Creation

My opponent so far has not sufficiently addressed the issue at hand. His round 1 argument can be summarized as "I don't understand why God did things the way He did, and science proves evolution." I will respond to my opponent's claims and questions in the next round. Hopefully round 2 will be more substantial on the part of my opponent. This debate is concerning the logicality of Creation and as such I will make a succinct case for the affirmative. First, we must recognize that biblical creation in particular is a model which attempts to make sense of the history and origin of the universe, Earth, and all bio-organisms. This model is based on Genesis and requires that all scientific observations be taken into account in order to properly develop a working hypothesis. Often the study of origins is perceived as such a daunting task as this endeavor involves the explanation of everything that is. I think we should limit our discussion to biology for the sake of time. In biology (the study of life), we have made many discoveries, the most amazing of which is no doubt the biological cell along with all its constituents. "Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on the earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 gms, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the nonliving world" (Dr. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 250). http://www.youtube.com... The complexity of the cell alone is not what points to an intelligent Creator but it is the study of cellular function itself. For example, consider the superbly efficient molecular motor ATP synthase, a tiny protein complex which makes an energy-rich compound ATP (adenosine triphosphate). ATP synthase manufactures ATP from two smaller chemicals, ADP and phosphate. ATP synthase is so small that it is able to manipulate these tiny molecules, one at a time. ATP synthase must convert some other form of energy into new ATPs. This energy is in the form of a hydrogen ion (H+) gradient, which is generated by a different whole protein system to ATP synthase. Hydrogen ions pour through ATP synthase like wind through a windmill. This comprises a positively charged electric current, in contrast to our electric motors, which use a negative current of electrons (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...). These rotary motors in the membranes of mitochondria (the cell's power houses) turn in response to proton flow (a positive electric current). Rotation of the motor converts ADP molecules plus phosphate into the cell's fuel, ATP. When a stream of tiny hydrogen ions (protons) flows through the base and out the side of ATP synthase, passing across the membrane, they force the axle and base to spin. The stiff central axle pushes against the inside walls of the six head proteins, which alternately become slightly deformed and reformed. Each of your trillions of cells has many thousands of these machines spinning at over 9,000 rpm (http://www.mrc-mbu.cam.ac.uk...). ATP synthase is made by processes which all require functioning sources of ATP such as the unwinding of the DNA helix with helicase to allow transcription and then translation of the coded information into the proteins that make up ATP synthase. Manufacture of the 100 enzymatic machines needed to achieve this require ATP as well! And making the membranes in which ATP synthase sits needs ATP, but without the membranes it would not function (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...). Evolutionists imagine how the ATP synthase motor might have evolved, but these are just surmising, no conclusive evidence has been brought forth. This example of ATP synthase exemplifies the common chicken-and-egg problem many molecular machines exhibit. Which came first the ATP synthase which requires ATP or ATP which requires ATP synthase? This is quite a vicious cycle for evolutionists to explain. http://www.youtube.com... Let us also consider the marvelous macromolecule DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA"s function is to store and transmit genetic information, but it can"t work without many molecular machines. However, as the noted philosopher of science, Sir Karl Popper commented, "What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But '. . .the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA.' Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code. Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics" (http://books.google.com...). Richard H. Ebright and his team from Rutgers University have discovered more intricacies in the process of transcription (http://phys.org...), where information from the right-part of the DNA is copied onto a strand of messenger RNA (mRNA). It is this mRNA that is translated into proteins in the complex machines known as ribosomes. DNA is double stranded, so must first be unwound, so that the right strand can be copied onto mRNA, in a sense like a photographic negative. So one of these machines (ribosomes), called RNA polymerase (RNAP), first locks on to the start of the gene. The next stage is that the anchored RNAP then reels in the DNA which unwinds the double strand so that the messenger RNA copy can be formed off one of them (Roberts, J.W. "RNA Polymerase, a scrunching machine." Science 314(5802):1139"1143, 17 November 2006 ). A problem arises for evolution in the following way: the instructions to build RNAP are themselves encoded in the DNA. But the DNA could not be transcribed into the mRNA without the elaborate machinery of RNAP. And this is also an example of irreducible complexity because it would not be able to perform its function unless every feature was fully functioning. There would be no use being able to dock onto the right spot of the gene and getting stuck there, or unwinding the DNA without being able to wind it back. Furthermore, RNAP uses ATP as an energy source to achieve its feats. And ATP is made by, of course, the ATP synthase which is also coded on the cell's DNA. Therefore, until RNAP is fully formed, coding for cellular instructions would not be possible as the process of transcription into mRNA requires RNAP. http://www.youtube.com... With just these two simple examples of irreducible complexity, I think we can make an argument that the more logical statement is that these microstructures within our cells were created by an intelligent mind. To say these came about by random chance, natural processes is very illogical. Unless you can provide evidence of a viable, logical and natural process by which these structures developed, effectively answering the chicken-and-egg problem, then I believe the creation hypothesis is much more logical.