The appearance of design language

As each new discovery in cellular biology comes to light, the materialistic model sinks a little more, as it shows itself incapable of addressing the new complexities. Evidence for this claim can be seen in the numerous ID references within the texts written by evolutionists.

Quotes and comments;

A. Oct 10, 2009 — A discovery rivalling the elucidation of the genetic code is the structure of the ribosome – the “molecular machine” that translates the DNA code into proteins. [1.]

- David Hume once famously said that nothing in creation could legitimately compared to a machine, but yet modern evolutionists do this all the time.
e.g. Nobel prize winner Professor Ramakrishnan told BBC News that until the ribosome's atomic structure was determined, "we knew this was a large molecular machine that translated genetic code to make proteins, but we didn't know how it worked". [2.]

''Inside every cell in all organisms, there are DNA molecules. They contain the blueprints for how a human being, a plant or a bacterium, looks and functions. But the DNA molecule is passive. If there was nothing else, there would be no life.'' [1.]

- To refer to 'blueprints' in the cell is to borrow ID language. Maybe the authors could tell us whether these are blueprints, or only the appearance of blueprints.

B. "Based upon the information in DNA, ribosomes make proteins, oxygen-transporting haemoglobin, antibodies of the immune system, hormones such as insulin, the collagen of the skin, or enzymes that break down sugar." [and so much more]

- This is more ID language. One might like to ask them where this information comes from. We might ask Richard Dawkins if this is information? or only the appearance of information?

We see here that living organisms are dependent upon codes, complex information, and code reading machines. This refutes dumbed down theories of materialism. These researchers have Intelligence staring them in the face but an allegiance to materialism prevents them from seeing it. [In other words academic politics trumps truth.]

C. "An understanding of the ribosome’s innermost workings is important for a scientific understanding of life.''

- I don't like the way this proposition is phrased. It's confusing to speak of 'life' as if it were a thing. In my opinion this statement would better worded to read; ''An understanding of the ribosome's innermost workings is important for an understanding of how living organisms function." [The adjective 'scientific' adds nothing.]

In my opinion there is no such thing as life. All the myriad of living creatures are alive in different ways. While it's true many of the processes involved are the same or very similar, we shouldn't ignore the differences. (e.g. does it make sense to say pond scum and penguins both have life?)

Notes;
1. Chemistry Nobel Celebrates Cell Complexity: Creation/Evolution Headlines 10/10/2009
2. Noble prize for chemistry of life; BBC
3. 'Untangling the complexity of this multi-part system won three scientists the Nobel Prize for Chemistry (see BBC News). The winners are Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Thomas Steitz and Ada Yonath.
4. As each new discovery in cellular biology comes to light, the materialistic model sinks a little more, as it shows itself incapable of addressing the subject at hand. The idea that physical laws acting upon matter could produce living organisms is looking more and more implausible. Time was supposed to be the hero that could accomplish miracles, but now this hero is stranded on a rock with the tide coming in. The water is now up to his neck, and rising fast.