An interesting argument made against life being designed is the path of the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve (RLN.) If life was designed why would God take such an un-optimal path for the nerve — especially as seen in the giraffe?
The claim is that if you look at the RLN in fish you’ll see a more direct path, and as species evolved this nerve just got wrapped up and ended up taking a very indirect route below the heart. It makes sense, it looks like we can simply say “evolution did-it tm” and shrug it off. However, before we do that let’s think how un-useful that is towards our knowledge of biology. If we look at this “junk DNA” and say evolution did-it, we hinder our progression in science. It’s more interesting and useful to first assume there is a plan behind it and figure out why it is the way it is. That’s what we did with “junk DNA” and it ended up not being junk!
Even if I believed macro evolution was true (which I don’t,) I wouldn’t say that the indirect path of the LN was caused from it. How can evolution pay attention to such details like our eye lashes and eye brows yet take such a strange path for the LN? Just like most other things with evolution (like vestigial organs, junk DNA, eyes being wired backwards (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1742), etc.) it will probably end up going against the Darwin theory.
So what are some possibilities behind this RLN? I have heard some good ideas, check out http://www.icr.org/article/recurrent-laryngeal-nerve-not-evidence/
As a computer programmer I try to relate code to biology. I may look at code that someone else wrote and wonder why the heck they did that. I may even go as far as rewriting what they wrote trying to improve it only to find out that once my new elegant code is executed I discover major bugs. Then further digging reveals that what the original author did had an elegant purpose. I have the same view with life. Until we’re at the point where we can design life ourselves we should be very skeptical about un-optimal design. I am willing to bet that if we designed a giraffe from the embryonic stage to adult life with a short RLN we would find some very serious bugs.
I disagree and propose the exact opposite — religion has had a profound positive impact on science both indirectly and directly. If you look through time I’m sure you’ll see an important role religion has played with the advancement of science.
First you have the Scottish Enlightenment period which changed the word. The cause? Local churches started schools (Education Act 1633.)
Then you have to account for any huge scientific advancements that were motivated from a design/creation aspect. For example Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic Priest who first proposed the big bang theory. He said that an “initial creation-like event must have occurred.”
Sure, religion gave science a few black eyes. However, so has the materialistic/secular view of the world. I’ll say not only has this view slowed the progression of science (things like junk DNA) but has been downright harmful (doctors removing vestigial organs because they are useless artifacts of evolution.)
Why does God allow evil? I believe that in order to know what is good you must know what evil is. How would you know what is good without knowing what’s bad? You would have nothing to contrast good to so therefore nothing can be considered good. Here is the best argument I have for this position.
A child who was fed and taken care of their entire childhood would not think that this is good — they just expect it. To them it’s a part of life, their parents take care of them and give them all they need and is neither good nor bad. It isn’t until they see other children neglected, or see other parents struggling to feed their own children that they come to the realization of what they had was good. Therefore we wouldn’t know what was good without knowing what was evil.
Also, let’s say a person intentionally murdered a child — that is evil. However, a loving God gave us freewill, therefore a loving God must allow that person to exercise their freewill and murder that child.
Often people will use the argument that if God existed why does he allow evil. Why does God allow people to be killed in hurricanes and other natural disasters?
First of all, is death evil? I think evil is the ultimate cause of death, but death in itself is not evil and is a necessary part of life as we know it. Therefore how can we say people dying in an earthquake is evil? Actually, I would argue it’s good — only spiritual bodies are allowed in heaven. It can be good in other ways too, for example, say you were to die right before you would commit the unforgivable sin? That is an example of death being good. You might even take it as far as that people dying in natural disasters is evidence of Gods grace.
Further, the fact that Read more…
With a friend I was discussing radio carbon dating and the assumptions it makes for dating. He like most people just could not grasp that people believe the Earth is ~6,000 years old when radio carbon dating dates organisms to tens of thousands years old.
Here is my very simple understanding of why it could be inaccurate. Read more…
It’s interesting that Scientists create miniature machine parts from DNA.
From the article
In the latest phase of the nanotechnology revolution, scientists have built a collection of minuscule objects from DNA, including toothed gears, curved tubes, and a wireframe beach ball five millionths of a centimetre in diameter.
The building blocks of DNA can be made to assemble themselves, piece by piece, into a structure designed by the researcher.
That’s weird, you can create toothed gears from DNA? This makes DNA sound like a programming language and gears sound like an efficient design pattern. I’m surprised we don’t have these Read more…
The more I think about it, the more I came to understand everyone is religious and worships a God.
First let me define religion. I define it as organized actions you take to please your god. Some may define it as a belief in supernatural powers or an organized approach to human spirituality, though I disagree as you can have an Earth religion where you worship naturalistic things or be in a religion that isn’t spiritual. The Jews and Muslims make animal sacrifices and God is pleased. Buddhists believe Read more…
It’s interesting that biologists are finding perfection in biology.
If life was created by a designer then I would certainly expect to see well designed life. Apparently that is what we see.
The base of the Serpent Seed Doctrine is Satan had sex with Eve and they produced a child Cain.
It’s worth noting that during this post, and as I always do, this will be one sided (for the most part.) This doesn’t mean that I agree or disagree, it just means that I present the debate from one side. Maybe I’ll present good counter arguments in future blog posts.
Let’s dive in.
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Who is the serpent? In Revelation 12:9 the names of Satan are listed.
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Satan has many names, including serpent.
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
Here we have one of those verses that requires interpretation. Is it talking of a literal tree and literal fruit? As bible students we know many Read more…
Some don’t believe that Adam and Eve were the first 2 humans. The idea is that on the 6th day God created humans, then on the 8th day God created Adam and Eve.
I’ll explain the reasons for Adam and Eve being an 8th day creation then you can decide. Read more…