What Is True?
April 25, 2005

Boundaries of Knowledge

Creation vs. Evolution

Books & Articles by Michael J. Behe on Intelligent Design

Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference
www.arn.org, Michael J. Behe, Paper presented 1994

"...Although many details of the biochemistry of vision have not been cited here, the overview just seen is meant to demonstrate that, ultimately, this is what it means to 'explain' vision. This is the level of explanation that Biological science eventually must aim for. In order to say that some function is understood, every relevant step in the process must be elucidated. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as sight, or digestion, or immunity, must include a molecular explanation. It is no longer sufficient, now that the black box of vision has been opened, for an 'evolutionary explanation' of that power to invoke only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the 19th century and as most popularizers of evolution continue to do today...

"...What we see in the cilium, then, is not just profound complexity, but also irreducible complexity on the molecular scale. Recall that by "irreducible complexity" we mean an apparatus that requires several distinct components for the whole to work. My mousetrap must have a base, hammer, spring, catch, and holding bar, all working together, in order to function. Similarly, the cilium, as it is constituted, must have the sliding filaments, connecting proteins, and motor proteins for function to occur. In the absence of any one of those components, the apparatus is useless."

I was impressed with Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box when I read it. Evolution vs. Creation was one of the questions that turned me away from the "world", and drove me into the clutches of a cultic religious system when I was a teenager. I believe that evolution has been presented to us as dogmatic propaganda by science and the media, but it was never convincing to me. So this is an important question for people to consider and we should not be pressured into conforming to evolutionary belief, and we should not assume that religion is correct about all of its own teachings either.

If you are not convinced by something, don't believe that you have to be convinced, and don't be in a hurry to rush to other conclusions or join particular groups where they ask you to just "believe" and where the "proof" is never good enough. If you have doubts, whether it is religion or science, let your doubts speak to you. Why choose unconvincing alternatives?

Remember that people are biased toward their own ideas and assumptions that are not necessarily grounded in reality. And remember that nobody knows everything, and it is OK if you never know the true origin of life! How could you? Why should we worry too much about that? But we should learn what we can. Consider what we can see. Consider the evidence. Consider the world around you and remember that the majority, society and supposed experts are often wrong. They're just human like yourself. Remember that right and wrong exist. The moral ideal is that we should not try to believe or pretend to believe what we don't really believe. We should be loyal to the truth - as well as we can perceive it - and question every assertion we are not convinced of.


Terri Schiavo Case: Government's Role in the Disposal of Disabled Family Members


Death Came to Church One Day
Organizational violence stalks the devout: An analysis of the Brookfield, Wisconsin Church shooting
by Larry J. Chavez