Intelligent Design Needs to be Considered
Evolutionists are passionate about their position. Their arguments are backed by what they see as solid evidence and they and can be very convincing. Most of the scientific community persuaded that life sprang into existence through natural causes. However, with a remarkably simple line of reasoning, I will argue the improbability of this.
​
Several good books have been written on the topic of intelligent design – most notably those of Denton, Behe, Sarfati, Meyer, Wells, and others. These come highly recommended. However, in this paper I will present a brief and compelling line of reasoning.
​
The Origin of Life
​
It is well known that life is cellular, and only cellular. All tissues and organs of all animals and plants are organized assemblies of cells. Thus, we must view the cell as the elementary building block of life on this planet. It is reasonable to assume that the first form of life was a single cell -- the simplest form of life. Evolutionists would surely agree with that.
​
As we begin to think about the beginning of life, let’s think about the structure and content of that very first cell and how it might have come together.
The smallest forms of life on earth are bacteria. The one bacterium that scientists consider to be simplest known life form is the bacterium Haemophiles influenzae (it was once thought to cause influenza). Let’s start with that.
​
And let’s begin with DNA – biology’s database -- essential to all of life. Let’s suppose that the first DNA strand has just appeared. (Of course, you’re never going to see a DNA strand appear out of nowhere, but please follow along as we develop this line of reasoning.) An immediate problem would be exposure to the elements. Oxygen, water, sunlight, and other agents would attack the exposed DNA molecule and destroy it in a short time. To survive for any appreciable length of time, the DNA would need to be housed in a protective enclosure of some kind. Nature’s answer to this is to encapsulate the DNA inside a cell. Ignoring, for the moment, how this happened, we have, at this point, our strand of DNA nicely enclosed and protected.
​
Next, DNA is useless without some kind of process for reading the DNA and making use of its information. In nature, that job is performed by various proteins. Note that proteins are large molecules consisting of strings of AAU’s (amino acid units) linked end-to-end. There are 20 different AAUs, and when these are strung together in the right sequence, you have a protein that can perform a function. Proteins range in size from 500 to 2,000 AAUs in length and their functionality depends upon the exact sequence of AAUs. Change just one of the AAUs and you have a different protein, or more likely a non-functioning protein.
​
As you can see, proteins typically are very large molecules indeed.
A sample protein
The cell must contain several different types of proteins, in certain quantities and in the correct proportions. For example, proteins called enzymes must be available that do the job of breaking down incoming nutrients. Other proteins know how to read the DNA’s information databank and use it to build even more proteins. Other assembled proteins perform the function of transporting materials from place to place within the cell. Still other proteins are construction material -- for example, to take the place of worn-out cells in the cell walls.
To summarize, we have a container holding fluid, DNA and proteins. Now here is the kicker. When you think about it, all of this would have to come into existence in an instant. You wouldn’t be able to make the container first, then insert the water, the DNA and the proteins and the other materials because there would be no way to insert them. On the other hand, you wouldn’t be able to have the DNA and proteins appear first and have there be a time delay before they obtain an enclosure, because, being exposed, they would quickly become scattered or damaged. The whole structure – a fully assembled cell with its enclosure, DNA, water, and a full set of proteins, plus fluid – would have to come into existence in the shortest imaginable time – in a micro-instant. What are the odds of this happening? I don’t know, but it is certainly not the kind of event that any scientist has ever observed and reported.
There is another challenge. The appearance of any organized information, let alone a highly concentrated set of information, is in stark disagreement with one of the laws of science – the law of conservation of information – which says that you can’t have an increase in information happen without there being a source of that information.
​
Stacking the deck even further, if we’re talking about life that can be perpetuated, the elaborate mechanism of self-replication would also have to be there at the beginning. Otherwise, our little miracle cell would eventually die and be gone without any offspring.
​
So, we have a living, self-replicating organism that stands far above and beyond ordinary materials in terms of its information content and functionality. In fact, what we are talking about represents a monumental step above ordinary environmental material. Scientists tell us that life came into existence through a long, slow process, gradually achieving higher forms of organization: defying a gauntlet of obstacles along the way, eventually achieving higher forms of organization until, at last, a living organism was assembled. The question is this: Did this process take place inside or outside of the cell container? If inside (so that the assembly is protected against the elements), then where did the container come from and how did all the construction materials (and just the right kinds of construction materials!) get moved in? If outside, then how were the constituent elements kept in the same location, protected from disbursement and harmful elements until construction was complete?
BBC Article on the Origin of Life
Evolutionary scientists have struggled for years trying to determine how life on Earth began. BBC has posted a lengthy article at
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began
​
The article describes the thought process that these scientists have gone through as they struggled, over several decades, to reach a conclusion. Approximately 2/3 of the way into the article, they acknowledge the containment problem with scientists falling into two camps, named “genetics-first” and “compartmentalization-first”.
​
Quoting the article, "We would meet at origins meetings and get into these long arguments about which was more important, and which came first," recalls Szostak. "Eventually, we realized that cells have both. We came to a consensus that for the origin of life, it was critical to have both compartmentalisation and a genetic system."
​
However, they had difficulty explaining how this could have happened. Here is one explanation offered in a snippet from the BBC article:
BBC Article on the Origin of Life
Rather imaginative, wouldn’t you say? Narratives like this come from the halls of evolutionary science rather frequently. Do simple organic molecules possess powers of creation? Indeed, to think that a set of molecules floating loosely in a liquid could somehow form, and then carry out, a plan to construct an enclosure!
​
Also, where does the intelligence come from to see how to make RNA? Or even to sense the need to do so? It seems to me that they place a lot of faith in these (so far) non-living things.
​
Scientists tell us that life evolved -- came together through a long series of steps. They say this, but provide no plausible sequence of steps. I will quote Dan Tawfik and say, “Nothing evolves unless it already exists.” Before life can advance to higher forms, there must first be a living thing. And the evolutionists have not been able to demonstrate how the very first life formed on this planet. (And let’s not entertain the argument that life was transferred here from some other planet. That does nothing but transfer the question to another planet.)
​
By the way, despite the BBC article’s optimistic title and upbeat conclusion, the article does not conclude with a resolution. The “secret” has not been discovered -- even after so many decades of research and debate. On the contrary, open questions remain. For one, scientists realize that, from the get-go, living cells would need to possess the ability to extract energy from the environment and store it and then be able to use that energy when needed. (The BBC article mentions this.)
​
The appearance of the first life on planet Earth, from ordinary materials, would have involved a container and its contents coming into existence simultaneously, with those contents including DNA, a full complement of proteins for carrying out the various internal processes, the machinery for obtaining and storing energy and the ability to sense when to use, and how to use, that energy. Plus, a crowning achievement of incredible complexity -- the ability to reproduce -- splitting itself in two, including the copying of the DNA and everything else that is involved.
​
Does science have an explanation for how this happened naturalistically? No, it does not.
Entropy
Shifting gears now, I'd like to briefly mention the entropy problem. Entropy is a state of disorder and randomness -- an information void. The opposite of entropy is information, and according to the law of conservation of information, information cannot come into existence spontaneously.
Information is the non-material basis for all technological and biological systems. In terms of information content, the gulf between ordinary stuff – rocks, water, salt, etc. – and the simplest form of life is an enormous one. As mentioned before, the simplest known form of life is the bacterium H. influenzae. H. influenzae was the first free-living organism to have its entire genome sequenced. The genome consists of 1,830,140 base pairs of DNA in a single circular chromosome that contains 1740 protein-coding genes, 2 transfer RNA genes, and 18 other RNA genes. The information contained in this bacterium’s DNA is roughly equivalent to the information in a 140-page book.
​
For this amount of information to come into existence through natural processes is not scientifically reasonable. Evolutionists may argue that the information accumulated gradually, but that still begs a question: Even if the information accumulated gradually, would it not be a violation of the law of entropy every step of the way?
​
Of course, one might argue that using today’s smallest living organism as a reference isn’t fair, as earlier life might have been smaller and simpler. They postulate that H. Influenzae might have been preceded by many (simpler) versions. If so, then a fair question would be this: Why aren’t any of those organisms still with us?
The Advancement of Life into Higher Forms
After the establishment of single-celled life forms, other life forms must be considered now – life forms with mobility and with multiple cells, differentiated as to function. We will begin with the first of the two – the addition of mobility.
There are many single-celled life forms that have mobility, this being obtained by the addition of a flagellum – a “tail” that whips about, so that the little tike can swim about in a liquid environment, in hopes of finding its next meal.
​
Quoting Behe, “At the base of the tail is a motor that is constructed the same way, and works the same way, as any of man’s electric motors. It has a rotor, a stator, bushings, a drive shaft, and even a clutch.” (Behe, 2020)
​
Please watch this short, fascinating video:
​
​
Quoting Eberlin, “The flagellum motor is composed of forty to fifty protein complexes which require millions of atoms in each. All these many millions of atoms are perfectly arranged to make the flagellum motor and tail. Thousands upon thousands of ingeniously and sequentially arranged amino acids in the alpha-L amino acid chains of these proteins experience perfect nanometric equilibria of inter- and intramolecular forces to fold properly and fit together in a synchronized fashion. These nanomolecular pieces, with perfect 3-D structures, function and look like rotors, shafts, stators, O-rings, junctions, a propeller, and even a clutch."
(Eberlin, 2019)
This represents quite a leap from the simple, non-mobile bacterium discussed earlier. And of course, evolutionists will argue that advances like the addition of a flagellum happen in small steps, over long periods of time. However, the problem with this idea is that until all the parts of this new motor are in place, every intermediate stage of the project includes an incomplete and non-functioning piece of equipment. And what does our friend “natural selection” do with non-functioning parts? As we all know, it gets rid of them!
​
Thus, natural selection works in opposition to advancement.
​
This will be a recurring theme, as you will see. Every advancement, whether it be new locomotion, new sensory perception (i.e. taste, smell, sight), sexual reproduction, self-awareness, etc. requires a number of new constructs, new processes and additional DNA. And even if nature is smart enough to proceed along a path leading to ultimate success, natural selection is constantly in opposition. The only way a new construct with 2 or more parts can appear is if those parts come into existence simultaneously!
A Programmer's Perspective
As a computer programmer for most of my career, I have a unique perspective to offer – an analogy. Let’s say my software company has developed an app that works well, and we have many satisfied customers. However, customers have asked me to add a new feature and I set about doing this. Adding a new feature will involve composing several lines of new code, plus altering the existing code in order to “tie in” the new feature (i.e. make it available in the program’s menu). Let’s say the new feature is rather simple, only involving 100 or so new lines of code. Just as a carpenter knows how to proceed in constructing a new piece of furniture, I know how to write the new lines of code to make the system work as required and I do so. These new lines will have to be just about perfect. Otherwise, the new feature will not work properly, and customers will be disappointed, leading to reduced sales of the software and a weakening of the company. (A reference to the punishing action of natural selection.)
​
The addition of a new feature in the software is analogous to a situation in nature where some helpful new feature gets added. For example, when a creature with no sense of hearing obtains the ability to hear.
​
In nature, those “new lines of code” equate to additional DNA information. This new DNA must be perfect, or nearly so. And let’s not forget that to “tie in” the new feature will require revisions to the existing DNA. These additions and revisions cannot possibly be random. They would have to be performed by a “programmer” with intelligence.
Conclusion
Evolutionists believe that life arose on its own as a product of natural causes. Yet they struggle, and have struggled for many decades, to find an explanation for how it happened. A set of ingredients must be present, as well as a container, and those ingredients must be IN the container -- right at the very start. DNA must be present, representing a great deal of new information – not just random information but information quite specific to the new life form. There must also be a full complement of proteins. No kind of gradual process can be envisioned, as a “partial” life is a not a life and will soon be gone. For these reasons, it is apparent that life had an intelligent designer.
by Leonard Yates (c) 2022
___________________________________