Jesus often spoke in parables about the principles of the Kingdom of Heaven. Perhaps because the principle itself was too difficult for the hardened heart to grasp or simply because it was illustrated better through an example. Such is the case today. I remember as an undergrad, many of my peers dropped out because the classes were difficult. Naturally with science, many of the principles ARE difficult to comprehend. So when I came across this article, I was very determined to use to as Jesus used parables.
My favorite parable is of the sower:
“He told many stories in the form of parables, such as this one: “Listen! A farmer went out to plant some seeds. As he scattered them across his field, some seeds fell on a footpath, and the birds came and ate them. Other seeds fell on shallow soil with underlying rock. The seeds sprouted quickly because the soil was shallow. But the plants soon wilted under the hot sun, and since they didn’t have deep roots, they died. Other seeds fell among thorns that grew up and choked out the tender plants. Still other seeds fell on fertile soil, and they produced a crop that was thirty, sixty, and even a hundred times as much as had been planted! Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand.” His disciples came and asked him, “Why do you use parables when you talk to the people?” He replied, “You are permitted to understand the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven, but others are not. To those who listen to my teaching, more understanding will be given, and they will have an abundance of knowledge. But for those who are not listening, even what little understanding they have will be taken away from them. That is why I use these parables, For they look, but they don’t really see. They hear, but they don’t really listen or understand. (Matthew 13:3-13 NLT)
Similarly, I want to tell the parable of the programmer. Perhaps in this language many will come to see God’s absolutely perfect design and we are NOT “evolution by natural selection”. Some complain God is too “black and white” and while that’s an issue more for apologetics, I leave you to consider this: “Does a spring of water bubble out with both fresh water and bitter water?” -James 3:11 NLT
My professional career partly involves understanding and writing in different computer coding languages. The one thing about writing in a computer language is you have to be precise. If you get one symbol in the wrong place and it’s not caught quick enough, you could spend a magical evening, or two, or three, reading through the code to try and find out where you goofed up.
DNA is the commonly known as the blueprint for life. Basically, it is the code that makes up living things. Evolution teaches us with enough time, the code that makes up you, me, and other living things can create itself. But is this really practical?
Let’s think through this logically.
If evolution is occurred with no intelligent “programmer” to create the code known as DNA, the following are a few examples of concerns that should be addressed:
- The code for human life had to jump start on its own. So “DOS version 1.0 for humans” creates itself. Knowing that we can’t recreate this “incredible accident”, it requires an enormous amount of faith to believe this could have just happened. Mankind has tried and even stacked the cards in their favor to put this problem to bed. They’ve used controlled environments and applied advanced intelligence, which essentially adds a version of the “god like” element they are trying to prove is not needed, which seems ironic.Their failures have led to crazy notions, such as aliens transplanting life, life “piggy backing” off crystals, and others ideas proposed by renowned atheists. If you want to have some fun watch “No Intelligence Allowed” and listen to Richard Dawkins Babbling about these insane ideas.
- According to Evolution, the next step for the code of life is to begin building itself through mutations (which is a fancy word for mistakes). The evolutionists idea is that some mistakes happened to be “good mistakes” and somehow life was able to identify and hang-on to them. The code gradually builds itself while selectively weeding out the bad mistakes.
- Fingers, eyes, toes, muscles, feeling, smell had to evolve with no blueprint. Now think through this. This means that aimless mistakes over time led to the creation of your body and all living things. It had no idea what it was making, but somehow it got us to where we are today. This is contrary to our creative process. We think something like, “I am going to build a house” and then we start putting pieces in place toward having a house. DNA would have no blueprint, no factories to process raw materials, yet it all ultimately gave us the code more complicated than anything we have created. We tend to assume evolution had to be on some path, but this is not the case.
The final result is a code that would fill 200, 1,000 page New York phonebooks (human DNA). If you unraveled all your DNA it would stretch from the Earth to the Moon 6,000 times.
So can you honestly say this is more reasonable than a super intelligence that created the code?
From a computer programmer’s perspective, it would be insulting to say that this type of sophistication could just create itself and function. We obviously don’t see happy, positive accidents as we create, compile and run our code. Is it really rational to believe this can happen all by itself?
Evolutionists will usually say something like, “because the code is biological (living stuff) it adapted and changed, and after the good mistakes pushed the code to a certain level of sophistication, then sexual preferences, and the environment influenced our evolution.”
This sounds great, but there are some huge problems that any programmer would know. In programming, every minor detail has to be “spelled out” in excruciating detail. For example, if a code writer were to start writing the code for a human and wanted the human to grow body hair if it got cold, he would have to write entire “sub codes” defining cold, hair, how the body should react, and a series of triggers. We can’t assume the code already knows things such as:
- The definition of “cold”
- That the body can identify cold as a property it needs to react to
- At what point the change should begin triggering
- The definition and properties of hair
- Where should hair grow? (we wouldn’t want it growing on eyes)
- How does hair grow?
- Where does the body get the raw material to create more hair?
- How does it convert the raw material into hair?
- How long should the hair grow?
- and the list goes on…
So guys like Richard Dawkins can make fun of religions and hold all the debaptisms they want. But in the end, all they have are grand theoretical, ridiculously improbable, unscientific rhetoric, backed by science fiction. My faith comes from the fact the evolutionists answers are unrealistic when they are understood. Code (DNA) on the scale we are talking about does not make itself. It doesn’t matter if evolutionists appeal to an open system, multiple universes, or whatever else they can come up with. The code had to be written. The complexity, debugging, and fine-tuning would be an enormous undertaking. Code writers know this. We know we could incorporate an infinite amount of time and this would not simply make “itself”.
The next time you are told or start to think that our DNA could create itself over enough time, take some classes on HTML, PHP, ASP, MySQL, and Flash. Once you’ve completed the courses, write a complicated code of your choice. Then multiple your code complexity enough to fill 200, 1,000 page yellow phone books. After that, see if you have the faith to believe what Naturalistic Evolutionists are peddling in regards to DNA.
Read, learn, understand and put all things to the test. Your diligence will be rewarded in a greater relationship with the Divine Programmer known as God. Don’t trust these guys that they “have it figured out”. Trust me, they don’t. Regardless of what belief system you choose, it will all come down to faith. And like many of my Christian brothers and sisters, I don’t have the faith to be an evolutionist.