We have always underestimated cells. Undoubtedly we still do today. … we can walk and we can talk because the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered. Proteins make up most of the dry mass of a cell. But instead of a cell dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules, we now know that nearly every major process in a cell is carried out by assemblies of 10 or more protein molecules. And, as it carries out its biological functions, each of these protein assemblies interacts with several other large complexes of proteins. Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.
Indeed, even this description leaves out much of the story of how cells work. But it all must have evolved because evolution is a fact. And evolution is a fact because it must be. Evolutionists have a dozen or so metaphysical mandates that require evolution. One of them is Gnosticism, as shown on this phylogenetic tree representation of evolutionary thought:
Alberts, as with many evolutionists, is a Gnostic. As President of the National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious positions in science, Alberts once penned this Gnostic ode to evolution:
Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each.
It’s good to hear that scientists are touched with awe. Unfortunately many are, as Alberts tells us, “deeply religious.” That is precisely the problem. In fact Alberts is one of them. And he displays this in his next two sentences. Alberts did not learn these truths from science.
Religion drives science, and it matters.
It's hilarious how CH goes into "Gish Gallop" mode whenever he wants an embarrassing OP of his to quickly scroll off the main page.
ReplyDeleteI think he learned the trick from Denise O'Dreary at UncommonlyDense.
"Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines".
ReplyDeleteYes, but a couple of the proteins have been found to have more than one use, therefore the cell is not irreducibly complex. When will evolutionary skeptics learn that they can't keep up with the rigors of such critical analysis.
"We have always underestimated cells."
ReplyDelete--
"We"?
We, who? Evolutionists of course are always dumbing down biology.
Advocates of design have not and do not underestimate the cell. The cell should be viewed much more as a functioning whole, i.e. irreducibly complex, than an evolutionary cobbled model would demand.
It seems to me that evolutionists have no standard by which to judge something as either designed or not. They have no methodology to say that something has properties that reveal it was designed. In other words, no matter how complex or interconnected and interdependent the components of the cell are found to be, it doesn't matter. Even if they have no explanation for why it isn't irreducibly complex, it doesn't matter. Their philosophy dictates that it wasn't designed even if everything they are seeing is screaming otherwise. The screaming could NEVER become loud enough nor the picture big enough for them to judge otherwise because they have absolutely no basis for accepting design no matter what is found. Their argument from ignorance will only get more hollow.
Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.
ReplyDeleteAh! The good old factory analogy ploy.
What I don't understand is this criticizing science for being a religion. It implies that religious beliefs are a lesser form of knowledge than science.
The purpose seems to be to try and undermine the authority and credibility of science by dragging it down to the level of just another religion.
Yet that very criticism is in itself a backhanded admission that science is the better way of knowing.
Which is good, I suppose.
Although I don't think that's quite what critics of evolution intend.
Religion drives science from the classroom. And it matters