- A Computer is Designed, but the Designer came by Chance?
- One-celled Life is not Simple. It is Incredibly Complex
- Spontaneous Generation was Disproved Long Ago
- People Still Believe in Spontaneous Generation
- An Example of Doublethink
- DNA Could Not Have Happened By Chance
- Life Requires More Than Biology
- How did life begin?
- How do Birds and Butterflies Migrate?
- Our Technology Cannot Improve Upon Nature
- Life On Earth Was Designed
A Computer is Designed, but the Designer came by Chance?
Some think that God is an imaginary being that people believe on faith to make them feel good. However, it also takes faith to be an atheist. An atheist must believe that DNA is the result of chance. The DNA molecule is like a very complicated computer program.Nobody would believe that Windows 7 is the result of chance, but many believe that the human brain that created Windows 7 is the result of chance.
Below is a picture of Mount Rushmore. Four faces were carved out of solid rock. It was caused by a process of time and chance. Over the course of many years, wind, rain and blowing sand carved the faces in the rock:
One-celled Life is not Simple. It is Incredibly Complex
Years ago, microscopes weren't nearly as good as they are now. The cell used to look like a blob and it was easy to think that a blob could come about by accident. We have better microscopes now. According to Michael Behe, a biochemist, a cell is run like a really a big city with freeways to deliver nutrients and garbage to their destinations. For more information, see his book: Darwin's Black Box:
The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
by Michael J. Behe
There is an illustration of a Bacterial Flagellum on the front flap of "Darwin's Black Box". This is the little gizmo that turns the little hairs on a bacterium so it can move around. The parts are all labeled, bushings, universal joint, rotor, drive shaft, and so on. It is a microscopic machine just to turn one little hair on a little bitty bacterium. Henry Ford invented the Model T a long time before the microscopes were very powerful otherwise, I might think he used this as an example of an efficient motor.
Spontaneous Generation was Disproved Long Ago
Spontaneous Generation is a theory that was developed many years ago. It said that living organisms developed from non-living matter. It was proven false by Louis Pasteur. Here is an except of an address that Louis Pasteur delivered at the "Sorbonne Scientific Soiree" of April 7, 1864:No, there is not a single known circumstance in which microscopic beings may be asserted to have entered the world without germs, without parents resembling them. Those who think otherwise have been deluded by their poorly conducted experiments, full of errors they neither knew how to perceive, nor how to avoid.Pasteur said this in 1864, yet many people still prefer to believe that life can come from non-life rather that attribute the origin of life to a miracle.
People Still Believe in Spontaneous Generation
Even many scientists today can see the problems with proving it, but they believe anyway, even without the proof that it needs.For example, this biologist says flat out says he believes in something that he knows is not proven:
Wald, George, The Origin of Life, in The Physics and Chemistry of Life (Simon & Schuster, 1955), 270 pp. p. 9
One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are — as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at-least-once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event, … given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once …He believes this on faith, and he admits it.
Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs miracles.
An Example of Doublethink
One semester in health science class I was taught about how Spontaneous Generation had been disproven. In the Biology class, the same semester, I was taught that is was proven that life emerged from inorganic chemicals.In his book "1984", George Orwell coined the word "Doublethink" to mean the belief of two contradictory things at the same time.
- Spontaneous Generation: False
- Abiogenesis: True
DNA Could Not Have Happened By Chance
The DNA molecule contains all the directions to make life, every component, the skin, the heart, the brain, the bones, the muscles, and so forth. I would like to challenge any one of you to make a computer program to do any ONE thing where the program fits on an information storage device so small you cannot even see it. When James Watson and Francis Crick discovered DNA they did not really see it, they saw its shadow and from the shadow they hypothesized what the shape was.
DNA can only work in the cell, and a cell is made by the directions in the DNA. The whole kit and caboodle had to come about by chance all at the same time or it would not even work. Scientists do not quite understand DNA yet. It took years to map the genome. If DNA is so simple that it happened by accident, why did it take so long to just write a list of all of its parts?
Life Requires More Than Biology
Why do bodies die in the emergency room? Why cannot the repair be made and the body jumpstarted back to life? Life is said to have come from the gathering of random inorganic chemicals. If that is so, why does a body die? There are just as many chemicals before death as after death.My comments refer to the origin of life. If creation by God is not an option, then random chemicals got together and formed the first living cell. If this could happen (it has never been proven) how are we sure it would be alive? A dead body has as many cells as a live body.
"Life" is something outside of just the physical components of biology.
How did life begin?
I was too hard headed to just up and believe that there is a God, especially at my age. However, through a process of elimination while I was studying the proof for life arising spontaneously from nonlife, I was able to determine scientifically and logically that it was not true. This was a big surprise to me, I tell you what! I had believed it all my life, and remember I was in my forties. My beliefs were fairly set in stone. However, when I found no proof that life began without god, the basis of my disbelief in god had no justification.How do Birds and Butterflies Migrate?
Some birds and butterflies migrate thousands of miles to places they have never been to before. Science does not know how they navigate. People need maps and other navigational aids to fly somewhere in a plane. Should not a highly evolved human being be better at navigating than a butterfly? Science does not know exactly how birds and butterflies navigate. If creation by God is not an option, then birds and butterflies evolved capabilities that more highly evolved creatures, humans, do not have. Evolution is about the improvement of life. Butterflies are insects, far down on the evolutionary scale. How could they have such an advanced capability that humans, the most highly evolved life, does not have?Our Technology Cannot Improve Upon Nature
There are many things in nature that our technology cannot replicate, much less improve upon. Why? Things in nature are said to be a product of chance. It seems that our technology would be able to improve upon things that happened by chance.Here is an example:
I am a birdwatcher. This is something I think about often. Birds can land on a piece of wire or branch about as big around as their eyeball. Airplanes are designed by human beings, highly evolved human beings. Why cannot an intelligently designed machine do something as well as a random happenstance bird? Why cannot man design an airplane that slows down, grabs onto a perch, and remains upright? Why cannot an airplane land on something as big around as the cockpit window? Why cannot an airplane maneuver as well as a bird? If a bird is just a random chance occurrence, and humans are the most advanced life on earth, why cannot humans come up with a design that works better than a random chance?
