Changes

To support his view regarding the divine origin of genetic programs Dr. Walt Brown cites the work of [[David Abel]] and Professor [[Jack Trevors]] who wrote the following:

To support his view regarding the divine origin of genetic programs Dr. Walt Brown cites the work of [[David Abel]] and Professor [[Jack Trevors]] who wrote the following:

{{cquote|No matter how many "bits" of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it "information" if it doesn't at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In computer science, we call it a "program." Another name for computer software is an "algorithm." No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed? - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1467742</ref><ref>http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958</ref>}}

{{cquote|No matter how many "bits" of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it "information" if it doesn't at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In computer science, we call it a "program." Another name for computer software is an "algorithm." No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed? - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1467742</ref><ref>http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958</ref>}}

==Creation Science and the Evolutionary Science Community==

==Creation Science and the Evolutionary Science Community==

Creation science is not accepted by most scientists either in terms of its claims<ref>95% of scientists accept the theory of evolution.  Robinson, B.A., [http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm Public beliefs about evolution and creation], Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, May 7, 2007.</ref> or as a science, {{fact}} but it is claimed by creation scientists that this is due mainly to the worldviews and preconceptions of the scientists, rather than on the basis of scientific evidence{{fact}}.  

Creation science is not accepted by most scientists either in terms of its claims<ref>95% of scientists accept the theory of evolution.  Robinson, B.A., [http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm Public beliefs about evolution and creation], Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, May 7, 2007.</ref> or as a science, {{fact}} but it is claimed by creation scientists that this is due mainly to the worldviews and preconceptions of the scientists, rather than on the basis of scientific evidence{{fact}}.