ONE HEARTBEAT AWAY - PART 17

                                            ONE HEARTBEAT            AWAY

      PART 17


Mark Cahill's Book

The human eye (continued)

Dr. Scott Huse points out what the human eye can do:
Furnished with automatic aiming, automatic focussing and automatic aperture adjustment , the human eye can function from almost complete darkness to bright sunlight, see an object the diameter of a fine hair, and make about 100,000 separate motions in an average day, faithfully affording us a continuous series of colour sterioscopic pictures. All of this is performed usually without complaint, and then while we sleep, it carries on its own maintenance work.


Then look at the flagellum of some bacteria - a marvel of engineering. Harvard biologist , Howard Berg refers to in his public lectures as  "the most efficient machine in the universe."

The flagellum is a little motor-driven propeller that sits on the backs of certain bacteria and drives them through their watery environment. It spins at 100,000 rpm and can change direction in a quarter turn. The intricate machinery in this molecular motor - including a rotor, a stator, O-rings, bushings, and a drive shaft - requires the coordinated interaction of approximately forty complex protein parts.

If any part is missing or not available in the right proportions, no functional flagellum will form. So, how could it have evolved?

According to Michael Behe, we know of only one sufficient cause that can produce functionally integrated, irreducibly complex systems: 
An  Intelligent Designer 

Molecular biology has shown that even a single cell is incredibly complex.Bruce Alberts, a leading cell biologist and president of the National Academy of Sciences, writes:

We have always underestimated cells ..... The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains a network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. Why do they call them machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans  to deal efficiently with
with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly  coordinated moving parts.

And all the parts must be in place simultanously, or the cell can't function.
Since life is built of these "machines,"  the idea that natural processes could have made a living system is absurd.

Behe acknowledges that:

Systems of horrendous, irreducible complexity inhabit the cell. The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century who have gotten used to thinking of life as a result of  simple natural laws.

Although the highly intricate machines in cells often resemble those designd by humans, in many cases they are  much more advanced than what man has been able to create!

Evolutionist Richard Dawkins said of the DNA in cells, " The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like." 

Microsoft 's co-founder Bill Gates stated " DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we have ever created.

Since Gates hires programmers to design his software, doesn't it make sense that the "software " in a cell - which is far more advanced than any man-made softare - had a designer also?

In fact researchers believe  DNA could be the basis of a staggeringly powerful 
new generation of computers.  After computer scientist Leonard Adleman  realized that human cells and computers process and store information in much the same way., researchers around the world began creating tiny biology-based computers, using test tubes of DNA-laden water to crunch algorithms and spit out data.

Researchers are also hoping that genetic material can self- replicate and grow into processors so powerful that they can handle problems too complex for silicon-based computers to solve.

The journal Nature Biotechnology tells of two scientists who built a biologically based computer that can't lose a game of tick-tack-toe to a human , and doesn't need any prompting from outside sources to compete.

Question : if the basic building block of life is smarter than man, don't you think it required something smarter than man to design it?

According to molecular biologist James Shapiro:

There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations . It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject - evolution - with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity. 


Even Shapiro, a staunch evolutionist, suggests examining the evidence - which he has already admitted isn't there.

next post  10th August