By Bonnie Waring, Triangle Writer
The debate over the existence of naturalistic macroevolution has always been a polarizing one, pitting churches against schools, parents against teachers, and students against each other. Most of the scientific community strongly support the idea of natural selection as the driving force behind evolutionary adaptation, while creationists argue equally fervently that today’s living animals were created by a Supreme Being only thousands of years ago. In the midst of this heated debate, it’s easy for everyone, even “informed” college students, to forget other alternative platforms. What if God was the ultimate engineer? The notion of Intelligent Design, which takes a “middle of the road” approach, is one such theory that attempts to provide a scientific justification for the rejection of the theory of macroevolution. However, they do accept the idea that species have undergone slight morphological and genetic changes over time and agree that the earth is billions of years old.
The theory of Intelligent Design centers around the idea of “irreducible complexity.” According to Dr. Michael J. Behe (who received his Ph.D. in biochemistry from Penn in 1978), an irreducibly complex system is one which cannot operate without all of its components in place; furthermore, those components have no function on their own. For example, a mousetrap (a favorite of the stereotypical engineer who wants to make everything better) is built from a wooden platform, a hammer, a spring to operate the hammer, and a catch and bar to hold the spring back. Without any one of these objects, the mousetrap would not work. Nor do the platform, hammer, spring, or catch serve any purpose by themselves. Similarly, it would be impossible for biological structures as basic as cellular organelles or proteins to assemble from constituent parts which cannot exist in isolation.
Although proponents of Intelligent Design concede that populations of existent, complex organisms may undergo subtle changes as they adapt to their environments, they assert that the basic morphological and biochemical patterns of those organisms were created by some sort of intelligent being. To quote cell biologist Dr. Jonathan Wells, what evolutionary biologists call natural selection is simply the “[oscillation] around a mean” of a given trait. For instance, he points to a study of the changing beak size of a population of Galápagos finches in the presence of decreased food supply to prove that such variation is not a response to environmental stress. Evolutionists observed that a drought had eliminated all but the hardiest seeds, so it made sense that the surviving finches had larger, more powerful beaks. But Wells maintains that the apparent trend in beak size was simply a random coincidence, for after a period of time, average beak size returned to normal. In his opinion, no new species have emerged due to selective pressures.
If the theory of irreducible complexity is accepted, then it appears implausible that life on this planet arose spontaneously. John Reidaar-Olson and Robert Sauer of MIT performed an experiment in which they determined the likelihood of the “random assembly” of the » repressor protein in Escherichia coli bacteria, which functions to give the cell immunity from bacteriophages. According to their calculations, the probability of this event is one chance in 1063. Since “a sum total of fewer than 1050 organisms from all species have existed on Earth” throughout history, it seems nearly impossible that the » repressor was not intelligently designed.
However, there is a fatal flaw in the irreducible complexity theory and hence, the Reidaar-Olson-Sauer experiment. Kenneth Miller, a biology professor at Brown University, agrees that the individual components of an irreducibly complex system may not have any discrete functions which apply to the system as a whole. However, he argues that the subunits themselves may have separate applications which necessitate their presence in a cell or organ system. Over time, with the application of selective pressures, the components assemble themselves into a superstructure with emergent properties – in other words, the whole is more than the sum of its parts. As an example, Miller cites a complex of proteins found in bacterial flagella which works in isolation to help inject poison into competing cells. A bacterium does not need a flagellum to make use of one of the flagellum’s components. Similarly, the likelihood of the random assembly of the » repressor from individual amino acids may be miniscule. But the probability increases if it is assumed that the protein arose from the conjunction of only a few smaller amino acid sequences.
It is clear that the scientific basis for Intelligent Design is unsound. Why, then, does it continue to be debated? Perhaps supporters of the theory cling to their scant proof in order to justify the existence of a higher power. Denying that a Supreme Being could set in motion a process as elegant as evolution seems an affront to the idea of God. Evolution does not necessitate the existence of a Creator, but it does not reject the notion either. Proponents of Intelligent Design cannot be condemned for attempting to make room for God in their scientific theories. Yet the presentation of flawed experimental and theoretical evidence cannot be condoned.
Further discussion of Intelligent Design can be found at:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html
The debate over the existence of naturalistic macroevolution has always been a polarizing one, pitting churches against schools, parents against teachers, and students against each other. Most of the scientific community strongly support the idea of natural selection as the driving force behind evolutionary adaptation, while creationists argue equally fervently that today’s living animals were created by a Supreme Being only thousands of years ago. In the midst of this heated debate, it’s easy for everyone, even “informed” college students, to forget other alternative platforms. What if God was the ultimate engineer? The notion of Intelligent Design, which takes a “middle of the road” approach, is one such theory that attempts to provide a scientific justification for the rejection of the theory of macroevolution. However, they do accept the idea that species have undergone slight morphological and genetic changes over time and agree that the earth is billions of years old.
The theory of Intelligent Design centers around the idea of “irreducible complexity.” According to Dr. Michael J. Behe (who received his Ph.D. in biochemistry from Penn in 1978), an irreducibly complex system is one which cannot operate without all of its components in place; furthermore, those components have no function on their own. For example, a mousetrap (a favorite of the stereotypical engineer who wants to make everything better) is built from a wooden platform, a hammer, a spring to operate the hammer, and a catch and bar to hold the spring back. Without any one of these objects, the mousetrap would not work. Nor do the platform, hammer, spring, or catch serve any purpose by themselves. Similarly, it would be impossible for biological structures as basic as cellular organelles or proteins to assemble from constituent parts which cannot exist in isolation.
Although proponents of Intelligent Design concede that populations of existent, complex organisms may undergo subtle changes as they adapt to their environments, they assert that the basic morphological and biochemical patterns of those organisms were created by some sort of intelligent being. To quote cell biologist Dr. Jonathan Wells, what evolutionary biologists call natural selection is simply the “[oscillation] around a mean” of a given trait. For instance, he points to a study of the changing beak size of a population of Galápagos finches in the presence of decreased food supply to prove that such variation is not a response to environmental stress. Evolutionists observed that a drought had eliminated all but the hardiest seeds, so it made sense that the surviving finches had larger, more powerful beaks. But Wells maintains that the apparent trend in beak size was simply a random coincidence, for after a period of time, average beak size returned to normal. In his opinion, no new species have emerged due to selective pressures.
If the theory of irreducible complexity is accepted, then it appears implausible that life on this planet arose spontaneously. John Reidaar-Olson and Robert Sauer of MIT performed an experiment in which they determined the likelihood of the “random assembly” of the » repressor protein in Escherichia coli bacteria, which functions to give the cell immunity from bacteriophages. According to their calculations, the probability of this event is one chance in 1063. Since “a sum total of fewer than 1050 organisms from all species have existed on Earth” throughout history, it seems nearly impossible that the » repressor was not intelligently designed.
However, there is a fatal flaw in the irreducible complexity theory and hence, the Reidaar-Olson-Sauer experiment. Kenneth Miller, a biology professor at Brown University, agrees that the individual components of an irreducibly complex system may not have any discrete functions which apply to the system as a whole. However, he argues that the subunits themselves may have separate applications which necessitate their presence in a cell or organ system. Over time, with the application of selective pressures, the components assemble themselves into a superstructure with emergent properties – in other words, the whole is more than the sum of its parts. As an example, Miller cites a complex of proteins found in bacterial flagella which works in isolation to help inject poison into competing cells. A bacterium does not need a flagellum to make use of one of the flagellum’s components. Similarly, the likelihood of the random assembly of the » repressor from individual amino acids may be miniscule. But the probability increases if it is assumed that the protein arose from the conjunction of only a few smaller amino acid sequences.
It is clear that the scientific basis for Intelligent Design is unsound. Why, then, does it continue to be debated? Perhaps supporters of the theory cling to their scant proof in order to justify the existence of a higher power. Denying that a Supreme Being could set in motion a process as elegant as evolution seems an affront to the idea of God. Evolution does not necessitate the existence of a Creator, but it does not reject the notion either. Proponents of Intelligent Design cannot be condemned for attempting to make room for God in their scientific theories. Yet the presentation of flawed experimental and theoretical evidence cannot be condoned.
Further discussion of Intelligent Design can be found at:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html
3 comments:
why are you showing a very heavily, (and badly) photoshopped image of the whirlpool galaxy, Messier object number 51, with a black hole caption?. it is a galaxy, not a black hole. the photo is as fake as your beliefs. you could have shown any of the many existing beautiful images of this very famous object.
i suggest everyone read page 20 of the preface to 'origins' by neil degrasse tyson and donald goldsmith, before suggesting that intelligent design is a theory.
Many of our modern drugs have harsh side-affects and cost the “earth”, so the next time you come down with a cold or the flu or stress urinary incontinence, why not try a gentle alternative that costs next to nothing?
Instead of immediately forking over large amounts of money for over-the-counter drugs, go to the kitchen cupboard and see what you can find to relieve your symptoms including stress urinary incontinence.
Here are some helpful hints for stress urinary incontinence …
A simple hot compress applied to the face is very soothing to those throbbing aches and pains of a blocked sinus, while a few drops of eucalyptus oil on a handkerchief can provide welcome relief for similar conditions. While supplements of vitamin C, D and zinc will shorten the lifespan of a common cold, a hot lemon drink is also extremely good. And be sure to cuddle-up in bed when you have a cold, as it will make the body sweat out the germs.
Cool lemon juice and honey are a great soother for a sore throat and gives the body much-needed vitamin C at the same time The juice of one lemon in a glass of water is sufficient. Melt the honey in a little hot water for ease of mixing.
A smear of Vaseline or petroleum jelly will do wonders for those sore lips and nose that often accompany a cold.
A 'streaming cold' where the nose and eyes water profusely, can respond to drinking onion water. Simply dip a slice of onion into a glass of hot water for two seconds, then sip the cooled water throughout the day. Half an onion on the bedside table also alleviates cold symptoms because its odor is inhaled while you sleep.
People prone to catarrh may find that chewing the buds from a pine or larch throughout the day will clear up their condition in just a few days.
Do you suffer from sore eyes? If your eyes are sore from lengthy exposure to the sun, try beating the white of an egg and then spread it over a cloth and bandage the eyes with it. Leave the preparation on overnight. Soft cheese (quark) is also a good remedy for this condition.
For those unpleasant times when you suffer from diarrhea, two tablespoons of brown vinegar will usually fix the problem. Vinegar can be rather horrible to take, but who cares! The problem is more horrible. Vinegar can usually be found in most people's cupboards, so you don't need to worry about finding someone to run to the shop for you in an emergency.
Sleepless? Instead of reaching for sleeping pills, which can quickly become addictive, try this: Drink only caffeine free tea or coffee starting late in the afternoon.. Go to bed earlier rather than later, as being overtired tends to keep people awake. Make sure the bedroom is dark and quiet. Use only pure wool or cotton sheets and blankets. Polyester materials can cause sweat and make you thirsty (if your child constantly asks for water throughout the night, this could be the reason).
And don't watch those scary movies just before retiring! If you still can't sleep, make a tea of lemongrass or drink a nightcap of herbal tea containing chamomile. It's easy to grow lemongrass in your garden or start a flower pot on the balcony for ease of picking. Simply steep a handful in boiling water for five minutes. Honey may be added for a sweetener.
Of course there will be times when you do need modern drugs, so if these simple remedies don't have the required affect, be sure to see a health care professional.
stress urinary incontinence
Can anyone recommend the robust Remote Management & Monitoring system for a small IT service company like mine? Does anyone use Kaseya.com or GFI.com? How do they compare to these guys I found recently: N-able N-central network tools
? What is your best take in cost vs performance among those three? I need a good advice please... Thanks in advance!
Post a Comment