L&G-
This is a rejoinder to science ficiton's account of the 'descent of man' that we're all having a good time refuting. We Christians get all of our work done and do it well so that we have free time to sit around refining logic and coming up w/ great ideas to spur society forward. Science is fantastic to the extent that it creates socially desirable solutions (e.g. a cure for cancer/HIV, etc.), but it is really harmful when used for political ends - i.e., to [ostensibly] refute the existence of God and brainwash affected citizens into the despair/lunacy/hopelessness that arises from a lack of 'reason' for existence. His name is Jonathan Raymond and he's a student @ some private Christian school in the Midwest. Enjoy.
ok. Creationism. Ok. First let me explain the difference between macro and micro evolution. Microevolution is intraspecial variation. Ok? Got that? So look at the entirely enormous variation within the species 'Dog' caused by artificial selection (breeding). Note also that the textbook definition of species is that group of animilia which can reproduce with itself and produce legitmate offspring which can then also reproduce. All dogs can hump all other dogs and have little dog babies that can also reproduce. We good here? Variation within species is called micro-evolution.
In contrast is macroevolution--which means variation that causes an offspring to generate which is not in the species. This has never been recorded. Generally evolutionists say that micro evolution climaxes in macroevolution. If this were possible I'm sure it would have been observed already in the example I have given above--the artificial selection of dogs--because by the means of artificial selection you can speed up microevolution very much.
Any way, why am I telling you this? To first make clear that the Creationist is still an evolutionist--however he is a microevolutionist and not a macroevolutionist. The Creationist agrees with observed microevolution but disagrees with the greater problem and unobserved macroevolution.
OK. Now onto the holes of evolutionary theory:
First, evolutionary theory does not explain the leap from inorganic materials to the highly complex structure of the cell. Recent or more modern evolutionary theory suggests that life started in pourous rocks--NOT the primordial soup--because of this problem. Why pourous rocks? a makeshift cell membrane. Anyway, the complexities of molecular biology and the interdependence of the organelles of the cell (PLEASE tell me you took cellular biology and PAID ATTENTION?) makes evolution from inorganic materials impossible.
Secondly: the problem of the generation of the complex interplay between RNA and DNA to generate protiens (protein synthesis). There are no observed predecessors to RNA or DNA and this poses an enormous problem to evolution. The problem, I think, can be googled using the keyword 'pRNA' (for predecessor RNA).
Thirdly, evolution does not account for the leap from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction (first on a cellular level--bacteria--and then on a plant / animal level). why sexual reproduction?
Fourthly, evolution does not account for symbiosis. Symbiosis is the interdependence of beings/species. Take bees and flowers for example. Flowers depend on bees for their reproduction; and bees on flowers for food. There are a plethora of such symbiotic relationships in the known animal kingdom and these would not be possible to have ever been developed; they are interdependent systems that must have been generated as is.
Fifthly, evolution, I think takes for granted the evident design in all the animal kingdom and especially in the human species. If you have ever played with K'Nex or Lego Technic you will have a bit of a grasp on two important mechinical concepts that have bearing here. First the more minor of the two. If you have ever had a large/huge box of K'Nex or Legos; where do the smaller parts fall? Contrary to your intuition or commonsense they fall to the bottom; and the larger pieces sift through up to the top. This I realized, typifies the fossil record especially. It would make sense to me to say that the record was generated from a worldwide flood because of this observed phenomenon.
The second concept is of mechanics. As a child I would frequently try to make robotic arms with my K'Nex. Most people take the device of the arm EXTREMELY for granted but anybody who has tried to MAKE THEIR OWN will have realized the enormous difficulties in simulating the many points of rotation and movement made possible with the aesthetically pleasing and simple arrangement of the bones present in the arm. Have you ever taken human biology?
here is a picture:
http://www.artfuloddities.
ack-arm-FINAL.jpg
but it really doesn't do justice to the structure of the radius which enables the forearm to rotate while the ulna enables the forearm to do a hinge motion. These are mechanical concepts--joints they call them. But to have both a rotating and hinge is quite a pleasing feat of mechanics. At least I think so. Maybe you have to take Human Biology and have the radius and ulna and the humerous in your hands like I did and play with them a little to get what I mean. Where the radius and the humerous are jointed there is a bit of a ball and socket bit. Its really hard for me to explain. The human arm is a masterpiece of mechanics.
And this simplistic, Zen like efficiency and aestheticism is present throughout nearly all of the structures of the human body if one has an eye to see.
For example, the semicircular canals of the ear--which are instrumental in balance--are three in number and follow the three spatial planes--the X, Y, and Z. This ingenious collaboration between mathematical space and biology I find impossible to be coincidence.
Also the interdependence of systems is also quite wonderful; there are more than five systems of the body: the cardiovascular, skeletal, muscular, nervous, digestive, lymph, and hormonal. The interplay between these systems allows for all human activity. Again, I really recommend taking a good human biology course.
All this suggests to me design. A car implicitly suggests a car-maker; and likewise the man. A man implicity suggests a man-Maker--that is, God.
That's about it for now!
Recommended Reading:
Darwin's Black Box --Michael J. Behe
A human biology text
A text on the principles of mechanics
I also recommend looking into the works done at MIT in regards to Artificial Life (COG, etc) and playing with legos/K'nex. trying to make a human arm
No comments:
Post a Comment