Ray Bohlin | Aug 23, 2009 | Scientific Apologetics
The Case of the Missing Mechanism The growing crisis in Darwinian theory is becoming more apparent all the time. The work of creationists and other non-Darwinians is growing and finding a more receptive ear than ever before. In this discussion I want to elaborate on what I believe are the five critical areas where Darwinism and evolutionary theory in general are failing. They are: 1. The unsubstantiation of a Darwinian mechanism of evolution 2. The total failure of origin of life studies to produce a workable model 3. The inability of evolutionary mechanism to explain the origin of complex adaptations 4. The bankruptcy of the blind watchmaker hypothesis 5. The biological evidence that the rule in nature is morphological stability over time and not constant change. Much of the reason for evolution’s privileged status has been due to confusion over just what people mean when they use the word evolution. Evolution is a slippery term. If evolution simply means “change over time,” this is non-controversial. Peppered moths, Hawaiian drosophila fruit flies, and even Galapagos finches are clear examples of change over time. If you say that this form of evolution is a fact, well, so be it. But many scientists extrapolate beyond this meaning. Because “change over time” is a fact, the argument goes, it is also a fact that
Science and Faith | Mar 1, 2009 | Scientific Apologetics
Taken from: Science and Faith (Issue 3) “You Might get a Good Mutation !? ” As a neonatologist, a pediatrician who specializes in the care of premature babies, it has been my privilege for decades to be overseeing the care of thousands of premature infants in several nurseries. In a normal clinical setting, commonly we bring in X-ray machines in order to determine if there are problems in the lungs, abdomen, and bone (my area of research). When the X-ray machine rolls in, and is positioning itself to start the X-ray process, usually all the doctors and nurses step back 6 feet or more away from the baby, since no one wants to be irradiated. (X-ray technicians stand behind radiation barriers when patients are radiated) From the viewpoint of general biology, we have been taught for generations that mutations are the essence of Darwinian evolution. Over millions and millions of years, many mutations have occurred, and bingo, the organism becomes more advanced, and that is how evolution (“macro-evolution”) is supposed to work, developing an ascending order of complexity. Presumably, many many mutations occur, so that so called “lower species” develop into “advanced species”, through the varied mutations that “advance” the species. And how do mutations come about? Mutations come about, from radiation or noxious chemical agents in the environment. These
Ray Bohlin | Mar 2, 2008 | Scientific Apologetics
Life on Mars? There was great excitement in the media when a group of scientists from NASA announced they had found evidence of life on Mars. Their evidence, an alleged Martian meteorite, was vaulted to center stage, and everyone from CNN to Nightline ran special programs with interviews and video footage of the scientists and their prized specimen. President Clinton was so excited by the announcement that he praised the U.S. space program and took the opportunity to establish a bipartisan space summit headed up by Vice President Al Gore to study the future of U.S. space research. Aren’t we already doing that? Anyway, clearly this announcement took the country by storm. Some of the scientists were embarrassingly gushing about how significant these findings were. The media frenzy was prompted by the early release of an article from the journal Science, the premier scientific journal in the U.S. The article was due out the following week, but Science decided to release it early because it had leaked out. Here’s what the excitement was about. A group of scientists had studied a meteorite that had been found in the ice of Antarctica. Previously, it had been determined that this meteorite had originated on Mars by studying the gaseous content of glass-like components of the meteor. The gas composition matched very well
Science and Faith | Sep 9, 2007 | Scientific Apologetics
Taken from: Science and Faith (Vol 1, Issue 1 2006) Shanghai Cell I have been a scientist for more than 30 years. It never ceases to amaze me that perfectly logical and brilliant scientists would say quite matter-of-factly that evolution “caused” this or that to happen in history, as if it is a proven fact, well understood and generally accepted by everyone. I often remark: “I don’t need you to explain how an ape evolved into a complex human being. Just explain to me how the first smallest cell ever came to being by “chance!” Just one little cell. The one little cell, the most “primitive” (to the uninitiated) cell, is actually as complex as the city of Shanghai! As we learn more about the cell, we learn that it is indescribably intricate. Every discovery of science reveals it is even more complex than we thought before. Every new discovery never makes it simpler. It is always more intricate, more complex and more “intelligent.” My usual joke is: were it not for the complexity of the cell, there would not be so many wonderful opportunities for scholars worldwide to come to the US, and many other technologically advanced countries, to obtain their PhDs, PostDocs, and Post-Post-Docs. It is as if the Intelligence that designed the cell, designed it to allow
Science and Faith | Sep 2, 2007 | Scientific Apologetics
Taken from: Science and Faith (Vol 1, Issue 2 2006) Congratulations, Your Baby Has a Mutation? I have been a neonatologist-pediatrician for over 30 years, and I have seen hundreds of mutation affected infants, and read about thousands more in the medical literature. And I have never seen a real live “good” mutation. (Note: a neonatologist is a doctor who specializes in neonates, or newborn care). In fact, the medical literature is full of reports showing how even a small one amino acid mistake/mutation in the phenomenally complex DNA can cause a profound problem. So how is it the biologist, who has never seen a single human patient with mutation, can claim, or “fantasize”, that mutation is the essence of evolution, which propels organisms to increasing complexity and “advance” to a “higher” species. In fact, if evolution (or “macro”-evolution to be precise) really works in the real world we would need to have repeated “good” mutations, that, repeatedly “advance” the species so that, bingo, one day, a “super species” now appears, and we have jumped from one species to another, such as an ape supposedly to a man. Imagine a neonatologist or pediatrician smiling broadly one evening, and strolling into the delivery room of an anxious mother who has just delivered a baby and awaiting the result of the doctor’s
