Post maybe controversial in nature. Do not link this post. Do not read further if the debate of Creationism vs. Evolution disturbs or offends you.
|
Excerpts from Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe: When light first strike the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retina, which re-arranges within picoseconds to trans-retina. (A picosecond is about the time it takes light to travel the breath of a single human hair.) The change in the shape of the retina molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters its behaviour. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein, called transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin… GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to “cut” a molecule called cGMP… When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of cleavage by phosphodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing cellular concentration of positively charged ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell membrane that, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optical nerve to the brain. The result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision. |
Michael Behe is, a biochemist more well known for his Creationist stand. He has written several books that against Evolution and one of them is Darwin’s Black Box.
Looking at the above, I can understand why he remained unconvinced by Evolution, which allegedly ‘explains loads of facts and is supported by mountains of evidence’. In fact, I would find it difficult to fault him for doubting that such precise interaction within the eye can be a result of mutation, one of the key tenets of Evolution.
Evolutionists and their ilk can ridicule or demolish Behe with mere words, but it makes one wonder why people cannot look beyond his Creationist stand but ridicule him for doing what scientists should be doing – testing a theory. Seems like what the pre-reformed Catholic Church did to Galileo, Evolutionists today are doing the same to these so-called ‘Creationists’. Is Evolution a scientific theory or a dogma which cannot be challenged?
Michael Behe should perhaps just give up and be a preacher, because God is spiritual and He is seen more clearly in the heart and the spirit than in science. And personally I do not believe that “Intelligent Design” should be taught in schools as a rival theory to Evolution. Matters of faith has nothing to do with science.
God, in His omni-potence, can definitely stand up for Himself without us mere mortals thinking we can do better.
This is a personal opinion, debate or discussion is not welcomed. Comments and Pingbacks is turned off. Do not link this post.