Back in the days when Darwin was dozing away on Luadanum, it was easy to dream up stories to explain the world of nature. Everything seemed simple; about as complex as jello. (Someone called this the blob era of science.) This is no longer the case. The biological world has been revealed to be impossibly complex. Decade after decade we get an increasingly complex picture of living organisms. Evolutionists as a result are finding it harder and harder to account for this complexity. They're finding it harder to dream up good stories.
- as one example (of thousands) let's take a brief look at the cilium.
'While we’re on the subject, let’s look at a cellular device that recently got more praise: the cilium. This little rod-like projection on most cells is doing more work than previously thought. “Appreciation is now growing for primary cilia,” said Christenson and Ott in Science, primary cilia being “the nonmotile counterparts, present as a single copy on the surface of most cell types in our body.”
If primary cilia don’t beat and wave like the moving kind, what do they do? Well, for one thing, “they function as unique antenna-like structures, probing the extracellular environment for molecules that are recognized by the receptors they bear. This sensory function allows primary cilia to coordinate numerous intercellular signaling pathways that regulate growth, survival, and differentiation of cells during embryonic development and maintenance of healthy tissues.” New research shows that a suite of molecules move in a coordinated fashion in and out of the cilium, creating a powerful switch by which cells can turn on and off a set of signaling pathways. That’s pretty cool for an complex antenna previously thought to be nothing more than a little bitty hair on a tiny cell.' [1.]
- well; it's not too difficult to come up with an explanation of the cilia if it's nothing but a hair (not really, but relatively) but it's another order of magnitude to give an account of the newly discovered wonder of the cilia. This is just one example of the task facing the evolutionist. (What I've called the Darwinist dilemna.)
- the evolutionist can either ignore this new complexity, or he can attempt to account for it... and end up showing he can't. He doesn't want to do either, but he has little choice.
- Evolutionary theory was so successful in the culture (taking it over almost completely) because it had so little work to do; because of this people didn't realize how weak the theory was. It had few difficult questions to address; and once these were attended to it was a kind of clear sailing. Now however it has struck an iceberg called complexity. The world of living organisms is now seen to be billions? of times more complex than anyone imagined. (It's impossible to put a number on this of course; we might as well have said trillions.) Simple analogies to animal breeding just aren't going to cut it any more. [2.]
Notes;
1. Reference; Harnessing Cellular Machines for Humans; Creation/Evolution Headlines 07/20/2007
2. The analogy Darwin used was a false one.
3. The cell;
'In the early twentieth century, the cell was viewed as essentially a blob of protoplasm (a collection of gelatin molecules). And although the inner workings were not yet understood, it was assumed the first cell developed through a process of chemical evolution (abiogenesis). The following is a quote from Ernest Haeckel, who was affectionately known as Darwin's bulldog.
“ ‘not composed of any organs at all, but consist entirely of shapeless, simple, homogeneous matter … nothing more than a shapeless, mobile, little lump of mucus or slime, consisting of albuminous combination of carbon.’ - creationwiki - cell biology
4. Laudanum;
'Darwin desperately tried many different therapies, within the limitations of medical science of his time. He took all kinds of medicines, including bismuth compounds and laudanum... - Wiki/Charles Darwin's illness
- how much Laudanum he used I don't know; but there's a dreamy quality to a lot of his writing (to his reasoning) that seems to indicate it might have been a lot. (e.g. "It's not impossible to imagine...") I haven't come across any writers who refer to his Laudanum use.
- this is clearly speculation on my part, and not meant as an ad hominem argument. (If everyone else can speculate on his health problems I suppose I can.) Obviously his use of L. doesn't affect the truth or falsity of his arguments.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
