Changes

Very simply, there is no known unguided, purposeless process (including Darwinism) that can make non-repetitive, specified sequences of matter, particularly the long, detailed sequences of DNA, comparable in quantity and quality to an entire set of encyclopedias. <ref>Atheist and Darwinist [[Dawkins, Richard|'''Richard Dawkins''']] states that each nucleus of plant or animal cells contains ''a digitally coded'' database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' put together."  Richard Dawkins, ''The Blind Watchmaker'', (New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 1996) p. 17-18, (emphasis added).</ref>

Very simply, there is no known unguided, purposeless process (including Darwinism) that can make non-repetitive, specified sequences of matter, particularly the long, detailed sequences of DNA, comparable in quantity and quality to an entire set of encyclopedias. <ref>Atheist and Darwinist [[Dawkins, Richard|'''Richard Dawkins''']] states that each nucleus of plant or animal cells contains ''a digitally coded'' database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' put together."  Richard Dawkins, ''The Blind Watchmaker'', (New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 1996) p. 17-18, (emphasis added).</ref>

[[Image:DNA_information.jpg|thumb|150px|right|DNA contains immaterial information]]

[[Image:DNA_information.jpg|thumb|150px|right|DNA contains immaterial information]]

The information content of DNA is many, many times more complex and specified than a Shakesearean sonnet.  Just as no scientist would suggest that Shakespearean sonnets were the work of unintelligent causes (even if the author were unknown), the presence of specified, complex information in DNA is equally dispositive of intelligent causes in living systems. The question of the '''''cause''''' of Specified Complex Information is critical to the origins science debate.  If “evolution” means “change over time,” then there is no controversy. However, if “evolution” is defined as “a natural, unguided, information-producing process capable of creating Specified Complex Information,” then virtually no one would be an evolutionist based on the evidence.  The evidence overwhelmingly suggests an intelligent cause.  However, the question of the '''''source''''' of Complex Specified Information is secondary, and not necessarily a scientific question.  But to rule out intelligent '''''causes''''' for Specified Complex Information based on the supposed inability for science to detect the '''''source''''' (e.g., as due to a conflict between "science" and "religion") is to make a category mistake.  As Dembski states, “The proper contrast is between ''natural'' causes on the one hand and ''intelligent'' causes on the other.”  Dembski elaborates:

The information content of DNA is many, many times more complex and specified than a Shakespearean sonnet.  Just as no scientist would suggest that Shakespearean sonnets were the work of unintelligent causes (even if the author were unknown), the presence of specified, complex information in DNA is equally dispositive of intelligent causes in living systems. The question of the '''''cause''''' of Specified Complex Information is critical to the origins science debate.  If “evolution” means “change over time,” then there is no controversy. However, if “evolution” is defined as “a natural, unguided, information-producing process capable of creating Specified Complex Information,” then virtually no one would be an evolutionist based on the evidence.  The evidence overwhelmingly suggests an intelligent cause.  However, the question of the '''''source''''' of Complex Specified Information is secondary, and not necessarily a scientific question.  But to rule out intelligent '''''causes''''' for Specified Complex Information based on the supposed inability for science to detect the '''''source''''' (e.g., as due to a conflict between "science" and "religion") is to make a category mistake.  As Dembski states, “The proper contrast is between ''natural'' causes on the one hand and ''intelligent'' causes on the other.”  Dembski elaborates:

<blockquote>

<blockquote>