Science, cells and the Creator

Science, cells and the Creator

Science, cells and the Creator

Charles Darwin
Charles Darwin

There's a lot of technical, scientific "guff" which trips
up a lot of us when we want to talk about "Creation Happened ... Evolution
Didn't". Is there any one thing that I can concentrate on where an
evolutionist can't win because I'm not a scientist?

Certainly; it's easy to remember: the first verse in the
Bible tells us!

"In the beginning God created"

Evolution will always trip up on that verse.

Evolution cannot explain the origin of life and
evolution cannot work until there is material which can reproduce... that
is, until there is living material.

Living material is made of cells. (Okay; there are viruses
and bacteria, but neither of them reproduce without host cells to reproduce

Evolution tries to sell the ridiculous idea that simple
things "develop" into complicated things. Not true! Remember the Laws of
Physics we talked about in earlier articles? Remember the First and Second Laws
of Thermodynamics?

What does the second Law tell us?

Chaos increases: order decreases

So: how can order come out of chaos?

Evolution and its acolytes try hard to get us to believe that
a "simple" cell "appeared" and then developed by a mysterious set of
totally untraceable and improvable steps into Saddam Hussein and Mother
Theresa... Quite an accomplishment.

All this rests on one vast assumption - that a cell can be
simple... Oh no it can't!

The most simple cell we can find is more complicated than the
Space Shuttle.

When Charles Darwin looked down his microscope he saw
something magnified 100x. His microscope was a Carey. I used to own a Carey
microscope in the days when I collected old scientific instruments.

When I visited Darwin's home at Down House I saw an identical
microscope to my own Carey on his table. Mine actually magnified only 50x but I
asked the staff (the same staff who confirmed that Darwin never studied biology
and didn't complete his studies in theology either) and they assured me that it
magnified 100x... so let it be.

100x is nothing compared to an electron microscope
where it is possible to see the movement of surfaces caused by atoms!

What do we find in a cell when we look with the most modern

The first thing we find is a cell wall.

The cell wall alone is incredibly complicated and
there can be no cell without a cell wall.

Remember that a single cell has a lot in common with a space
ship. It must carry its own food, or manufacture it or get it from the outside

It has to dispose of its waste products so that it doesn't
get full of smelly nappies (which the early spacecraft were) because waste
products poison the cell.

How does it do those things?

Much the same as a spacecraft. A spacecraft, a submarine and
a cell all have similar mechanisms, which work like air locks.

If you want to go out of a spacecraft you do not open the
door. If you did, all your warm, breathable atmosphere would rush out of the
door and fill the cabin with cold, unbreathable vacuum... not a good idea.

So what has man designed to make it possible to go outside?
First there is a double skin in the spacecraft. Inside it is an environment that
humans can breathe and work in.

Outside is an environment where human blood would boil in
seconds, where there is no oxygen to breathe and where the temperature varies by
over 200 degrees Celsius depending on whether you are in the sun or in the

In other words; a hostile environment.

If you want to go out into space from a spacecraft you need two

One on the inside has to be opened so that the astronaut can
climb into an air lock in his insulated space suit, which carries oxygen to
breathe, and is pressurised and insulated against the temperature.

Then the inside door has to be closed and sealed. Then a
valve is opened into outer space and the atmosphere in the air lock passes out
into space. Once the vacuum in the air lock is equal to the vacuum outside, the
outer door can be opened to allow the astronaut to go out of the craft.

That requires a lot of organisation and design.

You don't get an airlock simply by sending millions of
space-men into outer space and killing them until an airlock "happens"!

And this is the fascinating thing about the whole "Evolution
couldn't have happened" issue.

Once you see that it couldn't have happened; that it is
totally against all human reason and logic; then you realise that there must be
"something" that is making people believe that it did.

What's the airlock got to do with a cell?


You see; a cell has to get "stuff" (waste products) to
the outside without "compromising its integrity" (that's a fancy NASA word
for "leak") because the outside environment is hostile. It's full of things
the cell doesn't want inside.

So, the cell "opens a door" and shoves out the waste
product. Much like an airlock only instead of the complicated system of doors
and valves which is the best that human intelligence can design: it does
something else which is a lot more intelligently designed!

It moves the product to the cell wall, makes a capsule of
cell wall around it, squeezes the capsule through the cell wall with no leakage
and... Bob's your uncle! The cell wall doesn't "compromise its integrity"
and the waste product is outside!

Amazing isn't it. A "simple" cell has "evolved" a
system which is better than the best scientific minds in the world can design

... and people seriously expect me to believe that this is an

Come on; do me a favour! If that is an accident ... what does
design look like?

And that is the next subject... We recognise design - when we
see a mousetrap we know it didn't "appear" as a mousetrap. It is clearly
designed for a purpose and that purpose is obvious.

(Anyone who has ever set a mousetrap will tell you; it's for
whacking the finger-nails!)

The question is, "How do we recognise design?"

Well, a mousetrap is made of several parts; all of which have
to be there for the mousetrap to work. If any part is missing, it doesn't
function as a mousetrap.

At the bottom you have a plate, made of wood or steel, and
this has things attached to it.

At the back is a lever, which reaches to the "cheese
distribution mechanism" in the front of the machine (it is a machine) The
cheese distribution mechanism (CDM) has a wire loop attached to it, this is to
allow the lever to be held in place when the CDM is raised.

In the middle is a spring ("the energy storage system")
and this is attached both to the plate and to the "mouse termination mechanism"
(the "whacker" in common parlance!)

A piece of cheese is placed in (or in some models; attached
to) the CDM

The whacker is pulled up and to the rear against the spring
pressure; the long lever is positioned over the spring and into the wire loop on
the cheese distribution mechanism and all that is needed is either a mouse, a
finger or a curious dog's wet rubber nose to demonstrate that this is a machine
that is very good at what it is designed to do.

You could use it for something it wasn't designed to do, of
course, it would make a useful device for holding papers on a windy day (I use a
rat-trap for this when I am working in the garden on windy days!)

But it is clearly designed and everyone recognises that

Why? Well, if evolution were true (and it never happened)
then those parts which were of no use would be eliminated: wouldn't they?

What use is a CDM without a spring or a whacker? What use is
a plate without a lever?

They would be eliminated as useless if evolution were true...
well... wouldn't they?

This is what is called "irreducible complexity"

It is not possible for a system to work unless all the parts
are there from the beginning.

The human body is crammed with systems that are irreducibly

Take the blood-clotting system.

How could it "evolve"? What happens in the process of "trial
and error"?

Some people would clot from head to foot... and die.

Some would never clot at all ... and usually die: unless
they're related to Queen Victoria in which case they may have had the money for
medical treatment! (Interesting question; did Queen Victoria's money "evolve"
so that her children with heamophilia could be treated?)

What if the clotting mechanism (composed of 38 different
chemicals all dependent on the one before and the one behind, incidentally!) "fired"
at the wrong moment? Blood clots in the blood stream; thrombosis and death.

I'm doing my best to keep this simple, believe me, but the
science is mind-boggling; want to see for yourself ?

"Kallikrein helps HMK to speed up the conversion of more
Hagemann Factor to its active form. Activated Hagemann Factor and HMK then
together transform another protein, called PTA, to its active form. Activated
PTA in turn, together with the active form of another protein calle convertin..."

If you want to know greater detail I refer you to a brilliant
book which has shocked the pants off the evolutionists "Darwin's Black Box"
By Michael Behe: The Free Press, 1996 ISBN 0-684-82754-9.

Behe cites the mousetrap, blood-clotting, human vision and
engines which drive bacteria from place to place.

If you thought that a Formula One engine can "just happen"
wait until you see the design of the engine of a bacterium! Self-repairing;
self-lubricating; finds its own fuel and 1,000 bacteria fit into one millimetre!

But we'll look at that later.

In the meantime; the God who designed you and me and this
whole universe, gave His only Son so that you could be set free from sin.

He wants to know you. If you want to know more about
Him... click here and you will see what to do.

God bless you!