\n<\/p>\n
I saw that Terrell Clemmons recently completed an 8-part series of posts on Science and Culture about the human body. This is not something that I talk about in my standard list of arguments against naturalism and for Christian theism. So, let\u2019s take a look at this evidence and see if it is something for me to add to the list. And first, we will review the list to see what evidence is already in there.<\/p>\n
So here is the current list of evidences:<\/p>\n
And you can always add philosophical arguments to the list, like the moral argument, if you work at McDonald\u2019s and want to impress your co-workers.<\/p>\n
Should we add the design of the human body to this list?<\/p>\n
Well, let\u2019s see what Terrell\u2019s 8 posts are about.<\/p>\n
So, the first five are body parts. Had you heard about all of these? One of my friends contacted me about the laryngeal nerve article, shocked about how it relates to intelligent design. Well, I am not a big biology person, so I had not heard of any of them except for the wiring of the human retina.<\/p>\n
This quote from the first one really appealed to me as an engineer who has debated evolutionists:<\/p>\n
\nAt Bristol University, engineering researchers have been studying the human vertebral column in order to copy design details and transfer them to bridge design. It is expected that bridges can be made more robust and efficient by copying details of the human spinal column. So at the same university we have the anatomy department claiming the human spine is a bad design, whilst the engineering department is improving bridge design by copying the optimal engineering of the human back! One department is basing claims on the philosophical predictions of macroevolution, whilst the other department is basing claims on physical reality and scientific testing. \u2026 From an engineering perspective, it\u2019s common optimal design by a common designer.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The fifth article about the pelvis was new to me. What he had to say about that one did remind me of tradeoffs in software design:<\/p>\n
\nThe female pelvis is a good example of multi-objective optimization. \u2026 An engineer would say that the female pelvis is the perfect compromise, the perfect size. It\u2019s just wide enough for a baby to be born, but it\u2019s just narrow enough that women can run remarkably fast at sprinting and long-distance running. \u2026 If the female birth canal were any larger to make birth easier, running would be much more difficult because the legs would be too far apart. If the birth canal were any smaller, birth would be really difficult. So an engineer looks at the pelvis and says, it\u2019s the perfect compromise. \u2026 Lucy Hyde cannot propose a better design. \u2026 No one has ever explained how childbirth could be better designed. In fact, in my book, I quote from research papers showing that it\u2019s an incredibly well-designed process.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
I don\u2019t know how people can live in an age of information technology and not understand this. If you want to have a laptop, and you want to use it for software development, you might need things like Docker, an integrated development environment, virtual machines, build tools, etc. Maybe more. And all of that computational power is going to make your laptop more expensive. You can\u2019t have everything! Performance costs more money.<\/p>\n
The last one I wanted to talk about was in part 7. First, let\u2019s see a quote and then I want to make a comment about this after:<\/p>\n
\nTerrell:<\/strong> If it\u2019s true that the evidence favors intelligent design, why do you think the evolutionary narrative persists \u2014 as in the article we\u2019ve been discussing by Lucy Hyde, your anatomist colleague at the University of Bristol.<\/p>\n
Stuart:<\/strong> There is a saying that \u201cin China you cannot criticize the government, but you can criticize evolution; in the West you can criticize the government, but you cannot criticize evolution.\u201d There is enormous peer pressure for academics not to question evidence for evolution.<\/p>\n
I often speak with my academic colleagues about evolution, and they will often admit in private that the evidence is overwhelming for intelligent design, especially in areas like the origin of life. But you\u2019re just not allowed to admit that in public. It\u2019s an unwritten rule that you don\u2019t support intelligent design in academia.<\/p>\n
I had a good friend who was not a Christian, a really senior biologist. He was head of school, a world-leading microbiologist. And he said his colleagues have admitted to him that what\u2019s most important to them is pay, promotion, pension, and parking. Those things are more important than evolution being right or wrong. People don\u2019t want to stick their head above the parapet and say, \u201cHang on, the evidence points to intelligent design!\u201d<\/p>\n
Terrell:<\/strong> Truth is not the priority.<\/p>\n
Stuart:<\/strong> Yes, sadly. It\u2019s human nature. Academics want an easy life like most people do. And the easiest life is sticking to the current paradigm, not stirring things up but just sticking to accepting evolution. You\u2019ve got that inertia. It\u2019s very hard to change that inertia.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
I have been doing a weekly Bible study with a wonderful Christian lady who has the most amazing Christian worldview. She is also very productive as a Christian apologist \u2013 writing, teaching and speaking. We have been going through the gospel of John.<\/p>\n
The gospel of John is about how Jesus is constantly using \u201csigns\u201d (miracles) to prove to people that he is a reliable source of truth about who He is and what God the Father is really like. The big mystery in the book is why doesn\u2019t everyone \u201cbelieve the works\u201d even if they don\u2019t \u201cbelieve the words\u201d. Well, my friend and I have been talking about this. And one of the things we decided is that it is that it is often the case that people just don\u2019t want to embrace views that will make them look \u201cdumb\u201d to their colleagues \u2013 even if they think their colleagues are factually wrong.<\/p>\n
This is something I have faced myself in IT. Word gets around that I am a Christian, and even though I can wipe the floor with every other employee in terms of Christian apologetics, that doesn\u2019t stop the gossiping. People talk about how you \u201chate women\u201d for being pro-life. How you don\u2019t want \u201cgay people to marry who they love\u201d. How you think that non-Christians \u201cshould be sent to Hell for failing a theology quiz\u201d. And that stuff has caused me some setbacks in my IT career.<\/p>\n
Last week, we studied John 12. So, I wanted to share this passage from John 12, which is one that was very significant for my hero and role model, Dr. Walter Bradley, in his famous lecture \u201cGiants in the Land\u201d (part 1<\/a>, part 2<\/a>).<\/p>\n