Surgeon Says Human Body Did Not Evolve

In a recent paper titled “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center surgeon Joseph Kuhn described serious problems with Darwinian evolution.1 He first described how life could not possibly have come from chemicals alone, since the information residing in DNA required an input from outside of nature.2

He then addressed Darwinism’s inability to account for the all-or-nothing structure of cellular systems, including the human body. As a medical doctor, Kuhn not only knows the general arrangement of the human body’s visible parts, he also understands the interrelated biochemical systems that sustain and regulate all of those parts. He recognized that the human body contains an all-or-nothing system in which its core parts and biochemicals must exist all at once for the body to function.

Biochemist Michael Behe named these all-or-nothing systems “irreducibly complex.”3 Removing a single core part from one of these systems keeps the entire system from working, and this implies that the system was initially built with all of its parts intact.

This is exactly what researchers expect to see if God purposely created living systems, rather than if natural processes accidentally built living systems bit-by-bit—as Darwinian philosophy maintains.

Kuhn cited the work of another medical doctor, Geoffrey Simmons, who described 17 “all or nothing” human body systems.4 These combine with many others to form the entire human body—a system of systems—that is irreducible at many levels, from gross anatomy to biochemistry. For example, just as a woman would die without her heart, she would also die without the vital blood biochemical hemoglobin.

But even an intact heart and hemoglobin need regulation. A heart that beats too fast or too slow can be just as lethal as having no heart, and a body that produces too much or too little hemoglobin can be equally unhealthy. Thus, the systems that regulate heartbeats and hemoglobin must also have been present from the beginning.

Kuhn wrote that “virtually every aspect of human physiology has regulatory elements, feedback loops, and developmental components that require thousands of interacting genes leading to specified protein expression.” Thus, “the human body represents an irreducibly complex system on a cellular and an organ/system basis.”1

Evolution has no proven explanations for the origin of just one irreducibly complex system, let alone the interdependent web of irreducible systems that comprise the human body.

Could the human body have evolved? According to Kuhn, to change another creature into a human “would require far more than could be expected from random mutation and natural selection.”1 However, a wonderfully constructed human body is exactly what an all-wise Creator would make, and He promised that those who trust in Him will one day inherit new bodies “that fadeth not away.”5

References

  1. Kuhn, J. A. 2012. Dissecting DarwinismBaylor University Medical Center Proceedings. 25 (1): 41-47.
  2. See Thomas, B. Baylor Surgeon ‘Dissects’ Darwinism. ICR News. Posted on icr.org February 3, 2012, accessed February 3, 2012.
  3. Behe, M. 1996. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Free Press, 42.
  4. Simmons, G. and W. Dembski. 2004. What Darwin Didn’t Know: A Doctor Dissects the Theory of Evolution. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers.
  5. 1 Peter 1:4.

Read Original Article Here

Advertisements

Rick is not entitled to his own opinion?

Ontario Tories distance themselves from MPP who doesn’t believe in evolution

By Keith Leslie, The Canadian Press

TORONTO – An Ontario Tory’s statement that he doesn’t believe in evolution has puzzled and frustrated his fellow Conservatives who admitted Wednesday that stance doesn’t help a party trying to rebuild after four consecutive election defeats.

Progressive Conservative Rick Nicholls surprised the legislature Tuesday when he responded to a Liberal taunt by saying opting out of teaching students evolution “was not a bad idea.”

Nicholls’s heckle during debate on an updated sex-education curriculum was greeted with howls from the Liberal and NDP benches and even raised eyebrows among the Conservatives, but he wasn’t backing down Wednesday.

 

R_Nicholls

“For myself, I don’t believe in evolution,” Nicholls told reporters. “But that doesn’t mean I speak for everyone else in my caucus. That’s a personal stance.”

Interim PC leader Jim Wilson insisted Nicholls’s views on evolution were not representative of Ontario Tories, and admitted the outburst “obviously didn’t help” a party in the midst of a leadership race.

“He’s entitled to his opinion, but it’s not shared by the majority of caucus members that I know of,” said Wilson. “It’s the first I’ve ever heard of it actually.”

The Liberals were quick to pounce on Nicholls’s opposition to evolution, using it to deflect from a steady barrage of questions from Tories and New Democrats about allegations of bribery in a recent byelection in Sudbury.

Premier Kathleen Wynne said she was very surprised and “taken aback” to find Nicholls confirming he doesn’t believe in evolution.

“I would have expected, quite frankly, that everyone in the legislature would have had a firm belief in the science that we teach in our schools, and certainly that I believe in,” Wynne said in an interview.

Health Minister Eric Hoskins, responding to an Opposition question about drug funding, used his answer to mock Nicholls for his comments.

“We had one member of the PC party questioning whether we should even be teaching evolution in schools,” said Hoskins. “I can’t even begin to imagine what may be coming next: perhaps we never landed on the moon.”

Nicholls, who represents Chatham-Kent-Essex, insisted he had not received any negative feedback from his caucus colleagues over Tuesday’s outburst about evolution: “No one said anything to me at all.”

But he later issued a release correcting his earlier statement and admitting PC house leader Steve Clark had spoken to him Tuesday about the outburst, which a stern looking Clark had earlier told reporters.

“What he said yesterday in the house is obviously not party policy,” Clark said. “I met with him and indicated that if I was asked he certainly didn’t profess party policy and he spoke on his own.”

PC leadership hopeful Christine Elliott, the party’s deputy leader and widow of former finance minister Jim Flaherty, put distance between herself and Nicholls.

“I don’t agree with the views that were expressed with respect to evolution,” Elliott said after question period.

Nicholls co-chairs the PC leadership campaign for Barrie MP Patrick Brown, who said he “believes in the theory of evolution, which is well a accepted in the scientific community.”

The third PC leadership hopeful, London-area MPP Monte McNaughton, responded by saying “I accept the thesis of evolutionary theory.”

Nicholls’s original outburst about not teaching evolution in schools came during a heated exchange between McNaughton and Education Minister Liz Sandals over the new sex-ed curriculum.

McNaughton’s criticism of Premier Kathleen Wynne, who is gay, was branded as “homophobic” by Sandals. McNaughton accused the Liberals of not consulting enough parents on the new curriculum and fumed about being labelled a homophobe by the Liberals.

———————————–

I think we should all send Rick a note and thank him for standing firm on the Bible. rick.nichollsco@pc.ola.org 

 

“The Debate of the Decade” Tonight at 7pm EST

What has been referred to as “The Debate of The Decade” will take place tonight at 7:PM ET. The contestants, 2 well known scientists with opposing views. The topic: Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era? Watch as Bill Nye “The Science Guy” and Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis, take the time to publicly discuss this hotly debated topic.

The debate will be streaming live at 7:pm and can be viewed here for free: http://debatelive.org/

A live panel discussion before the debate is scheduled for 6:pm as well as a post discussion at 9:30pm.

Those can be seen here:  http://www.creationtoday.org/Debate/

Debate