For example, reading from the centre, the triad AUG codes for the amino acid Methionine. On the DNA the corresponding code reads ATG, a 'T' for the 'U'. When the genetic machinery reads along the RNA to make the proteins essential to living cells, and it comes along the triad AUG the machinery knows that this is where the first code for a different protein starts. AUG is special in that it is known as a start codon. You will notice, that there is redundancy or built-in safety in the code. For example, whenever the amino acid Serine is required in a protein it will be coded for by either UCU, UCC, UCA, or UCG. If it reads the triad UAU, instead of UCU, a Tyrosine amino acid is added instead to the extending protein chain.

 

 

If aeroplanes, TVs and computers are designed by wonderful engineers how much more wonderful is the designer who wrote the DNA for every living organism so that it could faithfully reproduce after it's own kind generation after generation (according to it's inbuilt instruction manual or blueprint).  God has done amazing things. In third year biotechnology I referred to DNA as having been pre-determined. It specifies in exact code language just about everything that a living cell needs.

 

Most items for purchase carry a label. The label advertises the company that owns the design – Just like a car brand, whether it is a Toyota or a Ford motor vehicle for instance. When God designed He put His name into the book of life so that we can get an idea as to who designed this book of life, our internal DNA. How has He done that you may ask?

 

The DNA code is comprised of four letters. This is the secret message that tells us that the designer is revealed in four letters. The four letters are figuratively the four gospels in the Bible, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

 

How does the cell read the code? The message is read in groups of three. For example AAU, or GUA, or GCC, or GCA and so on. So we have four letters, and every meaningful 'word'  on the DNA/RNA must be read in three's. This is the secret message from God that He is three persons – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The four gospels tell us that the author is three persons, yet so harmonious in their relationship to each other that they are the ONE God, Jehova or Jahweh in the Hebrew language. I believe this by faith, because without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6). Even more than faith, it makes total sense because the double code in DNA and RNA could have not come about by chance by any stretch of the mind.

 

Scientists have to agree that in the underlying fundamentals of biology and physics everything depends on a pattern of three's.  If it is the case in sub-atomic physics, which it is, it means that the design of the whole universe depends on a pattern of threes.

 

This is why the Bible says that everyone can come to know the true God because He has revealed Himself in the things He created, and that nobody will have an excuse on judgment day. (Romans 1:16-22).

​

​

MY RENEWED MIND ON BEING 'BORN AGAIN'

​

When I was born again in the country town of Donald, Australia, I was 36 years old and had already  been on staff for five years as a PhD researcher and lecturer in an Australian University (to remain unnamed), and had been quickly promoted to Senior Lecturer. This in itself was remarkable timing by God. Had I become a Christian any earlier, I could have been easily dismissed from staff once I made myself known as a creationist.  Fortunately, in the 1970's to 1980's the  scientific reputation I had built up in post-doctoral research, and then as a tenured academic on teaching staff, enabled me to withstand the many conflicts caused by my open Christian witness on campus.

 

As I have mentioned elsewhere, I always hated double standards! At university, biology lecturers and professors were saying in seminars and lectures how amazing it is that nature put it all together, and yet they refused to listen to anybody who wanted to prove to them that evolution theory couldn't possibly be true. I had always naively thought that academics were searching for truth. Indeed, that was the motto of our university! To my dismay, staff were biased and wouldn't hear of any other explanation except what they were already teaching about the origins of life.

 

Conflict became a daily part of life both at home and at the university. This escalated enormously once the media brought my Christian views against evolution theory to the forefront. I made nation-wide news for a few, very exciting weeks. Newspapers delighted readers with cartoons by Leunig. The TV crew of Jennifer Byrne brought along a magnificent bouquet for my wife Milena, who afterwards entertained them with an equally magnificent meal. I was filmed walking around on campus. I am listed as a creationist by RationalWiki and appear in Who'sWho in Science and Engineering (Marquis, New Jersey, USA), and am mentioned in other data banks.

 

In another TV program, I debated my beliefs with an evolutionist Dr Michael Archer from Sydney. The 20 or so minute program  was moderated by the legendary British TV personality David Frost who had been acquired temporarily by an Australian TV Channel  under contract. It was a humbling privilege to be in the presence of such a man. The only reason I bring this up is to emphasize to our younger generation the prevailing atmosphere of the creation-evolution controversy in Australia at the time. Frost became a world figure just before our interviews.  Earlier in 1977 he gained famed through his two million dollar interview with President Richard Nixon gaining the admission from Nixon that he had acted in the Watergate scandal believing that the President could override US laws at whim. 20 of his co-workers were jailed but never the President himself. US citizens were dissatisfied because Nixon never admitted his guilt; not until Frost managed to break through during the last interview which made Frost an immediate hero.

 

I gained many adherents but also a huge number of enemies, which even included Australia's top creationists to my great surprise. They could not agree with the time-line of the Creative Week and severely reprimanded me over the phone. 24-hour days for the days of creation are still firmly embedded in the minds of many Australian Christians. This state of affairs will no doubt continue until people are willing to open themselves to the whole of the Bible and not doggedly stick to a dogma they have believed for decades. Loyalty and tradition wars against truth as was also the case in the days of Jesus.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

David Frost interviewing President Vladimir Putin in 2000. Kremlin.ru [CC BY 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0) or CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

 

I gave to an unsuspecting academic audience, in an overcrowded auditorium, evidence for deliberate design as part of my usually very popular contributions to the Annual Meeting of The Australian Society of Plant Physiologists in Sydney. I was the Society's treasurer at the time and had been co-convener for two of their previous conferences. However, I thereby lost my international standing in science and close colleagues overnight. The audience listened respectfully but could not believe their ears about what I was presenting. To 'one man', they were all evolutionists.

 

I spoke on the evidence of deliberate design in mitochondria and chloroplasts, because of the absolutely essential relationship there had to be between the biochemistry, orientation, compartmentation and asymmetry of complex protein structures, for these energy sources to be functioning at the sub-microscopic level. There was no denying that there was absolutely no possibility of chance and random evolutionary processes bringing them into being, as well as these little machines (nano-machines) having the capability to reproduce themselves and their energy manufacturing processes. This, in fact, was how the Lord initially began to bring me to Himself once I realized how marvelously they were constructed.

 

In addressing the conference, I was really sharing my personal testimony that it was through blatantly obvious evidence such as this, that the Lord brought me to Himself a year earlier. One did not need to be a rocket scientist to come to the obvious conclusion that somebody had designed these proteins. I did not say that, but that is what I was driving at throughout my talk. Afterwards, a friend and once friendly scientist, who had met and been knighted by the Queen, came over to where I stood, and with a smile gently rebuked me. Yet many scientists throughout the world have joined the club of believing in Intelligent Design. They are not threatened with dismissal, as far as I know, because their only 'crime' has been to suggest that organisms have the appearance of deliberate design. What academics really objected to about me was that I dared to suggest that the Intelligent Designer was the God of the Bible.

 

During lectures to undergraduate classes, I was not embarrassed to occasionally throw something about creation into my lectures for which I was later severely rebuked. Some students wrote to the Dean of Faculty saying that they didn't want a 'Mickey Mouse' degree from a university that had a creationist on staff. I eventually had to sign an agreement that I would never bring up the topic of creation myself. However, they gave me permission to respond if provoked by staff or students in public. The irony is that the university has a motto taken directly from the bible, “Whoever seeks shall find”. Obviously, the university doesn't want to find the truths crucial to one's eternal future.

 

One day this was indeed the case when I turned up before 500 first-year students.  They had turned on the overhead projector showing a cartoon of Noah in a wooden boat, riddled with huge worm holes and a fierce storm front approaching from the distance. They had been waiting with mirth for me to turn up to lecture. I can't remember how exactly I responded, but I briefly took advantage of the situation.

 

After many adverse letters were received by the editor of the city newspaper, and abusive phone calls to heads of departments by some members of the public and from professors at other universities, the Vice-Chancellor of the University was pressured to arrange for two Heads of Department to meet privately with me to coerce me to resign. They wanted me to resign and apply for transfer to a theological college. Prior to that meeting, I had submitted a condensed curriculum of what could realistically become a viable unit for credit at degree level. It was to do with scientific flaws in evolution theory and could have become a subject in a course on the philosophy of science. Naturally, I never received a response to that.

 

At the meeting both Professors, now sadly deceased, jokingly referred to the scriptures but I was resolved not to bow to them but to remain in my position as Senior Lecturer and not resign. I had truth on my side while they only had hopeful theories on their side, as Dr. Michael Behe so clearly demonstrates in the opening video on my website. In any case, why would a theological college want a science lecturer who had no theological training, apart from church-organised bible school?

 

One of the professors, who was always jovial  and a sheer delight at boring board meetings, accompanied me down the staircase afterwards saying, 'Charles I don't really care what you believe or say, but be prepared to take a lot of flack'. Needless to say, I quietened down somewhat after that, sensing that I had overstepped a boundary in times past. This Head of Department was a source of both comfort and conflict. I heard that he had once been a circuit preacher in England strong on repentance, hell, fire and brimstone. Unfortunately, he turned his back on Christ upon reading that Christ cursed an innocent fig tree which consequently died. My impression of academics is that most of them are actually soft-hearted and are perplexed why there is so much suffering in the world. A God of love surely wouldn't allow people and animals to suffer as much as they do!

 

During those years I persisted sharing on creation science internationally and locally, though the head of the creation science movement in Australia severely reprimanded me over the phone. Their charge against me was that I was hurting their reputation because of their long standing commitment to a 24-hour interpretation for the days of creation. I realize that for Christians who have long held these views, it will be a huge and embarrassing backward step to ever agree to a 1000-year day concept, which the whole of Scripture actually firmly supports.

 

Paul the apostle was hardened to confrontation and dissent. People didn’t appreciate the conflict when new theological concepts, challenging old ones, were introduced by Paul. Nor did many of the Jews appreciate the new concepts that Jesus preached. They preferred their old comfort zones for the sake of consensus and peace. Even in Paul's day, there were churches that preferred to retain their old doctrines as is also true of churches to this day. That is why Paul said that all of Asia had abandoned him (2 Timothy 1:15). Even the apostle Peter admitted that Paul’s new theology, though sound,  was hard to understand, ‘As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.’  (2 Peter 3:16). That is why Paul commended the more noble character of the Bereans in Macedonia than those in Thessalonica – the Bereans were willing to search out the scriptures, to see for themselves whether what Paul was saying was true or not. (Acts 17:10-11).

​

Through friends higher up in the system, I discovered that the university had long been investigating how they could legally sack me. Through the Lord's providential guidance,  without conscious deliberation on my part, I fortunately never used the Department's name in any of my  written materials, but only the name of the university and the School's name under whose umbrella our Department was. Furthermore, my friends testified at the confidential meetings that, although they could not agree with what I believed, they strongly believed that I had every right to share my academic objections to general evolution theory and to promote my views in the face of opposition.

​

In retrospect I am wondering whether the aggressive responses by the university and academics had anything to do with science at all. Dr Michael Denton was on the academic staff in our Biochemistry department at about the same time. He had written a book 'Evolution - A Theory in Crisis' which was well read and respected overseas. Although Dr. Denton's colleagues might have raised their eye brows about it, but I never heard any of the other academics nor the Science Faculty creating a fuss about his presence on staff. It seems to me that the root cause of their complaints about me was that I was promoting the God of the Bible as the Creator. The underlying reason for their objections, and to the objections of other academics at other universities who complained against me, might have been on account of my faith in the Bible. I visited Dr Denton in his office and after spending an hour with him I discovered that he was an agnostic and his only objection about Darwinian evolution was that it was not supported by the facts of science. That placed me into a totally different category.

​

When I was in great distress, I remember the Lord showing me a vision watching myself walking through waves with threshing sharks underneath, unable to get at my feet. I was walking on an invisible barrier just below the surface of the water, like a sheet of glass, separating me from the sharks. The analogy of academics pictured as man-eating sharks fitted the situation, I thought.