In the Beginning

For life to begin to exist (an effect) it must be caused: either created supernaturally (by God) or arising spontaneously and randomly, by accident, out of non-living matter (i.e. random chemicals dissolved in water). By definition, these two explanations are our only reasonable choices to explain life on Earth.

For well over a century, scientists have desperately been trying to explain how life might have evolved on its own without a Creator; the entire evolutionary claim depends upon this.

Yet even the very simplest living things are so bewilderingly complex that the more we research the problem the farther away we find ourselves from discovering a naturalistic cause.

Every single-celled organism, as scientists imagine the first life forms to be, is like a tiny three-dimensional city, complete with streets, power plants, utilities, waste collection and removal services, factories, hospitals, food stores, repair shops, police, thousands of little robots automatically carrying out very specific functions all throughout the cell, and a governing center with little computers running it all, complete with extremely complex information encoded into unfathomably and irreducibly complex molecules capturing every detail and nuance of how the cell is constructed and operates.

It is not surprising that evolutionary scientists have a very difficult time admitting how vastly improbable it is for even one cell to ever come into being on its own; only Creation scientists appear willing to state the obvious.

For example, each cell contains all of these bewilderingly complex, interconnected and interdependent systems and components within a surrounding wall or membrane, keeping everything in place and protecting the inner workings of the cell from its external environment.

Just trying to explain a cell membrane, the little bubble surrounding the cell, is daunting all by itself. This membrane must keep the internal environment of the cell chemically stable while allowing nutrients to pass into the cell and waste to be expelled. It must keep all necessary cell components in their correct locations, so it must form around and enclose all of the internal, interdependent components only after they have all been co-located into positions which allow them all to interact seamlessly and consistently with one another.

This membrane, even in the simplest living organism, comprises over a million complex molecules, each having a distinct function and arranged very precisely such that each segment of the cell wall works together seamlessly with the rest of the cell to keep the cell alive.

The membrane comprises two distinct layers which maintain the stability of both the interior and exterior wall surfaces while allowing fluidity, or lateral movement of the structural molecules (phospholipids), within the wall itself, which is crucial for the wall to function properly.

Very complex protein molecules must be precisely configured and correctly positioned within the cell wall to facilitate movement of the correct types of molecules through special corridors both entering the cell (nutrients) and exiting the cell (waste and toxins).

Further, the cell membrane must permit external environmental factors to influence the internal components of the cell such that the cell can respond favorably to environmental stimuli, yet without allowing the environment to compromise the integrity and stability of the cell’s infrastructure.

And finally, this membrane must be designed to allow the cell to replicate without destroying the cell itself, to split apart and form two completely new cells with all of the necessary internal components in each new cell without destroying any of these internal components or the cell itself in the process.

No living cell can exist without a fully functioning cell membrane, so how did the first cell get a membrane? Did over a million very complex molecules accidently compose themselves out of a random environment of naturally occurring chemicals (most of which happen to be hazardous to the cell’s internal components) into a very precise design around a mass of other precisely designed components for no apparent reason, creating a safe and amazingly complex barrier precisely suitable to sustain life?

The likelihood of a single such membrane actually forming by chance, even if all of the required component atoms are floating around in perfect concentrations just waiting to be used up, is unspeakably small. It is more likely that we could randomly select a specially-marked atom from among all the atoms in the known universe in a single trial event, and then repeat this feat trillions of times in a row and never miss a beat. This is statistically impossible, for all practical purposes.

This doesn’t even begin to touch the problem of how all the rest of the extremely complex components within the membrane get there: the random formation of the genetic programs precisely configured to produce and repair the necessary proteins and enzymes needed to carry out basic life functions of the cell, such as metabolizing nutrients and converting them into usable energy, repairing damaged cell components, and replicating the cell itself. Each one of these processes is incredibly complex, all on its own.

For a living cell to function all of these systems must be precisely engineered and interconnected within the cell in precisely the correct locations and configurations at the same time for each of them to function properly. We call this irreducible complexity.

Finally, for such complexity to arise randomly in a primordial soup, the entire process must occur within a very short time span (a few hours); most of the components within the cell decay and break down rather quickly if not stabilized in a very special chemical environment which is not found outside the cell. Even if all of these internal components were to form somehow and come together on their own, without the cell membrane to shield them most of the components would only last a couple of hours before breaking down and decaying into useless molecules.

The more we discover about the complexity of the cell, the more improbable it is that life evolved. Those who refuse to admit this and incorporate it into their world view are not following the science; they are being irrational and dishonest – hoping for a veritably infinite sequence of statistical miracles while denying the very possibility of miracles.

articles    posts

In Six Days

Evolutionists assert that Earth is billions of years old, so we expect some to try to interpret Scripture to accommodate an old earth. How might they do so?

Primarily by allegorizing the Creation myth and considering the days of Creation to be geologic ages, making each day as long as we like.  The general pattern of a lifeless earth (Day 1), then plants (Day 3), followed by sea creatures (Day 5), land animals and finally Man (Day 6) seems to more or less follow evolutionary sequence. It’s called the Day-Age Theory.

Obvious problems include the fact that the planet itself is created before light (Day 1), Earth, light and plants (Days 1-3) all appear before the sun, moon and stars (Day 4), birds (Day 5) come before all land animals (Day 6), and God blessing the 7th Day to start an ongoing 7-day rest cycle based on Him completing Creation in 6 days. (Ex 20:11)

Further, Adam is said to be the very first man (1Co 15:45) and his life-span is stated explicitly (Ge 5:5), along with those of all the antediluvian patriarchs (8-30) in the lineage of Christ (Lk 3:36-38), placing Creation around 4000 BCE.

So, to be consistent, we can’t simply allegorize the Creation account in isolation, we end up corrupting the integrity of Scripture throughout; its authors evidently understood the Creation account literally: if they were mistaken, they weren’t inspired. If the Day-Age Theory had any real basis in scripture, it’s difficult to explain why it appeared so late in history, only in the last 200 years. The interpretation thus appears forced in order to accommodate recent, opposing scientific claims.

Another approach, the Gap-Theory, allows for a literal interpretation of the Creation account, yet postulates a large gap between the first two verses; between the creation of the planet (Ge 1:1) and it being found formless and void. (2) This view harmonizes nicely with most scripture while providing for any age of the earth we like. However, it’s also inconsistent with the Sabbath Command (Ex 20:11), and begs the question of whether an old planet with no light or atmosphere, no sun or moon or stars, or any life form whatever as we know it, helps much to square the Word with evolutionary claims. What’s the point then?

We all choose an authority for determining what’s true, and if we earnestly want to know the truth we should insist on having no contradictions in our world view, no inconsistencies. If we accept God’s Word as Truth, in it’s entirety (Ps 119:160), then we must try to interpret it consistently, and discount unverified scientific claims, such as evolution, which contradict it. (1Ti 6:20-21)

articles  ♦  blog

Clearly Seen

To design is to envision an outcome and then purposely determine how to rearrange matter to achieve that outcome. The context might be physical, resulting in a tool or a machine, or metaphysical – symbols or imagery conveying meaning, or a combination of the two. Design is ultimately produced only by intelligence; unconscious matter cannot envision, purpose or determine.

Easter Island StatueComplexity is a measure of difficulty in design; more complex designs require more intelligence. When we encounter highly complex, inanimate designs we immediately recognize them, and we naturally ascribe the intelligent cause to humans; proposing any other cause is irrational.

Yet living creatures also have the appearance of profoundly complex and exquisite design, far beyond human capability, so it’s natural to infer the existence of a supreme Mind, a God, the Designer of the human mind, and to be inspired unto worship. (Ps 139:14)

But when we’re predisposed to rule out the possibility of a transcendent, intelligent Cause a priori, we invariably struggle with the apparent design of living creatures, desperately looking for a natural cause rather than a divine one.

Enter Charles Darwin, a mid-19th century biologist offering an explanation (Evolution) for how unintelligent processes might account for the appearance of design in Nature: organisms change (evolve) over time due to slight, random changes in offspring (Common Descent), some of which improve chances of survival; in competing for scarce resources, random (unintelligent) processes tend to eliminate inferior organisms (Natural Selection), favoring those more suitably adapted to their environment. Given sufficient time, Darwin supposed such processes might plausibly account for design throughout Nature.

Yet Darwin and his contemporaries were unable to explain how Evolution works at the required level of detail; they were clueless about the complex biological machinery of life because the tools enabling this level of research were unavailable until the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

Now, we understand the molecular mechanism which drives Evolution: random anomalies (mutations) may occur during DNA replication which alter the structure of proteins, the building blocks of living cells; some of these changes are beneficial, helping offspring survive.

This explains, for example, the wide variety of Galapagos finches or African cichlids; Evolution nicely accounts for variations within a kind of organism (generally within the same family classification, micro-evolution), but it has not yet explained how the various kinds of organisms (family and above, macro-evolution) came to exist in the first place. Why not?

Differences between families of organisms, say between a finch and a swan, or between a cichlid and a shark, lie at the molecular level, in the myriad array of biological machines which make up living cells. Many of these machines are irreducibly complex: disabling any one of the component parts breaks the machine; such machines cannot be formed gradually, in a step-wise manner, continuously improving or altering their function: it’s all or nothing.

Consequently, after decades of intense research, scientists hoping to find a naturalistic explanation for the apparent design of living systems find themselves at an impasse: mutations in DNA replication cannot reasonably account for the large differences between diverse kinds of biological machines. It’s like proposing that blueprints (DNA) for sewing machines came from haphazard copying errors (mutations) to blueprints for washing machines, one step at a time, such that each intermediate machine (none of which were ever actually observed) worked as well as or better than the prior one. It’s unthinkable, patently absurd.

It should come as no surprise then to find that, to date (early 2020), no scientific publication of any kind explains exactly how random rearrangements of DNA could reasonably account for the design of any irreducibly complex molecular machine in any living organism, not even the simplest of these machines. The reason is obvious: each one comprises many very complex proteins arranged in very specific ways to achieve very complex functions, much more complex than a sewing machine.

The chances of randomly forming a typical, useful protein molecule from scratch, even if all (20 or so) required types of components are present, compares to blindly selecting a particular atom from among all the atoms in the Milky Way galaxy.

Even if we start with a similar but fundamentally different kind of supposed parent machine, the time required to randomly generate just a handful of the numerous mutations needed to form the specific proteins required by any one of these complex biological machines would be astronomical. In other words, even the simplest of the biological systems is so extremely complex that it is inconceivable for even one of them to come into existence via Evolution.

This scientific impasse is not based on an absence of knowledge (God of the gaps), but on overwhelming biochemical evidence that is only becoming increasingly problematic for Evolution as we learn more about how living organisms work. No reasonable alternative theories have been proposed which explain the scientific data, and given the overwhelming nature of the evidence, we have no reason to ever expect a naturalistic explanation.

The only rational conclusion we can now derive from science is that every living thing is designed by a very powerful Mind. The entire body of scientific knowledge in biochemistry points to this conclusion; there is zero evidence for macro-evolution.

Divine design is now more evident in living things than is human design in inanimate things, which we readily accept where we’re free from crippling bias. Design is clearly seen everywhere, being understood by us all, whether we happen to like it or not. (Ro 1:20)

articles    posts