Science Integrity

This book, like the original (over 2,300 copies in circulation)  which was written for scientists, deals with the empirical scientific (not philosophical and theological) aspects of nature.  It describes the nature of probability, and then examines many widely accepted undirected natural scenarios, comparing their scientific validity to that of intelligent design (ID) as a model that can be empirically detected. The introduction describes the difference between the books.  "Lite" doesn't mean without "meat" -- it will be challenging, but provides necessary scientific documentation to refute undirected naturalism.

1 Math Basics:Probability and Large or Small Numbers

2 Chance: Possible, Probable, and Feasible – a reality-check for accepting impossible or infeasible outcomes as science, as opposed to some scientist’s speculation

3 Mass and Energy: Source and Fine-Tuning – a brief overview of origins speculation (all falling outside science as we know it), and empirical examination of the universe’s fine-tuned nature

4 Life – basics of this extremely complex topic as backdrop for the rest of the book

5 The Origin of Life – problems with proposed abiogenesis scenarios are highlighted

6 The Information Contained in Life – Life’s information origin, modification, preservation, processing, and detection as well as capacity and content are covered, proving from known science that such information has zero probability of arising by undirected processes

7 Increasing Complexity of Life – Evolution of new morphology, irreducible complexity, the Cambrian explosion, the biological tree with increasing information, computer simulations, and genetic algorithms are covered, including treating evolution as a subset of ID 

8 Going Where Data Lead – points out scientific limits, biases and misconceptions, particularly concerning ID, pointing out that ID is not creationism

9 Why Intelligent Design? – the scientific benefits of ID with proven probability of 1

References – about 350 from multiple disciplines 

Too often "possible" is used by scientists without considering that "possible" has a scientific definition within the nature of probability. For example, one should not be able to get away with stating "it is possible that life arose from non-life by ..." or "it’s possible that a different form of life exists elsewhere in the Universe" without first demonstrating that it is indeed possible (non-zero probability) using known science. One could, of course, state "it may be speculated that ... ," but such a statement wouldn’t have the believability that its author intends to convey by the pseudo-scientific pronouncement. This book  uses known science (including Shannon and Functional information principles) to prove that it is impossible (zero probability) for life’s complex information system to have an undirected natural source. The usefulness of the ID model for furthering scientific inquiry is also analyzed. One chapter is devoted to exposing fallacies, presuppositions, and beliefs that attempt to prevent acceptance of ID as "science."

   Review of original  Lite Lite 2nd part Interviews: part 1 part2  Cell as Computer System      ID Report original Lite   Amazon "Impossible" Discussion            Amazon link    ISBN: 0982355440

Case lots (approximately 60-80 books, it has varied) may be available for very low costs when distributed without profit.  Delivery time may be considerably longer as such orders are consolidated for a large print run.  Schools, churches, civic groups, PTAs, and other educational organizations may be able to accept tax-deductible contributions to cover the costs for distributing the books without profit.  Email don@scienceintegrity.net  for details, including less-than full case prices.

Reviews/endorsements

"It is a clear condensed version for those students or anyone wanting to get a fresh perspective about the challenging question regarding the origins of life.  I am a retired peace officer. When we reviewed and examined evidence, we expressly did our best not to (and certainly shouldn't) bring preconceived ideas into play... as peace officers our mantra was to let the 'evidence' tell the story. In the absence of 'eye witnesses' (as is the case primarily w/ the investigation of intelligent design/evolution) the evidence is circumstantial. I can tell you that many convicted persons are in jail or were found innocent because of such evidence and the 'probabilities' of whether that evidence pointed to a conclusion. Numbers and 'odds' are prevalent in court and of course must rise to the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard. In reality, jurors want an almost ironclad case based on those odds, well above the 'reasonable' mark. Thus if we as a society can lock someone up permanently or give the death penalty on these principles, they are sound and that is evidenced by hundreds of years of contesting, testing, trial and process.  So I was interested in the author's approach, since this approach is used with confidence throughout our society in many fields. 'Numbers' (evaluated correctly) don't lie. Thus, I scrutinized the foundation the author used, the correlating methodology and the references from peers. I am excellent at finding holes in arguments, but was impressed w/ the soundness of the logic the author displayed and the supporting methodology. His references were overwhelming and I was surprised at how many actual scientists agreed with him. It had seemed to me that the mainstream media in general reported as a matter of course, as if all 'true' scientists were evolutionists. I had rather accepted this as probably correct until I read this book and discovered that such a belief is a huge fallacy. Many scientists do not like the 'theories' used to support evolution and treated/accepted as 'scientific.'   I was happy to note that the author didn't use the Holy Bible to make his case. I have nothing against the Bible, but it was refreshing to take a look at the origin of life question w/o this basis. In fact, the author says the question of religion or who or what is behind 'intelligent design' is not the scope of this work. He is simply interested in establishing a 'scientific basis' for any conclusions about the origins of life, including the suggestion of intelligent design." Greg McElveen 

"It is great!  Speaking from a background in Biology/Science, ... the Lite version is still pretty heavy for the average person." Sam Hawes

"Your book was concise, objective and of great value to me. Thanks for your effort." - Steve McMillan

"I have read Dr. Johnson's book twice and plan to do so again soon. There is so much there that one cannot absorb it in one sitting. In fact, I have ordered a case to give to interested seekers after the facts. It is filled with quotations from scientists of both sides of the intelligent design question and his treatment seems totally fair and balanced. I highly recommend this book to anyone who has at least a basic understanding of science and computer technology. Dr. Johnson's conclusions seem inescapable." Jim Pappas

"The blind watchermaker is not so blind anymore: Dr. Donald E Johnson, PHD in Chemistry and Computer Information sciences provides a fairly easy read and guide into the improbability of how life through means of abiogenesis(life arising from inanimate matter) is totally impossible through sheer numbers. Anybody would know that the very definition of abiogenesis is an oxymoron in which there has been no proposed mechanism within undirected naturalism to get life going and much less a reasonable explanation for encoded information found within DNA. Such information by definition with require an intelligent source and Dr.Johnson show this extremely well thorough his scientific findings. He also goes into indicating the universe being the result of design and order attributed to an intelligent agent over the undirected natural processes offered as an alternative for the origins of matter and energy. He also delves into issues about how Atheism, Naturalism, and Secular Humanism are all religions according to the US Supreme Court and how some who deliberately make it so that science is only compatible with these positions. Also he goes into what really transpired in the case of Richard Sternburg and the Smithsonian along with explaining that ID is not creationism. The title to this review is in reference to Dr. Dawkins who believes that nature was genuinely the result of a blind watchmaker that doesn't see ahead, well from this book from Dr. Johnson gives a scientific refutation that this is not the case and there was actually a watchmaker. I hope whoever reads this book finds it educating and informative about origins of life and the universe." V. Aroch0

"It's a wonderful book that lays out the arguments in support of ID in a clear and concise manner.... I would recommend this... The questions it raises are bound to stump even the most vociferous anti-IDists!"  and from Amazon "Arriving At Intelligence Through The Corridors Of Reason: If Intelligent Design is to be escorted out of science debating halls because of its compatibility with a belief in a deity, undirected naturalism should likewise be excluded on the premise that it is the core tenet of nontheistic religions like Atheism. Such is the opening message of the `Lite' version of a book whose title Probability's Nature And Nature's Probability is so captivatingly simple that one cannot help but take at least a cursory look through its pages. And the author Donald Johnson has an impressive list of scientific accolades to his credit brought about by a passion for (and not a disdain of) science- a PhD in chemistry from Michigan State University, ten years as a senior research scientist in the medical and scientific instrumentation field, a twenty year college-teaching career and a second PhD in Computer Science. 
   Johnson's personal reflections reveal a lot about how he came to espouse the views of the Intelligent Design movement. Over the course of his career, Johnson grew increasingly skeptical over natural causation as applies to the origin of life. Science as we know it, he notes, should make testable predictions. While speculation does have a place in science, it needs to be presented as such and not dressed up and served up as a `platter of facts' for consumption by a public unaccustomed to the nuances of scientific argumentation. Johnson brings to the fore the blatant misrepresentations of what is truly `probable', `plausible' and `feasible' in the context of origins of life research as he takes the reader on a whirlwind tour of mathematical notation and probabilistic reasoning. 
   Theories that are at loggerheads with the singular origin of our universe can in most cases be soundly discredited on the grounds that they lack empirical evidence and testability. The oscillating (Big Bang/Big Crunch) model in particular is easily pushed aside given a notable absence of data in support of a universe that will reach the critical density needed to cause its collapse. For an infinite-existence model we are confronted with the question of how a system that has reached maximum entropy over infinite time could ever give rise to a non-maximum entropy cosmos. In the words of Johnson "an infinitely old universe would be energy dead with no capacity for work, since one result of the second law of thermodynamics is that perpetual motion machines are impossible (zero probability)". Other attempts to eschew the extraordinary fine tuning of our universe, such as we see in the manifold iterations of String theory, posit the existence of multiple universes. The metaphysicality of such alternatives however, given that we cannot possibly hope to see beyond the horizon of our own cosmic abode, renders them unqualifiable as real science. 
   What are we to make of the abundance of life on our planet? As Johnson so clearly conveys, an acceptable definition of life naturally entails a consideration of observable phenomena such as metabolism, growth and reproduction. At the heart of life lies a myriad of proteins that perform critical functions all of which depend on the tight specification of highly-restricted amino acid sequences. Proteins in the ribosome are themselves translated by the very machinery of which they form a part. The DNA that supplies the instructions for their manufacture is a digital code of the highest order with alternative splicing and sequence overlap of the estimated 20-25,000 genes that exist in humans producing somewhere in the order of 100-200,000 distinct proteins. 
   Even one of the smallest organisms, Mycoplasma genitalium, sports 482 genes although estimates suggest that as few as 151 genes might be all that is needed to make an organism. How might chemical evolution have taken the first baby steps on the road to what one might tentatively call a primitive cell? The reality as Johnson so emphatically hammers home is that science remains clueless over this singularly important question. Since proteins and nucleic acids have long been known to act as an integrated co-operative whole, models that assume a gradual evolutionary process are today considered woefully inadequate for explaining the origins of life. Truth be told, there exists a pervasive `science as we don't know it' element in everything from RNA world hypotheses to panspermia and the host of proposed undirected natural processes that invoke the role of minerals in early biocatalysis. 
   With matter and information representing two distinct "domains of existence", biologists are at a loss to explain the origin of the digital code contained in genetic material. DNA carries a large degree of so-called traditional information which provides meaning for subsequent interpretation by the translation machinery. Trevors and Abel wrote how the codons of DNA represent "functional meaning only when the individual amino acids they prescribe are linked together in a certain order using a different language". This has to be one of the outstanding revelations of the bioinformatics revolution. In fact, using his exhaustive knowledge of information science, Johnson demonstrates the extraordinary parallels between a computer program's algorithmic language and the genetic information system contained within every living cell. 
   Zoologist Richard Dawkins has historically used the concept of `junk DNA'- those apparently useless portions of genomes- to lead the charge against the creationists' position of purpose in nature. His view on the matter is quite simple: "creationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA". In light of what we now know about DNA, Dawkins' should spend some earnest time reviewing whether his littered genomes are so littered after all. In fact the term `junk DNA' is now seen by many an expert as somewhat of a misnomer since much of what was originally categorized as such has turned out to be pivotal for DNA stability and the regulation of gene expression. Johnson has done us all a service by bringing these points to the fore. He further notes that since junk DNA would put an unnecessary energetic burden on cells during the process of replication, it stands to reason that it would more likely be eliminated through selective pressures. That is, if the Darwinian account of life is to be believed. "It would make sense" Johnson writes "that those useless nucleotides would be removed from the genome long before they had a chance to form something with a selective advantage....there would be no advantage in directing energy to useless structures". 
   Johnson's seemingly unstoppable siege on Darwinian orthodoxy is both well researched and freshly captivating. At the risk of unjustly losing credibility, several distinguished scientists have carried the baton of dissent against the received wisdom of modern day Darwinists. Those who have stayed abreast of the Intelligent Design (ID) claims need no reminding of the powerful arguments presented in their own counter-offensive, particularly regarding the fossil record. Johnson's recapitulation of the Cambrian explosion and the trilobite high acuity visual system at the base of the Cambrian leave the reader wondering why the inclusion of ID has in recent years been so fiercely opposed by those in the biological sciences who carry reputational clout. 
   It turns out that much of the 'science' buttressing the anti-ID rhetoric is supportive of the very position it claims to counter- that of intelligent design. Computer simulations and genetic algorithms that purport to simulate the process of evolution do nothing of the sort, slipping in acts of intelligent agency at every turn. Summarizing the status quo, Johnson notes for example how AVIDA uses "an unrealistically small genome, an unrealistically high mutation rate, unrealistic protection of replication instructions, unrealistic energy rewards and no capability for graceful function degradation. It allows for arbitrary experimenter-specified selective advantages". Not faring any better, the ME THINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL algorithm is programmed to direct a sequence of letters towards a pre-specified target. 
   One never tires of reading about the irreducible complexity of the multi-component bacterial flagellum. And Johnson does not disappoint in his engaging overview of this showpiece of ID theory. The icing on the irreducible complexity "cake" appears in his further consideration of sexual reproduction and the integrated aspect of DNA and protein synthesis. The plethora of symbiotic relationships we find throughout nature also form part of Johnson's inventory of examples as he moves the reader decisively to the conclusion that natural processes cannot generate novel genetic information. 
   What is the price we pay for refusing to bring ID into the science arena? Johnson's summarization of philosopher of science Del Ratzch's answer to this question is a call to rally: "any imposed policy of naturalism in science has the potential not only of eroding any self-correcting capability of science but of preventing science from reaching certain truths". Johnson condemns those who refuse to evaluate the merits of scientific evidence on the basis of philosophical or theological commitments. Indeed the compatibility of ID with differing theological views does not negate the scientific validity of its arguments. "Obviously, ID proponents have the freedom of religion allowed by the country of residence" notes Johnson "but those beliefs should not detract from the scientific evidence". 
   As Johnson details, the duplicity in standards of the anti-ID lobby was made plain in the charges brought against molecular biologist Richard Sternberg who was removed from office as editor of the Proceedings Of The Biological Society Of Washington after publishing an ID-friendly paper authored by philosopher Stephen Meyer even though Sternberg had faithfully followed the journal's regulations for publication. Cases such as this show that while ID theorists are heavily criticized for not having peer-reviewed publications to support their position they and their entourage are vehemently censured whenever they do attempt to meet their critics' demands. Johnson draws from an extensive list of quotes from reputable scientists and philosophers who have made known their dis-satisfaction with the blind beliefs of Darwinian ideology. The `knowledge stopper' that is naturalistic evolution has today handcuffed these same scientists to the pillars of `majority rule' even though invigorating alternatives such as those that invoke intelligent design meet the strictest demands for scientific rigor. 
   In the last chapter of his book Johnson reviews not only the probabilistic evidence in support of ID but also the uniformitarian nature of ID's conclusions. Occam's razor, neatly summarized by the mantra "The simplest solution is the best" provides us with a fruitful avenue for deciding which theories on the origins and existence of life should be open for discussion. Since many would argue that ID wins the Occam challenge, we can safely conclude that its rejection stems not from its lack of scientific merit but from underlying philosophical prejudices. As with all scientific theories, that of ID remains falsifiable. Johnson concedes that there is no privileged status that somehow locks ID away from disputation. Indeed if natural processes can be shown to produce the fine-tuning of the universe, the origin of life from non-life, the rich diversity of living forms that appeared in the Cambrian and the increasing information-based complexity of life throughout our earth's history, then the `necessity of design' will have been given its marching orders. But until then ID theory can only serve to enrich the scientific landscape.
   What is most impressive about Johnson's text is the breadth and diversity of scientific sources that he draws from. Even those who are heavily committed to undirected naturalism display an apparently unavoidable tendency to use a language that connotes design. So it is that while Darwin's heavyweights seem intent on embracing chance and natural selection as the only drivers of biological change, they are also perhaps unwittingly navigating towards intelligent design through their own corridors of reason.
Further Reading: Trevors, J.T.; Abel, D.L. Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life. Cell Biol. Internat. 2004, 28, 729-739." Robert Deyes

Errata: other than minor punctuation errors, there are several late wordprocessor conversions of "(C)" and "(R)" to "©" and "®" (mostly in index) in books printed before 11/12/09.

            Antony Flew on p82 in books printed before 11/24/09.  On p50, final "proteins" should be "amino acids." Pending clarifications for next printing.