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.


5 Responses to Observations

  1. 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.

  2. jackhudson says:

    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.

  3. spnogman says:

    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?

  4. IntelligentAnimation says:

    spnogman, you seem to be the one exhibiting nonsense. “Take two machines of almost-sufficient complexity…” How did they come to exist? Luck? Your next step is even sillier, as you imagine these two lucky machines just happen to be right next to each other in the entire space and time of the universe and the Big Bang, and they just happen to be the perfect match for each other to create an interdependent complex machinery that functions in a vital way.

    Yes, that absolutely would require intentional decision-making, not random mess, as a cause. Entropy would otherwise cause the break-down of the “almost” complex enough machine long before any hope of cooperative work is done by the interacting machines.

    Your opening question is more valid, but doesn’t dismiss the concept of complex functionality requiring a mind. You are basically splitting hairs, trying to find a gray area between complex and simple. Even if we could agree on what that transition point is, it doesn’t change the fact that some things ARE too complex to have arisen by luck.

    Moreover, Mr. Hudson makes the powerful point that the ATP synthase machine had to have existed billions of years ago in the first life. Where is the supposed gradual formation? All of this complex machinery had to have existed at the onset of first life.

  5. IntelligentAnimation says:

    An analogy to spnogman’s illogic: Follow these easy steps to become a millionaire. First, get $500,000 then get another $500,000 dollars. See how easy it is?

    Why do some people reach to such ridiculous lengths to try to deny intelligence in biological organisms? It is just too obvious, ubiquitous and consistent to deny. Every time you move your arm you prove that free will intelligence moves matter. Every time you think you prove self-aware conscious intelligence.

    Intelligence moves and forms matter. That is the unavoidable fact. Deal with this reality. Luck theorists really need to examine the motives behind their denial of overwhelming scientific evidence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: