Often when I argue that cells are infused with information driven molecular machinery and that this observation constitutes the basis for a readily falsifiable theory on why the cell is the product of the effort of a mind, opponents will accuse me of over-extending the use of the word ‘machine’. That is why I appreciate animations like the one below – it clearly depicts a molecular motor, that has been an integral part of cells since the beginning of life. It is clearly a mechanism composed of multiple integrated and highly interdependent parts that both convert energy into work, and provide the fuel on which the rest of the cell subsists.
The ATP synthase is definitely an information driven molecular machine, and the best explanation of its existence is that it was designed by a mind.
Give to the Salvation Army
Don’t you think your theory is a bit of a stretch? I mean, couldn’t you look at anything and argue that it’s the product of a creator simply because of the way it works or how it looks? Tell me this, if we were created by a creator, why would he have made things so incredibly complex and flawed? Why would other species evolve, but humans stay the same? If having a “machine” component to something means that it was created by a god, does that mean that cranes, trains, and automobiles were also a creation of his? Did he create disease cells? Did he create all animals/creatures? Dinosaurs? Other planets? I don’t mean to sound mean, but I think that saying that how cells work is proof of god, just doesn’t make any sense to me.
Thank you for your comments Tammy.
I do need to correct something – the contention is not “having a “machine” component to something means that it was created by a god”, the contention is machines of sufficient complexity require the presence of a mind. That being the case, then yes, we would conclude that “cranes, trains, and automobiles” were the product of a mind. Imagine if the Mars Rover found even a simple crane on Mars – we would see that as significant evidence of the presence of some intelligence. The information driven machinery in the simplest cells is much more complex than any machine we have ever designed – and such machinery appears to have been present from the earliest times of life’s existence.
As to the idea that such machines are ‘flawed’ it is important to note that a flaw in and of itself doesn’t negate the evidence that a mechanism was designed. When a computer crashes, we don’t conclude – well, this one must not have been designed! In fact machines we are familiar with fail for any number of reasons – poor manufacture, user error, intentional malfunctions caused by malicious viruses, wear and tear over time. The reason a mechanism fails is often not a fault with the design itself. As a Christian, this fits in with my worldview – nature often fails in large part due to its misuse, and due to maliciousness. It is also winding down and wearing out.
One of the reasons what the video depicts (ATP Synthase) is so critical to this understanding is that this machine is ubiquitous in living cells. You, me, plants. and single cell organisms. At that level there is no simple vs. complex – it is all incredibly complex. It is also anticipatory – meaning that essential components present in the first life forms were also suited to the cells our bodies use. If they came about as the result of unplanned ‘tinkering’ by evolution, then how is it they are so perfectly suited for forms that didn’t exist when they originated?
The best explanation for that is the planning and intention of a mind.
I hope this is useful.
nonsense. what is “sufficient” complexity?
take two machines of almost-sufficient complexity and imagine they accidentally fell next to each other so they interact in a sufficiently complex manner. does that require a mind? how else does one make a sufficiently complex machine?