2. The design in nature

2.
Let's think of an aspirin pillfor a moment; you will immediately
recall the mark in the middle of it. This mark is designed in order to
help those who intake half a dose. Every product that we see around us
is of a certain design even though not assimple as the aspirin pill.
Everything from vehicles we use to go to work, to TV remotes.
"Design", briefly, means a harmonious assembling ofvarious parts into
an orderly form towards a common goal. Going by this definition, one
would have no difficulty in guessing that a car is a design. This is
because there is a certain goal, which is to transport people and
cargo. In realization of this goal various parts such as the engine,
tires and body are planned and assembled in the plant.
However, what about a living creature? Can a bird and mechanics of its
flyingbe a design as well? Before giving an answer, let us repeat the
evaluation we did for the example of a car. The goal at hand, in this
case, is to fly. For this purpose, hollowed bones, strong muscles that
move these bones are utilized together with feathers capable of
suspending in the air. Wings are formed aerodynamically, and
metabolism is in tune withthe bird's need for high levels of energy.
It is obvious that the bird is product of a certain design.
If one explores other creatures besides a bird, similar facts are
attained. There are examples of a certain meticulous design in every
creature. If one continues further on this quest, one would discover
that our selves are also a part of this certain design. Your hands
that hold these pages are functional as no robot hands could ever be.
Your eyes that read these lines are making vision possible with such
focus that the best camera on earth simply cannot.
Hence one arrives at this important conclusion; all creatures in
Nature, including us, are of a Design . This, in turn, shows the
existence of a Creator Who designs all creatures at will, sustains the
entire nature and holds absolute power and wisdom.
However, this truth is rejected by the theory of evolution that was
formedin the middle of 19th century. The theory set forth in Charles
Darwin's book " On The Origin of Species " asserts that all creatures
evolved within achain of coincidences and essentially mutated from one
another.
According to the fundamental assertion of this theory all living
thingsgo through minute and coincidental changes. If these
coincidental changeshelp the creature then it gains advantage over the
others, which in turn is carried onto following generations.
This scenario has been passed around as if it is a very scientific and
convincing one for 140 years. When scrutinized under a bigger
microscopeand when compared against the examples of the Design in
creatures Darwin's theory paints a very different picture i.e.
Darwinism's explanation of creation is nothing more than a
self-conflicting vicious circle.
Let us first focus on the"coincidental changes". Darwin could not
provide a comprehensive definition to this concept due to lack of
genealogicalknowledge in his time. The evolutionists who followed him
put forth theconcept of "mutation" on this subject. Mutation is
arbitrary disconnections, dislocation or shifts of genes in living
things. Most important point is that there is not one single mutation
in history that is shown to improve the condition of genetic
information of a creature. Nearly all the known casesof mutations
disable or harm these creatures and the rest are neutral in effect.
Therefore, to think that a creature can improve through mutation is
same as shooting at a crowd of people and hope that the injuries will
result in healthier and improved individuals. This would clearly be
nonsense.
As importantly, on contrary to all the scientific data, even if one
assumes that a certain mutation could actually improve a being's
condition,
Darwinism still cannot be delivered from inevitable collapse. The
reason for this is a concept called"irreducible complexity".
The implication of this concept is that majority of systems and organs
in living things function as a result of various independent parts
working together, elimination or disabling ofeven one of which would
be enough to disable the entire system or organ.
For example, an ear perceives sounds only through a chain reaction of
a series of smaller organs. Take out or deform one of these, e.g. one
of the bones of the middle ear, and there would be no hearing
whatsoever. In order for an ear to perceive a variety of components
such as auditory meatus, malleous, incus and stapesbones, tympanic
membrane, cochlea and fluid, sensory cells,
:->

--

- - -
Translate:
http://translate.google.com/m?hl=en&twu=1/
- - - -