Specified complexity

Forget the Darwinist assertions about men descending from apes or birds evolving from reptiles. The supreme problem for Darwinists is not explaining how all life forms are related. For unguided, naturalistic macroevolution to be true, the first life mus have generated spontaneously from nonliving chemicals. Unfortunately for Darwinists, the first life - indeed any form of life - is by no means "simple." This became clear in 1953 when James Watson and Francis Crick discovered DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), the chemical that ecodes instructions for buildings and replicating all living things. DNA has a helical structure that looks like a twisted ladder. The sides of the ladder are formed by alternating deoxribose and phosphate molecules, and the rungs of the ladder consist of a specific order of four nitrogen bases. The nitrogen bases are adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine, which commonly are represented by the letters A,T,C, and G. These letters comprise what is known as the four-letter genetic alphabet. This alphabet is identical to our English alphabet in terms of its ability to communicate a message, except that the genetic alphabet has only four letters instead of twenty-six. Just as the specific order of the letters in this sentence communicates a unique message, the specific order of A,T,C, and G within a living cell determines the unique genetic makeup of that living entity. Another name for that message or information, whether it's in a sentence or in DNA, is "specified complexity." In other words, not only is it complex - it also contains a specific message. 

This incredible specified complexity of life becomes obvious when one considers the message found in the DNA of a one-celled amoeba (a creature so small, several could be lined up in an inch). Staunch Darwinist Richard Dawkins, admits that the message found in just the cell nucleus of a tiny amoeba is more than all thirty volumes of Encyclopedia BrItannica combined, and the entire amoeba has much information in ita DNA as 1,000 complete sets. 

So here's the question, a simple message such as this one, requires an intelligent being, then why doesn't a message of 1,000 encyclopedias long require one?

Darwinists can't answer that question by showing how natural laws could do the job. Instead, they define the rules of science so narrowly that intelligence is ruled out in advance, leaving natural laws as the only game in twn.