don’t believe that the Creator created the Earth in 6 days or that He sent his Son to save us or that he put at one time humans on this world. He’s the Creator and He Knew everything from the very start. It wasn’t necessary to send nobody afterwards. He created the Universe knowing that at some time, in the future, Man would appear on this earth of us. He did the whole thing at once without needing to return back to us every time in history. We have to blame Him for giving us Evolution, The Tool. So yes there is a Creator but no religions are needed. Why had the Bible and other books like it to be written about the Creator or Creation if Man-all men, could know of His existence and His work by just watching everything around them- the marvelous world in which we live. Nah. The reason was power in lesser hands.
            And you know what I hate? When the Bible mentions people as the grey. Hey people we’re not animals. Or they want us to be.

      • Danny says:

        Perry, you do indeed have an interesting mind. I can explain how the universe came to be from nothing. As a matter of fact, I can explain many of the points that you say are “taken on faith” by athesists. It is true that most atheists don’t know the answers to your questions. I am that one person who does. The biggest problem with all of your arguments is that they are philosophical at the core. That is what actually makes them so effective. It’s hard to refute philosophy with science when you don’t have sense enough to realize that you should be arguing in philosophical terms instead of scientific ones. Your main arguments are simply extensions of the phrase, “I think therefore I am.” One other core point that you express is a disbeleif in reality. That you can’t know what is or is not real. This is expressed by your sentiments that no scientific law can be proven. You argue this with your argument about the law of gravity. Okay then, I’ll bite on that. You claim that no one can show you a code that didn’t come from a mind. Can YOU show me an exception to the law of gravity? That argument almost gives your argument equal footing with atheism except that I can explain the “how what and why” that came before the big bang. I a question for you. Are you a Christian? I’m not asking about the validity or invalidity of any other beleif system here. Just are you personally a Christian? Since we all know that you have no choice but to say yes, it is clear that the answer brings to light your true motivation for your arguments. You are not seeking to explore or understand the universe, you are seeking to spread your religious doctrine. This is not a scientific discussion, it is a religious and philosophical debate disguised (quite well I might add) as a scientific discussion. Maybe some day when I feel like it I’ll explain it all to you. You seem like a pretty smart guy so its not a question of whether or not you can understand it. Did you forget that Gallileo was persecuted by the Church? It seems to me that science flourished in the west in spite of Christianity, not because if it.

        • Danny,

          You have completely missed my point about gravity. My point is, you can’t PROVE gravity. Nonetheless there are no known exceptions so we take it as fact.

          My argument that all known codes are designed is equally airtight.

          You have not put forth an argument. You have only said, “I have an argument and someday if you let go of your religious nonsense I’ll deign to reveal it to you.”

          It sounds like your only argument is “Since you’re religious I don’t have to listen to you.” That’s not an argument, that’s prejudice.

          If you have an argument, present it. You can start by showing an example of a code that didn’t come from a mind.

          Perry Marshall

        • Rudolf says:

          Danny said:
          Your main arguments are simply extensions of the phrase, “I think therefore I am.”

          You are misinterpreting Marshall’s arguments. He means “I think, therefore I am designed, and therefore, by inference, exists the possibility of the existence of a Super-intelligent God.”

          Correct me if I’m wrong.

    • nuke777 says:

      I am actually quite interested in this theory of yours. It sounds like you checked you facts a bit. that is good. emotionally charged people are not always the best example of fact checkers however. I am a current university biology student my current text book defines DNA as a code. yes it defines it chemically it he dioxyribose as a suger and so forth. but the concept of a code is very important as is the fact that genes hold information in chemical form. the very difinition of a code. your minor point is interesting but does it prove that God exists. You cannot scientifically prove a spiritual thing. science goes one way religion goes the other they don’t overlap. So (i am a very devout catholic) saying God did it (scientifically) is like saying aliens did it. you can’t prove either statement. There is no logical fact to back up either one. faith is the evidence of things UNSEEN. you can’t prove them. You are talking about inferred proof, but it does not follow that something that has never been imperically proven to exisit caused something to happen simply because we don’t know how else it could have been done. God may have done it, and I believe he put us here by his own power. but science is not capable of asking WHO only HOW WHEN AND WHERE, nor can it answer WHY. we only know WHO in cases where identity is intimately connected with one of the other 3. this is not (empiracally) one of those cases. God however will continue to baffel science with that annoying responce that is the only one science can make when confronted with the spiritual “I just don’t know.” qualification HOW. I just don’t know how a thing was done. The scientist did not even try to answer the question who.

  2. Jon says:
    • Jon,

      Did you read the entry?

      Notice that it says in the very first paragraph: “Laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them.”

      This is why all scientific laws are provisional and not formally provable.


      • Jon says:

        The very nature of Science is the search for truth. Of course, if new evidence comes in that is tested and researched and found valid, then it is accepted.

        The laws of nature are what we have observed that happen to fit the facts. (Remember Occum’s Razor)

        However, this is the problem with faith and religion.

        Because it is “written” it cannot be researched further. Revelation is the most important aspect in faith. What someone saw, or felt or said and that is taken as “Gospel”. That is no what to discover the truth.

        • roger drake says:

          Jon, you say “because it is written it can not e researched further”? That is the very point of the scriptures. We are to question, search, investigate and prove to ourselves that they are true. Historical records shed much light on Biblical statements ( reference Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh Mcdowell.) Carl Sagan and others like him have tunnel vision and their own biased adgenda forbids them to look at the bigger picture through objective eyes.
          In the scripture two statements are made that blow the lid off most “objective science” today. (1) God said He created the world and all that is in it and (2) he who won’t believe in God is a fool. The scripture proves the TRUTH and existence of God through nature (objective) and His work in our own lives (subjective) God is almighty and personal and only the individual can prove that for himself. Occum’s razor is appropriate here and the simplest and most rational explanation is a creator God made it all happen. That is faith and if you engage in any other explanation you are engaging in faith by your statement.

  3. Jon says:

    If dropping a pencil and it falls is not proof of gravity, then what is it proof of?

    • It is not PROOF.

      It is INFERENCE.

      This inference is 100% trustworthy in my opinion and we can be quite certain of it. I personally have no doubt whatsoever about gravity.

      Which is to say, inferential / inductive reasoning is perfectly reliable. The entire scientific method depends upon it:

      1) Formulate hypothesis
      2) Test hypothesis
      3) If test results match hypothesis 100% of the time, hypothesis is correct.

      Eventually we arrive at conclusions that are so immensely reliable that we refer to them as laws. Laws like gravity, entropy, thermodynamics.

      You cannot PROVE that the pencil will fall again if you drop it. You can only infer. And since we have 100% inference from millions of events, we can be 100% certain – if you let go of it, it WILL fall.

      No rational person will disagree with this.

      By an identical process of reasoning we also infer that DNA was designed. This is no different from the way we concluded that there is a law of gravity. Yes, there is a law of gravity! We know this because our observations are 100% consistent with such a law.

      The pattern in DNA, being a code, squarely falls in the category of “communication system.” Communication systems are always things that are intentionally and specifically designed.

      According to all known human experience, communication systems never happen by accident or random chance. This has been made quite evident by my own four years of debating this topic online. Nobody has produced a single counter example.

      If you want to say that DNA is not designed, you have to show ONE example of a communication system that you KNOW was not designed.


      • Jon says:

        You are within every right to believe in whatever you want. I have never been against that as this is a freedom for our country. I don’t know any other way to say this but just to say that you are 100% wrong about something as basic as gravity.

        I could give you experiment after experiment to prove that what was actually happening is a REAL 100% TRUE force of gravity. (EX: Jumping up to a chair or jumping down from one. It’s easier to jump down than up because of gravity.)

        Anyone who denies this betrays their own level of intelligence. We’re not INFERRING gravity, we KNOW its true. We can create the laws of nature because these are observable and testable in the science lab, like gravity.

        You can’t test for other ways life is made (information or no information) because we only have one reference point, us. I know I have been clear about this as it’s you who are inferring because you have incomplete data.

        You say that I have faith, How big of a leap of faith does is it take to go from saying that “information needs a creator” to “God did it. Now THAT takes faith!

        What your theory sounds like to me is that you are so sure you are right, that there is no way you can be wrong. Because you are saying to yourself “How can something that FEELS so right, be wrong?”

        So you say information needs a creator. Well, that’s an interesting theory, now prove it. You can’t, because you are INFERRING. I am not the one doing it, you are my friend.

      • Jon says:

        Why should the universe conform to what we want it to be like?

        Which is what you are saying, because things like commincation systems are designed, then ALL communcation systems must be designed.

        Do you remember my first post?

        “All men are mortal
        Socrates is a man
        Therefore socrates is mortal”

        This is an example of inference which is EXACTLY what you are doing….Does this sound familar?

        “DNA is a code
        All codes are designed
        Therefore God designed the code.”

        It takes a leap of faith to say God did it, not Science.

        • It takes a leap of faith to produce any answer to the question of the origin of DNA.

          The leap to a designer is a short one. DNA is a complex, multi-layered code with dozens of linguistic properties.

          The leap to random chance is an infinite chasm.

          I believe in God with a capital G. You had believed in Chance with a capital C.

          • Jon says:

            A leap to an unknowable yet all knowing being is a short one? Of course, when you use faith.

            But then again, faith has no place in Science. A designer is NOT the only way to make a “complex multi-layed code with dozens of linguistic properties” Yes there is…it’s called Evolution through the means of Natural Selection. All life on this planet is proof of that as the Science shows.

            Yes, I spell Science with a capital S.

        • roger drake says:

          Jon, let’s consider the basics of the syllogism: You say.
          DNA is a code
          all codes are designed
          therefore God designed the code???

          Your correct response should be:
          DNA is a code
          all codes are designed
          therefore DNA is designed

          Another example might be:
          God said He created and designed everything including the laws of science
          DNA codes are included in the laws of science
          Therefore, God created and designed DNA. I think therefore, I am.

      • Keith Mayes says:

        In your argument for creationism rather than evolution you use the example of codes. You explain that a tornado has no designer, neither does a snowflake, even though they are complicated they do not carry a code, but a computer programme does, it has a code. You define a code as a pattern that carries meaning, it has a plan, it was created to have this plan by a designer/creator. You then argue that as DNA has a “code” it must have a designer/creator, but I disagree with the way you make this argument. Your argument rests on your claim that a code must have a designer therefore DNA must have a designer. The truth however is that we have no evidence that a code requires a designer, we know it has a purpose but that does not presuppose it had a designer, that is only your belief. Evolutionists argue that the DNA code is as a result of evolution, that is their belief, so your argument proves absolutely nothing, it simply shows your favoured belief.
        There can be no clear cut correct or incorrect outcome to this debate, but the logic used can be correct or incorrect, and I believe that the argument you use is wrong.
        If you require an example of a code that was not designed by a creator, then I give you DNA. It is your argument, just as sound but reversed.

      • Qqccho says:

        Hi Perry

        One question to follow you up; When in the Creation Process was DNA designed by God, at the very beginning or Big Bang or before “anything” or when He created Man on Earth as the scriptures says?
        From your theory and comments you refer from the very start as Codes. But at this point there wasn’t nothing alife yet therefore a mechanism tool had to be incorporated in the Creation Process for the appearance of DNA when life was about to progress anywhere. That Tool was Evolution. So Creation and Evolution could be closely related.
        This may arise other questions but I leave it there by now

  4. Jon says:

    Just a thought on your “inference” and gravity.

    500 years ago we did use inference about gravity. Because what does inference mean? Working and figuring out from evidence. At that time, we didn’t know what gravity is but we had all the evidence. But over the next few centuries and with the advent of modern technology, we were able to learn about gravity. We no longer had to infer, we had figured it out.

  5. Keshan says:

    Dear Perry

    I do believe that I have felt “the hand of God” working for me in my life. I am not a religious person in the least but have opted to follow a more spiritual path.

    Do you believe that God has a plan for you ? If so, how do you go about letting that plan work without tainting it with your own ideas ? Is there a definitive way to a “higher consciousness” or “increased awareness” of the presence of God and his/hers/its plan for you ?

    These questions only became possible to ask after reading stuff that you wrote. They were always on my mind but it’s only now that I have the guts to ask them. You are the first person who I believe might actually be able to revert with an answer I would find acceptable.

    Even if you don’t, I’m really glad I “stumbled” onto our website…

    Warm regards,


    • Keshan,

      I believe God has plans for us but God also makes us entirely free to choose our own path. To me God is a “still small voice” which can be listened to or ignored.

      No one has ever been ignored more than God. God will not force Himself on anybody. If we invite Him to be a part of our lives and patiently listen for His voice, He will show Himself.

      I have had personal experiences – quite a variety, in fact – of knowing or being told things that “nobody could possibly know”; experiences of physical healing that are very similar to the ones described in the New Testament where Jesus healed people of ailments and diseases. I grew up in a church that did not believe this, but during the last 5 years I have come to believe the such experiences ought to be a normal and expected part of life as a follower of Christ.

      2 years ago I had some amazing healing experiences when I was in India. This is only ONE set of stories from my personal life – there have been numerous others – but if you start reading about 1/3 of the way down you’ll find some truly interesting personal accounts:

      I do solemnly testify, everything in this story is 100% true.

      You will also find a number of books in which serious research has been done into the miraculous. I hope you enjoy the article.


      • roger drake says:

        Perry, great blog
        It is very interesting to read this dialogue between you, a believer, and others who have no experience with the Creator.
        I am reminded of the star trek adventure where Kirk and spock visit a strange desolate planet where they encounter one human resident. He apparently had crashed there many years previous and he is in perfect health and quite happy to the point that he refuses to leave. He says he is being taken care of by the comforter- a spirit like creature that is all encompassing like a cloud. Now this story is only fiction but in reality this is exactly the experience of the believer. We have personal encounters with the Holy Spirit during our whole life. We can not prove He is present in our life, the only evidence is our lives are on a different track then the rest of the world but, we KNOW by personal experience that He is real and He is working in our life. How ridiculous would it be if WE said there is no God, He does not exist, anyone who talks with God is an idiot when we have personal experience that He exists! The sad point here is the logical, scientific approach to this issue is barely a fraction of the argument when the unseen is so much greater. Science has difficulty with the unseen like dark matter and the spirit world yet it exists.

    • Jon says:

      You can have a very spiritual life without god. The very word “spiritual” means a feeling of oneness with the universe. Well, we are one with the universe as all life is related. All life on this planet is made of the same stuff, in fact all life is made of it. Star Stuff. We are cousins to the stars so we are very related to the Cosmos and it to us.

  6. Svullo says:

    If that’s your whole argument, I’m a bit disappointed (and equally disappointed in whomever is stupid enough to get upset about it).

    Your first obvious flaw: “All codes we know the origin of are designed”.

    Which exactly are those codes, apart from various forms of human constructed languages (and possibly those of other animals), be they communicated by sound, vision or electronics?

    Isn’t it true that not only does all known codes (except DNA, of course) have a designer, but the designer is an earth-living animal? Hence I can conclude, with your “airtight” logic, that DNA was designed by an earth-living animal, not by a god.

    It may be argued that plants and bacteria also use codes in some sense, and maybe that’s right but it only means that maybe a plant or some other earthly cell-based (DNA-based) organism designed DNA.

    In your point 2.a. you dismiss this on the basis that it requires “infinite generations” (or time travel), but that leads us back to the even more obvious flaw of all theist objections to big bang/evolution: if nothing can come out of nothing and everything complex or structured needs a designer/creator, who designed/created that creator, and why don’t you worship the super-creator instead, or possibly it’s creator, etc.? Looks infinite to me unless the creator created itself (time travel, whatever time would mean to such an entity).

    Actually your third point is wrong too, that’s not scientific reasoning, it’s unscientific reasoning (not very surprising considering the contempt for science you express elsewhere on the site).

    To say that you have proven your point the same way gravity is proven is plain ridiculous. As you noted gravity has been proven millions of times, in and out of the laboratory, whereas you only have one test case, the DNA, and you don’t have a definitive answer as it is unlikely that any man will ever know it. Laws of nature are proven by their power to predict, if you come up with a theory that fits all known data it will only be accepted if new data discovered after you formulate it fits the theory (note that it’s the time of discovery that counts, the data itself may be in the form of a fossil).

    But, in conclusion, I think your main flaw is the bias inherent in “All codes we know”, it’s a bit like “isn’t it funny that we happen to live on the only inhabited planet we know of”. The codes can be easily grouped into two obvious categories:

    1.) man/animal-made
    2.) DNA/RNA/etc..

    Group one is “designed”, hence group two is “designed”? That’s what your statistics, and hence your logic, boils down to.

    • Svullo,

      When you say

      Hence I can conclude, with your “airtight” logic, that DNA was designed by an earth-living animal, not by a god.

      You are really just re-stating the principle of biogenesis, which says that living things ONLY come from living things.

      Which is, in fact, a wholly scientific statement.

      The problem is: The principle of cause and effect tells us that at some point in the past, there had to be something that came first.

      So I have asked the question: “What is the most parsimonious explanation for the origin of DNA?”

      1. DNA is a code
      2. All codes we know the origin of are designed
      3. Therefore DNA is designed.

      This is a perfectly logical inference to make and in fact it’s the only rational inference that can be made.

      I invite you to present other conclusions, along with the empirical evidence that supports your theory.

      Philosophers almost universally reject the idea of an infinite regress of causes. There has to be an uncaused cause.

      The uncaused cause is not material because the material universe came into existence at the moment of the big bang.

      Something had to cause that.

      Thus the cause is transcendent.

      There are millions of codes. There is only one that we don’t know the origin of and that’s DNA. The ones we do know the origin of are either derivatives of DNA or they’re the product of willfull, conscious, intelligent choice. So the conclusion that DNA is designed is, in fact, as reliable as the theory of gravity.


      • Svullo says:

        “The principle of cause and effect tells us that at some point in the past, there had to be something that came first.”

        Only if there is a definitive start, but then again I guess it’s Big Bang you’re asking for and that is indeed a first, at least for anything happening in this universe.

        “This is a perfectly logical inference to make and in fact it’s the only rational inference that can be made.”

        No, it is not rational nor logical, and sure not scientific. As you indicate yourself you only have two groups of samples: DNA (with derivatives) and man-made, drawing conclusions from one distinctly different group (which you happen to be part in making up as being part of humanity and in particular as working in signal engineering) and assign those qualities to the other group is not valid inference. Basically you infer a property of one group (the man-designed) and assigns it to the other group that obviously lacks what gave rise to that property of the first group (being man-designed).

        The best (i.e. not perfect, but you get the idea) analogy I can come up with right now is saying “All house walls I know of are painted, hence all mountain walls are painted”. As reliable as the theory of gravity?

        Also, the fact that man-made codes outnumber DNA-derivates tells exactly what about DNA? It tells something about human creativity, indeed, but that’s not very relevant here.

        “I invite you to present other conclusions, along with the empirical evidence that supports your theory.”

        By your standards of “scientific reasoning”, I did so in my last entry, but of course that was only to indicate the lack of reason in that school of reasoning.

        The simple reality is of course that “natural selection” is your designer. While natural selection really refers to the much later process where the cell already exists, etc., it’s pretty obvious that the same kind of mechanism is enough to drive the creation of the cell (and DNA). Where natural selection awards properties that make an organism better capable of reproducing, the same could be applied to various chemical substances at the beginnings of life. Obviously a lightning bolt didn’t happen to create DNA (a bit like how the human eye didn’t just have to spring into existence by accident under evolution as creationists tend to claim), but some crude self-reproducing structure may sooner or later have come into existence “by chance”, and after that, there is just evolution. The natural selection of better properties is enough a driving force to create any complexity even in this case. The flaw of your argument is in this sense the same as that of the creationists.

        “Philosophers almost universally reject the idea of an infinite regress of causes. There has to be an uncaused cause.”

        And why couldn’t that, as I “proved” by refining your original argument, be a human being just as well as the god you are proposing? After all, both alternatives are equally illogical and unscientific, so why prefer one over the other? What makes your god “more uncaused” than anything else?

        The god also calls for an infinite regress of causes: I ask again, who created the creator, after all he must “contain” a lot of information/code so he must, according to you, not me, be designed by someone else.

        Also, I wouldn’t be too sure we actually know that cause-effect holds anywhere outside our universe, for the simple reason that, to my best knowledge, we do not know of any such places. In particular, I don’t think there is any basis for claiming that big bang must have a (outside) cause. Also, cause-effect involves the concept of time which would then indicate that our time dimension is not local to our universe, and in particular, that it would apply to whatever context that cause you think is needed for big bang would have existed in. As I remember it from the limited education I’ve had in the field, the dimensions of our universe were pretty messed up in the moments after big bang, but whether they existed (or rather, could have existed) before big bang is beyond me and I will have to ask someone (though I think I know the answer).

        • Svullo,

          DNA is literally and not figuratively a code. Therefore normal inferences that we would make about any code apply to DNA.

          Natural selection requires replication. Replication requires code. Code must come first. Natural selection therefore cannot be the “designer” of the genetic code.

          I caught you red handed when you said, “some crude self-reproducing structure may sooner or later have come into existence “by chance”, and after that, there is just evolution.” You don’t get to steal cookies out of the cookie jar without paying for them. Please provide empirical scientific evidence for that. Evidence that this is anything more than a statement of your own faith in LUCK.

          If you wish to assume cause and effect does not apply outside our universe then you can let yourself off the cause-and-effect hook but don’t call that reason or logic. “Reason” is all about cause and effect, is it not?

          Finally, Godel’s incompleteness theorem proves that there is SOMETHING outside the universe. Something which is axiomatic – must be assumed but cannot be proved.


          • Svullo says:

            No reason for the triumphant mood there…

            First off, I never claimed that DNA wad not literally a code. If you think some of your opponents are stupid in argueing that not to be case, aren’t you equally stupid in assign that view to all your opponents? I can see how that is convenient as it’s an invalid view that’s easy to counter, as opposed to trying to explain how your creator can exist when his existence contradicts your theory (your point 2e is in a sense the same as 2b and, quoting you, it “only pushes the question back in time”. Where did he get his “information” from if he wasn’t designed himself?). You seem to be the one looting the cookie jar (the one you labeled “infinite regress of causes” or “the cause-and-effect hook”).

            Second, please show me how you reach the conclusion that “Replication requires code”? For now, I will ignore it, noting that the burden of proof lies on you. As I stated clearly in the beginning of the paragraph you are referring to, I did not refer to DNA-replication but to any self-replicating mechanism and I was also clear about that I did not literally mean natural selection (e.g. the later, Darwinian, selection), but a generalization: the concept of some things being rewarded more than others. Again you choose to misrepresent my views instead of addressing them.

            Third, what does Gödel have to do with any of this? His incompleteness theorem is about deduction in formal logic (and hence mathematics), not about how we apply mathematics (or logic) to describe the world around us. It has no bearing on the subject discussed here.

            That did the good of turning my attention to one key point though, what about your application of Shannon’s theories? One of the first things I noticed when I came to your site was the name dropping of well known scientists. I ignored it as it’s all to common when it comes to religous believers on the quest of trying to make their beliefs look scientific and usually has little to do with what they say. But again, what if your use of Shannon’s ideas are equally out of context? And indeed, your point 2.d is the “classic” confusion of information theory with thermodynamics, as you spell out on another page on your site. Similar terminology (e.g. the word “entropy”) or formulas doesn’t make two theories apply to the same subject. That’s one unaffordable cookie not paid for.

            Also, there is no “faith in LUCK” involved in my argument. If I throw a hundred dice a million times I will sure get a fairly even distribution every time. However, if I change the rules of the game to picking up and throwing only the ones that were not sixes I will eventually end up with a lot of sixes. That’s not luck, it’s the game not being random. Just like a completely random signal (noise) will not give a completely random result if filtered (e.g. as in analog electronics). It’s like resonance in the pipes of an organ, some frequencies from the random input (wind) will prevail because they are selected/rewarded, not out of luck. In the same way a self replicating structure will, given it survives long enough to replicate, by means of its replication (that is, “by definition”) dominate over any non-replicating structure (again, the idea that replication requires code is yours). This makes our game non-random. You could call this creation of information but, as mentioned, you have to prove that information (in that sense, not Shannon’s) cannot be created that way (e.g. created without a thinking creator/designer).

            p.s. It would be great if the email notifications could (optionally?) be cut down to the ones regarding rewsponses to my own posts (though I will not necessarily write any more).

            • Svullo,

              All one needs to do to verify that DNA is a code is, pick up a biology book. This is the most non-controversial statement anyone could make regarding living things. Read the literature.

              Ultimately one inevitably arrives at the necessity of an uncaused cause. The question is whether a material thing can be an uncaused cause. The laws of entropy eliminate the possibility that the universe is its own cause.

              Replication requires code – John Von Neuman determined this in the 1960’s.

              There is no branch of science, physics or philosophy or any aspect of reality on earth that is not subject to Godel’s theorem.

              You accuse me of name dropping Shannon. It is clear to me however that you have not read Shannon and you have not studied this subject. Apprise yourself of the subject material and if you find a flaw in my analysis, please come forward with it.

              Picking up only sixes is an intelligent choice not a random act, thus invalidating your analogy. Your analogy favors my thesis not yours.

              Please show empirically how information comes from random processes.

      • Jon says:

        Perry, you ask the question “What is the most parsimonious explanation for the origin of DNA?” And provided these statements:

        1.DNA is a code.
        2. All codes we know the origin of are designed.
        3. Therefore DNA is designed.

        You concluded with “That it is a perfectly logical inference to make this.”

        Well, if parsimonious means that less is better and the most simple explaination is favored, then how is trying to explain an all-knowing and all-powerful being a more simple explaination?

        Lets look at each point.

        1. DNA is a Code.

        No problems there, I agree. DNA is the coded instructions that tells cells what to do.

        2. All codes we know the origin of are designed.

        This is where you are making an incredible inference and a leap of faith. Every example you have given was based on and compared against total human experiences and machines. We know of no other ways to make machines or life, so far, we know of ONE WAY life is made. Life here on Earth.

        When it comes to the Laws of Nature and Science, we can observe and test these in the lab and measure them out in the Cosmos. We have telescopes and instruments that extend the human senses. These machines can detect the chemistry of stars on the other side of the Galaxy. All the predictions have (So far, unless the rules suddenly change) have obeyed these laws.

        We can then predict that the conditions that exist here, are the same elsewhere. This is not the same when it comes to predicting life and how life arose. If you were to travel the stars and study other life, and then make your theory, then that would be acceptable. But since you can’t, it is illogical to make your final claim.

        3. Therefore DNA was designed.

        Again, this requires information that is beyond any human being. This is a statement of faith since we don’t yet know how other life is made. We just can’t imagine what other life would really look like, no matter what our sci-fi movies say.

        It’s like trying to imagine a color you have never seen before. Humans can’t do that, we have very limited vision and can only detect a small notch on a much larger spectrum of light.

        • Jon,

          When I said “All codes we know the origin of are designed” I did not make any leap of faith at all. Not in the slightest. I made a truthful statement about what is currently known.

          When you talk about life appearing anywhere else, you are making a leap of faith. I’m not saying it’s a ridiculous leap; the idea of life on other planets is hardly new or unusual. But life elsewhere has never been observed.

          Currently, any prediction about how life arose falls outside the realm of science. The only properly scientific law in regards to this is the law of BIOGENESIS. Life only comes from life.

          First of all, we KNOW that there is some event or process that caused life to occur. We know this through induction and logic.

          Any conclusion of any kind, however, is a step of faith. It seems that science always invites us to explore beyond what is currently known. Science always leads us on a faith journey. We always have to form a hypothesis that we eventually have to test and yeah, actually doing it is kind of scary.

          Yes, “Therefore DNA was designed” DOES require information that is beyond any human being. It is a statement of faith. But it is not a leap of faith. It is a modest step of faith because we already know how all other codes come into existence: through intelligence.

          Theories of random spontaneous occurrence etc. are a leap of faith because the statistical odds are astonishingly remote.

          QUESTION FOR YOU JOHN: Are you open to the possibility that science could theoretically give us clues about the metaphysical?

          And… could you also be open to the possibility that such a metaphysical world is not the threatening, frightening place that others had presented to you before, but a place where new discoveries can be made? And where there is no pressure to be or do any certain thing?


          • Jon says:

            I completely believe that the best discoveries have yet to come. If humanity survives the next 100 years, there is no telling where we will go to and what we can achieve. Maybe we will move to new planets and spread out among the stars, as this is probably our only hope for long term survival. I am never closed minded to what is around the corner.

            As for your question, I believe I answered it already. Science doesn’t look at the metaphysical, but the physical.

            I can’t it but I have to use a quote from Star Trek.

            Kiri-Kin-Tha’s first law of Metaphysics…”Nothing unreal exists”

          • Jon says:

            Also, I don’t believe Science takes us on a journey of faith. I think it takes us on a journey of knowledge. Because at the heart of Science is the search for truth. There is nothing more enlightening than learning and discovering about our true place in this vast and awesome Cosmos. Our species has always been curious, we were born explorers.

      • Jon says:

        Also, Philosophers don’t reject infinite regress, I think you have it backwards. If you say there has to be a God, that means infinite regress because there always has to be a God. There can’t be one God because of that paradox.

        Saying that God created everything only leads to another question.

        • Jon,

          How does this argument you are making right here not also apply to an infinitely old universe?


          • Jon says:

            I am basing my argument on logic and not on faith.

            • You keep repeating that, as though saying it enough times will make it true. You have had faith in an eternal universe, despite enormous evidence to the contrary. You have faith in abiogenesis despite very little evidence that the theory is valid. Calling this logic does not make it so. Denying that it’s faith doesn’t change the fact that you believe things that you have neither seen nor proved.

          • Jon says:

            Of course I can’t prove an infinitely old Universe.

            • Thus you have faith in an infinitely old universe.

              • Aakash says:


                Please show this ” enormous” evidence. You say that biogenesis has very little evidence that it is valid. How about god? Are you saying it has much evidence to back it up?

                Take a break from the science and look at the humanitarian side of the picture.

                I’ll have to pinpoint some religions here. Take a look at christianity. It has many believers which should be worthy enough for an example. Why doesn’t God heal amputees? Infants whom die, do they get access to the promised land? Do people who have never heard of the faith get access to this promised land? Why do people have to live in such a world to “prove” themselves (it doesn’t sound nice here but it is a fact) to get into the promised land? Why couldn’t they enter it in the first place? These are merely simple questions that contradict one of the very believed claims of all branches of christianity bare similarity, a promised land. People of this faith are forced to make rationalizations to convince themselves or others which is clearly not stated in the bible.

                Your statements are mostly unsupported and basically supports the premise that god exists. An example would be that an earlier comment, you restated that DNA is designed is a statement of faith, which can be inferrenced as basically just a view. It doesn’t support exactly why it is true yet you refusely insist that it is. You conveniently avoided Jon’s claim that having a god only arises new questions.

                If you even have the balls, cut out with the dumb email story or whatever, just put concrete proof and a clear explanation to your premise on the main page of this website and SHOW US THAT GOD EXISTS. I dare you to.

                • Aakash,

                  I’m not willing to take a break from science if you are unwilling to first address the accurate scientific statements that I have made. My inference is airtight and every statement is fully supported. If you doubt that then you have not read Shannon’s or Yockey’s work.

                  As for the technical questions you will need to ask more specific questions. I cannot discern from what you have written that you have carefully read the articles here.

                  Perry Marshall

    • nuke777 says:

      I am not really sure where you are going with this, but there is good science now backing the big bank and the scientific fact that the universe is exactaly 14 billion years old. This fact does not run counter to theism but in fact reinforces what theish has been saying for centuries. It is actually one of the places where science and religion come to agreement. What your objection to it is I am not entirely certain.

  7. Derek says:

    I follow your argument until you list out the 5 different ways that DNA could have been created. The first 2 can be cast aside as very unlikely (and I personally don’t understand 4 very well, if you compare information to energy and matter, then how could it possibly be created?) So that leaves random chance or a creator. You then go on to say that random chance would be too remote to possibly produce DNA, therefore it was created. The issue that I have with this is that what laws of physics would a creator comply with? If there really is a god, then we would have to rethink the entirety of science. Not only would said creator be able to make things out of absolutely nothing but he would probably be considered “out of our plane of existence” which would make it virtually impossible to rule out anything (i.e gravity might not be a force in another plane of existence). I personally think that it’s much more reasonable to conclude that in a universe that’s so vast as to be for all intents and purposes infinite, that purely by chance, at least one tiny little oasis of life was formed.

    • Derek,

      The creator created the laws of physics. I can’t necessarily speak for other religions but Judeo-Christian theology is emphatic that the universe was created out of nothing. Which turns out to be exactly what the Big Bang seems to be telling us.

      And you’re right, gravity might not be a force in another plane of existence.

      If someone wants to vote for chance then I’m asking them to give us a statistical model.


      • Derek says:

        My whole point was that your theory involves a creator that is outside of anybody’s ability to accurately imagine. This being would be so alien and different from anything that we’ve ever seen before, that no one would even be able to identify its characteristics. This spits in the face of modern science, which is in essence, observation. Therefore I personally have to conclude that its more likely that the universe was created and continues to function through more quantitative means.

        A statistical model is impossible without knowing the scope of the universe, something we don’t have much of a clue about now. I will however create the statistical model if you can get me photographic evidence of a divine being that created all of existence :)

        • Derek,

          The only statistical models we can make are ones based on what we DO know, at this time, with our limited knowledge.

          I have photographic EVIDENCE of a divine being: Electron Microscope pictures of DNA. The stars in the sky at night.

          But I know that’s not what you’re asking for.

          You’re asking for a photograph of the divine being.

          So in the same fashion, would you be willing to provide me a photograph of: gravity; of entropy; of the laws of physics?


  8. Bob says:

    Perry, I’m not much on labeling but I’m not a “believer” and I did ask you a question before and you answered me, thanks. But you make such strong definitive statements. You said to one of your readers, if you want to take part in this discussion, you need to take the time to read carefully everything that was written here. We dont know everything that’s at the bottom of the oceans yet, let alone what’s in the universe. Then there is atomic structure which underpins all matter and despite a century of effort weve come up with what; an uncertainty principle.
    No one knows what information is held there, a very simple explanation of how DNA came about without a divine creator may lay there. WE, mankind, probably havn’t sifted through 1% of the information that’s in the universe. Yet you say, if you can read this line, I can PROVE to you that God exists. Perry I,ve read more than the line and you havn’t gone even close to convincing me that there’s a God. It’s like reading the cover on the bible and then telling me you know enough to prove God exists.
    Thanks Bob.

    • Bob,

      I can only prove to the extent that science can prove.

      Science cannot prove, it can only infer.

      For all we know, gravity may not be universal. We’ve only experimented physically with 0.0000001% of the universe.

      I can say the same thing about every scientific law.

      To the extent that science can prove anything – which is 100% inference – then based on what we KNOW from science, DNA has every appearance of being designed.

      If we are going to follow the evidence wherever it leads, this is where it takes us. Inference to a designer.


  9. Timmy Johansson says:

    You claim there are five possible explanations for the existence of DNA.

    a) Humans designed DNA
    b) Aliens designed DNA
    c) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously
    d) There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates information
    e) DNA was Designed by a Superintelligence, i.e. God.

    You forgot one – evolution.

    • Evolution requires self-replication which requires DNA in order to take place. Thus evolution cannot explain the origin of DNA. DNA must come first.

      • Timmy Johansson says:

        Indeed, I’m mistaken, i should have referred to the theory of abiogenesis, which explains the origin of DNA.

        • Timmy,

          I’m still waiting for a theory of abiogenesis that is supported by experimental evidence and not just speculation.


          • dorian says:

            It doesn’t mater if you can or cannot explain DNA or anything else for that mater. If you can’t explain your God, you are going round in circles.

            Stop it, you look like a dog chasing it’s tail!

            Just because you can’t explain something, it doesn’t mean there is a God, got it??

            • Timmy Johansson says:

              “I’m still waiting for a theory of abiogenesis that is supported by experimental evidence and not just speculation.”

              There is infact experimental evidence that supports the theory of abiogenesis, for example research showing fatty acids forming in conditions similar to that of early Earth, and them automatically forming a membrane-like structure due to hydrophobic/hydrophilic interactions with surrounding water. If you want a specific example investigate the Miller–Urey experiment, but bear in mind this was over 50 years ago. After that here has been several similar studies after that which have created, among other compunds, all 20 amino acids found in living cells and all five nucleotide bases.

              If you do not find the studies on the subject so far to be adequate, then rest assured there will be more research done. So this is a race where you might consider yourself in to be in the lead, however your argument is not getting any closer to the finish line, whilst scientific research is constantly making progress.

              • Timmy,

                The abiogenesis research sheds some interesting light on possible origin of the chemicals.

                I have never encountered ANY abiogenesis research that yields ANY empirical insight on where the *information* in DNA came from.

                My point is not all that different than Hubert Yockey’s: The laws of the genetic code have to be taken as axiomatic, because the introduction of information in biology is a singularity event. When it’s taken as a given, rather than assumed to be random, all kinds of fruitful conclusions naturally follow. We hypothesize an incredibly high degree of order and we do in fact find it.

                The materialists hypothesize things like Junk DNA which is blatantly anti-scientific because it presumes underlying DISORDER rather than underlying order. They are not promoting science, they are corroding it. Backward progress not forward.

                See and also note that science itself has its origins in theology. See


                • ahmed says:

                  i like your comment verry much,
                  i am muslim,
                  i teach english,
                  i anderstand all what you say and agree whit it
                  i am a scientist ,but francofone groud base languaged,so i want to say in french :
                  alors le dna est un code ! en effet , il suffit de regarder l infiniment petit , l atome et l infiniment grand , l univers et chercher les similitudes et se dire nefin ! mais qu est ce qui se passe ? pourquoi les chose se ressemblent tellement !
                  en tout cas rien n est seul ou unique , tout a un double ou un ressemblant quelque part dans cet immense univers ! et ca alors , ca conduit a se poser des questions ! et pas les moindres ! svp !
                  je vous salue messiers!
                  merci terry!

  10. Aki Tuomaala says:

    If think somekind off God exists,but I dont think a God exits who cares about us in a personal level,who loves and cares about hymanity our problems etc.If yuo think so give me only one prove for that.Then I dont think that so called intelligent design done by a conscious God exist,only design done by hymen beens like yuo and me.Even if we dont know everything I anyway think that dna our brain and souls etc. have their suorce in automatic natural laws and forces, or else what can it be?give only one real prove.

    • Leo John C.Guinid says:

      Well Aki. Im not much of a scientist.
      But God saved my mother once ya know…

      It started when my little brother got somekind of mouth infection.
      It stopped him from moving his mouth and breathing from his nose.
      soon enough he was sent to the operating room and the surgery was a success.
      My mom was couldnt afford to pay the bills because of financial problems. But when she swiped her credit card, it was so unbelievable! a long time debt that one of her friends owed her had just been paid by that day! My mom was then able to pay the medical bill.

      Im only a 13 year old. But i know that somewhere out there God is watching us.
      I thank God for helping my lil ‘ bro and making me accidentally stumble on this wonderful website! , and i wanna thank Mr.Perry for giving us christians even more faith!

      Keep doing what your doing Mr.Perry! God bless you!

  11. Ahmed says:

    /Target Perry Marshall

    There is much to be said, but in conclusion, you, sir, are an effing genius.

  12. Bob says:

    Perry, thanks for your reply. You say: “If we are going to follow the evidence wherever it leads, this is where it takes us. Inference to a designer”. That’s good and makes sense. You also say, science cant prove anything, ok ,too. But if you hold a brick over my foot and let it go, then try and engage me in a discussion about the probability of the outcome. I’m going to do a hell of a lot more moving, in the first second, than argueing. So much faith have I in the law of gravity.
    However, when it comes to building a model of something as un fathomable as God, after we have sifted through, you say and I realise it’s only a guess, 0.0000001% of the information that’s available. That’s a tiny, tiny piece of sampling, but you insist in stating that you can PROVE the existence of God. I find myself coming up some what short in the faith department.

  13. sam says:

    of course they know n believe in the DNA code .. they just won’t admit it. .. Perry .. you’re their worst nightmare

  14. Zagdil says:

    i was curious about your site when an ad popped up on cinemassacre. So i decided to read about it. I call myself an atheist and i honestly respect everyone else for believing in God or science or Toasters.
    There is just one thing I find hard to deal with.
    Mixing religion and science.
    Thus you approach totally from the scientific side and most of your conclusions are correct you mostly end up giving religious explanations.
    This could be still alright to me as the religious part often starts where knowledge ends, wich is in my opinion the only place science left for religion.

    Now is your part. You say infomation cant be created out of nothing. I say it can.

    1. You try to show the effects of random mutation with a Random Mutation Generator.
    I used it and in order to make in work in an acceptable ammouth of time i added the following criteriums:
    I reduced the numbers of characters, because the more characters the more time i would need, i only simplified it.
    I accept german and leet-Speech

    This is what random mutation gave me in half an hour (note that this program uses 26 letters x 2 + 10 numbers + various others, wich is an extremely huge amount) :
    Input: SHIT

    nOQb (leetspeech for newbie)
    Ak09 (german TV Show)
    T9 (mobile phones used it)
    bi (2)
    ist (german for “is”)
    furz (fart)
    Eugi (nickname of a friend of mine, Eugenia)
    oede (german for boring)
    WoW (game)
    H8N1 (influenca?)

    so random mutation gave me new information, but maybe the generator was just meant to be a little game or i only got i wrong

    2. As a kid I once had a very very odd experience with my cat.
    I am playing chess since I am 7 and by the age of 11 i was often practising openings at home. My cat used to watch me sometimes. And sometimes Felix started to move the chesspieces around. Normally he just hits em to the ground. But once he was laying sideways and reaching the pieces. He did 3 legal moves in a row, he moved 2 different pawns and a knight. I was so damn excited about this this day. I tried to answer his moves (they werent that good) and make him do more legal moves, but he never did it again.
    So i have some explanations:
    -My cat knows chess, but suppresses his knowledge
    -something made my cat do this
    -it was just coincidence, cat and pieces stood and layed in a way so this could happen.
    so my conclusion to this incident is believe in a coindidence or not

    3. My cat also likes mice. He kills them like a shredder. He also likes birds, rats and sometimes even rabbits, but now i want to talk about mice.
    Someone in my neighborhood seemed to have white mice. One day some got free and run away. The grew and became many many white mice.
    Since that day Felix was killin 1 ugly white mouse almost every day. Thanks to a reason i do not know he refused to eat the white mice though. So i could watch evolution on its very work. In Beginning there were almost all mice white. Only a few had small brown spots. It was also obvious they didnt mix up with normal mice, i think its because they are too different or something.
    As time went by Felix started to catch less white mice. First I thought its because he begins to extinguish them once and for all, but as I realized later he didnt. The mice Felix caught just started to have more brown spots.
    Today there are no white mice anymore. But their kind is still around, the white color just vanished and still appears from time to time. The amount of mice caught is now back to normal, as it was before the white ones set foot on Felix territory. I still can clearly distiguish between the old races he was catching before (Wuehlmaeuse and Spitzmaeuse) and the new now brown ones, so i can say they still didnt mix up.
    To make it more clear:
    White mice came free into a competitive enviroment.
    White mice were much much more easy to catch for my cat.
    Mice with less white color had a higher chance to survive.
    Mice with more white color were removed from the gene-pool.
    Mice with less white color reproduced, mice with more white color didnt.
    White color vanished in a time of approximately two years.
    The selecting force in this incident was my cat or more his nature.

    This was just what i want to tell you, because you said we should name examples for chaos creating information and maybe tell about a thing that makes evolution observable.

    so long,

  15. Alexander says:

    Perry, you have defended a belief that lies at the core of science from those who claim to hold the banner of science and reason.

    Science isn’t the search for truth but the search for predictability.

    Truth requires it to be true 100% of the time, this is something science is just incapable of proving.

    Even in the case of gravity, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if there were certain subatomic particles that didn’t follow the law of gravity.

    You have proven that the best scientific principles are the most elegantly simple ones.

    I will do my best to teach what is here.

  16. Rod says:


    Let them know that faith is governed by reasons unseen. Faith isn’t fantasy (thus two different words). Second, science is a process, not a mind. Third, science is governed by cause and effect, thus an uncaused cause must be the first cause. Thus, atheism sounds more like religion without reason.

    • billy says:

      Rod, these guys don’t really listen. There is the will to rebel, much like the will to eat. They will continue to compare biological systems to snowflakes and crystals, and show how crystals form, rather than compare them to the actual, like a a computer program, and then show how THAT can form through chance. Its a bitter state of denial.

      You’re right though, in saying that faith is governed by things unseen, and also by what is seen. Likewise, as with biological systems, their comparisons are flawed. There are others but the most basic is the amplification of radio waves. I have never seen radio waves, but when I turn on the radio, this is evidence of radio waves. I am not actually hearing radio waves either. I’m hearing John Eldridge from levy 98.7. You can postulate that there are tiny men inside the radio and then test that hypothesis, but the radio is evidence of radio waves.

      There have been many things that I have seen which is comparable to turning on a radio. But the most notorious example would be that of Jesus. As he repeatedly reiterated, “my words are not mine, but come from the one who sent me.” Flesh and blood cannot heal the sick, it cannot rise from the dead, it cannot predict the future and so on. Unless you realize what is in front of you, you cannot realize what is beyond. If youre still struggling to know whether a radio is capable of relaying information on its own, when tuned to a frequency, then this is what you should be concerned with.

      When Peter began to to speak after his transformation, people wondered how an uneducated fisherman had the ability to trounce even the wisest. It might sound corny but he was literally “tuned in”.

      Most people don’t understand that God and science are not separate, you know. Its not magic, but science (but if I were to fly a 767 over a medieval knight he might probably scream out “sorcery!” too). I won’t bore you with the details but the senses are to a man, what the antenna is to the radio. They are detection devices. The antenna picks up frequency and vibration around the radio, amplifies it and translates that into the message. I’m not really well versed in this field but I think you should get what I’m saying.

      Like the antenna of the radio picks up frequency and vibration, so does the eye. What is “seeing” but detection of the wavelengths and frequency of light. If you think about it, we are only picking up what we are tuned to pick up, you know.

      What is hearing, but again, the detection of frequency and vibration in the air.

      I began to wonder if smelling could be based on frequency and I discovered that there was a scientist pioneering a new theory and is very adamant about the fact that the olfactory receptors are only detecting the vibration and frequency of different molecules [1].

      The key to the universe is becoming realized as merely vibration, where what we feel is the result of vibrating strings like, music [2]. And what we don’t see like radio waves, like certain colors, like certain sounds, which other animals have the capacity to hear, is the result of the antenna. I won’t go into the long philosophical and theological aspects of this, but the absolute key to the universe is frequency and vibration. Which did not begin with what we can see. The material mind is not separate from the eye, and the ear, which are like protruding antenna from the processor, just picking up signals. Like the long “rabbit ears” above your t.v set (you know you had one too :))

      What atheists basically do, is tell you that unless you can see the radio waves, they don’t exist. But the radio is evidence of radio waves and will stand as that. Creation of course is additional evidence and verification. And yes, we can say that God did it. Never has saying the programmer did it squelched a Computer Science Ph. D thesis. It invites learning and inquiry. Cheers.



  17. Joe Grenon says:

    The two are neither equal nor interchangeable. Neither are they mutually inclusive nor exclusive.

    You discount options b, c, and d, simply because you think the possibility of their truth is remote or unlikely, and so by default you go with e, god, an equally remote possibility which also cannot be proven nor reproduced in any scientific way.

    God is allegedly eternal and infinite, as is the universe, more or less, we are guessing.

    Who designed god? It is a human creation, not unlike the big bang. A guess; an explanation; a theory for which there is no proof.

    The only thing you state correctly is that we don’t know. That is hardly proof.

    You can be no more certain that there is a god, than I am that there isn’t. I make no attempts to prove a negative. Your so called proof, is nothing more than a circular logic based on specious premises that simply chooses one remote possibility over another.

    Have a little humility. If you simply do not know or understand, that is the end of it. You don’t know.

    God, by most definitions is perfectly capable of demonstrating its existence and dominion. Its refusal to so can lead a reasonable person to believe therefore that there is no god, or that god can be defined in another way, such as life, or energy or time.

    You have not met even the legal standard of burden of proof. There is reasonable doubt.


    • Joe,

      The universe is not eternal. It is 13.8 billion years old as thoroughly attested by Stephen Hawking and others.

      Have I removed all doubt? No. But I have in fact shown that everything we know about codes and information points to DNA having been designed.

      I have 100% inference to a designer. There is no inference to any other explanation at this time.

      Those facts speak for themselves.


  18. Madhuri says:

    Hi Perry,

    Thanks, your point of view is really interesting. I’m quite fascinated by your conculsion, that there is a “designer”. What the design was intended for, I suppose there’s no way of telling, and maybe one day science – or you! – will be able to figure that out.

    There’s one thing that’s been bothering me, though. Its about identical twins. do they have exactly the same fingerprints, for example? I’m not sure. Because the thing thats knocking about in my head is: every person’s DNA is about as unique as a snowflake — except in the case of identical twins. DNA is a design not a pattern, I understand that. But what we are really talking about is billions of ‘unique’ designs, no??

    Any thoughts??


    • There are billions of unique designs.

      Twins do not have identical fingerprints. Fingerprints are partly the result of some “chaos theory”-like process so each is unique. Yes, there are probably trillions of possible combinations of human DNA from basic sexual reproduction and mendelian genetics.

  19. C.Prajoth says:

    I completely agree with your statement that DNA has an information stored in it and that was designed by the GOD.I would like to add something more to this
    1.Big Bang theory-I want to question the theory with the following example.Iam having a heap of Books in which there are Physics books,Chemistry books,Biology books etc.Around these books there are Physics shelf,Chemistry shelf,Biology shelf etc.I explode these books by placing a bomb under these books.The probability of physics book going to physics shelf,Chemistry book going to Chemistry shelf etc is very remote.In the same way The Universe is a systematic shelf which has been placed very orderly by an Almighty God.
    2.Evolution-Animals have female & male species in common.If evolution was the cause behind creation of animals then there should have been an animal with 50%male qualities plus 50% female qualities in it or 30% male qualities plus 70% female qualities in it or 20% male qualities plus 80% female qualities in it so on.If evolution was the cause then who has has defined sex information that they have to unite.How come the sexual organs fit each other so perfectly.Who gave them the feeling to unite.
    3.Who created God-Some people ask who created God.I would like to explain this in the following way.Humans have been brought up in this world through informations like, this was created from this,that was created from that and so on.For example House was built from bricks,Papers from paper pulp,Glass from silicon etc.Imagine a situation where everything was already there and nothing has been created from anything.i.e.House was already there,paper was already there,Glass was already there(nobody created).Then nobody will ask any question who created,what created.Then they will not ask who created God?.We have been continuously fed with informations like this was created from that and so on etc that we have started to question the very question of creator being created.God is an exception for creation because he was already there and is still living and will continue to live.
    In Bible also it clearly explains that by Faith we have to believe that God exists and he will do the things if you have the faith. It may be like helping you or creating anything etc.Hence this clearly explains that we can never prove God exists or doesn’t exists(physically by visualising).We can only attempt.If this is proved Faith becomes nullified & the Bible becomes false(word of God).

    With my little knowledge I have written the above comments to support your statements.

    With warm regards,
    (Converted from atheist to lover of Jesus 9 years back)
    Andhra pradesh

    • Jimmy says:

      “God is an exception for creation because he was already there and is still living and will continue to live.”
      that’s not any kind of answer or explanation at all.
      And, my question is…if you have all this scientific data and proof to back up your claim that the universe has a ‘creator”, what in your scientific data and argument leads you to the conclusion that it is the christian god who created it?
      The answer is…absolutely nothing. You can argue up and down that there is a designer of reality, but jehovah has absolutely no stronger claim on being that creator than, say, Horus, or Heracles, or Dionysus.

  20. Orion says:

    To your argument, I’d like to say this. First of all, it is a very interesting line of thinking, and I quite like it. As an atheist searching for such things as arguments for the existence of God, one can quickly become bored and annoyed with the apologetics one finds, which are often the same arguments over and over, each and every one having been refuted hundreds of times. But finally, something shows through that does not call for faith, does not openly contradict the decades of scientific work put into such things as evolution, and actually poses a challenge.
    But of course, I’m not convinced. (Though I will openly confess that I’m not professional in any of the relative fields, here.)
    Your first point, I will certainly accept. By definition, DNA is a code.
    Your second point jumps the gun, however. You’ve already inferred, here, in your head, the answer, before you’ve presented the possibilities. If we are to call DNA an unknown, I will certainly accept that all known codes are designed, of course, but you can’t move so quickly from there. Taking a look at the presented possibilities:
    A) While an interesting thought if time travel is show to be possible in some way, I would say that, for the moment, we can call this impossible.
    B) This could be true, as you say, but I do not think that it necessarily pushes things back a step. It may be that alien life, under conditions different than our own, could have developed from some other sort of way, that would be unknown to us. I have no thoughts as to what this might be, but it cannot be discounted in it’s entirety.
    C) This is, again, not a possibility to be discounted in it’s entirety. It may not have even been an entirely random process, as stated. There has been, to my knowledge, some experimental success in producing one of the base pairs with the application of energy to an early-earth environment. Not entirely random, simply fitting in with chemistry.
    D) While all codes we see may be made through man, that may not prove to be true overall. Firstly, if RNA can be created from simple origins in a lab, then we can show that a code can be formed from nature. Second, there is the possibility that other sorts of code can and have formed, but do not persist. If one does not replicate itself, then it won’t last long. If it does, but could not manage to be as effective as DNA, it may have been out competed and destroyed.
    E) And, of course, there are many more questions that come up once something supernatural is proposed. Until those are answered, it is as unlikely as the other answers are.

    • Orion,

      Your (B) invokes some completely unknown cause which is utterly beyond investigation.

      Your (C) somehow seems to be saying “OK well it’s not completely random” but if you’re saying that then you’re really advocating (D).

      People have DESIGNED RNA like substances in the lab but they do not contain any kind of genetic code.

      An undiscovered law of physics is the only proposal that is even remotely scientific.

      Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *