History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Zimmer freaks out over ID

December 31st, 2008 · No Comments

Oh No! I’ve Seen the Impossible! My Eyes!
Ah, the things you learn from creationists…

If you’ve ever read about intelligent design (a k a “the progeny of creationism”), you’ve probably encountered their favorite buzz words, “irreducible complexity.” If you take a piece out of a complex biological system (like the cascade of blood-clotting proteins) and it fails to work, this is taken as evidence that the system could not have evolved. After all, without all the pieces in place, it couldn’t work.

Scientists have shown over and over again that this is a false argument. At the famous intelligent-design trial in Dover in 2005, Pennsylvania, for example, Brown biologist Ken Miller showed how dolphins and other species are missing various proteins found in our blood-clotting cascade, and they can still clot blood. (Here’s Miller on Youtube giving a lecture on the experience–the blood starts to clot at 39:00.)

Zimmer ought to know better, but doesn’t.
For myself, I don’t support ID arguments, but it doesn’t follow that they are refuted. Refuted or not, the Darwinian arguments invoking natural selection against the enigmas of complex strutures doesn’t work. It would be nice if ‘scientists’ had the honesty to acknowledge this, but instead we get the usual hype on the subject.
Scientists are destroying the public’s common sense here.

So let’s put it simply: it is hard to understand how complex structures can be explained by natural selection. It doesn’t follow that ID is the answer.
So the tactics of getting indignant and insulting the critics on this point is a sign that scientists are either desperate to deceive us, or so brainwashed they no longer grasp the issues.

Which is it for Mr. Zimmer?

Tags: Evolution

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment