Science of creationism
I am writing in response to Amy Wilson’s letter in the Feb. 29 issue of the Johnson City Press.
I believe the creation position is that God created man in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.
Scientists who understand the amazing complexity inside a living human cell know it could never have evolved; it had to be created.
Maybe Wilson would like to tell your readers where the first cell came from. It would need to be a membrane-encased, self-reproducing, metabolizing, living cell. And if she can do that maybe she will take Dr. Walt Brown up on his offer for a written, publishable debate on the creation-evolution issue, as described on pages 296-298 in his book “In the Beginning,” compelling evidence for creation and the flood.
However, the debate must be restricted to science and avoid religion. The offer is also found on his Web site: www.creationscience.com.MARTIN LAWS
Limestone
Do you see now why the church needs to talk about science and faith and celebrate Evolution Sunday? Anyone have an answer for Mr. Laws?
How do you say that and make this contradiction work?:
ReplyDelete"I believe the creation position is that God created man in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."
"However, the debate must be restricted to science and avoid religion."
Huh?
Mr. Wilson, with his PhD, has impressive credentials for the average Joe. Looking at his book, the average person doesn't stand a chance of understanding it - Wilson employs the ancient practice of providing an overwhelming amount of information in an incomprehensible language, i.e. "baffle them with bulls---. He is scary!
ReplyDeleteDrew: LOL
ReplyDeleteBill42: Agreed. Like this phrase:
"It would need to be a membrane-encased, self-reproducing, metabolizing, living cell."
Huh? I certainly don't know what he is talking about, but I could imagine a few biologists in my church could give them a lesson in biology.
There is also a confusion here between evolution (the fact of change over time) and the theory of the mechanism of change on one hand and questions regarding the origin of life, which I understand, scientists don't know a lot about.
Yeah, the cell think struck me as complete and utter bullpuckey. I know an awful lot of biologists who can explain in great detail how human cells evolved into their present form.
ReplyDelete(As an aside, most "scientists" that the creationists can find are usually aerospace engineers, those whose disciplines logically assume design)
Hell, I learned in high school about cellular evolution. Cells are either prokaryotic (no nucleus containing the DNA/RNA) or eukaryotic (has a nucleus containing the DNA/RNA). Prokaryotes are basically always single-cell creatures (like bacteria), while eukaryotes can be single-cell or multi-cell (everything from amoeba to homo sapiens). While this evolutionary trait was revolutionary as far as what plants, animals and fungi this made possible, there are still plenty of prokaryotes around (underscoring the answer to a common misconception about evolution: evolution does not describe a straight-line path from blue-green algae to human beings--we still have some very primitive life forms on the planet who were able to survive thank you very much).
Most (but not all) eukaryotic cells contain an organelle called the mitochondrion. It essentially handles most of the energy production in a cell. It also has its own DNA that is different from that of the cell itself. In fact, the mitochondrion was at some point in the distant past a member of the phylum Proteobacteria, which today includes E. Coli. The theory is that certain eukaryotic cells got the ability to live in a symbiotic relationship with these proto-mitochondria bacteria cells, eventually incorporating the bacteria into their own bodies. Having an energy-producing bacteria in-house allowed these cells to eventually be able to become multi-cellular creatures.
I am of course greatly oversimplifying endosymbiotic theory, but that's the gist of it.