Recently pointed out by whom? Did you read that in the scientific literature, or was that one of the untruths constantly invented by some creationist conman at Answers in Genesis or similar website?
Hint: no matter how scientific the words they use look, you will not find any true science discussed by The Discovery Institute, Institute for Creation Research (which does no scientific research), etc. If you are truly interested in science, there is a plethora of resources that provide real scientific information.
Despite what any of those con websites claim, we actually do understand quite well how cells work.
I am not a creationist (though I am a Christian) and thought the debate was painful to watch. That being said, the Discovery Institute is not a Creationist organization or even specific to Christianity. Intelligent design is not creationism, nor is it a religious position. It is the application of design theory to the natural and living world.
As for science or research - from the new intelligent design research lab, there was discussion of two technical articles published in the Journal of Molecular Biology by protein scientist Doug Axe (for abstracts, see here and here). As the New Scientist acknowledged, funding for the research underlying these peer-reviewed articles was provided by Discovery Institute's research fellowship program--thus disproving the twin canards that Discovery Institute does not support scientific research, and that pro-ID scientists do not publish peer-reviewed research.
For more ID papers see HERE or HERE
Excerpt from Pulitzer Prize-winning author Daniel Walker Howe’s What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1844, p. 464:
As this chapter is written in the early twenty-first century, the hypothesis that the universe reflect intelligent design has provoked a bitter debate in the United States. How very different was the intellectual world of the early nineteenth century! Then, virtually everyone believed in intelligent design. Faith in the rational design of the universe underlay the world-view of the Enlightenment, shared by Isaac Newton, John Locke, and the American Founding Fathers. Even the outspoke critics of Christianity embraced not atheism but deism, that is, belief in an impersonal, remote deity who had created the universe and designed it so perfectly that it ran along of its own accord, following natural laws without need for further divine intervention. The common used expression “the book of nature” referred to the universal practice of viewing nature as a revelation of God’s power and wisdom. Christians were fond of saying that they accepted two divine revelations: the Bible and the book of nature. For desists like Thomas Paine, the book of nature alone sufficed, rendering what he called the “fables” of the Bible superfluous. The desire to demonstrate the glory of God, whether deist or – more commonly – Christian, constituted one of the principal motivations for scientific activity in the early republic, along with national pride, the hope for useful applications, and, of course, the joy of science itself.
Your religion appears to be closer to Gaia worship of the Earth rather than Christianity. While seemingly unwilling to attribute Creation to the divine act of God, you have no problem attributing direct creative acts to "Mother Nature". You write elsewhere (yeah, I like to know a little about the person I am addressing): "She should be irate with Mother Nature for making us this way. For making men big and strong ... for making women smaller ... so that nature can compel them into caring for (children). Nature does not care what we do with our lives..."
Really? You attribute creative acts to "Mother Nature" as if "she" possessed intelligence and has "designed" men and women, etc. Sounds very much like the "Intelligent design" that you ridicule. So Intelligent Design makes perfect sense after all - so long as it is not Biblical?
You would do well to, as the old fishermen used to say, "fish or cut bait." Either stop being ashamed of, and denying, the central understanding of God as Creator, or quit pretending you are Christian.
You quote Bible verses on your "about" page, apparently in an authoritative sense, yet you deny a fundamental understanding of God that is taught very clearly throughout the Scriptures. Jesus spoke of those who "choke on a gnat but swallow a camel..."
Your Ph.D. is obviously not in cell biology, because if it were, you would be aware that our understanding of cell morphology has exploded in recent years, and we now realize the almost infinite complexity of the cell - and how much more there is yet to learn. (No, I did not read this on any - what you sneeringly call "con artist" - Creationist site). Full disclosure: I also have an earned Ph.D. - in theology.
I am not interested, and have no time for, pointless argumentation. I have spoken my peace, and you will forgive me if I do not respond further. I wish you the best - but we can only expect God's blessings if we stand for His truth:
We read in Genesis: "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."
Our Lord states: "“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’?"
Note that Jesus affirms God as Creator. Jesus also warned: "Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels."