This Smacks of Design!

Over the past few years I've read portions of a monster 1500 page standard college textbook titled "Molecular Biology of The Cell - 4th Edition". Commonly referred to by the acronym MBOC, the fourth edition was published in 2002, and the fifth edition is now out - due in part to the rapid increase (explosion) of knowledge in our current times, one of the two signs that Daniel the prophet was told would characterize the last days (Daniel 21:4). The authors are, to my knowledge, strict evolutionists. Yet these guys use all the descriptions you'd use for the greatest of engineered systems. This smacks of design! Here’s some of the phrases they use to describe the systems and processes that run life at the molecular level:

• "precisely engineered""with remarkable efficiency"
• "a highly regulated process"
• "requires the cooperation of many [other parts]"
• "self-correcting"
• "so efficient that there is no possibility of further useful improvement"
• "a high degree of order in a chaotic universe"
• "beautifully simple process"
• "elegant machinery"
• "the fit...needs to be precise"
• "optimally constructed"
• "fascinating reactions...provide elegant testimony to the care with which organisms maintain their DNA sequences..."
• "depends...on their exact orientation relative to one another"
• "elegant and simple"
• "ingenious recognition strategy"
• "the fit is so good that it has been suggested that the dimensions of the basic structural units...evolved together to permit these molecules to interlock"
• "It is especially difficult to imagine how protein synthesis evolved because it is now performed by a complex interlocking system of protein and RNA molecules..."
• "From a purely chemical standpoint, it is difficult to imagine how long RNA molecules could be formed initially by purely nonenzymatic means."
• "an ingenious mechanism"
• "...act as part of a “committee” of regulatory proteins, all of which are necessary to express the gene in the right cell, at the right time, in response to the proper signals, and to the proper level.”
• “...designed...”
• “...a complicated molecular computation...”
• “...are designed...”
• “remarkable feat of information processing”
• “...it is difficult to imagine how it could grow in complexity to allow dozens of signals to regulate transcription...there is not enough room in the neighborhood of the promoter to pack in a sufficient number of regulatory DNA sequences. How then have eukaryotes overcome such limitations to create their more complex genetic switches?”

(You can search the book online here to read any of the above phrases in their context.)

What blows my mind is how the evolution myth is so entrenched that these brilliant authors can rightly discern the presence of ingenuity, which by definition describes the application of imagination and cleverness to a design or construction, yet cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the intelligence behind the ingenuity. They state that these designs are ingenious, and I quite agree. One dictionary definition of ingenious is "having or arising from a cunning mind". Yet few evolutionists seem willing to acknowledge that life might actually be the product of a mind, despite the existence of ingenious designs. 

In fact, a friend of mine had a biology prof last year at Macomb Community College basically state that evolution was scientific fact because it hadn't been disproven. Hmmm. So based on that strange definition of science, I guess we can consider Creationism to be scientific fact (I'm unaware of empirical evidence that proves that life could not have been designed). And I guess we can also consider exogenesis to be scientific fact, since nobody has disproven it. And the latest Indiana Jones movie about aliens would also be fact, since nobody has completely disproven it. I mean, to disprove a question of historical occurrence, you either had to be there, or you had to have access to the recorded account of an eyewitness.  Apart from those two things, you're operating in an information vacuum (with incomplete information), and will never be able to completely prove or disprove anything. So my response to this prof: Nice cop out, evolution-breath.

In the meantime, I'm still reading to find the MBOC authors' explanation on how blind, unintelligent natural processes can possess the qualities of imagination and cleverness.