My email correspondence with Apologist Kyle Butt

As promised, below is the entire, unedited email conversation I had with apologist Kyle Butt. As you can see, his arguments are extremely weak and are not what I would expect from a trained apologist.
Enjoy!
Click here to read my synopsis of the correspondence -->
--------------------------------------------------
Kyle:
My name is Daniel Brown. I’m a resident of Columbia, TN and voted for your mom, but never had the pleasure of meeting her until today. (Personal info about meeting a family member of his removed.)
I met with her to speak about a certain bill making its way through the State House that I oppose. In discussion, she mentioned you’re a Biblical apologist. I was once on path to be a Southern Baptist preacher, but found myself working for the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist and for the Tennessee Baptists upon graduating from Belmont in 1998. I was also a youth minister and licensed minister. I decided to leave my personal ministry and work as a graphic designer and then obtained a Masters in Communications from Norwich University.
In 2003, I decided to focus on my faith and zeroed in on a few questions that bothered me from childhood—including authenticity of Scripture, existence of God, and many other areas. After a while, I finally embraced these doubts and realized much of what I claimed to know about God, the mind of Christ, etc, could not be known. A declared myself an atheist and still consider myself a non-believer to this day.
I’ve engaged many, many pastors and church leaders with MDivs and PhDs through the years, but not one has been able to completely and fully answer my questions. I’ve never had a chance to discuss any of these with an apologist specifically. Once I heard about you, I knew I had to write and request an opportunity to ask you a few questions. If you don’t mind, I would like to begin a cordial dialog via email if possible. Who knows—I might hear something I never heard before.
Sincerely,
Daniel Brown

-----------------------------------------
Hey Daniel,
Great to hear from you. I’ll be glad to discuss whatever questions you have. In my experience, it is the most productive to focus on one specific issue at a time and move on from there. So, I would suggest that you fire away any one thing that you believe militates against belief in God. I’ll look forward to it.
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt

-----------------------------------------
Kyle,
Thank you for indulging me.
Simply put, my lack of belief is due to lack of evidence. By evidence, I mean verifiable, material evidence that unmistakably points to a god. Either the god proposition is true or false. To be intellectually honest with myself, I must suspend judgment until I have confirmation. It can’t end there. It must be evidence that can be validated by outside sources and testable. I’m sure we would agree that a creator would have to exist in a realm to which neither of us has access. This makes determining the validity of the statement impossible. My non-belief extends into all things supernatural—ghosts, demons, angels, unicorns, and fairies. I am a materialist, simply because that’s all we can possibly know. Anything outside of that resembles imagination.
How do you personally determine whether a proposition is true or false? How do you define “god” and by what means do you determine its existence? After answering that, one must make the broad leap from deism to theism. How do you bridge the gap?
Thanks,
Daniel


-----------------------------------------
Hey Daniel,
Thanks for getting back to me. Are you familiar with the often used scientific concept of indirect observation?
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt


-----------------------------------------
Yes. I'm familiar with it. One example you might cite is gravity.
You can't infer something you cannot define. Gravity is defined by the rate at which things fall. It's testable. Sure, you can infer the Christian god because there is something rather than nothing, but I'll make the leap and infer a pink sock puppet as god for the same reason. This points back to my question--how do YOU determine whether a proposition is true or false? How do you KNOW this inference of the Christian god is correct and my inference of the sock puppet is incorrect?
D

-----------------------------------------
Hello Daniel,
Thanks for writing back. Bear with me here. I’m not avoiding your question, I just think we need to nail this idea down early in order to move forward. So, using the concept of indirect observation, we could agree that we could know some things about an item or entity without ever having direct contact with that entity. For instance, we could know how big a planet is that circles a distant star by measuring the wobble of the star and using our knowledge of gravity to infer the planet’s mass, etc. Are we on the same page here?
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt

-----------------------------------------
Sure. The beauty of science is that it makes predictions, is measurable, and is testable. We might be able to infer a small bit of information here and there, but all scientists studying this hypothetical planet know that all information about it is developing and on-going. The information we gather lays the groundwork for further tests and measurable data collection. EVERY idea begins as an hypothesis. In science, these hypotheses are founded on limited information, but the end goal is to know as much about it as possible based on measurable and repeatable evidence. So, to answer your question, yes, we can "know" some basic information about the planet, but as time progresses, technology advances, and we develop a fuller picture based in reality and facts. You will never hear a scientists say, "That planet is exactly this size and if you disagree, you're going to hell." The certainty is in flux until we KNOW--and knowing is based in facts gathered. Scientists do not build entire theories and laws on inference and speculation--hypotheses, yes, but theories, laws, certainty, no.
Once we have a working understanding of the distance, gravitational pull, mass, surface temperature, etc, we can send a spacecraft to the planet. To accomplish this trip, we accumulate facts and make predictions. If we are wrong, the spacecraft will either not meet its destination and/or burn up. Indirect observation is but a small part of science.
Are you attempting to say that the entire concept of the Judeo-Islamo-Christian god hangs on one small section of science called inference? That the god hypothesis is alone sufficient and requires nothing more to verify or falsify the claim? Is the goal to use a portion of the scientific method to explain god, while discarding the process of peer-review, experimentation, etc? Can you provide an example of a scientific fact/theory/law that is based entirely on indirect observation and cannot be tested or measured?
D


-----------------------------------------
Hey Daniel,
Thanks for writing. I appreciate your discussion and the way that you have put some things, but I must disagree with your statement: “Scientists do not build entire theories and laws on inference and speculation.” Let me explain. The theory of evolution is built on the idea that non-living chemicals gave rise to life and that life changed into different kinds of life over millions of years. Now, do we have direct scientific evidence that non-living chemicals can change into life? If not, the theory of evolution is built on, not even an inference here, but an assumption. I think you would have a difficult time defending the idea that “indirect observation is but a small part of science” if you want to discuss the alleged Big Bang, Human evolution, life coming from non-life, etc. As to what I am trying to say about belief in God. I am saying that you can look at the things which God made, like the Universe, Human Body, Animal Kingdom, and come to legitimate truth statements about God based on what has been created. As for your final question about any theory that is based on indirect observation, Eugenie Scott, an avid evolutionists, wrote: “Indeed, no paleontologist has ever observed one species evolving into another, but as we have seen, a theory can be scientific even if its phenomena are not directly observable.” Thanks for writing.
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt


-----------------------------------------

Thanks for your response. Now it’s getting interesting.

As with most discussions I have with Christians, it always turns to evolution. That’s not the discussion we were having, but I’ll indulge you briefly on the topic. We have 150 years of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. For me personally, the evidence that was most convincing was how DNA shows relatedness as evidenced by the mapping of the human and ape genomes. To deny DNA shows our relatedness to other mammals is to deny that DNA can show you are related to your father. I can provide information on DNA and other evidences outside paleontology—including the fusing of Chromosome 2, endogenous retroviruses, proteomic evidence, DNA sequencing, pseudogenes, biochemical organization, and more—If you’d like to review it. As I mentioned in my previous email, scientific theories are predictable. Our understanding of evolution has aided in fighting H1N1 and HIV/AIDS. Evolution by natural selection is fully evidenced across multiple areas of study. With genome mapping alone, we now have clear, concise evidence that it is true. Fossil evidence is virtually irrelevant to me. I would encourage you to read, evangelical Christian Dr. Francis Collins’ book, “The Language of God,” which I’m sure you probably have. Whether you accept evolution is neither here nor there to me. The people who need to accept it do and they’re busy in labs developing medicines from which you and I will benefit.

Further, you’re correct. Eugenie Scott said that. Paleontologists have not directly observed speciation in progress, because they deal with fossils. But biologists have. Would you like documentation on observable speciation?

I must correct you. You said that the theory of evolution is built on non-living chemicals turning into life. That’s actually untrue. Evolution by natural selection simply explains speciation, which IS observable. Again, I can provide peer-reviewed, scientific evidence of this. What you’re referring to is abiogenesis and we are learning more and more about it every day. There are scientists vigorously working to understand how this happened. We will know the full answer one day, but until that day, saying the Judeo-Islamo-Christian god did it isn’t a solid explanation.
We were discussing what militates my disbelief in a god. I am convinced science provides the best answers for understanding the world around us. No offense, but mentioning the theory of evolution seems to be a straw man. Even if you could provide evidence that DNA does not show relatedness, it wouldn't assist in the argument FOR the Judeo-Islamo-Christian god.
I certainly didn’t expect you to pull out the argument from design so early in the discussion. It's based on the obvious false premise that “it looks designed, therefore it is”. I can look at the exact same thing and assert that it is not designed. To what avail? You might cite the watchmaker analogy. I can refute that by showing you the factory where the watch was made, how it was made, and introduce you to the maker. This cannot be done with the universe. It’s also an example of argument from personal incredulity, because you’re claiming that because we don’t understand how something came about, it must have been created—by your particular god no less. As I stated previously, for me, I must have clear, concise evidence. I determine whether a proposition is true or false based on evidence. If none is available or is limited, I reserve judgment until I have solid, verifiable, and testable evidence.
Back to my original question, how do you determine whether a proposition is true or false? Is it merely based on revelation or something more tangible?
Again, I TRULY appreciate your time.
Daniel

-----------------------
5 Months Later
-----------------------

Hey Daniel,
Thanks for writing. Sorry it has taken me so long to reply. Let’s get back into our discussion. In my previous e-mail I stated: “I appreciate your discussion and the way that you have put some things, but I must disagree with your statement: “Scientists do not build entire theories and laws on inference and speculation.” I then mentioned evolution being “built on” the idea that life arose from non-living chemicals. You “corrected” me and stated that evolution does not deal with the origin of life. I’m sure you will agree that the word evolution is often used (by many of your atheistic colleagues) to refer to aspects of the world that have nothing to do with living things, such as stellar evolution, cosmological evolution, etc. So, let me then ask you, are there scientific theories about life’s origin out there? And are they based on direct observable data which shows that life actually did or has come from non-living chemicals. Once we nail down the fact, and you admit its truth, which Scott’s statement verified, that we can know things about certain entities without actually touching, tasting, seeing, hearing, or smelling them, then we will move on to your discussion of DNA, and I’ll gladly provide you with information showing that DNA and its similarity between organisms is much better evidence supporting the idea of a common designer than of common ancestry. Thanks again.

Sincerely,
Kyle Butt


------------------------------------------
My response on the same day
------------------------------------------
Kyle:

I think it's generally accepted in popular culture that "evolution" refers to evolution by natural selection, In fact, Scott's organization is almost exclusively dedicated to promoting and teaching the theory of evolution by natural selection--not stellar evolution, etc. So when you brought that up, it can be assumed you been biological evolution. If it needs to be clarified, then I've done so now.

To understand certain theories, they must be demonstrable. We can look backwards in DNA, RNA, and molecular evolution to determine how life began. We can replicate the processes by which the building blocks for life began and THAT is observable. Perhaps, one day, we will be able to observe life developing in real-time on a distant planet, but for now, replication in the lab will suffice. This is a field of study that is developing. For further reading on the topic, I refer you to one of the first experiments--the Urey-Miller experiment--and subsequent demonstrations:

--Oparin and Haldane
--Fox's experiments
--Shapiro's work on RNA replication
--and so many more.

Now we go into a more philosophical realm. The answers we will find regarding the beginning of life WILL BE natural and not supernatural. This has been demonstrated over and over throughout the history of science. I'm not willing to say as you do, "I don't know the answer, therefore my particular deity did it." That's not the answer of an inquisitive mind. I prefer to say, "there is no answers for such and such, but we are working on an answer and it won't be magic."

So, in conclusion, yes, the fundamental processes by which life began are repeatable and observable, just not in totality as you would like, because it has already occurred billions of years ago. Experimentation and direct observation of various parts of the whole theory demonstrate its truth. The theory of evolution by natural selection is more than just "a monkey turning into a man". It is a culmination of a variety of fields of study over 150 years and can be validated at numerous points throughout. One cannot argue against the whole of evolution, but must address each and every individual scientific study that form the totality of the theory. Now, I ask you for peer-reviewed, observable, empirical evidence that debunks any of this. If we are going to argue science, I want to keep this discussion in the realm of science--meaning peer-reviewed work and empirical evidence. If we are going to debate the philosophy of science, we need to keep it in the realm of philosophy--which, to me, is entirely subjective and essentially a futile endeavor.

As I stated previously, indirect observation ALONE in science is not used as it is with creationism. There are empirical studies and scientific evidence to backup any science claim otherwise, it is rejected. Provide me with a SINGLE creationist claim backed up with peer-reviewed scientific evidence.

I'm curious to see what peer-reviewed evidence you have demonstrating DNA points to a creator (which happens to be your god nonetheless).

Daniel
----------------------------------------------
December 13, 2011

Hello Daniel,
Thanks for getting back with me and thanks for updating the site. I’d like to address several of the things you mentioned. First, let’s look at the idea of peer-reviewed journals.Those of us who advocate that an Intelligent Designer created the Universe are often ridiculed by evolutionary scientists. This ridicule comes in many different forms, but one of the most often used tactics of atheistic evolutionists is to claim that creation science is simply not good science. As “evidence” that creation or intelligent design is not “good science,” atheistic evolutionists exult in the fact that the standard peer-reviewed scientific journals do not publish papers that support intelligent design. A couple of sample statements to this effect follow:

“ID [Intelligent Design—KB] advocates complain that their views are rejected out of hand by the scientific establishment, yet they do not play by the normal rules of presenting their views first through scientific conferences and then to peer-reviewed journals and then in textbooks” (Scott, 2006, p. 22).

“Most telling, perhaps, is intelligent design’s near total failure to make any headway in the peer-reviewed publications that are the gateway to scientific success” (Wexler, 2006, p. 94).

The reasoning here is that if creation or intelligent design were scientific, then it would be included in peer-reviewed journals. Since it does not appear in peer-reviewed journals, then it must not be scientific. The problem with this reasoning is the circular process by which papers are accepted for inclusion in such journals. The scientists in authoritative positions have established their own preconceived definition for science. “To be scientific in our era is to search for solely natural explanations” (Hewlett and Peters, 2006, p. 75, emp. added). Thus, if a paper even hints at something other than a “natural” explanation, it is rejected as “unscientific” regardless of the facts or research presented in the paper. Creationists’ papers are not allowed in peer-reviewed journals, not because they are poorly written or documented, but because they do not offer “solely natural explanations.”

An example of this prejudicial dismissal of intelligent design material occurred in 2004. In that year, Richard Sternberg allowed a paper that presented evidence in favor of intelligent design to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Concerning what happened as a result, Sternberg wrote:

In 2004, in my capacity as editor of The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, I authorized “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” by Dr. Stephen Meyer to be published in the journal after passing peer-review. Because Dr. Meyer’s article presented scientific evidence for intelligent design in biology, I faced retaliation, defamation, harassment, and a hostile work environment at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History that was designed to force me out as a Research Associate there (2008).

Reacting to the fact that an intelligent design paper was published in the journal, The Council of the Biological Society of Washington, which sponsors the journal, wrote an official statement concerning the ordeal:

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer...was published at the discretion of the former editor Richard v. [sic] Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.... The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science...which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings (“Statement from...,” n.d.).

The way the council presents the matter, it seems that Sternberg did not go through the proper peer-review process. But that is not the case. The article was peer-reviewed and revised in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions. The article did not cause a stir because it did not pass the review process. It caused a stir because it did not meet the “scientific standard”—in other words, because it advocated the possibility of an intelligent Designer.

The Council alluded to a resolution on ID issued by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. That resolution was adopted in October of 2002. In that resolution, the AAAS stated: “Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of ‘intelligent design theory’ as subject matter” (“AAAS Board...,” 2002, emp. in orig.). This simply means that if any book, article, or paper has anything about intelligent design in it, do not publish, promote, or condone it in anyway.

Thus, it is clear that the oft-repeated accusation against creation science’s lack of peer-reviewed papers is seen for what it is: an intentional exclusion based, not on the merits of the paper, but on the agreed-upon, but false, definition that true science entails only “natural explanations.” The scientific establishment’s stance is similar to that of a child who forms an exclusive club, one of the stipulations for membership being that all members must be “extremely smart.” The child then includes in the by-laws the statement that all smart people should think that he (the founding member) is always right. Thus, he concludes that those who do not think he is always right are not smart. Then, he proceeds to malign those not in the club based on the idea that they are not smart. And as proof that they are not smart, he states that it is obvious they are unintelligent because they are not members of his club. In reality, his motivation for castigating those outside his club is simply the fact that they disagree with him, which is the same motivation that propels the evolutionary establishment to reject all creation science articles. You will not see articles advocating intelligent design in the majority of peer-reviewed journals, not because the findings are unscientific, not because they fail to provide evidence and proof of their conclusions, but because they are not atheistic and evolutionary.
{“AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory” (2002), [On-line], URL: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml; Hewlett, Martinez and Ted Peters (2006), “Theology, Religion, and Intelligent Design,” Not in Our Classrooms, ed. Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch, (Boston, MA: Beacon Press); Scott, Eugenie (2006), “The Once and Future Intelligent Design,” Not in Our Classrooms, ed. Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch, (Boston, MA: Beacon Press); “Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington” (no date), [On-line], URL: http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html; Sternberg, Richard (2008), “Smithsonian Controversy,” [On-line], URL:http://www.rsternberg.net/smithsonian.php; Wexler, Jay D. (2006), “From the Classroom to the Courtroom: Intelligent Design and the Constitution,” Not in Our Classrooms, ed. Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch, (Boston, MA: Beacon Press).}

Next, let’s consider your question about DNA that points to a Creator. SETI is the acronym that stands for the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. For some time prior to 1981, the Federal Government pumped millions of dollars into the construction of high-tech satellites overseen by NASA that were designed to scan the skies in an effort to detect messages, codes, signals, or signs from intelligent life forms on other planets. In 1981, however, federal funding for this program ceased, but this roadblock in the search for alien intelligence did not stop the program. Currently, the Planetary Society stands as the major player in the SETI project. Thousands of volunteers all over the world have put their desktop computers to work, equipped with a program that filters information and radio signals from satellites. These computers are looking for patterns in signals that would suggest the existence of intelligence in outer space. Such prestigious institutions as Harvard and the University of California at Berkeley have joined the search. In the past, renowned scientists like Carl Sagan adamantly pushed for the funding and expansion of the SETI project (McDonough, 2004).

What, then, are these scientists and volunteers hoping to find in the data collected from their satellites, observation equipment, and computer analyses? They are hoping to find patterns or codes in radio or laser signals that contain some type of communication from an extraterrestrial intelligence. On the Planetary Society’s Web site, under the heading of Frequently Asked Questions, the question is posed: “How could we possibly understand signals from another civilization?” The answer given to this question is:

Even though we and an alien civilization would not have a language in common, there are ways to communicate that should be understandable to intelligent beings. Mathematics, physics, chemistry, and astronomy contain fundamental laws that provide a common “language” throughout the universe. Television pictures are a way of communicating that do not even require a common language to understand (“Frequently Asked Questions...,” 2001).

We can see that mathematical patterns, codes, languages, algorithms, and various other “fundamental laws” would be accepted as evidence that some type of intelligence did exist. The premise that can be surmised from the SETI program is that intelligence could be recognized and distinguished from non-intelligent, natural explanations; the required criteria for this recognition being some type of code, mathematical sequence, physical patterns, etc.

Suppose we were to send a man to the moon, and tiny floppy discs started falling to the moon’s surface. Upon inspection of these discs, the astronaut discovers they contain intricately coded information. Suppose further that he is able to decipher this code. Upon doing so, he discovers that the instructions contained in the code, if followed precisely, would produce a machine that could convert sunlight and minerals into food edible by humans and animals. Such an amazing find would receive world-wide recognition to say the least. And there would be no doubt that these discs had originated from an advanced intelligence. Yet, this hypothetical lunar scenario has a terrestrial equivalent.

In his book, The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins purports to show how life in this Universe could have evolved over millions of years. He claims to present information that shows that complicated life forms such as humans could have arisen from non-living substances by tiny, gradual steps over eons of time. In chapter five, he begins a discussion on DNA, and attempts to explain how such amazing codes of information could have arisen through natural processes. In his introduction to that chapter, however, he makes a startling admission that, to the honest reader, is impossible to explain in terms of naturalistic evolution. He discusses a willow tree that sits in his garden, shedding its “cottony” seeds through the air, to the ground and the passing water in the canal. In his discussion of the seeds, he explains that each seed contains DNA that, if allowed to grow, will produce another willow tree. He then explains briefly some of the coding capabilities of DNA and the instructions found in it for growth. Referring to these seeds and the DNA they contain, he makes the following statement: “It is raining instructions out there; it’s raining programs; it’s raining tree-growing, fluff-spreading, algorithms. That is not a metaphor, it is the plain truth. It couldn’t be any plainer if it were raining floppy discs” (1996, p. 111).

It is ironic, is it not, that the very coded mathematical information that, if found on the Moon, would be hailed as proof for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, when found on the Earth, is viewed by many as the product of a mindless, multi-million-year random process. How is it that such prestigious academic institutions such as Harvard and the University of California at Berkeley spend thousands of man hours and millions of dollars searching the skies for mathematical codes, radio signal patterns, etc.? And yet when they find such patterns, in biological, terrestrial organisms, they attribute them to non-intelligence. The logical implication in this situation continues to be missed by many of the major players in the scientific community: if complex coded information is found anywhere in the Universe, it proves that it was put there by a superior intelligence. If such is not the case, why waste time scanning the skies for these patterns? Dawkins’ book attempts to explain away this implication when it comes to coded information found on Earth, but it fails completely. Such an obvious, logical implication cannot be explained away. In truth, the coded information found in the DNA of living organisms points overwhelmingly to the fact that these organisms were design by an intelligent Being. [Dawkins, Richard (1996), The Blind Watchmaker, (New York, NY: W.H. Norton and Co.); “Frequently Asked Questions About the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence,” (2001), [On-line], URL: http://www.planetary.org/html/UPDATES/seti/SETIFAQS.html; McDonough, Thomas (2004), “Two Decades of SETI,” [On-line], URL: http://www.planetary.org/html/UPDATES/seti/seti-history.html.]

Good to hear from you.

Sincerely,
Kyle Butt


-------------------------------
December 20, 2011

Kyle,

Normally I respond more quickly. I've been trying to finish up several year-end projects. Thanks for the essay and I appreciate your renewed interest in the discussion.

Either you don’t understand the scientific process or you’re playing dumb. You and I both know that if creationism were supported by repeatable scientific processes, testing, and empirical data, it would be included in these prestigious journals.

I can’t believe you actually cited the weak paper by Meyer. Yes, I’m aware of the story. Wasn’t there a movie about it called “Expelled”? Don't hold me to that. I didn't see it. Let’s not rehash what’s in popular circulation, please. I’m also fully aware of how Sternberg was supposedly railroaded. Sternberg worked with Meyer exclusively going entirely against accepted editorial practices. I’m glad he was rebuked and I support it. They were obviously being deceptive to get the paper published published. Am I hearing you correctly that you support such behavior? As for the paper itself, it contained no independent research or lab results. It was nothing more than a review of others’ work. The scientific community and I want to see hard results that can be replicated in labs and tested. Please address this particular comment and do not veer around it.

Here’s my follow-up question: Can you cite ANY work that has been conducted in labs or otherwise to further the “work” conducted by Meyer in 2004? Have creationists just been sitting on their hands this whole time? Scientists work despite controversy if they are passionate about a subject. Where is the body of work or are Meyer, Sternberg, and you going to whine for 8 more years about Meyer’s pathetic piece of garbage? Can you cite other supposed-scientific papers being submitted as we speak or is this it for you?

Nice SETI strawman, by the way. You didn’t remotely answer my question correctly. I want evidence, not philosophizing. So, I’ll ask my question again: Can you cite PEER-REVIEWED EVIDENCE demonstrating DNA points to a creator? That’s really all I want from you at this point.

Sincerely,

Daniel A. Brown