A gentleman by the name of Rajiv Sobhee started a dialog on my Facebook page regarding his beliefs that science points to a greater intelligence. I asked him to put together an essay which is posted below. I will reply to this argument next week.
-James Kirk Wall
Excelling brilliantly at school, science side, in 2003, my path has been a journey of self- discovery through science. Originally from Mauritius, I obtained my bachelor degree in Applied Biology from the University of Applied Science, Bonn- Rhein- Sieg, Germany. I was formerly enrolled in a civil engineering course in my native island, Mauritius where I obtained a diploma in civil engineering. I am a trained ambidextrous person inspired by great geniuses like Leonardo Davinci who were capable of whole brain thinking. My desire to explore the world and my passion for science led me to try Biology. Since I was a young child I had a keen interest to understand if there is validity in faith. Throughout my youth and adolescence numerous circumstances have triggered me to inquire about this deep question that seems to be of importance to the lives of many people and to the significance of my own life. Currently enrolled in a master programme in Biomimetics, in Austria, my growing understanding of the sophistication of the Biology of life becomes ever increasingly more obvious to me. This essay is a very simplified, straightforward and abridged argument for the validity of spiritual belief to our existence. A full documentation of all my investigations would be far too complex and detailed for the scope of an essay and would be more appropriate for a book.
Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/faithandscience1
Can science justify atheism? Why is there such a lack of consensus even among scientists? As rightly put by astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson, the issue is not about the general consensus, but why do some portion of the top caliber scientific community believe in God. As explained by many thinkers, the problem with the ideology of God is that the scientific and technological endeavor to progress is hampered. For example during the wartimes, the computer might not have been developed. People would have instead reached compromise by mutual agreement. During the worst virus pandemic people would have flocked to churches instead to the hospital to find a cure. As rightly put by Galileo Galilee 'I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.' But in my opinion, it is the same reasoning that causes some scientists to reject the validity of Atheism based on the scientific evidence.
If we want to understand the answers to life’s biggest mysteries, we should be talking about details far too complex or complicated for the mass to understand. It is important to define Atheism with respect to a religious principle or from a universal absolute perspective. If a number of high caliber theoretical physicists have some level of spirituality it is because they are trained to see the big picture of existence. So when they see the big picture of life with their level of education they are better able to give spiritual importance to our existence. Some who do not, I believe it is a matter of choice, or a matter of lack of evidence known or understood by them. Biologists like to see the world in a reductionist way. It is not true to say that most scientists are atheists. I have been in the field of Biology as a student at university and the inquiry about our existence has led me to see that a significant number of high caliber biologists believe in some kind of design to life. I can cite Francis Collins, whose visionary leadership led to the completion of the sequencing of the human genome project. He wrote the book, the Language of God. Recently it has been found that the supposed junk DNA of our cells has over a million switches (on or off) that give a second level of programming to the DNA. Even though all our cells have all the same DNA, each specific cell type has thousands of proteins switched on/off specifically for them. We have such protein complexes like the proteasome (Image 1) that looks like a dustbin that degrades proteins which operate on a highly organised mechanism. Increasingly, the level of details found in cells are found to be precise, organised and highly complex. The cell cycle (Image 2) which was thought to be a cascade is found to be highly programmed.
One of the steps called check points given in the cycle above for a cell division to occur is shown in image 3.
One of the videos that provoked me to relook at Biology in a different way was a Harvard animation: ‘Inner life of the cell’ that can be found on YouTube. When I was seeing how some proteins are walking along protein ‘rail’ tracks carrying their loads it was simply unbelievable.
For me, the idea that all this could be the product of a blind evolution was deeply unsatisfying. So I decided to excavate the science from inside out to find out, reading everything about the discoveries in the best magazines like Science, Nature and scientific research papers to understand better and watching hundreds of documentaries about all aspects of life from the universe to human evolution. It was a combination of all the aspects that can exist to modern science that led me to my conclusion that life is manifestly a design.
For the sake of simplicity many of my explanations will overlook the greater complexity of the actual examples.
Features which cannot justify ‘purposeless/blind’ evolution:
3 DNA letters code for one amino acid:
The process of such a conversion itself is staggeringly complex. To give an analogy picture of the number of protein participants for a single tiny process I found the image below. Several hundreds of these are needed for the ‘simplest’ processes in cells:
This is the basic structure that ‘translates’ the information on the DNA to make proteins. Now this structure works with clockwork nanoprecision.
I was very curious about how those pieces are working. Many biologists are not taught to think but taught to remember. But I decided to look closely at the tRNA. It is the blue structure shown on the machinery above. It is a ‘little’ guy that transports the amino acid to the ribosome. Let’s look at it.
I highlighted a very important triplet. This triplet is where the amino acid will bind to. But the amazing thing is that the transfer RNA as shown above is not even originally made with this CCA triplet. Another enzyme fuses this CCA triplet to that specific spot. * And if you watch closely in the video notice how it buries deep inside another enzyme called aminoacyl tRNA synthetase which ‘loads’ the tRNA with the amino acid.
*This sequence is acquired and maintained by stepwise nucleotide addition by the ubiquitous CCA enzyme, which is an unusual RNA polymerase that does not use a nucleic acid template for nucleotide addition. 
Continuing on this, the interesting aspect of the tRNA is the way it is re-engineered to work efficiency by a substantial number of proteins. It is a fine tuning process to make the tRNA work.
Below is an illustration of the various modified bases which enable them to decipher genetic codes very accurately and efficiently in yeast.
This includes the ‘wobble’ at the site of matching:
In this example, the double-ringed G can pair with either a single-ringed U or C. This allows mRNA to be translated with fewer than the 64 tRNAs that would be required without wobble. Some wobble positions can pair with any of the four bases.
Many scientists do not want to accept these evidences and insist blind evolution can explain these systems. But evidently these require an engineering process, in particular the example given, the fusion of the CCA sequence to tRNA, to make it act as a docking site for the amino acid which they themselves have a complementary binding site.
Overlooked systems or basically they do not know!
The very last stage of a division process in cell division involves a very detailed mechanism employing an endosomal sorting complex for transport (ESCRT) machinery.
Closer image of this spiral needed for the cells to separate.
If such detailed systems are needed for a division to happen in the first place for mutations to have any chance to happen, it begs the question what kind of process could have established such systems?
I am not going to give an extensive documentation of other processes like DNA packaging, nanopore complexes and protein targeting in cells. (Maybe I will describe those specific details for a book later.)
Strange observations in quantum physics that calls into question our understanding of time itself.
Double hole experiment:
Could we extrapolate this to observation of design in Biology?
If our mind is capable of doing that, maybe a mind was also responsible for the design. Then it should be superior to ours. Now this is where atheistic scientists have a problem. If something more complex created us, then something more complex than God must have created God and so we have an eternal regression problem. So in their good sense they decide to think that we are pseudo designs or designoids.
But does the science really justify their claims which seem to be supported by the mass. However in my opinion, this mass is largely unaware about the details. A top astrophysicist has little understanding of the deep details in cells and the expert biologist has little understanding of physics. Both become atheistic because they do not look at the full picture.
Now if it is designed by a mind or some kind of system why should it be God? I am unable to give an answer to this yet. But I was lucky to have read a book by Dr Raymond Moody when I was 17 about Near Death Experiences. At that time I had little ideas how to frame these accounts. But after my scientific ‘illumination’ I decided to look at it again.
Last year a highly distinguished neurosurgeon publishes his book: Proof of Heaven which recounts how he contracted a rare brain disease, meningitis, that wiped his neo-cortex but he was still able to experience something surreal, which means the reality of what he experienced was more real than what we consider real. He experienced God as being undescriptible love. Many have described to have seen a light infinitely more powerful than the sun and yet this light did not hurt and they could see the light. Highly captivated by his experience and that of many others it all stacked up with all my suspicions and God was undeniably unofficially proven to me.
So overall, my opinion on the claim of atheism on the basis of science is not valid. It is a matter of interpretation. People like Richard Dawkins are selling their interpretations as truth but in so doing sadly misleading millions of people around the world. In the light of evidences life appears to be much more mysterious and even though evidences are scattered all around, it is up to people to see them.
 The universe documentary: Quantum Physics Microscopic Universe
To subscribe to this author, type your email address in the box and click the "create subscription" button. This list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.
var _gaq = _gaq || ; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-29068020-1']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);