 |
 |
PAULA, Ray and KF I support Ray and KF. Just because a single cell is complex that does not mean that the progenitors of that single cell were nearly as complex. as the single cell organism of today How old is the Earth and the universe? Is it as the Bible says 5-6000 yrs old or is it the millions of years old evolutionists say it is? Steven Jay Gould is probably rolling over in his grave now with you using his words that to justify the teaching of intelligent design. He was a strong supporter of evolution and in fact is one of my heroes in that regard. Because there are gaps in the evidence does not mean the theory is not true only that we don't know everything yet. Intelligent design may well be important but it belongs in a class where religion is taught not in a science class. Because different religions teach different origins of the the universe and all of them should be taught to be "fair and balanced" .Maybe a history of religion curriculum should be devised that puts equal emphasis on all of them, - or would that be too threatening to the religious Right. An understanding of evolution is crucial in an understanding of much of medicine. Any attempt to dilute it with Intelligent design as opposed to challenge it with rational scientific facts is an abomination.. Let us look at our president and his failure to weigh evidence..Rather than use science and the scientific method. Rather, like you. has a mistrust of science. Rather than using it to help him understand the world he counts on god, intuition and cronies to make decisions and then when they are proven wrong he fails (with the exception of Katrina) to change directions. He certainly should use prayer if it works for him, and intuition but scientific method allows for mid course corrections based on evidence. CHARLES T MEYER MD CHARLIE K . F. Etzold wrote: > Paula Nixon wrote: > >> Dear Ray >> When Darwin first started talking about Evolution, it sounded very >> rational that life evolved from the simple cell which was thought to >> be a jelly like mass of protoplasm with a nucleus. I remember >> drawing those in school. Now we know there is no such thing as a >> simple cell, it is a single cell. In 1963 Dr. George Palade of the >> Rockerfeller Institute in NY, discovered it was an amazingly >> intricate system of incredibly fine tubes and chain of minute bags >> that totally permeate the entire cell. To summary your 10 pages of >> the "simple cell" It has structural design, energy generators, >> invasion guards , transport systems, food factories, waste disposal >> systems, protective barriers, communication links within and without >> the cell city that it is. Just the "skin" of the cell is amazing. >> It controls the entry and exit of everything for the cell, almost as >> if it had a chemical sense of taste as it grabs or rejects the needed >> nutrients into the cell by forming a little "finger"! > > ! > >> that >> reaches out and pulls the needed nutrient inside. Then there is the >> DNA and RNA! Science hasn't a clue how this could have just >> happened, but they don't say that in the schools or in science books, >> or if they do it is very low keyed. It couldn't have just happened. >> >> There was a quote I read once, that I can't find when I need it, that >> said, "Evolution expects us to believe the unbelievable, but to do >> otherwise is to believe in a Creator and that is unacceptable." >> Paula >> > Paula: > > Just because the scientific community does not know everything does not > imply or force us to speculate on intelligent design. Any scientist > worth his salt will readily "admit" that his/her knowledge is limited. > The leap from this is unjustified and illogic. Had scientists made that > leap all scientific progress would have stopped, because there is no > more knowledge to obtain. > A basic tenet is that our understanding of nature is always incomplete > and that we must strive for further knowledge. If we had accepted the > scientific knowledge of say 200 years ago > there would be a faith based understanding of, for instance, the cell > but no modern medicine no modern biology. Indeed our present society is > inconceivable had we accepted the '"final" knowledge of 200 years ago. > > The details of the construction of the cell is just what I described in > my article on science: The knowledge was refined but that does not > change our basic understanding. Just because something is complicated > does not imply intelligent design. The little finger you describe has > some man made analogs. Chemistry can now construct molecules at will > with specific properties (such as a little finger). But I would argue > that these molecules were not created by God. Most pharmacological > products were designed that way and in fact the latest Nobel prize nin > Chemistry rewards such a new process. If one did not know how this was > arrived at one could readily argue it was intelligent design. > > K. F. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] > In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn