Young people value programmers, except when it comes to the cell

Since roughly the 1970s, we have lived in what is described as the Information Age. An age where the acquiring of information or knowledge can be attained unlike any other time in the past. Information, whether accurate or not, is at our fingertips and essentially instantaneous.

The irony is that we now have two generations, Millennials and Generation Z, who have grown up in this age, having a firm grasp of how information is generated or created, the need for a programmer to deliver it to us, and yet are the two generations most likely to be atheist and believe in evolution, a purported step-by-step process that accumulates mind-boggling amounts of complex information without the need for a programmer. This is the epitome of willful ignorance, which is a false belief based on an incorrect interpretation of reality. A person with willful ignorance is not literally intellectually ignorant, but holds a false belief firmly, despite clear evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately, this misconception of many Millennials and Gen Zers also makes them easier to deceive regarding a wide variety of cultural hot topics such as global warming, abortion, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, gender identity, etc., as I previously illustrated here, and here.

Many within the church argue that the origins issue is not a critical one, but I would argue that is very na├»ve at best, because it is a foundational reason why so many young people walk away from Christianity and embrace atheism once they enter college. Additionally, one’s perspective on origins greatly impacts how you interpret and apply acquired information. So, debating and discussing it should be of primary importance.

There are three science areas, abiogenesis, irreducible complexity and information science, that are the easiest for most to grasp, to simplify this debate. However, due to space constraints, and the Millennials and Generation Z population groups being so familiar with programming, or information science, it will be the one presented.

Question: Did cells write their own software to run the thousands of irreducibly complex reactions within the cell, allowing it to function and replicate?

In the 19th century, when Charles Darwin popularized evolution, scientists believed the cell was a simple blob of protoplasm. Instead, scientists now know that the cell is filled with microscopic, molecular machines with circuits and assembly instructions loaded with enough pre-written instructions (information) to fill about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica. In 1970, the late evolutionist and atheist Carl Sagan wrote the article “Life,” for Britannica. Under the section “Chemistry of Life,” he specifically states, “The information content of a small cell has been estimated as about 1010 bits, comparable to about 106 (or 1 million) pages of the print version of the Encyclopedia Britannica.”

Dr. Don Johnson earned Ph.D.s in both computer and information sciences as well as chemistry and is the author of the book “Programming for Life.” Dr. Johnson made a point that is normally excluded from discussions with evolutionists:

“Each cell of an organism has thousands of interacting computers reading and processing digital information using algorithmic digital programs and digital codes to communicate information. Life is an intersection of physical science and information science.” (“Programming for Life,” pp. 83-84)

Explaining the development or manufacture of a functioning computer without including its operating and communications systems would be ludicrous, but this is exactly what evolutionists would like us to believe regarding the development of cells. The irreducible level of complex information to run even the simplest known cell is far too elaborate to have developed using a naturalistic explanation.

Dr. Johnson also writes, “How did nature write the prescriptive programs needed to organize life-sustaining metabolism? Computer science shows programs to require a formal solution prior to implementation. How did inanimate nature formally solve these complex problems and write the programs? How did nature develop the operating systems and programming languages to implement the algorithms? How did nature develop the arbitrary protocols for communication and coordination among the thousands (or millions) of computers in each cell?”

Dr. Werner Gitt, the past director and professor at The German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology as well as head of the Department of Information Technology, states, “Anybody who wants to make meaningful statements about the origins of life would be forced to explain how the information originated.” He also notes that “there is no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.” (“In the Beginning was Information,” 1997)

So, could all this communication complexity and interdependence have arisen from non-living organic matter by random blind processes, which would allow for cell communication within itself, with other tissues, cellular waste removal, repair, reproduction, production of energy, factories to build proteins, transporters to take the produced proteins to their pre-programmed locations, etc.? Impossible. Yet the classic response from evolutionists is that given enough time and through the process of mutations and natural selection, all is possible. This response is nothing short of smoke and mirrors. Geneticist John Sanford, Ph.D., was a Cornell University professor for more than 30 years, and is the author of “Genetic Entropy.” Dr. Sanford’s research illustrates that the human genome has been deteriorating ever since its origin due to the accumulation of mutations, and makes the following points:

  • “Everything about the true distribution of mutations argues against mutations leading to a net gain in information, as needed to forward evolution.”
  • “Mutations appear to be overwhelmingly deleterious, and even when a mutation may be classified as beneficial in some specific sense, it is still usually a part of an overall breakdown and erosion of information.”
  • “Geneticists widely agree that mutations are almost entirely either neutral or deleterious. If any are beneficial, they are considered so rare as to be excluded from consideration.”

Charles Darwin stated the following in his book “Origin of Species”: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down

Game over. Bury the fairy tale of evolution and atheism.

WND is now on Trump’s Truth Social! Follow us @WNDNews

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!

This article was originally published by the WND News Center.

Related Posts