Learn about smart design

Babu G. Ranganathan

Imagine you find a robot-like planet. They have been programmed so that robots look exactly like the raw materials. And imagine next, there was a scientist visiting from another planet. After years of studying how these robots operate, operate, function and replicate, he has come to the conclusion that no intelligent creator is behind them.

The above reasoning is not perfect, but it is enough to reveal misleading thoughts against the intelligence of the universe and life.

Initially there was only one living cell complete, then the appearance of genomes and complex and high-level biological mechanisms to regulate the process of new cell formation. But how does life or cells survive when there is no mechanism of instruction in nature?

Random physical processes can create an order to some extent, but the highest level of life as well as the whole universe cannot be generated randomly . For example, amino acids have been shown to appear randomly, but that does not happen to more complex molecules or protein-like structures that require different amino acids arranged in a certain order. (same as the order of letters in a sentence). If amino acids are not in the correct order, the protein molecule will not function properly. Meanwhile, only one cell has millions of protein molecules.

Learn about smart design
(Photo: Pravda)

There is no fixed chemical mechanism that regulates that amino acids must be linked together in the correct order. Any amino acid molecule easily binds to any other molecule. The only reason they combine together in the correct sequence in the cell is because they are regulated by a sequence of existing molecules in our genetic code. If not in the correct order, the protein molecules will not work.

The molecular order of DNA (gene coding) regulates the molecular sequence in the protein sequence. In addition, without DNA, there would be no RNA, no ARN otherwise DNA would not exist. Without both DNA and RNA, there is no protein and vice versa. They must depend on each other to survive.

If a cell has evolved it must have all the ingredients at once. A new half-evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to complete because it is very unstable and easily degraded in the environment, especially when there is no protection of the cell membrane fully developed. power.

Scientist and biochemist Duane T.Gish has written an article entitled 'Some Reasons for Explaining the Origin of Non-Evolutionary Life' has rejected the hypothesis of the random origin of life. Dr. Gish presented ' simple ' but erudite about the scientific barrier of evolution that has never been mentioned or mentioned in biology books in Johnny's High School or any other university. The article made a big buzz. You can read that report at http://icr.org/article/3140/

If humans have to use wisdom to perform genetic engineering, carry out genetic code manipulation, what can it say about the origin of genetic code.

Contrary to popular beliefs, scientists have never created life in a laboratory. They have only replaced or transformed existing life forms, thereby creating new life forms. However, scientists cannot create new life forms from non-living materials. Even if they can create life from a non-living entity, it is neither by chance nor can it support the debate about evolution.

Even if artificial life was created, scientists did not necessarily create life itself from non-living matter. They only create artificial DNA (code and genetic information) according to smart design. The DNA is then transplanted into an existing living cell, thereby turning the cell into a new life form. If scientists create a whole new living cell from many materials (not just DNA), it's not a coincidence but a smart design. Artificial life is also a form of genetic engineering.

The famous British scientist Frederick Hoyle once said that the ability to create sequences of molecules in a simple cell is randomly equivalent to the possibility of a tornado swept through a waste dump. aircraft parts then make up a Jumbo Jet 747.

Think of the tremendous complexity of life. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to believe that genetic and biological similarities between species are created by the same creator and not by the same evolutionary origin. The creator will establish similar functions for similar purposes and different functions for different purposes in all life forms.

So what about natural selection? Natural selection only works when life exists. And natural selection is not a creative factor, it's just passive. Natural selection is not capable of designing or operating genes or new biological properties.

Natural selection can only be selected from the biologically produced forms that exist. The main problem here is which biological variations are created and which variants can exist. When there is a biological variation occurring in a species and this variation (such as skin color changes .) that helps the species survive in the environment, that variation will be preserved (' option ' ) and passed on to the next generation. This event is called ' natural selection ' or 'survival for the right person '. But even so, 'natural selection' or ' survival for the right person ' cannot create biological properties and variations.

The term ' natural selection ' is simply a rhetorical form. Nature cannot make active, conscious choices. It is absolutely a passive process. Darwin did not recognize the origin of the biological variant. He simply assumed that any biological change could exist. However, we now know the biological characteristics and variant types encoded in genes.

Natural selection must combine with evolution, not just evolution. Because natural selection can only 'select' from adaptable biological variants, this raises the question of what kind of biological variant can exist? How many biological variations are there in nature? We all know that evolution is limited to plants and animals.

Scientific evidence shows that in nature there is only microscopic evolution (also known as horizontal evolution - evolution in the same biological 'form' such as dogs, cats, horses, dairy cows .). not macroscopic evolution (vertical evolution - evolution between biological forms, especially from simple forms to more complex forms).

Another reason why macroscopic evolution cannot happen in nature is because the redundant or newly evolved organ has to take millions of years to complete because random mutations can still become one. 'worth it'. How can a species survive over millions of years while its essential organism is in the process of evolution?

For example, how can animals breathe, eat and reproduce if their respiratory, digestive and reproductive organs are still incomplete and evolving? How can species cope with harmful bacteria if the immune system has not fully evolved?

What if we find evidence of life on Mars? Does that support evolution theory? Please, no. It does not prove for one thing that life evolved from matter to life without just natural processes by chance. Even if we find evidence of life on Mars, it seems that it comes from our own planet - Earth. In the history of development of the earth, there have been strong volcanic eruptions. So it is possible that the rock dust carrying the bacteria was sprayed into space to finally set foot on Mars. The article in Newsweek, the September 21, 1998 issue of page 12, accurately mentioned this possibility.

We know from the entropy rule in science that the case is incapable of sustaining eternity. It needs a start. But we also know that the law of nature cannot build the universe on an empty basis. Therefore, the beginning of the universe has a supernatural origin.

Even scientists who support Prigogine - the father of chaos theory, must also admit that only order at a minimum level is the result of random, spontaneous processes. Smart design advocates do not require Darwin's teaching theory of evolution. They want these two theories to be taught in parallel to the origin of all species in science classes.

Science cannot prove how life originates because humans cannot observe the origin of life whether it is random or intentional. Observing and discovering through human senses whether directly or indirectly by scientific means is the basis of science to find evidence. The question is which of the two is more scientifically supported.

What we believe in the source of life influences our philosophy, value of life as well as the view of ourselves and others. That shouldn't be a small problem.

Science can explain the nature of life and the universe does not mean that there exists a boundary. The laws of nature can fully explain the order of life, the universe, even the way the microwave works, but only with those indirect rules cannot explain the origin. of that order.

If any earth astronaut found that there were people similar to the four faces on Mount Rushmore on a deserted planet, it would be impossible to prove that the pictures carved on that mountain had derived from design or due to random abrasion. And scientific arguments may support one of the two views.

All of this means true science places faith in God. Science cannot prove that our existence is by chance (evolution) or by design (creation). However, scientific evidence will prove to either this view or the other point of view.

Author, Babu G. Ranganathan, is an experienced Christian follower. He holds a bachelor's degree in Bible and Biology at Bob Jones University. His writings were published in numerous newspapers including Pravda (Russia) and The Seoul Times (South Korea).