Post by Kivawolfspeaker on Oct 13, 2005 16:27:01 GMT -5
I'm writing an Opinion-Editoral for my Science and Environmental Jounralism class and would like some feedback. It is supposed to address some issue related to the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debate and whether ID should be taught in science classrooms. Any constructive critics would be helpful.
A Big Mistake? Do Things Really Happen Randomly as Darwin Claims They Do?
Was everything that happened in your life really just some random accident with no meaning like Darwinian Evolutionists so passionately claim? Is Intelligent Design just something created by Fundamentalist Christianity to get Creationism into the classroom? Or… is there another way to define Intelligent Design as a science that would complement Evolution? Cutting edge research in cellular biology might lead one to think the latter.
Many critics of Intelligent Design, mostly Darwinists, think of it only as Fundamentalist Christian Creationism dressed up as a science. It’s funny how, ironically, both Darwinists and Creationists assume that if a Creator/Designer exists, that it must be separate from its Creation/Design. The only difference between the two on this issue is that Creationists believe a Creator does exist and Darwinists believe that Nature evolves through random mutations in one’s DNA.
Recent insights by cell biologist Bruce Lipton PhD., questions Charles Darwin’s claim that mutations or changes in one’s DNA are random. One of Darwinists main assumptions is that the nucleus and DNA are the “brain” of the cell. However, studies show that even after the nucleus is removed, the cell may still function for two months or more, without its supposed “brain!” Now, if someone removed your brain from your body your body would die right away. Considering that the cell lived after its nucleus was removed, logically, the nucleus can not be the “brain” of the cell.
Studies on cloned human cells led Dr. Lipton to conclude that the cell membrane or as he likes to call it the “mem-Brain.” This “mem-Brain” has two types of proteins embedded within its lipid bilayer: the receptor and effector proteins. Not only do these proteins respond to physical molecules, but they also respond to vibrational frequencies as well. The receptor proteins on the outer lipid layer of the membrane gather information from signals in the environment and connect to an effector protein on the bottom inner lipid layer of the membrane. The receptor proteins pass the information they have received from the signals (whether physical or energetic) to the effector proteins, thus providing the cell with an awareness and understanding of its outside environment. The effector proteins then take this information and make the cell behave accordingly.
The receptor/effector protein complex is also said to control the turning on and off of various genes. This has recently been correlated with mutations in the DNA code in response to environmental stressors. Taking this into account, the cell seems to have its own intelligence and is consciously designing its own DNA and ultimately, itself. If the cell is consciously mutating its own DNA, how are these mutations random, like Darwin claims? They can’t be. The cell has to be its own intelligent designer, designing itself for its own survival based on feedback from the environment.
Having said all of this, it is really not much different than what Darwin originally stated in terms of mutations in one’s DNA. I mean, think about it. The only really difference between Darwin and Lipton’s claims is that Dr. Lipton states the mutations in DNA are not random and Darwin does. However, Darwin either ignored or did not have access to the research Dr. Lipton did. Dr. Lipton is merely updating Darwin’s theory of evolution as more information comes in explaining how cells consciously interact with their environment. If Intelligent Design were thought of terms of Bruce Lipton’s research, it could be considered a science and be taught in science classrooms.
A Big Mistake? Do Things Really Happen Randomly as Darwin Claims They Do?
Was everything that happened in your life really just some random accident with no meaning like Darwinian Evolutionists so passionately claim? Is Intelligent Design just something created by Fundamentalist Christianity to get Creationism into the classroom? Or… is there another way to define Intelligent Design as a science that would complement Evolution? Cutting edge research in cellular biology might lead one to think the latter.
Many critics of Intelligent Design, mostly Darwinists, think of it only as Fundamentalist Christian Creationism dressed up as a science. It’s funny how, ironically, both Darwinists and Creationists assume that if a Creator/Designer exists, that it must be separate from its Creation/Design. The only difference between the two on this issue is that Creationists believe a Creator does exist and Darwinists believe that Nature evolves through random mutations in one’s DNA.
Recent insights by cell biologist Bruce Lipton PhD., questions Charles Darwin’s claim that mutations or changes in one’s DNA are random. One of Darwinists main assumptions is that the nucleus and DNA are the “brain” of the cell. However, studies show that even after the nucleus is removed, the cell may still function for two months or more, without its supposed “brain!” Now, if someone removed your brain from your body your body would die right away. Considering that the cell lived after its nucleus was removed, logically, the nucleus can not be the “brain” of the cell.
Studies on cloned human cells led Dr. Lipton to conclude that the cell membrane or as he likes to call it the “mem-Brain.” This “mem-Brain” has two types of proteins embedded within its lipid bilayer: the receptor and effector proteins. Not only do these proteins respond to physical molecules, but they also respond to vibrational frequencies as well. The receptor proteins on the outer lipid layer of the membrane gather information from signals in the environment and connect to an effector protein on the bottom inner lipid layer of the membrane. The receptor proteins pass the information they have received from the signals (whether physical or energetic) to the effector proteins, thus providing the cell with an awareness and understanding of its outside environment. The effector proteins then take this information and make the cell behave accordingly.
The receptor/effector protein complex is also said to control the turning on and off of various genes. This has recently been correlated with mutations in the DNA code in response to environmental stressors. Taking this into account, the cell seems to have its own intelligence and is consciously designing its own DNA and ultimately, itself. If the cell is consciously mutating its own DNA, how are these mutations random, like Darwin claims? They can’t be. The cell has to be its own intelligent designer, designing itself for its own survival based on feedback from the environment.
Having said all of this, it is really not much different than what Darwin originally stated in terms of mutations in one’s DNA. I mean, think about it. The only really difference between Darwin and Lipton’s claims is that Dr. Lipton states the mutations in DNA are not random and Darwin does. However, Darwin either ignored or did not have access to the research Dr. Lipton did. Dr. Lipton is merely updating Darwin’s theory of evolution as more information comes in explaining how cells consciously interact with their environment. If Intelligent Design were thought of terms of Bruce Lipton’s research, it could be considered a science and be taught in science classrooms.