DNA as Language

The “Washington Post” published a fascinating story on the latest findings in DNA research, which finds that genetic replication is far more complex than anyone dreamed just a few years ago. What struck me in the article were the descriptions of genetic processes as language, with the article full of terms such as “code,” “letters,” “transcription,” “translation,” “read,” “instruction,” “message” and even references to what can only be sentences and punctuation marks.

I’d like to hear even a conceptual explanation of how such embedded language could be a random development. It seems to me that language implies a Speaker. Meanwhile, this is more evidence that God created the universe by means of language, His Word.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • mommy

    Several years ago, I heard an excerpt from a speech or interview with Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, in which he said that the DNA was so disorganized, much like a pile of spaghetti, that it was absurd to think it had been intelligently created. I remembered laughing to myself – that the only reason he could believe that was because mere men just didn’t understand it well enough yet. It is ironic that with each new discovery of the marvels of creation, secular scientists pat themselves on the back for being so danged clever and yet continue to mock the supreme Creator.

  • mommy

    Several years ago, I heard an excerpt from a speech or interview with Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, in which he said that the DNA was so disorganized, much like a pile of spaghetti, that it was absurd to think it had been intelligently created. I remembered laughing to myself – that the only reason he could believe that was because mere men just didn’t understand it well enough yet. It is ironic that with each new discovery of the marvels of creation, secular scientists pat themselves on the back for being so danged clever and yet continue to mock the supreme Creator.

  • http://www.brideofchristelc.com Paul A. Siems

    Two things struck me about this article.

    First, the reminder of the language of DNA consisting of 3 letter words. It never struck me until today that the original human language also uses 3 letters for the roots of its words. Hebrew, the language of Adam (given by the Lord) is has the number 3 as its base. Imagine that! The Trinity is demonstrated in the language of God to Man (Adam), the language that continued as the only human language until Babel. But not only is 3 the basis of the audible human language, but of the language of creation, DNA! And this appears never to vary. Always 3, exactly THREE!

    Amazing!

    The second thing that struck me in this article is the continual reference to evolution as the creator or builder or designer of language and of all that is necessary for life. This article demonstrates the deliberate denial of the Creator, the self-chosen stupidity of mankind that St. Paul declares in Romans 1.

    Evolutionists are living in a state of denial, like drug addicts. They substitute a god of their own making for the One whom all of creation declares.

    If only they would hear the Proverb:

    The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. (Prov 1:7)

  • http://www.brideofchristelc.com Paul A. Siems

    Two things struck me about this article.

    First, the reminder of the language of DNA consisting of 3 letter words. It never struck me until today that the original human language also uses 3 letters for the roots of its words. Hebrew, the language of Adam (given by the Lord) is has the number 3 as its base. Imagine that! The Trinity is demonstrated in the language of God to Man (Adam), the language that continued as the only human language until Babel. But not only is 3 the basis of the audible human language, but of the language of creation, DNA! And this appears never to vary. Always 3, exactly THREE!

    Amazing!

    The second thing that struck me in this article is the continual reference to evolution as the creator or builder or designer of language and of all that is necessary for life. This article demonstrates the deliberate denial of the Creator, the self-chosen stupidity of mankind that St. Paul declares in Romans 1.

    Evolutionists are living in a state of denial, like drug addicts. They substitute a god of their own making for the One whom all of creation declares.

    If only they would hear the Proverb:

    The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. (Prov 1:7)

  • Pingback: Veith: DNA as language « kainos

  • Pingback: Veith: DNA as language « kainos

  • Bror Erickson

    Paul,
    I would hesitate in stating that Hebrew was the original language which Adam spoke. God did use that language for the first of the written revelations. But we have no indication that Hebrew was the language that was spoken before the Tower of Babel. For all we know (and I put my money on this :) ) it was Swedish.

  • Bror Erickson

    Paul,
    I would hesitate in stating that Hebrew was the original language which Adam spoke. God did use that language for the first of the written revelations. But we have no indication that Hebrew was the language that was spoken before the Tower of Babel. For all we know (and I put my money on this :) ) it was Swedish.

  • Joe

    It was certainly not Swedish and I suppose some around here will claim it was German. But Everyone knows it was Norwegian. :)

  • Joe

    It was certainly not Swedish and I suppose some around here will claim it was German. But Everyone knows it was Norwegian. :)

  • fwsonnek

    I´m with Joe. I am quite sure it was Norwegian.

    THIS , in fact, is the reason the world is such a mess today.

    We Norwegians are not the sharpest knives in the drawer…..

  • fwsonnek

    I´m with Joe. I am quite sure it was Norwegian.

    THIS , in fact, is the reason the world is such a mess today.

    We Norwegians are not the sharpest knives in the drawer…..

  • fwsonnek

    awesome stuff dr vieth!

  • fwsonnek

    awesome stuff dr vieth!

  • Pingback: Intelligent Randomness? « Planet Augsburg

  • Pingback: Intelligent Randomness? « Planet Augsburg

  • http://www.pagantolutheran.blogspot.com Bruce

    afjdkl therha; cnfnzxll hta dalkkvzx jadfh sazqutri tgjagj It taaoioa is thaoagocu obvi th ous ata;dah that azasghyrgfl;j langugh;aghage jkghgl vaekah evolved ghas;lgd gahgfha; out cnvndk ewwaear of a adkdakldf pri jka;lmdakl; mordial theahe;a

    soup.

  • http://www.pagantolutheran.blogspot.com Bruce

    afjdkl therha; cnfnzxll hta dalkkvzx jadfh sazqutri tgjagj It taaoioa is thaoagocu obvi th ous ata;dah that azasghyrgfl;j langugh;aghage jkghgl vaekah evolved ghas;lgd gahgfha; out cnvndk ewwaear of a adkdakldf pri jka;lmdakl; mordial theahe;a

    soup.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Robert Perry

    I’m struck by something else I’ve heard; not only is it a language with certain rules and such, but it also apparently includes an error correcting code represented well by something like an 11×11 matrix of 1s, 0s, and -1s.

    I am, as it were, something at a loss to explain how such a thing could “evolve,” as an error in an ECC results in myriad other errors, and the matrix to which it corresponds is more or less “statistically impossible.”

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Robert Perry

    I’m struck by something else I’ve heard; not only is it a language with certain rules and such, but it also apparently includes an error correcting code represented well by something like an 11×11 matrix of 1s, 0s, and -1s.

    I am, as it were, something at a loss to explain how such a thing could “evolve,” as an error in an ECC results in myriad other errors, and the matrix to which it corresponds is more or less “statistically impossible.”

  • http://www.brideofchristelc.com Paul A. Siems

    Dear Bror,

    Regarding Hebrew as the first language, Luther states so also.

    More importantly, so does Moses.

    From Adam to Noah to Abram, the chain is unbroken. The languages were confused by the Lord at Babel on account of mankind’s ancient United Nations attempt. So that a repeat of days of Noah would not occur, the Lord broke up mankind’s attempts as pseudo-unity in the name of mankind’s efforts. With a single language nothing seemed to them to stand in their way. The Lord washed them away and saved the day until Jesus would come and command a new flood for man’s salvation.

    But no confusion of language occurred until Babel, and the ones not at Babel, did not lose Adam’s tongue. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate otherwise.

    Abram would have spoken the same language as Noah.

    This really is not a small point, considering this is also the language spoken by the Word made flesh, whose name is Yaweh Saves.

  • http://www.brideofchristelc.com Paul A. Siems

    Dear Bror,

    Regarding Hebrew as the first language, Luther states so also.

    More importantly, so does Moses.

    From Adam to Noah to Abram, the chain is unbroken. The languages were confused by the Lord at Babel on account of mankind’s ancient United Nations attempt. So that a repeat of days of Noah would not occur, the Lord broke up mankind’s attempts as pseudo-unity in the name of mankind’s efforts. With a single language nothing seemed to them to stand in their way. The Lord washed them away and saved the day until Jesus would come and command a new flood for man’s salvation.

    But no confusion of language occurred until Babel, and the ones not at Babel, did not lose Adam’s tongue. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate otherwise.

    Abram would have spoken the same language as Noah.

    This really is not a small point, considering this is also the language spoken by the Word made flesh, whose name is Yaweh Saves.

  • http://www.brideofchristelc.com Paul A. Siems

    By the way, the washing away at Babel was with a flood of languages, not water. Not forgetting Genesis 9:11.

  • http://www.brideofchristelc.com Paul A. Siems

    By the way, the washing away at Babel was with a flood of languages, not water. Not forgetting Genesis 9:11.

  • http://www.brideofchristelc.com Paul A. Siems

    Oops. Sorry about the misspelled words. Especially Yahweh. But then, this is just a transliteration from the original language, with which I struggle anyway.

  • http://www.brideofchristelc.com Paul A. Siems

    Oops. Sorry about the misspelled words. Especially Yahweh. But then, this is just a transliteration from the original language, with which I struggle anyway.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Veith

    Paul A. Siems, thanks for your mind-blowing observations about Hebrew and the code of Three!

    Notice how the article speaks of evolution, as if it were a purposeful designer! If evolution has a purpose, then it is not random and Darwinism goes out the window. Maybe evolutionists would then construct some other theory, and maybe it is time they did. But randomness is the crux of Darwinism.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Veith

    Paul A. Siems, thanks for your mind-blowing observations about Hebrew and the code of Three!

    Notice how the article speaks of evolution, as if it were a purposeful designer! If evolution has a purpose, then it is not random and Darwinism goes out the window. Maybe evolutionists would then construct some other theory, and maybe it is time they did. But randomness is the crux of Darwinism.

  • Bror Erickson

    Paul,
    Luther states a lot of things. Most of which I agree with, but some of which i find to be speculation. I read the history of Babel yesterday to see if there was something I missed. I didn’t find it.
    I find no reason to conclude that those not at Babel did not lose Adam’s tongue. I find no where where it is stated that Abram used Noah’s tongue. There is no eveidnce either way, that they either lost or retained Adam’s tongue.
    As for Jesus, no doubt he read in Hebrew. But I seem to remember from Seminary that he spoke Aramaic, and possibly Greek too. I think we make to much hay out of the whole language bit though. It is really inconsequential what the first language was. And your observation about the relation between DNA, and Hebrew is interesting. It is in fact the language God chose to use in communicating with Moses.

  • Bror Erickson

    Paul,
    Luther states a lot of things. Most of which I agree with, but some of which i find to be speculation. I read the history of Babel yesterday to see if there was something I missed. I didn’t find it.
    I find no reason to conclude that those not at Babel did not lose Adam’s tongue. I find no where where it is stated that Abram used Noah’s tongue. There is no eveidnce either way, that they either lost or retained Adam’s tongue.
    As for Jesus, no doubt he read in Hebrew. But I seem to remember from Seminary that he spoke Aramaic, and possibly Greek too. I think we make to much hay out of the whole language bit though. It is really inconsequential what the first language was. And your observation about the relation between DNA, and Hebrew is interesting. It is in fact the language God chose to use in communicating with Moses.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Robert Perry

    I’m reminded of the joke about the seminary professors arguing what language would be used in Heaven. The Old Test. prof argued of course for Hebrew, that of Moses. The NT prof argued for Koine Greek, the language of grace, and two missions professors debated over whether it would be English (that of most missionaries sent) or Mandarin (that of the greatest number of people).

    The argument raged on into the night, and they needed a bite to eat, and (like the apostles) gathered in one Accord to go to Denny’s. Unfortunately, they got hit by a semi on the way, and when they got to Heaven, the Lord was wearing a monster sombrero and said

    “Buenos dias, hermanos!”

    (one of the biggest successes of modern evangelism is in Latin America…and pardon my Spanish!)

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Robert Perry

    I’m reminded of the joke about the seminary professors arguing what language would be used in Heaven. The Old Test. prof argued of course for Hebrew, that of Moses. The NT prof argued for Koine Greek, the language of grace, and two missions professors debated over whether it would be English (that of most missionaries sent) or Mandarin (that of the greatest number of people).

    The argument raged on into the night, and they needed a bite to eat, and (like the apostles) gathered in one Accord to go to Denny’s. Unfortunately, they got hit by a semi on the way, and when they got to Heaven, the Lord was wearing a monster sombrero and said

    “Buenos dias, hermanos!”

    (one of the biggest successes of modern evangelism is in Latin America…and pardon my Spanish!)

  • http://lutherama.blogspot.com Dr Luther from Lutherama

    I am not sure I would put much weight on DNA as evidence of a spoken creation. The terminology used originates with Man not from Divine Revelation. It is however remarkable that the rules of DNA do closely resemble grammatical Rules but that only suggests an idea of standardized order.

    Francis Crick is given more hearing than he deserves when it comes to genetics questions because of his work with Watson. As tremendous as the discover of the over all structure of DNA is, it does not make him an expert.

    I would also point out that it is the complexity of DNA and other biochemical structures that have started scientists in questioning the validity of the Theory of Evolution.

  • http://lutherama.blogspot.com Dr Luther from Lutherama

    I am not sure I would put much weight on DNA as evidence of a spoken creation. The terminology used originates with Man not from Divine Revelation. It is however remarkable that the rules of DNA do closely resemble grammatical Rules but that only suggests an idea of standardized order.

    Francis Crick is given more hearing than he deserves when it comes to genetics questions because of his work with Watson. As tremendous as the discover of the over all structure of DNA is, it does not make him an expert.

    I would also point out that it is the complexity of DNA and other biochemical structures that have started scientists in questioning the validity of the Theory of Evolution.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X