I have been reading extensively in the scientific area seeking to understand micro-biology. What you say! Why would a former engineer who now is a leadership consultant bother reading about micro-structures and the cell? There is a method to my madness. I have news for those who have missed it.
Human nature has not nor will not change regardless of what the evolutionist will tell you. Technology has changed the way we live, but has not chang
ed who we are. We still struggle with our emotions overcoming our reason. We still ask who are we and why are we here? How you answer the questions will have a radical impact on the way you live. Yes: Ideas do have consequences. Rabbi Daniel Lapin is the author of
One of the most profound truths about
For the purpose of trying to clarify the cultural tug-of-war, we need only ask the question: Did we get here by a process of unaided materialistic evolution or did God arrange it? Do we come from a Creator or from apes?
Are human beings created? If they are doesn’t this change the role of leadership compared to if human beings are here by chance? We must understand the foundational principles of who we are and what our purpose is to lead people properly. Understanding who we are and why we are here will have a huge effect on the culture of
Biochemistry is the study of the very basis of life: the molecules that make up cells and tissues, that catalyze the chemical reactions of digestion, photosynthesis, immunity, and more. . . . . .
In its full throated, biological sense, however, evolution means a process whereby life arose from non-living matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means. . . .
The cumulative results show with piercing clarity that life is based on machines—machines made of molecules! Molecular machines haul cargo from one place in the cell to another along “highways” made of other molecules, while still others act as cables, ropes, and pulleys to hold the cell in shape. Machines turn cellular switches on and off, sometimes killing the cell or causing it to grow. Solar-powered machines capture the energy of photons and store it in chemicals. Electrical machines allow current to flow through nerves. Manufacturing machines build other molecular machines, as well as themselves. Cells swim using machines, copy themselves with machinery, ingest food with machinery. In short, highly sophisticated molecular machines control every cellular process. Thus the details of life are finely calibrated, and the machinery of life enormously complex. . . . .
If you search the scientific literature on evolution, and if you focus your search on the question of how molecular machines—the basis of life—developed, you find an eerie and complete silence. The complexity of life’s foundation has paralyzed science’s attempt to account for it; molecular machines raise an as-yet-impenetrable barrier to Darwinism’s universal reach.
Do you understand what Professor Behe is saying? As an engineer - I walked through miles of factories with specifically designed processes to start from raw materials to finished assemblies. When I observed an intricately designed process—I was inspired to be a better engineer and sought to find the person who designed the machines to learn from them. Professor Behe is telling us the design of cells is more intricate than the best process any human engineer has ever designed. Are we really suggesting that a level of complexity beyond any engineer was created by chance outcomes? This sounds like an incredible leap of faith to me! What I appreciate so much about Professor Behe is that he is intellectually honest and let the data speak to him without bias. Professor Behe is one of the early originator of a growing movement known as Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design does not claim to know who designed the system, but claims evolutionary theory or chance could not generate the level of complexity discovered in micro-biology.
Darwin himself stated, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly haven formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
What type of biological system could not be formed by “numerous, successive, slight modifications”? Professor Behe has an answer.
Well for starters a system that is irreducibly complex. By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts cause the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducible complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.
Microbiology is full of irreducibly complex systems and Professor 
Behe displays several examples in all their intricate details in his fabulous book. My personal favorite is the bacterial flagellum. It has a rotor, stator, bearings etc. I was stunned when I read about the flagellum because it looks so similar to the fuel pumps I designed. The fuel pumps had commutators, rotors, bearings, and pumps. The motor mechanism in the flagellum is an ingenious design by an incredible Engineer! A good example of a simple irreducible system is the mousetrap. If it is missing one of its irreducible parts—it will never catch the mouse. The mousetrap needs all of its parts to work and is worthless unless all the required components are functional. This makes it irreducibly complex because any part taken away and you lose the function of catching mice. This is a sure sign that someone designed the mousetrap because it could not have happened through steps of smaller to greater complexity as each step would be non-function and thus not retained. There is not a functioning half a mousetrap.
What does this have to do with leadership and
