Although this explanation for the function of the appendix is still somewhat speculative (and referred to as a 'theory'), it is already gaining acceptance among others, as the article affirmed. But I was especially intrigued by what one of those other scientists had to say. Here's a part of the article...
Five scientists not connected with the research said that the Duke theory makes sense and raises interesting questions. The idea "seems by far the most likely" explanation for the function of the appendix, said Brandeis University biochemistry professor Douglas Theobald. "It makes evolutionary sense."Have you noticed that every new scientific discovery is baptized with an appeal to evolution? Do the researchers worry that their theory will not be accepted unless they say the E-word in reporting it? Or do the interviewed 'other scientists' get a raise or points toward tenure every time they gratuitously appeal to evolution in an interview?
As a theist who understands that all living things--and humans especially--are designed by an intelligent Creator, I fully expected the eventual discovery that the appendix has a purpose. Indeed, I was never tempted to accept--as did so many evolutionists for so long--the notion that the appendix was a useless vestige of some purposeless evolutionary process. But now that the design prediction is being verified, this verification of a purpose--excuse me, I mean function (the word "purpose" has no place in a biologist's vocabulary, and I'm afraid I've slipped more than once in this post)--is said to "make evolutionary sense!"
Of course, no support is given for this vacuous statement, and that's because the finding of function for the appendix was not expected by evolutionists, provides no support for evolution, and--if considered objectively--fits in perfectly with the opposing view, that living things are designed.
I hope my readers are sensitized to notice these evolutionary creeds in articles about science--and to recognize them for what they are--gratuitous, content-free statements of faith by the believer in naturalistic evolution.
2 comments:
Read the article as well... interesting stuff!
Rich
Love the blog. Thanks for taking the time. (fellow RTB apologist Dane Parker)
In regard to the appendix:
When it was considered a 'vestigeal' or remnant organ, with no function, this fit the evolutionary paradigm.
Now, they have the opposite. They have function that is not a remnant. Yet again, they claim it fits with evolution.
The fact is, they cannot have it both ways: if it is evidence for evolution to have remnant tissue, then that is the prediction evolution makes.
On the other hand, if finding function and use for tissue, is evidence then that is a prediction.
Evolution cannot claim both, as they are polar opposites.
The claim for function and use much more reasonably fits the theory of design.
This again, is evidence that world view skews interpretation of data.
Post a Comment