Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Islam, the State, the cult of Gay and Queer, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, 'Science', Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion....a nice variety for the human-hater, amoral, anti-rationalist to choose from. It is so much fun mocking them isn't it ?
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
Biochemist Behe is a Roman Catholic who sees nothing incompatible between faith and the theory of evolution. In fact he finds the idea of a common ancestor compelling. The problem lies at the cell and micro-biological level, where evolution is revealed to be a nonsense, a theory in essence looking for facts. Not one single shred of proof for the cult of Darwin exists at the nano-and micro-biological level. None.
Behe's book is mostly understandable for the lay person unversed in the details of biology and chemistry. But it is not an easy read in parts, due to the detail that must be presented on proving the complexity of supposedly 'simple' cells and their nano-technology structures. The 'simple cell', so-named by the cult of Darwin, is in actual fact more complicated than a major urban center. How did such micro-complexity 'evolve' into perfectly functioning organisms composed as in the case of the human, of hundreds of trillions of such miniature cities? Darwin's cult has no answer.
A sample of Behe's detailed biochemical exposition which has never been refuted at the factual level with empirical evidence, by the cult of Darwin includes:
-Given the evidence of massive extinctions [and sudden reappearances of life], the 'evolution' of the human has shrunk from 4.6 billion years to a few million. How did the human eye for instance develop its incredible complexity over a few million years ? If the parts are not all connected and working together, the eye ceases to function and the cortex and nervous centres behind the eye must also be present. Such a system of complexity cannot 'evolve' through random chance at the cellular level. There is simply no proof of this happening.
-The nanotechnology of a cell [starting on p. 102] is vibrant, dynamic and an 'irreducibly complex' system of moving parts, messaging, information 'being shipped' [DNA to RNA to proteins], and actions being taken. Inter-alia animal cells have: a Nucleus, DNA, RNA, micro-RNA, proteins [amino acids], Endosome, Peroxlsome, Free Polyribosomes, Plasma membranes, Endoplasmic Reticulum, Mitochondrion, Golgi apparatus, Lysosome, and Cytosol. Wow. This is 'simple' ? And all this 'evolved' from mud or a [never-found or geologically proven] 'soupy mixture' ? The section of the make-up of the cell requires a fourth or fifth re-read to comprehend a tithe of the cell's mysterious complexity and purpose.
-'Simple' structures such as cilia and flagella [cell organelles] which are appendages to each cell [swimming functionality], have an astounding complexity with dozens and in some cases hundreds, of precisely manufactured parts working together to form the cilium or flagellum. The probability of such a complexity occurring by 'random chance' is less than zero [mathematical logic will generate such an answer].
-Blood-clotting, another 'simple process' is in fact an intricate and highly complex process involving a multitude of interdependent protein parts. The absence or 'significant defects in any one of a number of the components causes the system to fail wherein: 'blood does not clot at the proper time or at the proper place.' How would a cell or series of cells be so organized by random chance to stop the outflow of blood at a nexus of time and place ? In fact Behe's description of how blood clotting works makes your average lawn mower look like a simpleton's toy by comparison. You will need to read this section at least three times to understand just a part of it.
-Anti-bodies or cells which counter-act disease are another 'simple structure' according to the cult of Darwin. Within the anti-body system are literally pools of billions to trillions of 'factory B cells' which are the main agents in fighting pathogens. Behe: 'The process of picking the right cell out of a mixture of anti-body producing cells is called clonal selection. Clonal selection is an elegant way to mount a specific response in great numbers to a wide variety of possible foreign invaders.'
Needless to say the antigen process is severely dense. In the most simplified scheme as Behe states, '...we are left with three critical ingredients (1) the membrane-bound form of the antibody: (2) the messenger; and (3) the exported form of the antibody. If any of these components is missing, the system fails...' In other words there is no possibility that such a system can 'evolve'. It either works or it doesn't. Adding to this complexity is the fact that splicing and re-arranging DNA is also an integral part to the anti-body process. How did that happen by 'random chance'? The cult of Evolution has no clue.
Behe goes on for some 300 pages dispatching with biochemical proof, the idea that complex structures such as a cell occurred by random chance. Imagine the impossibility of the eye, the brain, the heart, the lungs, the liver, the still useful appendix [you need it when you are born], and other agglomerations of trillions of cells. Is it reasonable – or is it a cult dogma – to assume that the enormous and irreducible complexity of cilia, flagella, factory B cells, DNA and micro-RNA and the patterned arrangement of amino acids are the products of happenstance, 'random chance mutation', or 'natural selection' ?
If for example, there are no options available for selection the eye cannot 'evolve'. How did the cells of the flat worm for example, 'know' that they must make the 'great leap', to the DNA-RNA-Protein sequences and informational grids and patterns of the amphibian and how in this process did the organ named the eye begin to accrue the requisite bio-chemical information to 'evolve' ? This is what the cult of Darwin teaches. The 'simple' eye of Darwin's book, 'evolves' by magic to the complex eye of the human. How ? Even at the cellular level the cult of Darwin offers no proof nor can they even begin to rationalize how DNA for example 'evolved', or how single cells 'evolved' into multi-celled organisms.
As Behe proves Darwin's cult cannot even explain the 'evolution' of blood-clotting, let alone 'great leaps' from the flatworm to the amphibian, from the amphibian to the reptile, from the reptile to the bird and mammal; and from the shrew to Darwin. Evolution is a theory looking for empirical evidence. As Behe so lucidly presents the more we know about microbiology and biochemical structures, the more of a laughingstock the cult of Darwin becomes.