As we have seen, Richard Dawkins gives conscious attributes to genes. They think, act, decide, work as teams, etc. Let’s stop for a moment and look at the basics of genes – DNA. DNA is the code that communicates with the cell. It contains a wealth of information. One cell contains enough DNA to stretch six feet in length and your body has enough DNA to reach the moon and back 250,000 times. All scientists – including evolutionist – call the information, DNA code. It is a language that stores everything about our physical make up. The University of Kansas explains it this way:
The DNA of a gene is accessible – but – accessibility is usually regulated. In order to understand this regulation, we need to discuss some details of a gene. If one looked at the sequence of the nucleotides in one of the strands where the gene is located (only one-half of each step in the staircase), the sequence would appear to be just a bunch of nucleotides linked in some apparently random order. However, such is not the case. It is precisely this order which contains the critical information – the code. A gene is therefore much like a sentence in our language – a sentence, like a gene, has a beginning (start here) and an end (stop here) – there are keys which allow recognition. A sentence is made of words – as is a gene. In a gene the words are all only three letters-long, and there are only 4 letters in the alphabet. However, the words are arranged in a three-letter code which “says” – “put the amino-acid right here in this position.” Because there are 4 different nucleotides, and any combination of three-letters is allowed, there are 64 possible (4-cubed) sets of three letters.
Let’s take a critical analysis of the language of genes. What makes a language? There are two vital aspects to understanding any language. The writer and the interpreter must speak the same language. According to evolution, DNA has accumulated by chance to form this complex language without any intelligent intervention. It is a language of chance. But what if the language written isn’t spoken by the reader? If I write:
Language is only good if you can understand it.
Spanish – El lenguaje es solamente bueno si usted puede entenderlo.
French – Le langage est seulement bon si vous pouvez le comprendre.
German – Sprache ist nur gut, wenn Sie sie verstehen können.
Italian – Il linguaggio soltanto buono se potete capirli.
Portuguese – A língua é somente boa se você puder a compreender.
You can only read the sentence in languages that you have been trained to understand. Evolutionists argue that, given enough time, we could randomly accumulate letters into words that can communicate a message. But whose language is that word based on? The word ‘understand’ makes sense to me if it is in English, but the word ‘können’ is gibberish to me. I don’t have anyway to interpret it. Even the letter ‘ö’ is outside of my language. How can I piece together the meaning of a language that uses letters that don’t exist in my language? I could examine it for eternity and would never make sense of it without something to decode it. The language must be known before the book is written or all the information is useless.
What about Chinese, Japanese, Greek or Russian that do not use our alphabet at all? What about computers that speak in 0’s and 1’s? 01000000 = the number 64, but I would never know this without prior knowledge. All the information in the world could mysteriously appear in a book in your hands, but if you have not been trained to speak that language, you can’t understand it and it is useless.
Is it out of line to ask, How did this DNA language get organized and interpreted?
Is the writer of DNA the one who taught the reader?
Is it possible to assemble volumes of information in a small compartment without any prior established order of how it is to be organized and understood?
If scientist acknowledge that there are keys which are necessary to decoding DNA, then does this point toward evolution or design?
Not only does DNA require a key, it also must be in precise order. Mismatches create mutations and almost always destroy the proper function of DNA.
When we look critically at the language of genes, we see that it is a challenge to evolution. All the facts challenge evolution when followed to their full conclusion. Some argue that only the theory of evolution is true science and yet others, such as Richard Dawkins, proclaim that evolution is not theory, but is fact. Is evolution a theory, fact or not either? Let’s take a closer look at scientific theory and see how evolution aligns.