Learn More

DNA’s Flexibility Proves Design

For Age of Design by: Thomas Duke and David Rives Ministries 

Age of Design

Age of Design Campaign seeks to promote the scientific evidence of Design in the “Origin of Life” and our Universe. We believe we are in a period of rapid scientific advancement. Every year we are discovering more complexity in life and our relationship to our planet and solar system. We are calling this period of humanity the “Age Of Design.

The purpose of this paper is to present clear, accessible scientific evidence that DNA exhibits intentional design, with particular focus on its extraordinary flexibility, functionality, and information content. Written for the layperson, this work translates complex discoveries in molecular biology into understandable concepts without sacrificing scientific integrity.

Recent advances in genetics, biochemistry, and molecular imaging have revealed that DNA is not merely a static double helix, but a dynamic, flexible, and highly regulated information system capable of folding into specialized structures, repairing itself, regulating gene expression, and sustaining life. These properties are essential for biological function and cannot be explained adequately by unguided natural processes.

This paper is part of the broader Age of Design Campaign, which seeks to highlight how modern scientific discoveries—particularly since the early 20th century—have uncovered unprecedented levels of complexity, order, and information in life and the universe. Rather than diminishing the case for design, advancing science has strengthened it.

Through analogies, peer-reviewed research, and expert testimony, this paper argues that DNA’s flexibility and informational architecture are best explained by intelligent causation, not chance or necessity. While acknowledging alternative viewpoints, the evidence presented points consistently toward purposeful design at the foundation of biological life.

Ultimately, this paper invites readers to examine the scientific data for themselves and to consider whether the most reasonable explanation for DNA’s remarkable properties is design rather than accident.

DNA’s Flexibility Proves Design: Part 1

We are doing a series on how DNA leads back to a designer. Today, we are starting that series with this premise: The intricacy and complexity displayed through DNA in knots and other similar shapes proves–incontrovertibly–that a Designer is involved. Age of Design Campaign seeks to promote the scientific evidence of Design in the “Origin of Life” and our Universe. We believe we are in a period of rapid scientific advancement. Every year we are discovering more complexity in life and our relationship to our planet and solar system. We are calling this period of humanity the “Age Of Design”.

We firmly believe that the Designer of these intricate designs is the God of the Bible.

But let’s start at the beginning.

What is DNA?

DNA is the fundamental blueprint of life.

But let's get something straight right away. It is not just a static double helix. It's a flexible and dynamic molecule capable of folding into highly intricate shapes and structures.

This incredible flexibility allows DNA to engage in highly versatile biological processes such as replication, transcription, and repair… and these essential functions make DNA what it is. In other words, its very ability to flex, twist, and contort into these various shapes is what makes it the building blocks of life. DNA couldn’t build life, as we know it, without these characteristics.

As we gain insights into the sophisticated design of DNA’s machinery, it substantiates the inarguable brilliance of its design.

What If It Was Static?

Just to start the conversation, below is a list of things that wouldn’t be possible if DNA was static and inflexible:

• It wouldn’t fit inside the nucleus of a cell.

• Cells wouldn’t be able to replicate their DNA before division, meaning growth, repair, and reproduction would grind to a halt.

• Genes would remain locked inside the rigid helix, making it nearly impossible for transcription machinery to access them.

• Cells wouldn’t be able to produce the proteins they need to survive and function.

• Damaged sections would remain inaccessible.

• The cell’s ability to maintain genetic integrity would collapse, leading to dysfunction and death.

• The cell would have no way to organize its genetic material efficiently.

(Source: Chat GPT)

The gist is that DNA wouldn’t be itself… and that also means it could not do the extraordinary things that are essential to biological life. If just that one difference was made to the helix, it would change life in catastrophic ways.And that is just considering one (albeit very significant) change.

Modern Art Versus Skyscrapers

When we discuss DNA, we’re not talking about a modern art painting that is without form. Notice the sense of disorder that this art piece conveys. See Convergence as an example.

Very much to the contrary, we are looking at the dynamism and complexity of something more like a modern skyscraper; exceedingly complex. So complex, in fact, that it has what is called irreducible complexity (according to Wikipedia, this is a system with multiple interacting parts that would not function if one of the parts were removed).

A skyscraper, for instance, must be built to absorb certain shocks with flexibility–such as extreme weather that would demonstrate fortitude, or the difficult-to-predict way that soil and rock interact with the foundation of the building.

As a real world example, consider the multiple levels of expertise that are necessary to achieve the building of the Burj Khalifa in Dubai. It truly invites incredulity to postulate that this building didn’t have a creator!

Because, not only did it have a master architect, it had teams and teams of experts with very high levels of competence working together to achieve the goal. Years (and conceivably decades) of planning had to precede its construction. The cumulative amount of design information contributed toward the Burj Khalifa would certainly fill dozens of books.

Understanding those books is one thing.

Writing those books is another.

Yet executing upon a plan to create them into physical reality successfully is another reality altogether! Watch this video to understand the details of the Burj Khalifa.

You can hardly compare Jackson Pollock’s “Convergence” and the likelihood that it was crafted by natural forces over time to the Burj Khalifa.

They aren’t even fair comparisons, (no insult to Pollock as an artist). But it could be believable, under certain circumstances, that his painting could occur through forces that don’t involve a designer, could it not?

On the other hand, you’d be laughed to scorn at the suggestion that the Burj developed in the same manner.

Jackson Pollock’s works are on a spectrum of clearly designed to not-as-clearly designed. Some of his works, arguably, could have the illusion of design; meaning that they seem to have the earmarks of design, but really developed through natural forces. The Burj, on the other hand, appears to be designed, and truly is designed.

DNA is Irreducibly Complex

This speaks very directly to an important distinction. Regarding DNA, Dr. Stephen Meyer, the author of The Signature in the Cell says this:

“…the appearance of design in living things has been understood by most biologists to be an illusion—a powerfully suggestive illusion, but an illusion nonetheless. As Crick himself put it thirty-five years after he and Watson discerned the structure of DNA, biologists must ‘constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.’”

So Crick (one of the scientists credited with discovering DNA’s structure) said that he literally had to tell himself (while looking at something that was obviously designed) that it wasn’t designed!

Could someone do that with the Burj? Absolutely not. And an architect would never have the luxury of saying that they had to constantly ‘keep in mind that what they see was not designed’ because the same mistake couldn’t be made with architecture.

But that’s the level of self-imposed delusion that has to take place. And the institutions that brainwash students into seeing evolutionary science everywhere support this silly, absurd, and frankly idiotic conclusion.

Obviously the Burj Khalifa was grandly designed. So, too, the brilliant, flexible double helix of DNA. But even more so, to many orders of magnitude, in regard to DNA. These are the building blocks of biological life which can be reproduced! Can the Burj reproduce itself from its own genetic material? Surely not. But DNA creates the human system which has reproductive capacity! Wonder of wonders!

Why, then, do we allow the high ground to those that purport that DNA could have possibly emerged from nothing? Surely we must seize the high ground.

DNA is irreducibly complex, and it forms the basis for all biological life.

DNA was designed; only an absurdist could claim otherwise.

Quick Summary

DNA’s incredible flexibility shows clear evidence of design. As the blueprint of life, DNA isn’t just a rigid double helix—it can fold, twist, and contort into complex shapes, enabling essential processes like replication, repair, and protein production. If DNA were static, life couldn’t exist: cells couldn’t divide, repair damage, or produce proteins. Comparing DNA’s complexity to human-made structures highlights this design. A painting like Jackson Pollock’s Convergence might seem randomly created, while the Burj Khalifa clearly required expert architects and teams. DNA’s intricate design far surpasses even the most complex human structures. Some scientists claim DNA’s appearance of design is an illusion caused by evolution. However, its precise structure and life-sustaining functions suggest otherwise. Like the Burj Khalifa couldn’t build itself, DNA’s complexity strongly points to an intelligent designer, forming the foundation of all biological life.

DNA’s Flexibility Proves Design: Part 2

In the last article, we started to expound on the complexity of DNA, and how its flexibility alone leads to the clear conclusion that it was designed.

We explored what would happen if DNA was inflexible and static, as opposed to flexible, and how it would lose its ability to build biological life; that variable alone would prevent life as we know it from taking shape! We also juxtaposed the complexity of a skyscraper, with its intricate layers of design to a more “formless” piece of modern art, and we concluded that while something more formless (such as a Jackson Pollock art piece) could hypothetically develop over time without a master designer, the idea that a skyscraper could be built by natural forces without a designer is clearly absurd! By the same token, we concluded that DNA with greater intricacy than that of a skyscraper, and with the build-in ability of replication that leads to biological reproduction, DNA is most certainly complex–but more than that it is irreducibly complex.

To add to this point, listen to what scientist and researcher, Casey Luskin says regarding DNA’s irreducible complexity:

“A vast amount of complex and specified information digitally encoded in a bio-chemical language [is] in our DNA … is algorithmically processed through a computer-like system of information processing where cellular machinery reads, interprets, and executes the commands programmed in DNA to produce irreducibly complex molecular machines composed of finely tuned proteins.”

While in the last article, we discussed the fact that DNA would lose its ability to do most of its function if it was static, in this article we will continue to explore what it is able to accomplish due to its flexibility. But when did we discover this dynamic within DNA? It wasn’t so long ago that the double helix was understood to be the shape of DNA.

What Kind of Flexibility is Displayed in DNA?

DNA is able to bend, be tied into knots, and exemplifies flexibility in a variety of other ways. But as recent as 2018, this wasn’t commonly understood to be the case. In 2018, a study published in Nature Chemistry revealed the expansive nature of the genome, being expressed through knots and bends. See article here for information about this discovery. (New Twisted ‘Knot’ Human DNA Structure Discovered)

Then, this year, researchers from the Garvan Institute of Medical Research published research actually mapping 50,000 different DNA knots.

What Kind of Flexibility is Displayed in DNA?

The variations from the iconic double helix shape, that most people associate with the shape of the DNA, are called “i-motifs.”

Quoting the article:

“They form when stretches of cytosine letters on the same DNA strand pair with each other, creating a four-stranded, twisted structure protruding from the double helix.

The researchers found that i-motifs are not randomly scattered but concentrated in key functional areas of the genome, including regions that control gene activity.

"We discovered that i-motifs are associated with genes that are highly active during specific times in the cell cycle. This suggests they play a dynamic role in regulating gene activity," says Cristian David Peña Martinez, a research officer in the Antibody Therapeutics Lab and first author of the study.”

See Full Article Here: Researchers map 50,000 of DNA’s mysterious ‘knots’ in the human genome

But this leads into a very important part of this miraculous discovery. The fact that the DNA double helix isn’t static, and the fact that there is both flexibility, and the fact that it's customized for the purpose that’s needed is extraordinary. But listen to what is said: “[the] i-motifs are not randomly scattered by concentrated in key functional areas…” In other words, these customized DNA helices have a specific function. They are fulfilling a specific purpose. They are random.

And note the language used by Martinez, the first author of this study, as he elaborates.

“They play a dynamic role in regulating gene activity.”

They sound like a multitude of little engines that are fulfilling a specific purpose, and of course we know DNA to be that way already, but this simply adds to the extraordinary complexity of their design.

How Did This All Come About?

So what exactly is this “vast amount of complex and specified information digitally encoded…” as Casey Luskin (the renowned Intelligent Design proponent) says?

These creative building blocks are only becoming more complex, the more that is discovered.

The fingerprints are clear. A Designer has been involved since the beginning.

Surely, this is God “upholding all things by the word of his power…” as it states in Hebrew 1:3.

Because “he is before all things, and by him all things consist,” as it states in Colossians 1:17.

Perhaps if it was formless, as some modern art is, we could come to other conclusions. But it is magnificently complex, it is astoundingly detailed, and it is biologically impossible without a biological blueprint– and the blueprint had to have been put together by a Designer.

DNA’s flexibility proves design.

We’ve made the case.

We dare you to look into the flexibility of DNA and try to come to a different conclusion.

Quick Summary

DNA’s remarkable flexibility highlights its intricate design. Scientist Casey Luskin describes DNA as containing “complex and specified information” processed through a biological system that reads and executes commands. Recent discoveries reveal that DNA isn’t limited to the iconic double helix; it also forms complex shapes like knots and “i-motifs.” These structures play essential roles in gene regulation and cellular functions.

In 2018, scientists published findings in Nature Chemistry, showing DNA can form thousands of knots and bends, proving its structural complexity. A 2023 study by the Garvan Institute mapped 50,000 DNA knots, confirming that i-motifs aren’t random but appear in key genome regions, influencing gene activity.

This flexibility points to intentional design. DNA functions like a biological machine, executing precise tasks through its dynamic structure. Its ordered complexity suggests a purposeful creation, reflecting an intelligent Designer behind life’s blueprint. DNA’s intricate design leaves little room for chance.

Stephen Meyer’s DNA Design Hypothesis…

When we discuss DNA and design, we would be remiss not to do an overview of one of the most important figures in regard to this topic, Stephen Meyer, and his argument.

Stephen C. Meyer made a dramatic splash in 2009 with the release of “Signature in the Cell: DNA Evidence for Intelligent Design.” The Cambridge University graduate made no small impact and was lauded by those far outside the “Creation Science” or “Intelligent Design” movements.

For example, renowned philosopher Thomas Nagel, a self-proclaimed atheist, added “Signature in the Cell” to his best books list for 2009. Nagel importantly noted that, while Meyer is a Christian, "atheists, and theists who believe God never intervenes in the natural world, will be instructed by his careful presentation of this fiendishly difficult problem."

In another book from Meyer, “Return of the God Hypothesis” (published in 2021), he quotes a number of influential figures making statements that lead one to assume, perhaps, that they are believers in Intelligent Design.

“Richard Dawkins notes ‘The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike’

Software developer Bill Gates observes that “[h]uman DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.”

Biotechnology specialist Leroy Hood describes the information stored in DNA as ‘digital code.’”

So, since DNA, according to Richard Dawkins is “uncannily computerlike,” and according to Bill Gates, “far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created,” or, as Leroy Hood says DNA is “digital code”… then we are sure that Stephen Meyer’s arguments in “Signature in the Cell” were met with universal applause. Right? No, not quite.

Meyer, though he made a significant impact in minds across the world, was tarred and feathered by the establishment. It didn’t matter that he had obtained a Philosophy of Science degree from, perhaps, the most celebrated academic institution in the history of the West. He challenged the status quo, and that was enough.

Gareth Cooke, a fellow Cambridge graduate decried “Signature” as a “masterwork of pseudoscience.” Paleontologist Charles Marshall, wrote a review in Science titled "When Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship." He purports that Meyer allows his deep belief to steer his understanding and interpretation of the scientific data and fossil records.

So, we should probably, at this point, allow Stephen Meyer to speak for Stephen Meyer.

What is Meyer’s Argument for Design?

Stephen Meyer summarizes his key argument in this interview with Biola University here:

“We now know that what runs the show in biology is what we call digital information or digital code. This was first discovered by [James] Watson and [Francis] Crick.”

So first, we see Meyer going back to the very beginning of the discovery of the Double Helix and the nature of DNA. He is going back to the source material. Meyer continues.

In 1957, Crick had an insight which he called ‘The Sequence Hypothesis,’ and it was the idea that along the spine of the DNA molecule there were four chemicals that functioned just like alphabetic characters in a written language or digital characters in a machine code.

The DNA molecule is literally encoding information into alphabetic or digital form. And that’s a hugely significant discovery, because what we know from experience is that information always comes from an intelligence, whether we’re talking about hieroglyphic inscription or a paragraph in a book or a headline in a newspaper.

So “written language” or “digital characters in a machine code” is what DNA is. Now, Meyer concludes the argument.

“If we trace information back to its source, we always come to a mind, not a material process. So the discovery that DNA codes information in a digital form points decisively back to a prior intelligence.”

“If we trace information back to its source,” says Meyer, “we always come to a mind.”

Conclusion: A Common Sense Argument

If we are to receive a text message, or an email, or a letter in the snail mail, or a book, or hear a voice, either a whisper or a shout, we know that on the other end is another human. Because that’s common sense. Information requires a creative mind to produce it. There’s no argument to be made that reality is different than that!

But Meyer, digging into the reality of DNA, makes the argument that this genetic code, which is clearly informational, applies the same logic.

Information leads back to a mind.

DNA leads back to design.

Quick Summary

Stephen Meyer, a Cambridge-trained philosopher of science, made waves with his 2009 book Signature in the Cell, arguing that DNA’s digital code points to an intelligent designer. His work gained attention even outside creationist circles; atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel included it in his best books list for 2009, calling Meyer’s argument thoughtful and challenging.

Meyer highlights DNA’s similarity to computer code, echoing comments from experts like Richard Dawkins, Bill Gates, and Leroy Hood, who describe DNA as a “digital code” far beyond human-made software. However, critics like Gareth Cook and Charles Marshall dismissed his work as pseudoscience, accusing Meyer of letting personal beliefs cloud his interpretation.

Meyer’s key argument: DNA stores information in a coded, language-like form, much like written text or computer programs. Since information always originates from a mind, DNA’s complexity strongly suggests a purposeful designer. To Meyer, tracing DNA’s origins inevitably points to intelligence, not random processes.

Further DNA Design Proofs

In a prior article, we wrote about Stephen C. Meyer, and his powerful argument that information leads back to a mind, that intelligent communication comes from an intelligent communicator. This is a basic nutshell of Meyer’s design hypothesis regarding DNA.

But what other arguments are made regarding DNA and design?

Proof #1 The Usefulness of All DNA

The first argument regarding DNA and design is in regard to Junk DNA. And you may ask, what is junk DNA and how does this topic lead to design?

First, the theory of Junk DNA was first hypothesized by evolutionary biologist Susumu Ohno in 1972. He published an article titled “An argument for the genetic simplicity of man and other mammals” in the Journal of Human Evolution. His argument is that 90% of DNA was actually “Junk DNA.” His premise was based on the supposed fact of random mutations over billions of years resulting in organisms. So in that sense, his logic was sound. Surely, if we had evolved from primordial soup, then whatever makes up the building blocks of our biology had to be so-called junk.

Then to add to that argument, in 1980, Nature published articles titled Selfish DNA: the ultimate parasite, and Selfish genes, the phenotype paradigm and genome evolution postulated that Junk DNA would be normative within the DNA framework.

The Human Genome Project, many of whose findings were released in 2002 seemed to substantiate this idea. It stated that only 2% of our DNA was doing anything important. But what was the other 98% doing? The assumption, based on prior assumptions, was that it was trash, useless, and utterly junk filled DNA.

But these ideas were quickly debunked the more research was done. In fact, the world of science quickly became aware of how complex DNA truly was, and the more that was discovered, the less space for Junk DNA there was left!

In 2012, much of what had prior been believed was debunked by a new article published in Nature. Yes, the same magazine that had published the other articles. It was titled “An Integrated Encyclopedia of DNA Elements in the Human Genome.”

Instead of the 98% junk that the Human Genome Project had indicated, this updated study produced by a consortium of researchers from around the world indicated that 80% of the DNA was useful! What an about-face! And the remaining 20% was only labeled outside of the functional DNA category, because they had yet to be able to study it. In other words, it was leading to the fact that 100% of the DNA was useful and functional.

Not a waste.

Not junk.

Not a parasite.

Watch this Entertaining Video to Get the Whole Scoop on Junk DNA!

And that brings in the prior assumptions that we have about the human system, our genes and our DNA. We assert, with confidence, that God put together the building blocks of our DNA. He’s the one that put it together, and He is the ultimate genius – a true “Master Craftsman” as it says in Proverbs 8. He was just throwing together random information. He was precise, and meaningful in the decisions that He made. Thus, we can only assume more and more complexity and purpose in the way that our biological systems function based on that assumption. In fact, we postulate, based on this assumption that the more we zoom in, the more color, dynamism, information, and complexity we will find!

Proof #2 The Untangling of Knots in the DNA

We’ve spoken at length about the ability of DNA to twist, bend, and even tie itself into knots. We stand by the fact that DNA’s flexibility proves design.

But what about when the knots become tangled? What then?

Well, herein lies yet another incredible process that leads to the clear conclusion that design is at work! Enter the topoisomerase II.

This is an extremely important enzyme in your cells that is designed to untangle knots and in DNA strands that arise during replication and transcription. So basically the DNA is going through normal processes, and then needs to self-correct.

Topoisomerase II does this very “correction” by grabbing two tangled DNA segments, holding one steady while it breaks the other segment in two, and then passing the first segment through the break.

It sort of sounds like a scene from your favorite action movie when the hero emerges from a speeding car, and is somehow able to jump from the window of the vehicle from a bridge and land on a moving train below.

But stick with the process here, because it’s not done yet!

The second segment is then incredibly reconnected, and the two DNA segments are released, having been successfully untangled!

But what if this wasn’t happening?

Without the topoisomerases process at work, things would become an impossible mess, making DNA replication, transcription, and cell duplication impossible. The building blocks of life would come to a standstill.

Watch this amazing video that dives into the details of this miraculous process.

Quick Summary:

1. The Usefulness of All DNA

The concept of "junk DNA" emerged in 1972 when biologist Susumu Ohno suggested 90% of DNA was useless, a byproduct of random mutations. In 1980, Nature published similar claims, suggesting most DNA was parasitic. However, the 2012 ENCODE project revolutionized this view, revealing that 80% of DNA has a known function, with the remaining 20% likely serving yet-unknown purposes. This shift highlights DNA's intricate design, pointing to purposeful complexity rather than randomness.

2. DNA’s Ability to Untangle Itself

DNA frequently twists into knots during replication and transcription. The enzyme topoisomerase II resolves these tangles by breaking and rejoining DNA strands, ensuring smooth genetic processes. Without this mechanism, cellular functions would cease. This intricate system suggests intentional design, emphasizing DNA’s engineered complexity and efficiency.

Together, these discoveries argue for DNA’s purposeful design, countering earlier assumptions of randomness and supporting intelligent creation.

Where Did DNA Come From?

Perhaps the most obvious proof that DNA was created is that it simply doesn’t make sense that it came from arbitrary processes and mutations over time as postulated by proponents of Darwinian Theory.

It was designed because it obviously has a designer. It could not have appeared from any other source than the highest genius that is possible for us to imagine.

Now, we won’t assert that it is self-evidently the God of the Bible. It could be an alien entity, but it would have to be an alien entity of incredible genius! Of course, we believe that it was the God of the Bible (and we have many reasons to believe it), but we understand that not everyone will draw that same conclusion from the evidence.

Alas, DNA, like life, is the great mystery of Creation, but clearly a designed mystery.

Could Scientists Really Create Life?

The truth is, even replicating life is difficult for us to accomplish in the lab–let alone creating it!

Since 1995, scientists at the J. Craig Venter Institute has been working to do just that (don’t get distracted by articles like. In 2010 they presented what they called “the first synthetic cell,” and they have been working on a number of other projects since then. It doesn’t seem like they’ve been doing as much research over the last 10 years, but maybe it’s because they’re focused on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiatives as seen on their page here. They sure will struggle to accomplish actual science while they have to give a shout out to every diversity sector that you can possibly imagine. But we digress.

See Their Synthetic Cell Project Here

This group of scientists worked for years expending millions of dollars to create a version of the first man-made DNA. They copied the DNA from a living bacterium and saved the information on a computer. Then, they built a new DNA strand using the same information they had copied. Essentially, they didn’t create new DNA; they just copied what already existed.

They said, “We transformed existing life into new life... we didn’t design and build a new chromosome from nothing.”

While some media called this the creation of the “first synthetic cell,” it’s not entirely accurate. The experiment showed scientific progress, but life, with all its complexity, was not fully created in a lab.

What’s the Problem?

Even with all our scientific advancements, we still struggle to even replicate life!

Listen to this quote from Discovering Intelligent Design: A Journey Into the Scientific Evidence.

As biochemist Michael Denton observed, even the simplest bacterial cells are “far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.”

The complexity of even the most basic living cell poses great difficulty for materialistic explanations and points strongly towards design. And we have not yet discussed a vitally important requirement for all of the structure and functions within every cell—information.

Up until this day, the question of the origin of DNA is just as much of a conundrum for the scientific world, as is the origin of life itself.

George M. Whitesides, a Harvard chemist said this: “Most chemists believe, as do I, that life emerged spontaneously from mixtures of molecules in the prebiotic Earth. How? I have no idea.... We need a really good new idea.”

A really good new idea?

Or what about a really good old idea?

Sometimes the truth is simply waiting to be seen. DNA didn’t appear on its own, and likewise, life could not have appeared on its own.

The origin of DNA is that the God of the Bible, the Creator of the Universe coded it. He breathed His life into it. And humans became living souls with genetic information teeming within them.

Life now exists according to His good pleasure. There is no other reasonable explanation. And no matter how many dog and pony tricks (like the so-called creation of synthetic DNA) our scientific world can perform, it cannot convince us otherwise.

Quick Summary:

DNA’s complexity defies explanations based on random mutations and natural processes. Its intricate structure suggests an intelligent designer rather than arbitrary chance. While some speculate about alien creators, many see the fingerprints of God, the Creator described in the Bible.

Efforts to replicate life in labs illustrate DNA’s unparalleled complexity. The J. Craig Venter Institute’s synthetic cell project, begun in 1995, involved copying bacterial DNA into a computer and reconstructing it—a replication, not creation. Despite headlines, they didn’t invent life from scratch.

Biochemist Michael Denton highlights that even the simplest cells surpass human-made machines in complexity. Harvard chemist George M. Whitesides admits scientists still lack answers for life’s origin, calling for “a really good new idea.”

DNA's existence points to purposeful design. Its origin aligns with the belief in a Creator who imparted life, a view unshaken by scientific attempts to mimic life’s creation.

5 Minute DNA Design Summary

When DNA is considered, from a multitude of perspectives, it becomes exceedingly clear that it could not have evolved or spontaneously appeared. It is, in fact, designed.

Take, for instance, DNA’s structural complexity.

• DNA is highly flexible, capable of folding, twisting, and forming complex shapes like knots and “i-motifs.

• This flexibility enables essential functions like replication, repair, and protein production.

When we look at the kinds of things that are made with complex designs, we see that DNA fits with those much more naturally than things that are made without form.

And truly, DNA’s complexity far surpasses human-made structures like skyscrapers, which require entire teams of intelligent architects.

Even experts like Bill Gates and Richard Dawkins compare DNA to advanced digital code–because it is obvious even to atheists that this information is highly complex!

Stephen Meyer makes a compelling argument that DNA’s informational code points to an intelligent designer. His book Signature in the Cell gained attention even from critics, despite being labeled pseudoscience by some.

As you continue to dig into the granular evidence, within the world of DNA, purposeful design becomes clear.

• The “junk DNA” theory was debunked after the 2012 ENCODE project revealed most DNA has critical functions.

• DNA untangles itself using the enzyme topoisomerase II, ensuring smooth replication—a process essential for life. Ultimately, the most obvious explanation is also the most compelling. DNA both appears to be designed and was, in actuality designed.

• Efforts to create life in labs (e.g., J. Craig Venter Institute’s synthetic cell project) demonstrate DNA’s unmatched complexity.

• Scientists like Michael Denton and George Whitesides acknowledge that life’s origin remains a profound mystery, supporting the notion of design.