Genetic code and the shipwreck of materialism

The genetic code that undergirds all life forms on our planet looks increasingly complex, the more researchers study it.

Quotes and comments;

A. May 06, 2010 — The leading science journal [Nature] reported the discovery of a second genetic code – the “code within the code” – that has just been cracked by molecular biologists and computer scientists.
...The new code is called the Splicing Code. It lives embedded within the DNA. It directs the primary genetic code, in very complex but now predictable ways, how and when to assemble genes and regulatory elements.

'Heidi Ledford led off with an article called “The code within the code.” Tejedor and Valcárcel followed with “Gene regulation: Breaking the second genetic code.' [1.]

- Evolutionists and materialists have No business using concepts and words like code. They claim to be materialists, and insist that no intelligence lies behind creation (living organisms) but yet they persist in using words like code. This is deeply dishonest. (As Cornelius Van Til would say; they give evidence that they know God, but yet they deny him.) If people are going to be materialists they ought to speak as materialists. If being a creationist is such a great sin why do they persist in speaking in terms of intelligence and design? Why do they speak as creationists if creation is an absurdity? People like this are speaking out of both sides of their mouth, to use the old phrase. The fact they don't know what else to say, the fact they don't have other concepts to use, should be all the evidence they need that materialism can't account for the data.

B. “Understanding a complex biological system is like understanding a complex electronic circuit.”

- A materialist has no right to compare anything biological with a humanly created machine. The great hero of atheism David Hume said so himself. (Has he been tossed onto the same bonfire he once consigned all metaphysical books to?) He denied the validity of the organism to machine analogy, but now we see materialists themselves using this analogy in their comparisons.

Is it necessary to point out the electronic circuits are designed. I don't know of any that have 'emerged' from the action of lightning on barren rocks.

C. "This time there is no simple table – in its place are algorithms that combine more than 200 different features of DNA with predictions of RNA structure.''

- Are we to believe algorithms are the product of wind and rain? I might believe some Hollywood movies are the product of wind and rain, but not this splicing code.

Summary;
The great pretense of materialism is that every phenomenon can be explained purely in terms of physical law. If people want to be intellectually fulfilled materialists (or atheists) they're going to have to come up with in explanation for genetic code in terms of physical law. They need to tell us the physics of code formation. I see no way this can be done myself. Can you really have symbols without intelligent, personal agents to create them? I think the whole idea is absurd; like accounting for the development of the computer in terms of weather patterns. In the specified complexity of the DNA complex, materialism has met its match. It hangs like a corpse from the living tree of code.

Notes;
1. Breakthrough: Second Genetic Code Revealed 05/06/2010
May 06, 2010 — It’s sometimes difficult to assess the impact of a scientific paper when it is first published, but one that came out on the cover of Nature today has potential to equal the discovery of the genetic code. The leading science journal reported the discovery of a second genetic code – the “code within the code” – that has just been cracked by molecular biologists and computer scientists. Moreover, they used information technology – not evolutionary theory – to figure it out.
2. While the evidence against the Darwinist model continues to pile up, christian liberals continue to deny there's even a single valid argument against it. They continue to claim the creationists have nothing going for them, and that the Darwin model is utterly sound. I can only wonder what they're looking at when they make these claims.
3. If Materialism is dead what (false system) will replace it? I can see three alternatives; out right atheism (I know there's a God but I don't give a damn), some kind of space colony idea (the creator isn't divine), or a vague kind of agnosticism (I have no idea what happened, but I don't really care).