Creation Facts of Life Read Online Free PDF Page B

as the oxygen-carbon dioxide balance in a sealed aquarium, can result from organisms "doing what comes naturally,"
given
the properties of living things. But just as clearly, other kinds of design, e.g., arrowheads and airplanes, are the direct result of creative design and organization giving matter properties it doesn't have and can't develop on its own. What
we know
about the DNA-protein relationship suggests that living cells have the
created kind
of design. It's not so much the molecular complexity as it is the
transcendent simplicity
.
    In the well-known
Scientific American
book,
Evolution,
Dickerson 9 seems to support my point (without meaning to, I'm sure). After describing the problems in producing the right kinds of molecules for living systems, he says that those droplets that by "sheer chance" contained the right molecules survived longer. He continues, "This is not life, but it is getting close to it. The missing ingredient is…."
    What will he say here? The "missing ingredient" is …one more protein? …a little more DNA? …an energy supply? …the right acid-base balance? No, he says: "The missing ingredient is an orderly mechanism…."
An orderly mechanism!
That's what's missing — but that's what life is all about! As I stated before, life is not a property of substance; it's a property of organization. The same kind of reasoning applies to the pyramids in Egypt, for example. The pyramids are made of stone, but studying the stone does not even begin to explain how the pyramids were built. Similarly, until evolutionists begin to explain the origin of the "orderly mechanism," they have not even
begun
to talk about the origin of life.
    When it comes to the evolutionary origin of that orderly mechanism, Dickerson adds, we have "no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts." With "no laboratory models" to provide data, the case for the
evolution
of life must be based on
imagination.
But, as Dickerson admits, "We [evolutionists] can only imagine what probably existed, and our imagination so far has not been very helpful."
    The case for
creation,
however, is not based on imagination. Creation is based instead on
logical inference
from our
scientific observations,
and on simple acknowledgment that everyone, scientists and laymen alike, recognize that certain kinds of order imply creation.
    Let me give you another example of the same sort of reasoning. Imagine that you have just finished reading a fabulous novel. Wanting to read another book like it, you exclaim to a friend, "Wow! That was quite a book. I wonder where I can get a bottle of that ink?" Of course not! You wouldn't give the ink and paper credit for writing the book. You'd praise the author, and look for another book by the same writer. By some twist of logic, though, many who read the fabulous DNA script want to give credit to the "ink (DNA base code) and paper (proteins)" for composing the code.
    In a novel, the ink and paper are merely the means the author uses to express his or her thoughts. In the genetic code, the DNA bases and proteins are merely the means God uses to express His thoughts. The real credit for the message in a novel goes to the author, not the ink and paper, and the real credit for the genetic message in DNA goes to the Author of life, the Creator, not to the creature (Rom. 1:25).
    The message conveyed by DNA is the kind called "
specified complexity
" in contrast to randomness or "mere" order. It takes only a simple program or algorithm, for example, to generate a random sequence of letters: (1) Print any letter; (2) Repeat step 1. An ordered, repeat pattern, such as ABCABCABC, could be generated by an algorithm nearly as simple: (1) Print ABC; (2) Repeat step 1. A program ENORMOUSLY larger and more sophisticated would be required to specify, for example, the letter sequence in the first volume of an encyclopedia set! The letter sequence is complex and specific ("specified