Replies

Stingray: Conservative Christian News and Commentary

Most people adapt the creation myths of their aspirational social group. "Darwinism" is just another creation myth.

"Random variation" is batted around by individuals who have no idea whatever of what "randomness" means. I have argued with a fellow who said that random numbers are solidly packed with information - and that he had learned that in college. Amazing if true.

Do a very little biochemistry and ask yourself what "random variations" at that level of reality entail. "Random variations" in biochemistry look about like changing bits in compiled computer code. The program would eventually suffer a critical failure. The odds of prolonged survival become not astronomical but more like "astronomical" to the "astronomical" power. One is talking about ten raised to the one hundred thousand power at the very least.

Before flaming please realize that obviously Science must deal with repeatable phenomena and act as if "supernatural" is a meaningless noise. Of course. I am sure a "natural" explanation exists and speculate that one may be found at the quantum level.

"Buckyballs" are much larger than biochemical level machines, generally, (biochemical structures show critical detail at the level of single atoms) and buckyballs show quantum behavior in the two slit experiment. Chemistry works on the quantum level, period. Linus Pauling got his Nobel on that one.

"Now we know that electrons are made up of quarks and that quarks are made up of vibrating strings

The string theory is the product of a diseased raging cross-dressers mind

Unfortunately we might still be debating this issue in 50 years because people who refuse to believe in evolution will never be convinced by any amount of evidence provided by scientists. And regardless of what Behe and the rest may argue about and criticize, the onus is on THEM to provide evidence supporting intelligent design, not the scientific community. Attacking aspects of another concept is not the same as providing empirical evidence for your own.

Reproduction. No evolution there. Nor of the eye in any phylum.

"In the beginning God...."

Now why haven’t scientists tested this to prove Behe wrong? Because, when all is said and done, neo-Darwinism can’t stand up under experimental scrutiny.

It is because noone seriously thinks that something like the flagellum should readily evolve in a small lab colony in just 10,000 generations (about a year). It could very well take hundreds of trillions of generations amongst the trillions upon trillions of bateria covering the earth. Noone suggesting it evolved is claiming it did so easily. It's all about number of trials and 10,000 x small lab colony is definitely not enough to test it.

There are 10 to 200 trillion cells in the human body depending on size and age. With several mutations a year and life not being on the scene by evolutionary standards until around 3 billion years ago the math does not work out.

The complexity of our body is amazing. The cells in our body are more complex than the computer you are looking at. The cells in our body perform complex functions every second knowing where to go what to do what is enemy what is food. Some cells produce for other cells to use, how did this symbiotic relationship come by chance?

It is amazing that the frevolutionist can believe that 4.6 billion years have created us today. It is amazing that those who believe in God believe that evolution at a macro scale (fish to reptile, reptile to mammal) (variation within a kind is not evolution a German Shepard and a Bull Mastiff are still dogs) has taken place and that the Bible is not 100% true. To those who believe in God of the Bible but do not have the Faith to believe that it is 100% true, that it is not fiction that those men were inspired by God to write the correct interpretation, are trying to serve God and stay conformed with their secular friends or the world.

From the article:

I just don't have any idea how often interferes miraculously with the laws that he set in place at the beginning of time.

13bn years and still not finished tinkering. He's flunking Cosmoconstruction 101.

From the article: and a lifelike career in science in one form or the other

A "lifelike" career in science?!?

Now why haven’t scientists tested this to prove Behe wrong? Because, when all is said and done, neo-Darwinism can’t stand up under experimental scrutiny.

(I realize this is long but sometimes the quick soundbytes of the Behe's of the world are misleading and the truth takes a little time. Sorry for the effort required)

Behe, as so often is the downfall of those without the critical thinking skills necessary to appropriately evaluate evolution, falls into the trap of drastic assumption. This is easy to do when you investigate an area of science with a preconceived agenda to instead of with an open, subjective mind.

He assumes flagella have and always have existed for the sole purpose of locomotion. (Which is to say, he is assuming it was "added" as he would add it to an organism. Which is to say, he is assuming "intelligent design" and working backward).

But in reality, the flagella has a multitude of purposes on an individual bacteria and in across all bacteria has almost countless purposes.

So his "experiment" idea is misleading in that it assumes that bacteria went directly from zero protrusion to a single purpose locomotion flagellum. In real life a scientist would need to be able to correctly identify all of the other possible functions (which may have led to the intermediary forms) and somehow recreate the exact environmental situations (without a "reverse" crystal ball that allows him to look back several million or billion years) in order for that experiment to work.

So once again, we have an example of an

1) ID proponent who
2) over simplifies the situation to
3) make it more appealing to lay readers while still
4) laughably ignorable by scientists in order to
5) create the impression of a victory when scientists don't respond.