How Electricity and Genetics Works
Over the weekend he takes BJU to task for publishing "creasyun" nonsense.
Frickin' electricity, how does it work?
One has to labor through a good many snarky remarks (comment #287) until they find this one written by a BJU graduate in biology. (I saw it reprinted at the Sharper Iron site). Note my emphasis:
A little bit of very critical information is missing from this. First of all, what is the title of the textbook? What is the page number of this paragraph? What is the context of the information? What is the grade level to which it is written?
It's clear that this is written to young children and is not intended to be a in depth analysis of what is known about electricity. The point that it makes, however, is very valid: we really don't know all that much about electricity. We FEEL like we know a lot compared to our ancestors, but in the big picture we really don't.
I am a graduate of the BJU science department and completed my MS and PhD in Microbiology at a large southeastern university. I am now a postdoctoral fellow at a medical school as an immunologist. While I'm not a physicist and can't speak to the details of electricity with great knowledge, I can speak about Immunology and Cell Biology. We know a good bit about the cell. We've uncovered countless molecules and pathways and have answered a great number of questions. However, as I am frequently reminded when doing literature searches in PubMed, we really don't know much at all. In fact, that was one overarching theme that I encountered time and time again at the recent American Society of Immunologists meeting in Baltimore: we've learned a good bit, but we've barely even uncovered the tip of the iceberg. I spoke with a non-Christian cell biologist recently and he echoed those sentiments, that in spite of everything we've learned about the cell, we really don't know what's going on. His exact words were: we don't know anything. It is a very naive person who feels like we know a lot (and a person who hasn't studied much science). One of the oldest rules in studying science is that when you answer one question, you uncover 100 other questions. We can talk A LOT about the little bit we do know and we can trick ourselves into thinking we've got it all quite figured out...as long as we neatly avoid the innumerable molecules and pathways that we don't have a clue about. Immunology is an even bigger mess. I wouldn't presume to think that the realm of Physics is any less complex than that of Immunology or Cell Biology.
This is a very sad, lame and weak attack by someone who clearly has an axe to grind with God, Christianity, creationism/ists, or BJU (or all of the above). If you can't distinguish between what might be written about electricity in an elementary school book and what is taught at the university level, then you probably aren't that bright to begin with. Further, I can assure you that I could pick up any science textbook written to a comparable age level and present the material as absurdity.
In any event, I'll do you one better. "An Introduction to Genetic Analysis" by Griffiths et al is a very commonly used, secular, college level textbook. On page 472 in chapter 15 (7th edition), which discusses genetic mutations the authors make the following quote: "Because mutation events introduce random genetic changes, most of the time they result in loss of function. The mutation events are like bullets being fired at a complex machine; most of the time they will inactivate it. However, it is conceivable that in rare cases a bullet will strike the machine in such a way that it produces some new function." Keep in mind that the authors are/were professors at the University of British Columbia, UCLA and Harvard. This is an absurd statement in every way imaginable and even if I were an evolutionist, I would blush with embarrassment. This is what some of the best scientists have to say about the role of mutations in evolution??? If I had the time and desire, I could dig out my copies of "Molecular Biology of the Cell" by Bruce Alberts et al and give similarly absurd statements.
Unlike the authors in the quote I cited in the above paragraph, the authors of the elementary textbook published by BJU are not even attempting to explain electricity. You are trying to use it in that way, but it's clearly not what the text was being written for. They merely use electricity to reveal the complexity of nature and demonstrate how little we really know about the world around us. The reality is they could have used countless examples from every scientific discipline. Griffiths et al, however, are attempting to describe to a college level audience the complexities of mutations and how they might contribute to evolution. And the above quote is the best they could muster. Pretty sad if you ask me.
Evolutionists (and the University of Minnesota, Morris) must really be scraping the bottom of the barrel these days.