Friday, August 26, 2011

Are scientists employing a flash mob mentality?

Ann Coulter writes here that Darwin's theory of evolution has been disproven. In her post she gives some of the reasons:
Most devastating for the Darwiniacs were advances in microbiology since Darwin's time, revealing infinitely complex mechanisms requiring hundreds of parts working together at once -- complex cellular structures, DNA, blood-clotting mechanisms, molecules, and the cell's tiny flagellum and cilium.

Darwin's theory was that life on Earth began with single-celled life forms, which by random mutation, sex and death, would pass on the desirable mutations, and this process, over billions of years, would lead to the creation of new species.

The (extremely generous) test Darwin set for his theory was this: "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."

Thanks to advances in microscopes, thousands of such complex mechanisms have been found since Darwin's day. He had to explain only simple devices, such as beaks and gills. If Darwin were able to come back today and peer through a modern microscope to see the inner workings of a cell, he would instantly abandon his own theory.


It is a mathematical impossibility, for example, that all 30 to 40 parts of the cell's flagellum -- forget the 200 parts of the cilium! -- could all arise at once by random mutation. According to most scientists, such an occurrence is considered even less likely than John Edwards​ marrying Rielle Hunter​, the "ground zero" of the impossible.

Nor would each of the 30 to 40 parts individually make an organism more fit to survive and reproduce, which, you will recall, is the lynchpin of the whole contraption.


I have not read Ann's Godless: The Church of Liberalism, but maybe it is time to put a hold on that one at the local library!

1 comment:

Terri Wagner said...

Do it Bob you won't regret it. I read it years ago when it came out. She scientifically debuts the pseudo science of evolution without making it a blanket appeal of religion. In fact her point is one is as much a theory as the other well maybe the science one is even worse because like global warming it claims to be the truth ignoring the science that debuts it.