|
|
CONCLUDING REMARKS We have gone to great lengths to cast doubt on the notion that Neo-Darwinian Evolution accounts for the origin of life on Earth because many people and faiths still hold to it in one form or another, and it is not possible to subscribe to 2 completely opposing views at the same time. We wish to make it clear however that Intelligent Design (ID) speaks for itself and doesn't need rescuing by demolition of alternative theories. The evidence from molecular biology is already more than enough by itself to enable ID to be established as the ruling paradigm, and further confirmation from on-going research in laboratories all over the World will only serve to strengthen its case in the months and years ahead. A criticism that could be justifiably levelled at us is that we have chosen to accept the views of one group of scientists (ID advocates) but reject the views of another (Evolution advocates). How did we arrive at that decision? There is a palpable difference in the attitudes of the 2 groups of scientists. Evolutionists can be accused of simply going with the flow, and not questioning what they have been taught for fear of rocking the boat and subjecting themselves to the inevitable opprobrium that would follow from such action. The ID advocates on the other hand had the courage to challenge the orthodoxy and argue that recent discoveries in the science of molecular biology refute the establishment view that there is a naturalistic explanation such as Darwinism for the origin of life. These are people of integrity who were prepared to place their reputations and job security on the line for the sake of what they passionately believed. Many have suffered as a result. Religious affiliation is not generally an influencing factor in the stance of scientists that believe the evidence points to Intelligent Design (ID). Of course we have chosen to believe in the ID fraternity not just because of their exemplary courage but because of the overwhelming evidence that bolsters their arguments. Finally, another small criticism that could be levelled at us is that we have falsely implied the Theory of Evolution eliminates the need for a Creator. Some evolutionary theorists may say the theory has no bearing on how the first life came into existence, the theory only explains what happened after that. It is true that evolutionary theory doesn't appear to have an answer to how the first life form was created and doesn't demand any particular modus operandi, however, that's not to say it doesn't make any assumptions at all about how life first originated. Its baseline is the assumption that the first life was a simple cell and the mechanism(s) described by the theory made a simple common ancestor (or perhaps a few simple common ancestors) and this, or these, evolved into the complex and diverse spectrum of life we observe today. So it leaves open the possibility that God was involved in Creation but only to the meagre extent of creating the first living cell. This is completely at odds with what the Bible claims and allows God only a humiliating bit part role in Creation at best, with by far the largest part being accomplished by evolutionary processes. This is only one small step away from dispensing with God altogether and there will doubtless be those who will continue working to close the gap and complete the task started by Darwin back in the middle 1800's. In fact the pond scum idea does just that because it assumes the first living cell somehow miraculously emerged from chemically laden water (primordial or prebiotic soup) around 4 billion years ago without any assistance. So the bottom-line is that Neo-Darwinian Evolution either relies on a non-existent God to kick start the process by kindly assembling a living cell, or it is dependent on the myth that a living cell could miraculously arise by itself from contaminated water like a phoenix. It is inconceivable that a fully functional cell could ever emerge by chance in the latter manner, known as chemical evolution, a discredited starting point for evolution. Scientists are unable to achieve the feat of engineering needed to build a living cell from scratch with the resources available today, and it is extremely unlikely that this will ever become possible. You may hear claims to the contrary but in reality what is typically being achieved, for example, is genetic modification of existing living cells, or gene therapy, to help cure diseases. Nanomachines with high specificity that use selected DNA sequences extracted from living cells are also under development. These are based on the biological nanomachines found in abundance inside all living organisms and may be used transport medicine to parts of the body to combat cancer for example. The use of existing cell material to produce molecular machines is a far cry from building a replicating living cell using only raw laboratory chemicals, but it is still a remarkable achievement and a lot of research is currently being concentrated in these areas. These scientific discoveries are being made courtesy of the God who created life in the first instance revealing to us the intricacies of His created forms. Whether we will ever be able to mimic the most complex macromolecular machines found within cells, often in the form of multi-protein complexes remains to be seen.  
In cellular biology, macromolecular machines frequently perform tasks essential for life, such as DNA replication and ATP synthesis.
Molecular machine developments
Further reading about origins
What Is Intelligent Design?
Convincing evidence for Design from Evolution News
|