WHAT IS THE MOST COMPLEX COMPUTER OPERATING SYSTEM IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE?

The human genome is the most complex computer operating system anywhere in the known universe.

It controls a super-complex biochemistry that acts with single-molecule precision. It controls the interaction network of hundreds of thousands of proteins. It is a wonderful testament to the creative brilliance of God and an excellent example of the scientific bankruptcy of neo-Darwinian theory. Why? Because the more complex life is, the less tenable evolutionary theory becomes. Super-complex machines cannot be tinkered with haphazardly or they will break. And super-complex machines do not arise from random changes.

The four dimensional human genome defies naturalistic explanations.

Our computer programs are essentially one-dimensional. The human genome operates in four dimensions. This is one of the greatest testimonies to the creative brilliance of God available.

ecoli-bacterium-lge

Figure 1: A comparison of the control of transcription in E. Coli (left) with the Linux call graph (right). The bacterial cell is able to control many protein-coding genes (green lines at bottom) with relatively few controls (yellow and purple lines). Linux, while obviously a result of intelligent design, falls far short in that it requires many more high-level instructions to control relatively few outputs. From Yan et al. 2010.1

I am serious when I compare the genome to a computer operating system. The only problem with this analogy is that we have no computers that can compare to the genome in terms of complexity or efficiency. It is only on the most base level that the analogy works, but that is what makes the comparison so powerful. After millions of hours of writing and debugging we have only managed to create operating systems that can run a laptop or a server, and they crash, a lot. The genome, though, runs a hyper-complex machine called the human body. The organisation of the two are radically different as well. A team made up of computer scientists, biophysicists, and experts in bioinformatics (in other words, really smart people) compared the genome of the lowly E. coli bacterium to the Linux operating system (figure 1) and have discovered that our man-made operating systems are much less efficient because they are much more “top heavy”.1 It turns out that the bacterial genome has a few high-level instructions that control a few middle-level processes, that in turn control a massive number of protein-coding genes. Linux is the opposite. It is much more top heavy and thus much less efficient at getting things done. The bacterium can do a lot more with fewer controls. I predict that the study of genomics will influence the future development of computers.

This is very brief summary of the information contained in the DVD by Dr Robert Carter  The High Tech Cell. You need to get this valuable resource and I suggest you purchase a copy from the Creation Ministries webstore.

AN INESCAPABLE PROBLEM FOR EVOLUTION

All the machinery necessary to both make (in their entirety) and degrade (in their entirety) all the cell components is present in every normal living cell, and it must be so, otherwise waste products would accumulate and destroy cell function. And it must be so from the beginning, otherwise the first generation of living cells would have died from toxic waste accumulation. The inescapable consequence is that autopoiesis is, by definition, reversible, and this situation has logical consequences for life’s robustness in the face of resource limitation.

REVERSIBLE AUTOPOIESIS  IS A FOUNDATIONAL DESIGN PRINCIPLE FOR LIFE’S SURVIVAL

It must be present at the beginning in any theory of life’s origin. No simple-to-complex Darwinian scenario can meet such a standard and, once again, Genesis-style fiat creation is the only rational explanation.

active neurons

active neurons brain connections

Non Christian Professor recognizes that Creation demands a Creator

Natural God by Beth Houston

 

The author of NATURAL GOD – Deism in the Age of Intelligent Design, Beth Houston, is a professor of creative writing and literature at the University of California and several other universities. She covers a lot of material rarely reviewed in books critical of molecules to man evolution. What does she offer to the creation-evolution debate? The answer is a fresh approach, written in an engaging style, that reflects a good understanding of psychology, logic, biology and history. She stresses that science, especially Darwinism, has become a form of dogmatism the needs to be challenged.

One point documented is that Darwin’s central ambition was not to explore the world to let it reveal itself, but to become famous. Houston also carefully documents her position that evolution theory (no meaning, no purpose, no Creator) caused its developer to lose both his aesthetic sensibility and his appreciation of aesthetic beauty. Darwin openly admitted that his appreciation of aesthetics had dynamically changed.

“Up to the age of thirty ….poetry….such as the works of Milton, Gray, Byron, Wordsworth, Coleridge and Shelley, gave me great pleasure and even as a schoolboy I took great delight in Shakespeare. I have also said that formerly art and pictures gave me considerable pleasure and music very great delight. But now for many years I cannot endure to read a line of poetry: I have tried lately to read Shakespeare, and found it so intolerably dull that it nauseated me. I have also lost my taste for art and music.”

Darwin admitted that the ” loss of these tastes is a loss of happiness, and may possibly be injurious to the intellect, and more probable to the moral character, by enfeebling the emotional part of nature.”

Beth Houston concludes that what was wrong with Darwin was that “the dimension that gives life lived to the fullest its zing” was gone.

“By the time he had finished ORIGIN and certainly his later Autobiography, beauty had ceased to be beauty at all ….beauty was observed and used like a prostitute for a distant satisfaction of an immediate need, never for love of beauty for its own sake, never for the pleasure of intimate contact (with nature).

She goes on to say, “Mechanistic agnostics like Darwin…. know intellectually that nature is beautifully constructed while emotionally denying that it is. The aesthetic atrophies when the spirit does, or when the spirit lies dormant and inactivated. It is … mechanistic determinism and Darwinian natural selection.

There is never any death of God, only murder or suicide of the killer’s own God – given faculties.”

Houston speculates that: “Darwin’s insistence that natural selection is ultimately brutal is a projection of …. the brutal side of his own nature. Natural selection justifies brutality and sanctifies the guilt. The brutal cannot face a God who might not condone brutality. Therefore, religions create their gods in the image of their own brutality to justify and sanctify brutality, and science creates its god, natural selection, the shadow of civilized man, for the same purpose.

Summary: Professor Houston makes a convincing case that the natural world provides clear evidence for a creator. She also documents the adverse effects of Darwinism on society and persons using Darwin himself as a prime example.

Extract from book review by Jerry Bergman, Journal of Creation Vol 29, 2015

 

 

A GOOD GOD & A WORLD OF DEATH & SUFFERING?

lambs

One of the most common questions asked of Christians is some version of: “If God is so loving, why are there bad things in the world?” The implication being that if God created this world in the state it is in, He can’t be ‘very good’ Himself. This is sometimes used as a reason to reject belief in God.

If God created everything in 6 days when exactly were ‘bad things’ created?

The first thing we need to understand is that God wasn’t surprised by the Fall of Adam. God is all knowing and so knew that a punishment would have to be meted out following Adam’s (and his offspring’s) rebellion.

According to Scripture, at the time of the Fall the environment changed and there were changes in the physical construction of some things as well. For example thorns appeared where there were none before. Some might ask ‘Doesn’t that mean God must have created new genetic information for these things at that time where there was none before?’ Not necessarily, because ‘hidden’ genetic information can lie dormant within living things and be activated under certain environmental conditions.

For example up to the 1920’s, scientists used to classify grasshoppers as a separate species to locusts. However, researchers have since determined that they are actually the same creature. Under certain (laboratory reproducible) circumstances they exhibit a sort of Jekyll/Hyde transformation that is truly startling!

Behavioural differences happen immediately at the transformation, with physical changes appearing in subsequent generations. The difference in behaviour (grasshoppers are solitary, locusts swarm), and morphology (locusts have smaller legs, wings and bodies but have a 30% larger brain than grasshoppers) is significant and changes neural, muscular and exo-skeletal expression. And the transformation from grasshopper to locust can also be reversed back again. Yet the DNA of the two creatures is identical.7

This ability for DNA to express different programming from the same source code under different environmental conditions is actually fairly common. The epigenetic code, a set of switches that turn genes on and off (e.g. in response to environmental stimuli) is a main contributor to this ability of the ‘finished product’ to vary despite the same DNA ‘instructions. This is known as ‘phenotypic plasticity’.

Not only is the discovery of latent genetic information an incredible challenge for evolution to account for, and a tremendous evidence of design (because it exhibits all of the characteristics of foresight and pre-planning in the genomes of creatures around the world), but it also helps answer the supposedly unanswerable question of how ‘bad things’ appeared after the Fall if God’s creation was completely finished by the end of the sixth day of creation.

God’s word is true

Foreknowing the Fall of man,9 God created the features of a post-Fall world in latent form within His very good world. They only became activated when God cursed the creation as punishment for Adam’s transgression. And the entire creation groans because of that Curse and is evidence that something is desperately wrong with this world. If God had not caused our physical environment to change at the time of the Fall, we would be lost without Him, bound for Hell but still in a virtual paradise. How would we know there was anything wrong and that we were in need of our Saviour

extract from article “The good, the bad and the ugly ….” by Calvin Smith on http://www.creation.com

 

Awesome Creator says Dr Yusdi Santoso

10396472-computer-artwork-showing-a-hand-and-double-stranded-dna-deoxyribonucleic-acid-molecules-dna-is-compo[1]

Dr Yusdi Santoso an Oxford PhD scientist whose research on DNA polymerase led to the discovery that, prior to proof reading, there is an additional process that screens the DNA letters before they are incorporated into the copy. Since defective screening leads to copying errors Dr Yusdi’s work may contribute to curing genetic diseases arising from inefficiencies in this process.

Only those people who have already decided to reject God, reject it is a miracle of design by an awesome designer outside the Matter/Space/Time Universe He created says, Dr Yusdi Santoso.

It is interesting that Francis Crick evolutionist, one of the discoverers of the structure of DNA and author of Life Itself: Its Origin & Nature admitted, “an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many conditions which would have to be satisfied to get it going”.

Can I recommend you take a look at the complete article “Oxford trained scientist acknowledges the Creator” in Creation magazine Vol. 36, No. 3 2014. Dominic Statham interviews biophysicist Dr Yusdi Santoso. It concludes with – Dr Santoso is adamant that the reality of God can be seen in creation: “The Bible tells us we are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 134:19) and I saw this clearly in much of my scientific work. My research into DNA polymerase, particularly, showed me just how complex life is. All this speaks of an awesome Creator.

IS CONSENSUS SCIENCE, ANTI-SCIENCE?

Ben Stein Expelledignaz_semmelweis
Pictured is Dr Ignaz Semmelweis. He struggled against the scientific consensus of his day. The cost of ignoring his research findings was the loss of countless lives and much suffering.

Sadly consensus science has a poor record. In fact the task of science has nothing to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science on the contrary requires only one investigator who happens to be right.

Dr Ignaz Semmelweiss, a Hungarian surgeon, was one of those investigators who was right. He discovered that ‘childbed fever’ which typically caused a ten to thirty percent mortality level, could largely be abolished if doctors simply washed their hands in a chlorine solution before examining pregnant mothers.
The compelling evidence however failed to impress his superiors and he was eventually dismissed from the clinic even though the mortality rate for his patients was essentially zero. Semmelweis’s procedure went contrary to the whole theory of medical consensus existing in his day. He spent the last years of his life unsuccessfully trying to convince European doctors of his systems effectiveness. He ended his life in a mental hospital and his ideas forgotten until Dr Joseph Lister took up the battle this time successfully.
The story of Dr Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen is much the same. In 1795 he suggested that the fevers which were the number one killer of women following childbirth were an infectious process and he was able to prevent/cure them. The consensus said NO…. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right/same conclusion. These are but two of many examples of scientists resistance to accepting the truth when it conflicts with accepted dogma.

Evolution is also an entrenched dogma despite the overwhelming evidence for amazing design of life and the universe. Since the discovery of the complexity of  DNA (ENCODE PROJECT) and sub-microscopic cell machinery of irreducible complexity there is a growing number of eminent scientists embracing intelligent design.  Why the establishment is so wedded to materialism and evolutionary naturalism is perhaps best explained by Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist and probably one of the world’s leaders in promoting evolutionary biology.

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment , a commitment to materialism. It’s not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori  adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations no matter how counter- intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.”

Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist from Kansas State University said it more succinctly: “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”

Evolution sheds no light on the beginning of the Universe and life. It postulates matter, energy and time brought this beautiful orderly Cosmos into being, with its intricate life forms, its complex natural laws, its intangible moral qualities and the creative and reasoning powers of man. Even Aristotle and Plato knew this speaks of infinite intelligence and yet evolution insists blind chance can account for it all. At a foundational level we are involved in a battle of world views.

Christians know God, so the idea that matter and energy and blind chance can produce the Cosmos we inhabit is absurd.

Recommended reading: By Design, Dr Jonathan Sarfati, The Design Inference, Dr William Dembski, The Edge of Evolution, Dr Michael Behe and of course  www.creation.com

ANOTHER EMINENT SCIENTIST CLAIMS EVOLUTION DEAD

Dr Smalley8671-buckyball-3
Dr Richard E Smalley was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1996 for discovery and research on a totally new allotrope of carbon. Many researchers date the dawn of the modern nanotechnology field to Dr Smalley’s “buckyball” discovery.
Dr Richard (Rick) Smalley M.A. PhD Princeton University was the Hackerman Professor of Chemistry, Physics & Astronomy at Rice University, Houston Texas.
Professor Smalley’s many awards included eight honorary doctor of science awards.
Whilst sceptical of religion most of his life, Rick Smalley became a Christian only in his last years, partly due to his intensive study of intelligent design.
He claimed that Darwinian evolution had been given its death blow due to the advances in genetics and cell biology and that it was now clear that biological evolution could not have occurred.

If evolution is dead as so many leading scientists now acknowledge, isn’t it time it was buried.
The real problem is revealed in the following quotes from leading evolutionists.

“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” Dr Scott Todd, Kansas State University.

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs…because we have a prior commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create as apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive , no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.” Professor Richard Lewontin (retired Harvard University evolutionary biologist and geneticist).