Watched a video today called Unlocking the Mystery…
January 8th, 2006 | by Jeremy |Watched a video today called Unlocking the Mystery of Life. It’s about a group of scientists who weren’t comfortable with Darwin’s theory of natural selection and the effect it was having on science. It then looked at life on a cellular level and the machinery inside a cell and the language of DNA and concluded that these were signs of intelligence. Signs of intelligent design. It was a very well made video and if this subject interests you at all, I highly recommend checking it out. For those of you who are worried about being preached to, don’t worry. It’s done from a scientific viewpoint and there are no scripture passages or mentions of “God” or “Jesus”.
The issue I have with those who don’t want intelligent design discussed in our public schools is that they refuse to look at evidence that will point them to a conclusion they don’t want to be true. But isn’t that the point of science? To investigate and learn the truth no matter what that truth ends of being? When Charles Darwin wrote “On the Origin of Species” 150 years ago, we didn’t have the electron microscope. We couldn’t look inside of a cell and see the machinery and coded language that exists inside. If he knew then what science knows now, Darwin would burn his own book. In fact, Darwin himself said,
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
Michael Behe claims that this has been demonstrated in bacterial flagellum, the complex motor system that makes bacteria move. It’s composed of a system of intricately arranged mechanical parts that in and of themselves serve no function. Therefore, the motor composed of five parts could not form by “numerous, successive, slight modifications” because parts one, two, three and four would do nothing until part five arrived.
The anti-intelligent design camp is doing the scientific community a disservice by not looking into a certain possibility because they don’t like the implications that come along with the conclusion.
(HTML note: If you look towards the bottom of the right hand column on this page, you’ll see the archives section. However, if you click on any of the archive links, up will pop the page in raw HTML code. I’m not sure why this is happening. If anyone knows, please let me know. I guess my intelligent design in this area is lacking…)