There can be only one

Only two options are available to explain the immense complexity of any cell: it arose by chance, blindly and with no goal-oriented purpose over eons of time OR it was expertly crafted, designed and created.

Naturalistic explanations for how life arose invariably involve a scenario in which, time after time, by mere accident and chance, life simply starts to exist because it must. This somehow leads to diversification, also because it must, and by looking back on things in this manner, there is no other way it could have happened, because look how diverse life is on earth. At least this is how scientists would want us to believe things happened.

Natural selection is a blind process, whose left hand does not know what the right is doing, cannot plan ahead or select what may or may not be advantageous because it is not self-aware, it has no goal in sight and has no way to differentiate between good changes and bad changes. If good changes lead to more species, then bad changes lead to less species and if not stopped, to the end of all life. The vast mutations that we have identified are known to cause problems, not confer new functions or a higher order of complexity.

And yet, science contradicts itself time and again by suggesting that through some infinitesimally obscure chance, a few mutations led to the vast diversity that we see today. Never mind that we cannot observe this in a laboratory setting. Not one single experiment has shown that one organism can, through randomly occurring mutations, eventually change into another organism. In fact, if left alone, that organism is likely to experience at least one mutation that is harmful and would possibly even decimate an entire colony. Also, recently it was discovered that contrary to “established fact”, prokaryotes (single-celled organisms) are just as complex as eukaryotes (multi-celled organisms); it’s just that their roles and environments differ, and purposely so, from the viewpoint that both were created by a master Designer during Creation.

Much like a city, a cell has to be regulated and balanced in such a way as to keep everything functioning and communicating with everything else. As we discussed in a previous article, without communication there can be no organization. This communication system is facilitated by a myriad of specialized proteins, which are products of the cell’s genetic code. Almost everything that occurs within a cell and between cells is driven by protein activity. Proteins enable communication, movement, metabolism, reproduction and virtually everything else in a cell’s lifecycle. The interdependency of all of these systems is such that one can’t function without input from the others, and none could have arisen simply by chance since each serves a limited function.

This is why scientists tinkering with genetic information by trying to create the simplest cell could not reduce the genetic code to less than several hundred genes. This was celebrated in the genetics world as proof that we could engineer life. Less important seemed to be the fact that after spending at least $40 million and too many man hours, all they had succeeded was to “recreate life out of life,” which is not the same as creating life out of non-life. (You can read more about it here and here). Please note how hard they worked to ensure that their little bug would have an absolute “heaven-like environment” in which to live and carry out the few functions it was capable of. Besides the obvious irony (specially crafted organism placed in Eden, so to speak), it is difficult to imagine that this anemic organism would be able to survive and reproduce in the natural wild, where conditions are harsh and unforgiving. Before it would even have a chance to adapt or encounter other bacteria that could help it out with some horizontal gene transfers, it would be obliterated. In effect, all they have proven is their ignorant arrogance by investing time and money into crafting an unfit organism that has no chance of life outside the laboratory and serves no ultimate purpose of improving mankind’s lot.

Instead of realizing how little we actually know about the 0.0001% of all bacterial life on earth, we gush fervently in honoring these “pioneers”, who don’t do much besides spending millions of our tax dollars and waste graduate students’ time in an effort to be the first to publish sensational headlines, all for more tax dollars which makes the merry go wheel of Science go round and round.

What we have here is a failure to communicate

What is cellular communication and why is it critical to life?  What does the ability to communicate imply?  What happens when there is a failure to communicate in the cell?  Or between an organism’s different cells?  Or systems of cells?  Or between organisms?  These are some of the questions we will attempt to discuss.

First, what is cellular communication and how does it occur? As the term implies, cellular communication is the ability of cellular components, such as the endoplasmic reticulum, ribosomes, vesicles, tRNA, rRNA, mRNA, spindles, tubules, Golgi apparatus and so on, to talk to and understand each other. By using a simplistic analogy such as “talking”, we mean to say these structures carry on them or around them specific signaling molecules (proteins) that are designed as lock-and-key, in which the signaling molecule has a certain shape and configuration. The recipient and intended target of this protein has a matching configuration. This enables the recipient organelle to latch onto the intended incoming structure and receive the contents, or message. Oftentimes the signal itself will be an ion, such as calcium, sodium or potassium, which passes its electron down and continues the propagation of the signal into a cascade effect. Other times the signal is the energy molecule ATP, which also powers the signaling protein on its way to the recipient site. Once there, the ATP passes one phosphate to the recipient molecule and starts a cascade effect, powering the reaction all the way through until a “STOP” signal (another protein!) is received.

This method of cascading reactions powers many of the metabolic pathways in living systems. It allows a signal to be sent efficiently, without requiring large amounts of ATP, since it is faster and easier for the first ATP to simply pass one phosphate to a nearby waiting ADP molecule, which will continue the domino effect. This example of communication is performed at the speed of thought, itself another type of cellular communication. In effect, I think of the next thing I want to say, transfer that thought by electrical synapse down my spine to my arms and to each individual finger, to press on the appropriate letter at the appropriate time, by individually powering each finger’s retractor muscle with calcium ions, passed through special protein pores, that is then sent to and fires on each muscle fiber. The staggering complexity of it should not be quickly dismissed. This typing of the keyboard is not even an important task as far as keeping me alive. Think of the countless signals my heart receives, on time every time, to keep the muscle fibers of my heart contracting in the proper sequence through the four chambers of the heart, keeping my blood circulating throughout my body, even while I sleep. Such efficiency and exactness is humbling to contemplate.

Why is cellular communication critical to life? Simply because if the signaling proteins that escort the various transport vesicles throughout my body at any given time become distorted due to mutations, unbeknown to me, or due to toxic compounds, such as alcohol or other substances, complications arise immediately. No mutation has ever been shown to be beneficial to a protein that is already completely functional. In fact, once a protein has been properly assembled and folded, it cannot be improved upon. I say properly assembled and folded, because it is in these crucial steps that mutations almost always cause problems. A mutated hemoglobin protein causes insufficient oxygen carrying capacity, leading to anemia, for example. There are many others. The take-home message is that the body’s various systems require constant communication to and from the processing centers in the brain and spine. A misfolded chaperone protein, or leaky pore protein, or misshaped receptor protein or demyelinated axon can cause things to get out of control very quickly.

Another example of the importance of communication is found in the immune system. Recognizing self from non-self is no easy task, otherwise we would never get sick. The fact that most of us are not sick all the time is a testament to the efficiency and tenacity of our immune responses, whether they deal with histamines, viruses, or bacteria. The ability of the lymphatic system to be aware of invading outsiders and to dispatch the appropriate response team to the appropriate location depends completely on hundreds of thousands of signaling proteins, each one specialized according to its receptor. To entertain even for a moment that all of these proteins arose simply by blind luck or trial and error is an insult to a rational person. To think that even one pair of proteins, one to send and one to receive, arose separately by chance, by unguided and blind processes is a stretch; how much more the millions of proteins that are swarming through our bodies at any given time.

What does the ability to communicate imply? Simply put, intelligence. Life requires it, from the seemingly simplest prokaryote to the most complex eukaryote. Intelligence requires an outside cause, it is not inherent in carbon or nitrogen atoms. Life could not arise in a hundred billion years without communication, which is by necessity a requirement of any ordered and organized system, such as any cell. Without communication, there is no organization. Without communication, there is no ability to navigate an environment, no ability to find nutrition sources or protect from threats, no ability whatsoever to grow and divide, no adaptation, no interpretation of sensory input, no method to start any process that is required for life. Without communication, there can be no life. Or else, why are astronomers tuning the world’s largest telescopes skyward? To find signs of intelligent life.  How exactly will they know they have found it? Communication, a signal of some kind. They would be beside themselves if such an event actually happened, yet they dismiss the ability of our own bodies to communicate in the fantastic ways described above, and would rather attribute it to chance or blind luck, rather than an intelligent Creator that has placed this longing and curiosity for the stars in us.

99.9% of microbial species remain undiscovered

Largest-ever analysis of microbial data reveals ecological law concluding 99.999 percent of species remain undiscovered!

In effect, all of the evolutionary theories and stories about how single-celled organisms appeared, then gradually gave rise to complex eukaryotes and how this is now regarded as “scientific fact”, are really based on .0001% of the total microbial life estimated to be out there.  It seems hardly scientific to call them “natural laws” then, doesn’t it?  They are mere observations we do not fully understand, the proverbial drop in the bucket.

It’s the same as me saying I went to the beach in Florida to study sand and I have scooped up a handful, which I took back to my lab for analysis.  Found within this sample are likely at least a few hundred bacteria, some rock dust, shell particles, perhaps a hermit crab if I’m lucky, at least one bottle cap or cigarette butt and maybe even a coin of some kind.  By extrapolating my findings, I can confidently say that I know how ALL sand evolved and how it became deposited not only on this beach, but on ALL beaches everywhere.  I can similarly conclude that all other sand should contain these same bacterial species and shell particles.  I can state without a doubt that I know there is only one type of crab that lives in ALL sand, and that anyone can reproduce my experiment and should find these same items, including a bottle cap and/or a cigarette butt.  Once I’ve made these affirmations and published several papers on the subject, I can begin to derive laws for the distribution of the aforementioned items in ALL sand, everywhere on Earth.  I can write mathematical equations that will precisely measure the concentration of bacteria per square meter of sand.  I can do the same regarding hermit crabs, bottle caps and cigarette butts.

The obvious problem here is that while this endeavor may be scientific and very detailed, it does not accurately represent what could be deduced from simple observation and logic.  One sample does not, cannot, and should not constitute the bulk of my evidence for proposing and defending an idea, much less arguing it to be “scientific fact” and to then ridicule those who oppose my views, because I am a scientist and I am trained to perform these studies, and in fact, perform them every day, so who are you to question the validity of my painstaking work?

Does this sound familiar?  Do Creationists receive this very same treatment from Darwinian evolutionists?  Does academia pretend to know that evolution is “established, irrefutable fact” and that all other theories should be put aside, especially those “tainted” with religion?  I would submit that, having attended both public and private religious education institutions, I have seen this to be the case.  The method most often used is the supposed authority of science, with its blistering and staggering graphs, figures and tables as well as the countless equations.  This is followed by repetition, memorization and in the last instances, peer pressure and the desire of most students to at least not stick out like a sore thumb, to be seen as a normal, regular person. It also stems from the fact that many do not know what to believe nor the criteria by which to determine what should be believed.

I know what you might be thinking: this is just one paper claiming these things, so my own theory is shot in the foot with just this one “sample”.  I disagree.  The paper states it is merely an estimate of the number of bacteria on Earth.  There could in fact be much more; there could also be less.  There are many other examples I could cite where the authors admit their findings surprised them to the extent that their starting hypothesis required revision. What’s important is that these authors had the courage to point out that, unlike popular belief, they are only scratching the surface of the natural world.  More than 70% of the Earth is covered by water; according to NOAA, we have only studied barely 5% of that water (  Keep in mind: there are cliffs, caves, canyons and underwater mountains deeper than the Himalayas are tall.  The absurdity of scientists claiming to be able to know how life arose, diversified, migrated from oceans to dry land and now they can derive natural laws, common ancestors and population distributions beyond doubt is alarming.

As Donald Rumsfeld once said: “There are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don’t know.” Careful consideration and analysis of his statements is proving accurate.

Thinking people deserve more than scintillating news stories, which are designed to assure the masses that all is well, that science can be trusted and above all, leave it to the experts.  For science to claim it knows what things are irrefutable facts, based on a sample of 0.0001% of the whole, is an outright insult to rational people who expect and deserve the truth.

Why most published research findings are false

As is most often the case, when “new and amazing findings” are published there is almost always a media frenzy. When later the findings are proven false, just noise pollution or fraudulent even, the retractions are hush hush. You have to search far and wide to see when and who retracted and why. Sometimes it stands as “fact” until other researchers shed “more light” on the subject, when in fact it contradicts the initial work.

Science is a business, let’s not forget. There are careers made and broken, grants won or lost, fame and fortune and possible TV roles. It is not at all an altruistic search for truth, pure and objective. There is and always has been an agenda, and it is proving to be Science’s undoing little by little, as Darwinian evolution is losing ground with more and more evidence literally being dug up. The science books will have to be completely rewritten to overturn everything we thought we knew about how long organic compounds like soft tissue and proteins can survive, for example, or how whole new species, especially so-called missing links, are really made up based on a couple of teeth and an artist’s drawings.

This is not the kind of science that Newton, Mendel, Einstein or Pasteur did. This isn’t the science that actually got us to outer space and to the Moon. Today’s science relies more on computer simulations instead of real-world testing, which always gives different, mixed results. A program will do the same thing exactly no matter who pressed the start button; there’s your peer review and “reproducibility”. We make grander and greater assumptions based on this research and inflate our egos with so much of our own praise that we end up thinking we live in a simulation ourselves, in a parallel universe or multiverse, where nothing is real and everything including morality is relative. This is the both the height and ignorant lowness of human wisdom apart from God.

This is precisely why our view of how life started, when, who we are and what we’re doing here and who God is, why things happen as they do and what’s the ultimate purpose to it all, affects how we interpret everything we see and experience. This is why we are having legal debates about transgender people and what bathrooms they should use; or why we can blame our genes for the choices we make because we have no choice if it’s in our genes then it’s not our fault; these and so many other dilemmas our society faces are because we exclude God and His absolute truths revealed in the Bible from our reasoning. Who needs God, they say? I’ve never seen Him, never heard Him. Never responds when I need Him so why should I care.  This mentality, or worse, is why some of the most vocal atheist scientists appeal to the ignorant masses, who themselves are more interested in social media acceptance or where they eat/drink today instead of where society is slowly drifting to: the proverbial cliff. This is the reason Communism rose, why Eugenics gained favor, why slavery is still practiced, why everything in society is about instant gratification and materialism. This is the result of both classic and neo Darwinist ideology and it’s going to bring their house down on their own heads.

Though it’s not a popular view and may not be supported by “scientific findings”, I think it’s better to stick to the Bible interpretation of what happened in the distant past, why it happened, and what’s going to happen soon.  Call me old-fashioned but these days it’s becoming easier to defend your faith if you just look around.

The point is to sift and find what is good and keep that, while throwing out the vast majority which is junk. Ironic they did that with DNA for 50 years; imagine how much more we might have learned otherwise. It’s probably just as well; we’d have had a thousand more genetic computer simulations by now to prove that we’re distantly related to some slime mold because some of our genes encode similar proteins. It doesn’t enter their minds that just because we share similar proteins with other organisms doesn’t HAVE TO mean we’re in any way related. If an engineering solution, like wheels for example, works in different vehicles (trains, planes, cars, fans, etc.) it doesn’t mean that they are related or evolved from each other. They are designed and built for different purposes that incorporates excellent solutions that can be shared; why reinvent the wheel when you can repurpose it? A smart Creator and Designer would know. How logical would it be to enforce the belief that the horse and carriage evolved into the space shuttle by random mutations and pure chance over millions of years? Ludicrous.

Intelligence is required to dream up such endeavors and devices in the first place, then design them, piece by piece, build them and make sure all parts fit and work together, then improve them to make them safer and more reliable. Evolution is blind, it can’t do that with machines of steel nor could it ever do that with much more advanced machinery such as biomolecules on a nanoscale level to build something as complex as a prokaryote. We have so much more to learn, it’s sad. But we keep publishing papers with grand titles such as “finally revealed” or “until now, it was a mystery how…” or “new findings solve the riddle…”   Good thing we will have eternity at our disposal to actually learn something about nature and the cosmos. Maybe we will learn humility and awe and reverence in the process, but only if we start here and now.

Helpful Links

I believe that evidence is constantly being revealed in the natural world, through such efforts as archeology digs, paleontology expeditions and the like, which increasingly call into question the validity and antiquated assumptions of the theory of evolution.  It is important to note that it is only a theory, it is not scientific fact.  Most of its assumptions, such as natural selection and mutation leading to higher-complexity organisms, cannot be proven in the laboratory setting.  In fact, even the most basic assumption that life arose simply out of nothing, or spontaneous generation, cannot be proven.  Many have tried and failed to create life in a test tube, yet mankind will continue to try.  Life is not about the “just so” arrangement of chemicals, molecules and energy input.  While we may be able to alter or influence its outcome by way of genetic manipulation, this does not equate to creating life.

With these two great failures of science – proving that life arose out of nothing but chemicals and then went on to diversify through blind mutation, natural selection and unbelievably miniscule chances – rational beings who know in their hearts that there is a better alternative will seek for more information and will find it.  The age of the Internet now allows almost anyone able to read, write and think critically to conduct his or her own research.  There are countless open-access science journals and websites that discuss what mainstream science would wish was true and unquestionably so.  However, as we all know, people are fallible, they can have ulterior motives and often make mistakes; scientists are not immune.

Therefore, I have created a short list of websites that the reader can access for more information related to how evolution abysmally fails to explain life and its processes.  Some websites delve more into theological reasons for accepting Creation and discounting evolution. Others are websites that offer scientific evidence that the earth, dinosaurs, and other topics of discussion are not as old as mainstream science would wish everyone believed them to be.  This research is mostly shunned by mainstream science because it would reduce their supposed ages of time since their Big Bang from 3.5 billion years to under 50,000 years for life to have started and diversified on earth.  If this would become accepted it would upend the entire scheme, instantly dry up most research funds and most likely cause quite a few notable careers to be laughably dismissed and entirely ended.

Without further ado, the list (which will be added onto as needed):