Articles
God, Our Creator
Man (the creature) will never exhaust the mind of God (the Creator). In fact, the more deeply we peer into the inner workings of biological life, the more complex we understand the machinery to be.
Long ago David was awed by the life process: “For You have formed my inward parts; You have covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well” (Ps. 139:13-14).
While David understood the connection between physical intimacy and babies and marveled at what developed in a mother’s womb, he knew nothing of DNA and the intricate chemical processes that formed a child. Still, he marveled at the powerful work of the Creator.
But God understood DNA. He planned that ...
... a DNA molecule [be] comprised of thousands of long chains of nucleotides (polynucleotides), each consisting of three parts. One part is the pentose or five carbon sugar known as deoxyribose. A second part is a phosphate group, and the third part is a nitrogen base of either adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C) or thymine (T). Alternating sugar and phosphate molecules connect each nucleotide chain in a ladder-type configuration coiled around a central axis in a twisted double spiral or helix.
The two chains run in opposite directions, with 10 nucleotides per turn of the helix. The rungs of the bases are pairs of either adenine and thymine (A-T) or cytosine with guanine (C-G). A relatively weak hydrogen bond connects these bases” (Thompson, The Scientific Case for Creation, p. 164).
And how these chemical compositions function in genetic activity is mind-boggling.
Chance? No chance. Random mutations? No way. “The almost unimaginable complexity of the information on the genetic code along with the simplicity of its concept (four letters made of simple chemical molecules), together with its extreme compactness, imply an inconceivably high intelligence behind it. Present-day information theory permits no other interpretation of the facts of the genetic code” (ibid, quoting A.E. Wilder-Smith, p. 172).
Design would be obvious in any other context, but here scientists who are loyal to Darwin refuse to admit the obvious.
