Dr. Michael Behe is the biochemist who coined the term irreducible complexity. The idea is simple. If evolution asserts small gradual changes over time then what would explain the incredibly complex systems of interdependent mechanisms that cannot exist without a dozen other incredibly complex systems. If you can’t build it piece by piece then how did blind chance build it?
This argument sparked off a fury of rebuttals. And rebuttals to the rebuttals. And..well more rebuttals. But I’ll give a single example best exemplified by the eye. Behe insisted that the eye was a perfectly designed machine with thousands of interdependent working parts. Dawkins immediately asserted that the eye was not only flawed (blind spot) but teamed with PBS to make a documentary on just how it evolved. (See YouTube). I.D.ists shot back that the eye’s flaws are not flaws at all and benefit the eye.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-blind-leading-the-blind/
This is where it gets interesting. PBS’s video became gospel. Wikipedia, TV, and radio embraced the simple and easy to understand explanation for the long debated “eye problem”. Darwin starts off with some light sensitive cells, and adds a dimple with a little concave giving some directional capability. Soon we’re lucky to evolve some gel and a simple lens to protect the fortuitous gel and viola! It’s all so simple. I could draw it for you on a sheet of paper. The problem is it’s a lie for people like you and me to gobble up and regurgitate when one of those pesky Intelligent Designers starts talking about the “amazing eye”.
It’s a lie and Dawkins knows it’s a lie. Here’s why.
(Takes a deep breath)
Let’s start with those handy light sensitive cells in the beginning. You could imagine those on the earliest and simplest of life forms. Simple light and darkness recognition to regulate biorhythms. Probably evolved over the weekend. Here’s how it works.
First, a photon enters the light sensitive cell and interacts with the necessary rhodopsin protein (which luckily is nice and neat right there for us). You see this protein is special it contains organic dyes that absorb energy from the photon causing the protein to change shape.
The reconfigured protein rhodospin is now able to bind to another protein called transducin. However this leads to an remarkable instability that forces a part to drop to make room for a GTP molecule which stabilizes the structure. This megamolecule is now able to bind to a molecule of photodiesterase which is fixed on the wall of the cell’s outer membrane.
The cell wall has a series of ports which open and close to allow charged ions such as sodium and calcium to cross in and out of the cell. These ports are controlled by a membrane molecule called cGMP. More cGMP keeps the ports closed, less allows the ports to open. When the megamolecule (officially called GTP-Transducin-metarhodopsin II) binds to the photodiesterase on the cell wall, so now some of the cGMP is displaced, thus lowering the cGMP concentration.
This allows some of the ion ports to open up, which in turn allows positively charged sodium ions to enter the cell. Since the ions carry an electrical charge, this induces a charge imbalance across the cell wall, which results in a voltage being established across the membrane. The voltage naturally seeks equilibrium by propagating along the cell membrane, until it gets to the neighbor cell and jumps the gap to begin the propagation of an electrical signal, from one cell to the next.
And that is the process required to explain the simplest part of the very first step in Dawkin’s evolution of the eye scheme.
I think I liked Youtube’s version better. (Exhales)
And this is the problem with the debate today. It’s too easy to lie because no one understands anything. A website gives a version of its “facts” and we lap it up because we’re too ignorant to say “well are you sure that the GTP molecule effectively stabilizes the Rhodospin/Transducin combination?”
So the common debate becomes “What are you an idiot? Eyes evolved easy! Read Wikipedia moron”
Even though I have a simple 2 year college level of Biology (though I got a B and an A :) I do know is there are far more politics involved in the evolution debate than facts.
And if you get to view an actual debate like last week’s http://www.apologeticsreview.com/?p=335
Facing the critics panel, you’d see that 80% of what gets put out on the web doesn’t fly in a real debate because everyone is too smart to cite Youtube.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
The Great War
By now you should have realized that there is a war going on.
The stakes are high and the combatants are bloody vicious to each other. On one end we have Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Victor Stenger. (And many more) and on the other end we have Stephen C. Meyer, William Dembski, and Michael Behe. (And many more) Ben Stein made a movie last year about this war called “Expelled!”.
This fight is a nasty one, but the real casualties are regular people like you and I who don’t hold multiple PHD’s from Ivy League universities. Information trickles down from the talking points of each camp and most of the time these talking points are pure oversimplified nonsense. Darwinists brutally slam biochemists like Dr. Charles Garner who note that “The threshold of evidence for evolution is set far lower than any of the other sciences”.
Richard Dawkins vehemently declares “Intelligent Design is not science!” Despite the peer reviewed papers of Stephen C. Meyer (Proceedings of Biological Society of Washington DC), William Dembski and Stephen Behe’s science of protein structures and synthesis.
Online people are called IDiots, retards, uninformed, ignorant, and worse despite the real scientists having serious debates when the cameras aren’t rolling and the press is far far away. Just last week Biola University hosted a debate with evolutionists versus a panel of ID scientists. It was complex, cordial, and well informed.
No one was called uniformed because the fact is Intelligent Design doesn’t need the gaps of science to prove its point. It doesn’t want the gaps. It wants the lab, the method, and the results of serious scientific evaluation. A couple of years ago Richard Dawkins debated John Lennox and though I thought it was an even debate, Dawkins apparently thought he would steam roll over the Christian and he didn’t even come close.
In fact beyond the name calling and cursing Christopher Hitchens and Victor Stenger have both met their match at the hands of William Lane Craig. Dawkins outright refuses to debate him. Atheist professor Dr. Bradley Monton recently wrote “Evolutionists have attempted to stifle the science of Intelligent Design as ridiculous for over 30 years by calling it names and forcing the perception that it is a religion, however, ID continues to grow and become stronger in every field of legitimate research.”
Websites like ARN.Org, ID the future.com, Biologic Institute.Org, Uncommon Descent.com, Reasonable Faith.Org and many more have amazing peer reviewed scientific arguments for intelligent design for those who aren’t afraid to read the opposition of the norm.
The stakes are high and the combatants are bloody vicious to each other. On one end we have Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Victor Stenger. (And many more) and on the other end we have Stephen C. Meyer, William Dembski, and Michael Behe. (And many more) Ben Stein made a movie last year about this war called “Expelled!”.
This fight is a nasty one, but the real casualties are regular people like you and I who don’t hold multiple PHD’s from Ivy League universities. Information trickles down from the talking points of each camp and most of the time these talking points are pure oversimplified nonsense. Darwinists brutally slam biochemists like Dr. Charles Garner who note that “The threshold of evidence for evolution is set far lower than any of the other sciences”.
Richard Dawkins vehemently declares “Intelligent Design is not science!” Despite the peer reviewed papers of Stephen C. Meyer (Proceedings of Biological Society of Washington DC), William Dembski and Stephen Behe’s science of protein structures and synthesis.
Online people are called IDiots, retards, uninformed, ignorant, and worse despite the real scientists having serious debates when the cameras aren’t rolling and the press is far far away. Just last week Biola University hosted a debate with evolutionists versus a panel of ID scientists. It was complex, cordial, and well informed.
No one was called uniformed because the fact is Intelligent Design doesn’t need the gaps of science to prove its point. It doesn’t want the gaps. It wants the lab, the method, and the results of serious scientific evaluation. A couple of years ago Richard Dawkins debated John Lennox and though I thought it was an even debate, Dawkins apparently thought he would steam roll over the Christian and he didn’t even come close.
In fact beyond the name calling and cursing Christopher Hitchens and Victor Stenger have both met their match at the hands of William Lane Craig. Dawkins outright refuses to debate him. Atheist professor Dr. Bradley Monton recently wrote “Evolutionists have attempted to stifle the science of Intelligent Design as ridiculous for over 30 years by calling it names and forcing the perception that it is a religion, however, ID continues to grow and become stronger in every field of legitimate research.”
Websites like ARN.Org, ID the future.com, Biologic Institute.Org, Uncommon Descent.com, Reasonable Faith.Org and many more have amazing peer reviewed scientific arguments for intelligent design for those who aren’t afraid to read the opposition of the norm.
How Far We've Come
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the unbelievers if any believer not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.” Thomas Aquinas 1250 A.D.
I’ve known so many good Christians who have had no answer for atheists who attack their religion for being intolerant, ignorant, and aggressive. Some say Christianity is a crutch, and for many it is. So is atheism, or naturalism, or just plain indifference. We all simply believe what we want to believe (for our own psychological reasons) despite the facts, despite the evidence. Who wants to change?
There’s no single argument that can be given to convince you that there is a God. There’s no persuasion I can give to make someone pray to Jesus Christ and ask for wisdom. In the end if you want to be an atheist you’ll find enough literature to make you feel that your ”absence of theism” is a valid world view.
I suppose that a natural world is affected by far greater things than natural reasoning. I believe in people to always try their best to better themselves, to seek out perfection and maturity. I trust in the power of brotherhood and family to make manifest the promises of life’s sanctification. I understand that there are bad people in the world, that there are bad Christians in the world, but we don’t have to be those people. I am not one of those Christians.
When I became a Christian I was afraid I’d change. I knew beginning a prayer relationship in Jesus’ name would begin to change me from the inside out.
But I was wrong.
It was the sin that changed me. It was the world that changed me. It was my life of human experiences and lessons, social wisdoms and norms that changed the person I am to the person I was. It was God who brought me back. Jesus who made me, created me and led me to build this relationship that makes me reacquaint myself with myself. Don’t be afraid that church is going to change you, be afraid that life has.
God bless you and all and thank you for reading my blog.
I’ve known so many good Christians who have had no answer for atheists who attack their religion for being intolerant, ignorant, and aggressive. Some say Christianity is a crutch, and for many it is. So is atheism, or naturalism, or just plain indifference. We all simply believe what we want to believe (for our own psychological reasons) despite the facts, despite the evidence. Who wants to change?
There’s no single argument that can be given to convince you that there is a God. There’s no persuasion I can give to make someone pray to Jesus Christ and ask for wisdom. In the end if you want to be an atheist you’ll find enough literature to make you feel that your ”absence of theism” is a valid world view.
I suppose that a natural world is affected by far greater things than natural reasoning. I believe in people to always try their best to better themselves, to seek out perfection and maturity. I trust in the power of brotherhood and family to make manifest the promises of life’s sanctification. I understand that there are bad people in the world, that there are bad Christians in the world, but we don’t have to be those people. I am not one of those Christians.
When I became a Christian I was afraid I’d change. I knew beginning a prayer relationship in Jesus’ name would begin to change me from the inside out.
But I was wrong.
It was the sin that changed me. It was the world that changed me. It was my life of human experiences and lessons, social wisdoms and norms that changed the person I am to the person I was. It was God who brought me back. Jesus who made me, created me and led me to build this relationship that makes me reacquaint myself with myself. Don’t be afraid that church is going to change you, be afraid that life has.
God bless you and all and thank you for reading my blog.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Storming The Check Books Of Normandy
France is such an easy place to ridicule.
For starters many don't really care for us. Which is enough to deride them whenever possible. Furthermore they opposed us going into Iraq (gasp!). And have nationalized healthcare (gulp!) And what isn't there to hate about a country that runs so heartily on tax revenue (gah!).
So it's no surprise that whenever Republicans need a punching bag or insult, France is always on the tip of the toungue.
Big spending, tax increases, healthcare reform just about sum up what President Obama is authoring for this country and already conservatives are digging in for a fight.
Not to mention that Republicans throw the word "Socialist" out like panties at a Tom Jones concert. The party of opposition have become the party of "No" "No" "No". And any ideas of bank and economy recovery coming out of the right are as old and bankrupt as, well the banks and economy.
It's hard to believe that if Obama's strategies succeed, conservatives will ever give credit. If this time next year we've come out of this misunderstood and great recession it'll be the talking heads on Fox news or radio trying their best to explain away the progress on anything and everything that doesn't begin and end with Barack Obama.
Surely if the economy falters in 8 months it'll be the President's head on the Republican mantle.
I find it hilarious how quickly conservatives are trying to blame Obama for our current situation and make us forget about the ridiculousness of the past 8 years of Republican policies.
When Clinton early on employed policies for economic prosperity (which the right also tried their best to vote down) Republicans tried their best to implant the idea that Reagan's policies were finally coming to maturation.
"It takes years after a presidency to witness its true results!"
So it was during Dubya's 8 year presidency that we were assured that history would judge him favorably. That we were experiencing economic growth and that Bush's tax plan, Bush's budget, and Bush's economic policy was sound.
But not 60 days into Obama's presidency conservatives are already calling it "Obama's recession". True he owns it, but let's never forget who gave life to this beast and lets not dumb down further and forget who got us out if we indeed ever do break free of this economic disaster.
Worse comes to worse we could all just move to France.
For starters many don't really care for us. Which is enough to deride them whenever possible. Furthermore they opposed us going into Iraq (gasp!). And have nationalized healthcare (gulp!) And what isn't there to hate about a country that runs so heartily on tax revenue (gah!).
So it's no surprise that whenever Republicans need a punching bag or insult, France is always on the tip of the toungue.
Big spending, tax increases, healthcare reform just about sum up what President Obama is authoring for this country and already conservatives are digging in for a fight.
Not to mention that Republicans throw the word "Socialist" out like panties at a Tom Jones concert. The party of opposition have become the party of "No" "No" "No". And any ideas of bank and economy recovery coming out of the right are as old and bankrupt as, well the banks and economy.
It's hard to believe that if Obama's strategies succeed, conservatives will ever give credit. If this time next year we've come out of this misunderstood and great recession it'll be the talking heads on Fox news or radio trying their best to explain away the progress on anything and everything that doesn't begin and end with Barack Obama.
Surely if the economy falters in 8 months it'll be the President's head on the Republican mantle.
I find it hilarious how quickly conservatives are trying to blame Obama for our current situation and make us forget about the ridiculousness of the past 8 years of Republican policies.
When Clinton early on employed policies for economic prosperity (which the right also tried their best to vote down) Republicans tried their best to implant the idea that Reagan's policies were finally coming to maturation.
"It takes years after a presidency to witness its true results!"
So it was during Dubya's 8 year presidency that we were assured that history would judge him favorably. That we were experiencing economic growth and that Bush's tax plan, Bush's budget, and Bush's economic policy was sound.
But not 60 days into Obama's presidency conservatives are already calling it "Obama's recession". True he owns it, but let's never forget who gave life to this beast and lets not dumb down further and forget who got us out if we indeed ever do break free of this economic disaster.
Worse comes to worse we could all just move to France.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Through The Looking Glass
The election is over.
Now the catastrophe that is American employment, education and politics is on display for the whole world to eagerly observe how we collectively deal with the problems of this age.
Barack Obama was impressively voted in to change the direction Bush & co have taken the United States in the last 8 years. While some of these problems extend past the 8 years, Americans fully expect Barack Obama to deliver substantive improvement in job growth, energy options, education reform, enviromental protection, not to mention our 2 wars, the middle east crisis, and a home mortage meltdown on top of an enormous economic meltdown.
I no longer encourage my children to dream about being the president.
Not only is Obama's job near insurmountable but by the end of the first week it is becoming obvious that many Americans want this new omlet of "Change" without breaking any eggs.
I'm tired of that word. "Change".
I'm all for leading America into a new direction but everytime Obama picks an old war horse for a position, any time a compromise has to be made to better serve the country, or a decision or a statement is not understood or distorted to serve opposition arguments the word "change" will inevitably appear for years and years to come.
"Is this the CHAAANNGE Obama promised us?"
"Where's the CHAAANGE?"
"This isn't CHAAANGE!"
So, I'll say it now, I'm sick of the damn word.
And through the looking glass of American politics arguments are more important than results. Viewpoints trump facts, and the debate holds more allure than the solution.
After all Rush Limbaugh didn't just sign a $400 million contract for festering bridges and lucid analysis. No, the big money is in the fight.
The problem is in the win-win nature of the lie. If you're called out on the manipulative nature of the press you favor the publicity, if you're left alone you garner an audience.
So Sean Hannity continues to call Michelle Obama unpatriotic because she says she's not proud of her country.
(Though that wasn't what she said at all and the entire speech was based on unprecedented voter turn out and participation not America's faults or glory.)
Rush Limbaugh continues to refer to the Obama's "slave blood" and nationally declares he wants Obama to fail.
And on the left, MSNBC continues to exert their undying devotion to Obama. He had them at "Hello".
Because the problem exists on both sides and Obama will have to upset his left supporters and decry the right's flaws while still appearing to be unpartisian.
A perfect example was this week when Obama reminded Republicans "I won" when hammering out a stimulus bill. When Bush and McCain attempted to prevent the banks from crumbling down around us they could barely pass a bill despite late night fighting, a failed attempt and a watchful country.
While Obama conceeded points towards Republican wishes he reminded them that he disagreed with their overall philosophy of governing and so does America if nationwide elections are any indicator.
"I won" was a reminder that Republicans are not and should not get everything they want anymore.
It's an obvious observation but it didn't take long for the press to incite the controversy. Across the nation newsmen told Americans what to think and how to feel about this.
And all across the country each side regurgitated what they heard and subsequently what they felt about this.
"Is this the CHAAANNGE we've been waiting for?"
Now this is as old as politics, but the real problem is when national debate devolves into a football rivalry. You begin to make as much sense as the naked paint man with the beer helmet.
Do we want this guy running the government?
Isn't the dream of every American to continually improve? To learn more than we did, to be better people than our fathers, to grow and increase our understanding?
Then lets try to put aside the old looking glass and come to the facts.
Fox News is an unabashedly Republican news station unable to deliver the truth. Compared to them everyone is liberal. So stop telling everyone that the media is liberal, it's like Nazi's calling everyone in the world pro-Israel.
So is MSNBC...but for Democrats.
Radio men lie. Both left and right commentators. They're strictly for entertainment. Not truth.
Start from here and recognize that there is big money spent everyday to lie to you, distort your intelligence and change your mind. Personally the only news I watch any more is Sunday talk with George Stephanopoulos, Meet the Press, and Anderson Cooper. (John King isn't bad) But I can also tolerate Fox's Bill Oreilly, Brit Hume and even Sean Hannity when I want to raise my blood pressure.
I don't watch MSNBC anymore lest I feel dirty.
The bible says judge a tree by its fruit. So let's judge by what comes of Obama closing Gitmo before we call it niave. Let's judge Democrat's plans to pour money into schools, infrastructure, and energy by what happens, let's judge by results and not by what ideology we suscribe to.
And for God's sake turn off Rush Limbaugh.
Now the catastrophe that is American employment, education and politics is on display for the whole world to eagerly observe how we collectively deal with the problems of this age.
Barack Obama was impressively voted in to change the direction Bush & co have taken the United States in the last 8 years. While some of these problems extend past the 8 years, Americans fully expect Barack Obama to deliver substantive improvement in job growth, energy options, education reform, enviromental protection, not to mention our 2 wars, the middle east crisis, and a home mortage meltdown on top of an enormous economic meltdown.
I no longer encourage my children to dream about being the president.
Not only is Obama's job near insurmountable but by the end of the first week it is becoming obvious that many Americans want this new omlet of "Change" without breaking any eggs.
I'm tired of that word. "Change".
I'm all for leading America into a new direction but everytime Obama picks an old war horse for a position, any time a compromise has to be made to better serve the country, or a decision or a statement is not understood or distorted to serve opposition arguments the word "change" will inevitably appear for years and years to come.
"Is this the CHAAANNGE Obama promised us?"
"Where's the CHAAANGE?"
"This isn't CHAAANGE!"
So, I'll say it now, I'm sick of the damn word.
And through the looking glass of American politics arguments are more important than results. Viewpoints trump facts, and the debate holds more allure than the solution.
After all Rush Limbaugh didn't just sign a $400 million contract for festering bridges and lucid analysis. No, the big money is in the fight.
The problem is in the win-win nature of the lie. If you're called out on the manipulative nature of the press you favor the publicity, if you're left alone you garner an audience.
So Sean Hannity continues to call Michelle Obama unpatriotic because she says she's not proud of her country.
(Though that wasn't what she said at all and the entire speech was based on unprecedented voter turn out and participation not America's faults or glory.)
Rush Limbaugh continues to refer to the Obama's "slave blood" and nationally declares he wants Obama to fail.
And on the left, MSNBC continues to exert their undying devotion to Obama. He had them at "Hello".
Because the problem exists on both sides and Obama will have to upset his left supporters and decry the right's flaws while still appearing to be unpartisian.
A perfect example was this week when Obama reminded Republicans "I won" when hammering out a stimulus bill. When Bush and McCain attempted to prevent the banks from crumbling down around us they could barely pass a bill despite late night fighting, a failed attempt and a watchful country.
While Obama conceeded points towards Republican wishes he reminded them that he disagreed with their overall philosophy of governing and so does America if nationwide elections are any indicator.
"I won" was a reminder that Republicans are not and should not get everything they want anymore.
It's an obvious observation but it didn't take long for the press to incite the controversy. Across the nation newsmen told Americans what to think and how to feel about this.
And all across the country each side regurgitated what they heard and subsequently what they felt about this.
"Is this the CHAAANNGE we've been waiting for?"
Now this is as old as politics, but the real problem is when national debate devolves into a football rivalry. You begin to make as much sense as the naked paint man with the beer helmet.
Do we want this guy running the government?
Isn't the dream of every American to continually improve? To learn more than we did, to be better people than our fathers, to grow and increase our understanding?
Then lets try to put aside the old looking glass and come to the facts.
Fox News is an unabashedly Republican news station unable to deliver the truth. Compared to them everyone is liberal. So stop telling everyone that the media is liberal, it's like Nazi's calling everyone in the world pro-Israel.
So is MSNBC...but for Democrats.
Radio men lie. Both left and right commentators. They're strictly for entertainment. Not truth.
Start from here and recognize that there is big money spent everyday to lie to you, distort your intelligence and change your mind. Personally the only news I watch any more is Sunday talk with George Stephanopoulos, Meet the Press, and Anderson Cooper. (John King isn't bad) But I can also tolerate Fox's Bill Oreilly, Brit Hume and even Sean Hannity when I want to raise my blood pressure.
I don't watch MSNBC anymore lest I feel dirty.
The bible says judge a tree by its fruit. So let's judge by what comes of Obama closing Gitmo before we call it niave. Let's judge Democrat's plans to pour money into schools, infrastructure, and energy by what happens, let's judge by results and not by what ideology we suscribe to.
And for God's sake turn off Rush Limbaugh.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Hello again
I'll be blogging again. Sorry I've been gone so long. I've been wrapped up in so many things...sheesh.
See ya soon. I want to take this blog in new directions, while still focusing on President Obama, I do have two other subjects in my title I want to talk about again.
Thanks.
See ya soon. I want to take this blog in new directions, while still focusing on President Obama, I do have two other subjects in my title I want to talk about again.
Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)