Aramaic Peshitta
Buy Lamsa Bible:
Aramaic Peshitta Bible Repository
12. Creation Happened
12. CREATION HAPPENED
(Not evolution)
12. CREATION HAPPENED
12.1 The DNA is programmed
12.2 A creator?
12.3 Multiple origins
If natural selection wasn’t able to grab the specialized, complex robots that life uses from the hold of King Entropy, what is? Is there perhaps another force at work? One we haven’t discovered yet? Should we cling to a materialistic vision that tells us that the proteins had to be formed this way, because it is ‘implied in the nature of the matter’? Or do we have to call to life a new kind of vitality, which tells us that the proteins form themselves into their complex structures, by a magic motor, a vital force? Should we call upon God and hold Him responsible for withdrawing the proteins from the unlimited grayness of average sequences? The answer is no. No. No, and once again No.
Proteins are encoded into the DNA. They cannot compose themselves spontaneously into their specialized order and the DNA does not know how proteins function, it only encodes. The DNA is information: a molecular hard disk with data, with metabolic programs, a growth program, a man-or-woman program, thousands of give-a-signal-to-the-brain routines and so on. The DNA is programmed. It no more originated by itself than the zeros and ones on a hard disk originated by mistakes in copying. And it is ridiculous to keep holding on to the mechanism of the clerical errors, by just establishing that they are accompanied by a materialistic, magic, vital or even god-like power. Mutation is a form of degeneration, not the driving force behind evolution. It is a bit disappointing, but there is no structural evolution and there has never been structural evolution. If a not-yet-discovered power causes gene growth, and with their help makes beautiful, wonderful new genetic robots, which bring about all sorts of new functions and make new organs etcetera., why don’t we observe this? Why are the fruit flies still fruit flies when their genetic mess has been increased by more than 3%? These insects can reproduce themselves in large numbers within four days and are studied intensively. Why don’t we regularly discover all sorts of proteins in the fruit flies which were not there before and which help the insect in its development/evolution towards a higher complexity, a tiny leap if you are a gradualist, or a giant leap if you are a punctualist? The fruit fly does not have to turn in to a dragonfly right away, but one single entirely new protein that was adopted would support our belief in evolution immensely.
No. If these things would happen, we don’t really need a force like that to explain it, do we Richard? If they didn’t happen, we shouldn’t have to involve such a force in order to maintain our belief in it.
12.1 The DNA is programmed
Try to follow me in the next argumentation:
1. Evolutionists believe that matter has molded itself spontaneously into the intelligent form that can be found in the DNA.
2. Humans, who are intelligent beings, can design DNA sequences and produce specific proteins with their help.
3. It is 20300 times as simple to suppose that an intelligent alien has designed the DNA and this life.
I will clarify myself.
DNA is the bearer of information and thus of knowledge. Information and knowledge are the products of intelligence. Matter cannot spontaneously take on an intelligent form.
A human is the only living creature that is capable of getting to the bottom of the structure of his existence and even tampering with it. This proves a high level of intelligence. However, man’s intelligence is not capable of knowing all. The structure of proteins is so complex and the possibilities are so great (>20300) which would mean that man would be involved in it for the rest of his existence. Should man have that knowledge, then he could design robot-proteins that would do exactly what he wanted them to do. For the time being, (the next 20300), he will have to make do with whatever is present in nature and perhaps tamper with it so that it will do something which comes close to what he wants it to do.
No other life form is capable of reaching the same level of achievement as man. Only the combination of intelligence and knowledge which man has constructed can reach that. It is a clear sign of a lack of intelligence, however, to think that the intelligence that lies in the DNA orginated spontaneously. There is no other possibility than that some sort of ‘occurrence of creation’ has taken place. 'A programming of the DNA'. The only reasonable alternative that remains is I-do-not-know. I can agree with this as wellin a certain way. However, in the meantime, I will keep on working on this option.
Humans are the ‘hackers’ of DNA. They have cracked the code (well, 'some code' might be better) and now they are breaking in. In computer science, various levels of programming exist. The best-known programming language is Basic in one or another form, or javascript is well known too. But if you program in language like that, you don’t type ones and zeros, but words. The interpreter translates these words into a sequence of ones and zeros, so that the microprocessor understands them. Programming on the level of ones and zeros is virtually impossible, because you then have to keep your eye on where each word starts and what word it is, etc. That is why people use programs to aid in writing other programs. The first level after the zeros and ones is called assembler, a programming language in which you can directly type in instructions or words which are then translated into zeros and ones for the microprocessor. But this is still difficult for programming. That is why so-called higher programming languages exist in which a more ‘human’ instruction can be given, such as PRINT or GOTO in Basic. If a software developer publishes a program, the instructions written in a higher programming language becomes complicated, so this is translated into zeros and ones and put on a disk. If you buy a program in the store, you don’t buy the instructions for that programming language, you buy the zeros and ones.
When hackers want to crack a game’s security codefor instance, they have to do this on the level of the zeros and ones. They have to make a zero out of a one and a one into a zero, or to replace one instruction with another. Genetic manipulation takes place on that same level: the changing of the sequence of base pairs (the A’s, T’s, C’s and G’s) in the DNA. Man has developed all kinds of resources to make it easier for him, but it is still ‘hacking’, not programming. Another problem is that when you are given a row of ones and zeros, it is impossible to recover the original programming language and the help programs used to create it. They are not supplied. Only the end result is visible. Thus, if we send a program made up of zeros and ones and a computer to Mars, the aliens will never be able to recover the original programming software (Basic, C, C++ or whatever the program is written in.)
So when we’re talking about an occurrence of creation, you should not think of our own sad attempts and say: it does not exist. Humans hack, they don’t program. This creation-occurrence included (among other things) the programming of the DNA. Therefore, we have to state that it is impossible for us to recover how this was done. The implements, the programming language, the help programs, the ‘tools’ are not supplied. It is very simple: we just don’t know, and we will never find out through scientific research either. Now don’t get irritated right away. Evolutionists would never be able to recover what would have happened before the Big Bang (for instance), so there will always be something thatt we can never discover.[1]
This should not bother us too much. It does however not alter the fact that you can conclude that something like creation must have happened. Science is then like trying to go back as far as you can and recover all of what happened afterwards and attempt to get to the bottom of how it all works today.
The DNA is only the physical carrier of the intelligence and knowledge that is hidden in it, it is not that intelligence itself, just as a computer program is the physical carrier of the intelligence put in to it but is not actually intelligent itself.
12.2 A creator?
Regarding that alien, there are a couple of things we can derive from ‘his’ creation:
In the first place, it is intelligent, or it could never have put the intelligence, the information and the structure into the DNA that is now present. The extent of that intelligence is exponential to ours. It has to know everything about atoms, molecules, chemistry, and so on, and master them all completely. Let us say,just to keep it simple, that his intelligence is 20300 times the sum of all the intelligences of all the biochemists that ever lived. We cracked and hacked the code, but he (or she or it?) designed it. And then you youin order to do this, he (or or she or it) had to be in complete command of the matter.
This alien is not-organic! Because it has designed or programmed organic life itself, it cannot be organic. In the same way, the programmer of the program code (zeros and ones) is not a program of zeros and ones himself. The programmer could have used another program, but he cannot be made of zeros and ones himself. Therefore, organic life simply cannot be designed by another organic life form.
In the same way we can state that the programmer of life is itself not subject to what we call 'death', since 'death' is a typical property of organical life. We could go one like this for a while…
It is non-sexual. Sexuality is a characteristic of some organic life. Bacteria are neither male nor female. Sex is a feature that is entwined in our lives. The programmer of the DNA is responsible for programming sex(uality). It will no more be sexual than it will be organic.
It is at least personal, or has a personality. The maker of something is always more than its creation; it is never less or it could not have created it. People are intelligent and have a personality. The programmer of life is also at least ‘some kind of’ 'personal' it can never be just an intelligent force. This immediately causes a problem since ‘it’ is non-sexual and ‘he’ is at the same time personal. So, do we use'it', 'him', or 'her' to refer to him (?)? Not using a word that already entails a lot of meaning, prejudice, and/or association like God, alien, etc., I will call this ‘entity’ the Creator. Should I write that with a lowercase or a capital C? Allow me to use a capital. The Creator made us. We can show at least a bit of respect. Also, I have to make a choice about which pronoun I will use to indicate him. Forgive me for the shortcomings of our language, but I am choosing for the third person masculine (probably because I am male myself, and maybe because we are used to doing it that way.)
There we are with this intelligent, non-organic, non-sexual, not mortal,but personal Creator®.
Immediately, we have a lot of questions we want to ask. Why is does degeneration exist? Are we practice material; is he doing it again somewhere else, but better this time around? Did he initiate life and then leave it alone? Or is he still hanging around somewhere? Would we be able to find out more about him? Why is death programmed into our genes?
All questions which cannot be answered here, because they exceed the limitations of biological science! This is how it is. The degeneration theory tells us that creation happened, and then it stops when it is looked at from a scientific point of view, since that cannot be reproduced by experiments. This absolutely does not mean that it makes it untrue. It is very hard for science as such to investigate occurrences which happened once, a long time ago, to study the how and why of it all. This does not alter the fact that with some logical scientific thinking it can be deduced and confirmed that something like a creation-event must have happened.
Another interesting question that arises when thinking about this Creator® is: why did he create us in such a way that we are able to get to the bottom of our own existence and even take it in hand? Or, in other words, why has he created us in such a way that we have a self-awareness of an order that does not occur anywhere else in living nature? Why has he made us intelligent, so that we can get to the bottom of the basis or carrier of our life, the DNA? Why has he made us so intelligent that we can hack ‘his’ code?
12.3 Multiple origins
A subsequent aspect of the creation part of the degeneration theory is that the origins of life are multiple, as opposed to what the evolution theory states, namely that there is a single origin of life. This means that the Creator created various different types of organic, living beings which cannot be derived to or from each other, which differ enormously from each other in complexity and form, but which were/are capable of great variety. I will return to this point later on.
This multiple origin does not imply that all current species were created the same as they now present themselves to us. Design isn’t the opposite of change, as the discussion on this topic seems to suggest regularly. On the contrary, a robot is just as well designed as a machine, but a robot is still capable – to a certain degree – of manipulating and adapting to changes. Variability does not rule out design. Multiple origins, therefore, do not mean that there were the same species, or as many species, in the beginning of life as we observe now.
Design is not the opposite of biological change. On the contrary: design can very well implicate adaptation to give the design more survivability.
Prediction: Science implies that one should be able to discuss a theory and put it to the test. This is a bit difficult with regard to creation, as we discussed, but I still think that I can make a few predictions that could reinforce trust in this issue if they were to prove correct.
Prediction:The amount of DNA in the single (i.e. haploid) set of chromosomes is called the C-value. A bacterium is made up of one kind of cell. The more complex organisms get, the more cells there are in that organism: bone cells, liver cells, muscles, nerve cells and the like. Reasonable speaking, you would expect that the more complex an organism is, the more DNA is present. This proves not to be the case. Below you can see a graph on which the average amount of kinds of cells in an organism is rendered vertically and the length of the DNA in base pairs in rendered horizontally. The unexpected values are what is known as the C-value paradox.
Figure 1, the C-value paradox, based on Biochemistry, pp. 1134.
A few examples from this: The genome of lungfish is 10 to 15 times as great as that of mammals. E. coli (that bacteria from the lab) has 3,000 genes which code for proteins. Man has a genome that is more than 600 time the size of the bacteria’s, but only codes for 13 times as many proteins.[2] Certain plants and amphibians have 10 times as much DNA as humans. Another figure is that, in most organisms, only 5 to 10 percent of the DNA codes for proteins!
Why do we find these large differences and why do we have that superfluous DNA?
A complete explanation for the various aspects of the C value paradox is yet to emerge, but they seem to suggest the existence of large amounts of DNA that perform no obvious genetic function.Cell and molecular biology, pp. 443
These ‘unexplainable’ figures are responsible for people viewing this DNA as junk DNA. Which, according to me, is a typical evolutionistic statement. A Creator® wouldn’t put a superfluous, pointless burden like this in the DNA.[3] On the other hand, the differences in the amounts of DNA do not pose a problem for a creation-hypothesis: in one way or another, this DNA will have its own reason and function in each species. Now we have already seen that the genome of the fruit flies has been muddied with ‘internal viruses’. We have also discussed the phenomenon of the dead genes, and duplication of the chromosomes, etcetera., can sometimes occur. But these matters still cannot determine just the major differences.
The prediction therefore is as follows:
Not including certain forms of degeneration, such as internal viruses and dead genes or even duplication of (parts of) the genome in certain species, the greater part of the DNA fulfils a useful function in every species. The part of the DNA that does not code for proteins (which is about 70% in total) is therefore not junk DNA.(The other 25% is generally divided into: 5% genes, 10% structural code like the TEL sequences, 10% (?) junk.)
This would implies that we will still be surprised by some of the developments in the area of genetics in years to come. The outlines of such a surprise are already starting to take shape:
The protein-coding genes amount to at most only 10% of the total DNA. Little is known about the remainder. Initially, the strange short-circuit was made which led to nothing and was described as junk DNA. However, there are indications that the junk DNA also contains some coded information, albeit in a language we cannot decipher...Prof. dr. Arnold van den Hooff
With great surprise, the biologist observes how a total organism, a human being, forms itself from an embryonic cell, and that the improbable complexity of a living being is the result of the early dialogue between the genes. When an embryo comes into existence, it is like a symphony played without a single false note. So is there, despite everything, no cryptography in the DNA? Luc Montagnier, the French DNA researcher and discoverer of the AIDS virus, in Natuur & Techniek, December 1996, ‘Cancer: doubt the genes”.
The idea is that non-coding DNA plays a part in the communication between the cells themselves, and therefore supply a correct embryonic development and ensure the correct preservation of the organism (new cells are constantly made which should ‘know’ what they should become).
prediction:The genetic code has 64 possibilities for 20 amino acids and a stop codon. These 64 possibilities arrange the amino acids in such a way that the third symbol often does not mean a change in amino acid. This means that it is less sensitive to mutations. Some amino acids are coded in 6 different ways, others only one. This is the prediction: generally and on average, those amino acids that are coded for more often are proportionally also more often used in the proteins. Often-used amino acids thus run less of a risk of being changed by mutation. It is pointless to frequently code for amino acids that are almost never used. This prediction follows from the idea that there was someone who thought about it and that mutations should be prevented.
Creation FAQ
questions about the concept of creation
degeneration and creation are mutually exclusive
The fact that degeneration exists does not allow for a Creator® to exist who has made everything beautiful.
Across from the building in which my office is located is a big Catholic church. From my window, I can see it directly. To the left and right of the large doors, two statues are mounted in recesses in the wall. The statues look awful. Acid rain has affected them greatly and almost none of their original shapeliness has survived. They are degenerated. But still, when you see such a statue, you know that it was once created. The degeneration of the statue and its creation do not exclude each other. On the contrary, degeneration is only possible after creation.
is the universe also designed
Did the Creator® create both the universe and the earth??
We cannot conclude this from the data we have discussed. However, it is the case that the earth’s atmosphere is completely dependent on and is determined by the living beings which inhabit it. Plants produce the oxygen in the atmosphere and the ozone layer originates from oxygen, to name only two. The atmosphere and life are intertwined in such a way that you can suppose that the Creator® also designed the atmosphere.
predators
Why did the Creator® develop such aggressiveness in nature and create predators?
I read a noteworthy article in EOS, December ’96 issue, which is represented in Figure 1. The crocodile seems to have been a vegetarian at some point. This means without a doubt that the Creator® did not create the crocodile to be a predator and this thus evokes the question whether this was also the case for the other predators. It is known of felines that they still eat grass in order to ‘keep the digestion going’! It could therefore be so that the aggression in nature is also a kind of deterioration.
Why would this transition have happened? It could have been because degeneration occurred combined with rivalry over vegetable food sources. Because of degeneration, many weak animals originated which made easy prey for the stronger species. Due to (mutating?) variation and adaptation and to increasing aggression, it has become second nature and cannot be reversed.
THE CROCODILE WAS ONCE A VEGATARIAN
Figure 2. Article in EOS of dec '96
One of the most feared carnivores of the animal kingdom once was an innocent herbivore. This is evident from a combined Chinese-Canadian investigation of a 120,000,000-year-old crocodile skeleton found in the Chinese province Hubei. Biologists established that the animal must have chewed from back to front, which is typical for herbivores. The shape of the teeth too – flat instead of the characteristically sharp crocodile teeth – points to a diet of plants. The animal most probably ate grass.The conclusion is extraordinary, especially because all existing crocodile species have similar teeth. As far as the crocodile is concerned, evolution has thus settled accounts with vegetarianism. Thinking up a suitable name for the extinct species wasn’t hard at all: Chimaerasouchus paradoxus. ‘Chimaera’ comes from the Greek mythological animal, ‘souchos’ refers to the Greek god Sebek who had the head of a crocodile, and ‘paradoxus’ means strange.
Another noteworthy item that is closely connected to this is that, according to the specialists, the panda actually has the digestive system and teeth of a predator. But it eats bamboo!?! It is either simple for a species to change diet, or the panda has never made this change even though it could have.
[1] Research into the origins of the universe is a referring process from biology to physics, to science, to cosmology. Finally, it reaches a a limit where the scientific explanations cease and speculation begins.Dr. Willem B. Drees, ‘Scientific creationism is not science’, UT-news - weekly magazine from the university in Twente, June ‘95, year 30, nr. 22.
[2] source: Biochemstry, pp. 1134.
[3] Except for degeneration in the DNA!