When you woke up this morning, you made a series of assumptions. Many of them were done unconsciously. When you reached for your alarm clock, you assumed it would be there. While getting ready for your day, you assumed many things as part of your morning routine. You did not plan for anything out of the ordinary—such as no hot water, or even something as extreme as your roof caving in.
The same can be said about many aspects of life. Anytime one does not plan for every possible result, he is making some type of assumption. Obviously, one cannot plan for every possible course of every possible action. So naturally, many make assumptions.
So basic are assumptions in human thinking that various fields of science use them when creating a theory or hypothesis.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the field of archeology. The foundation of studying ancient cultures is based on certain assumptions, be it about their culture, intelligence or technological advancements. These assumptions are usually based on facts that have already been collected through archeological digs.
But the premise that something was created by man is assumed. Through the obvious planning and design of a broken arrowhead, piece of pottery or writing tablet, a conclusion is reached.
In a similar way, if you are walking along a beach and find a soda pop bottle, you would not make the wrong assumption. You would not deduce that because this glass bottle is in sand, and since glass is nothing more than compressed sand, that the bottle gradually formed due to pressures and environmental changes.
Obviously, you realize that the bottle was made in a factory and once contained a beverage. You may not have realized, but you unconsciously ran a series of scientific experiments, involving geometry, linguistics, chemical analysis and probability.
If broken into actual experiments, this process may have happened as follows: (1) You picked up the bottle and noticed the shape and texture of the bottle—geometry; (2) when examining the bottle, you recognized the writing as English—LINGUISTICS; (3) the sweet smell and perhaps any residue in the bottle indicated the beverage that was once inside—CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; (4) finally, you realized that the probability of all three of the above traits happening naturally was so low that this bottle was what it was: a manufactured pop bottle.
Of course, you do not carry out this series of experiments each time you pick up a similar item. Based on previous experience—and proof—you assume the result. In such a case, you are making a correct—provable—assumption because you are basing it on existing, proven facts.
But without existing facts, there is no foundation on which to base your assumption. Such an assumption is not provable and is nothing more than a guess.
This same process appears in basic rules of logic. You cannot fabricate something and then base a conclusion on that illusionary foundation. Anyone can understand that doing such is silly. These rules of logic are applied to nearly every discipline of science except one—biology!
Instead of looking at the facts and applying simple rules of logic, many convoluted and confusing “theories” are created. But when you wipe away all the wrong assumptions, the real data is both fascinating and inspiring.
While amazing facts and details are found throughout the universe, perhaps the most amazing is inside you—the cell. In fact, there are approximately 100 trillion cells in your body and inside each of those cells is enough information to fill the largest libraries in the world. As we will see, an obvious and telltale signature identifies their origin even more conclusively than the previously-mentioned glass bottle. And it is hidden in the blueprint of the cell—DNA.
To properly frame the subject of DNA, you must first understand the false assumptions upon which biological science is based. These assumptions form the foundation of evolution. While the purpose of this article is not to disprove evolution, examining just two of these assumptions does disprove it and shows why modern science completely misses the reason behind the complex design that appears in every living cell in existence.
Evolution basically states that two “unknown or undetermined” events happened billions of years ago, beginning the process of organic evolution. The first of these processes is commonly called the Big Bang Theory. This event supposedly was the force that created the known material universe.
When modern society discovered radiation, we were able to determine that all matter is deteriorating. Once understood, this proves that there must have been a point in time at which matter did not exist—otherwise, the deterioration process would have already been completed.
To explain this, scientists devised the Big Bang. It basically states that a major explosion of plasma-type gasses formed the beginnings of the universe. From that initial explosion, this early universe expanded into what we know today. To further understand the fallacy of the Big Bang Theory, read our article “Mapping the Universe,” in this issue.
Secondly, evolutionists theorize that at some point in this expanding universe of non-organic matter, an environment formed that allowed a “soupy goop” to make the transition from inorganic—non-living—matter into organic—living—matter.
While modern science can give no explanation as to why this transition would happen—or is even possible—it is supposed that all living cells evolved from this organic goop.
The first major obstacle for evolutionists is the biological law of Biogenesis: “Historically the point of view that life comes only from life has been so well established through the facts revealed by experiment that it is called the Law of Biogenesis” (Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, Moore and Slusher). A footnote in the same textbook states, “Some scientists call this a superlaw, or a law about laws. Regardless of terminology, biogenesis has the highest rank in these levels of generalization” (Ibid.).
While evolutionists freely admit that this law forms the basis of modern biology, many conveniently disregard this fact when applied to evolution. But if we, even for a moment, assume that some “unknown spontaneous event” caused the first essential ingredients of living matter—amino acids—there still remains another colossal hurdle to overcome.
When first discovered in the 1920s, cells were thought to be simple “homogeneous globules of plasma,” meaning that a simple chemical process could be applied to their creation and replication. But times have certainly changed!
With more powerful technology, we have been able to look deep into cells and their fundamental building blocks. Cells can be likened to microscopic factory-cities. There are waste removal highways, power factories, amazingly selective “force fields,” allowing flow of certain items in and out of the cell, and many more independent, yet highly cooperative, machines. This whole process is controlled by the nucleus of the cell, which has been described as a complex supercomputer.
(Remember, in spite of all the complex cellular processes, evolutionary theory states that ALL things happened because of chance and necessity.)
But this initial cosmic goop did not form directly into a working cell. First, amino acids must link together to become more complex structures—proteins. This also presents a problem. By their very nature, amino acids have to be specifically arranged to form functioning proteins.
Could this happen by chance?
If you randomly type keys on a computer, there is a chance that throughout the sequence, you may type a word. But what are the odds that you will type a proper sentence? Or what about a poem or a novel?
Because of the extremely specific layout needed to form proteins, no “typing” errors can be made. This means that hundreds of amino acids would have to randomly—yet simultaneously—come together in a perfect configuration to form a working protein.
There is even another degree of complexity required to form proteins. Not only do these amino acids have to come together as described above, they must bond in “an extraordinarily complex and irregular three-dimensional shape—a twisting, turning, tangled chain of amino acids” (“DNA and Other Designs,” Stephen C. Meyer). It has been estimated that the odds of forming just one protein naturalistically is approximately 1 in 10,125—not to mention the numerous proteins required for a living cell.
If you take into account that most proteins are made up of more than 100 amino acids, you begin to see why evolutionary researchers often downplay chance, asserting that some “unknown” natural method gave rise to their formation. Yet, chance is exactly what hundreds of millions of students are conditioned to accept as fact.
Obviously, one can see that creating a novel or poem by chance is impossible. Why then does the scientific community at large fail to understand that something exceedingly more complex could also not form by happenstance?
Can you believe that anyone would consider this? However, this is only the beginning of the wrong assumptions science has afforded in the quest to maintain evolution.
The fascinating point to notice in protein formation is the specificity required for them to function. Even at this very early stage, we notice “informational content” present. Because random organization does not form proteins, there is an existing structure—a blueprint—that must be followed to create them.
In all historical forms of science, information content implies a creator of that information. Even in these simple proteins, this blueprint begs the question: Who or what created the informational blueprint for these proteins?
But the signature on that blueprint becomes obvious—not when we look at the building blocks—but when we look directly at the cellular “building.”
The cell is the most advanced engineering marvel ever discovered. Humanity has never created anything that functions nearly as efficiently as the cell. In fact, aspects of the cell are even used when designing complex and redundant systems.
Each part contains highly complex, three-dimensional structures. The formation of these proteins is the direct impetus behind their function. Certain amino acid configurations form each “mini-machine,” which regulates various parts of the cell.
The most complex of these proteins are found in the nucleus—the supercomputer—of the cell. Not only does the nucleus control how the mini-machines interoperate and when new machines need to be manufactured, it contains the complete blueprint for every machine in that cell.
But in the cells of each human being, the nucleus contains the blueprint for not only each specific cell, but for every cell in the body. Truly a super-blueprint!
This blueprint is contained in deoxyribonucleic acid—most often called DNA. Because of the way DNA is encoded, the amount of information it contains is phenomenal! And it has to be; even the most simple forms of life are highly complex. Take, for instance, E. coli bacteria. This “simple” bacterium has over one trillion bits of information stored in its DNA.
If you counted every letter in every book in the world’s largest library (10 million books), you would approach one trillion “bits of information.” Yes, it requires THAT much information for even a single bacterium to exist.
Imagine how much more information is needed to control and reproduce the approximately 100 trillion cells in your body. Yet all this information is stored in this microscopic structure called DNA.
How does so much fit in such a little space? The answer is found in the encoding of DNA. Its structure and encoding method are nearly as fascinating as the amount of information it contains.
No doubt, you have seen pictures of a double helix. It is this incredibly efficient structure that allows DNA to encode so much. Understanding this structure deepens the question of how such information came to be present.
What the DNA Ladder Reveals
As displayed in the illustration, DNA looks like a spiral ladder. A close-up of the individual rungs shows the amazing complexity of this microscopic marvel. On either side of the DNA ladder are the individual sugars and phosphates. They are linked together with a chemical bond and form both sides of the ladder.
The phosphates are then chemically bonded to the nucleotides (designated by A, T, G and C, and located in the center). These structures create either side of the ladder and are attached using hydrogen bonds.
But as the above informational graphic shows, there are no bonds directly linking individual nucleo-tides—or “rungs”—together.
Yet this is where the genetic information is encoded!
There is no natural explanation for how information could form on this chemically unconnected axis—but there is a reason for it. Chemical bonds are very common in nature. A salt crystal is one such example. Any crystalline structure is made up of a series of repeating chemically bonded elements. That is the key!
Chemical bonds create patterns. As can be seen on either side of the DNA ladder, the sugars and phosphates are repeated. If the nucleotides in the spine of the DNA molecule were connected via any sort of bond, they would be limited in the amount and complexity of the information it could contain.
Like crystals, the pattern encoded into DNA would repeat. Every time guanine (G) appeared, there would be adenine (A) following it. But the lack of any chemical bond means that any of the four bases can attach to any location on the spine. All are accepted and none is preferred!
Not only does chemical bonding explain why crystals and related substances form in the way that they do, it makes the information encoded in DNA all that more amazing. There is NO natural way to explain how such highly detailed and complex information “appeared.”
Repeating patterns create mantras, not messages!
Finding the source of these messages is the “holy grail” of evolutionary science. Yet the answer is plain.
Modern science has ignored the evident signature sitting right before their eyes.
Now that the basics are covered, you may be asking the question: Where and how did this information form? Some assert that necessity caused DNA to grow more and more complex. This assumption happens largely because they confuse order with information.
Scientists properly connect the complexity within DNA to having an order. But this is usually where “origin of life” studies confuse the distinction between these two characteristics.
There is no argument in science about the fact that organic systems show order. Any can look around and see it in nature. Such things as the rotation of planets causing seasons, animal migrations, etc., are a study in complex order.
But order does not automatically imply information.
For order to become information, there has to be a highly improbable, aperiodic, yet highly specified series of sequences. As we have seen, this is exactly what is required to build even the simplest proteins right up to super complex cellular structures.
A commonly used analogy to compare the difference between order and information is as follows:
Compare the two sequences “ABABABAB ABA ABABABAB” and “the price of rice in China.” Both are highly ordered and complex series of characters. Yet there is an obvious difference between the two sequences.
The second is highly specific. Informational researchers often refer to this as “specified complexity.” Sequences that show specified complexity always imply underlying information.
And there are only two methods in which information can form. Either the medium from which they are delivered generated them or, if the information transcends the medium, it was intelligently designed.
As we have seen, the bonding structure of DNA does not allow it to generate its own information. In such a case, the information transcends the medium. The only logical conclusion is that the source of the information is an intelligent force—a Creator—as the source of that information.
This conclusion can be drawn not just because natural systems cannot explain the origin of biological information, but because of the signature and hallmarks that biological systems, such as DNA, contain.
Design is based on the principle of CAUSE and EFFECT. It is understood in science that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. For every cause, there is an effect!
This also applies to the origin of life—it must have a cause!
Given the proper facts, human beings are naturally able to deduce a cause—a source—behind the things around them. This is why, as the original example showed, we are able to understand that the glass bottle was designed and created by the hands of men.
You have seen some of the facts hidden in the 100 trillion cells in your body. You should now be able to see that you—and the entire universe—were designed and created by the hands of GOD!