When engineers educate evolutionists about the place their concept falls quick, the outcomes will be enlightening and entertaining. Typically they’re spectacular. That’s the case with distinguished mechanical engineer Stuart Burgess and his presentation on the current Westminster Convention on Science and Religion. Burgess addresses some claims of forensic scientist Nathan Lents within the latter’s 2018 e-book, Human Errors: A Panorama of Our Glitches, from Pointless Bones to Damaged Genes. As Burgess says, “It must be known as Lents’s Errors.”
Professor Lents is a proponent of the “unintelligent design” speculation. He seems at engineering marvels just like the human wrist and ankle and sees solely “blunders,” “pointless bones,” “anatomical errors.” Burgess has studied these wonders of biology extra intently than Lents has and explains intimately why they’re, actually, “ingenious” options to engineering issues that depart the genius of human engineers far behind. Burgess is solely on hearth. You’ve obtained to look at this:
A Sure Generosity
Lents is like fellow evolutionist Jerry Coyne in that there’s a sure generosity to him: Coyne and Lent are so profuse of their blunders that they’ve each supplied years of fabric for Darwin skeptics to work over. For instance, in his e-book, Lents writes: “People have method too many bones.” Of the wrist, he says that “it’s far more sophisticated than it must be….The small space that’s simply the wrist itself has eight totally fashioned and distinct bones tucked in there like a pile of rocks — which is about how helpful they’re to anybody.” Burgess tells precisely what capabilities depend upon each a type of ineffective “rocks.” The design is supremely clever. And the identical goes for ankle.
By the point you get to the tip of the presentation, you received’t have any doubt that, in these instances — which may stand in for a lot of others — Darwinists have been led by their philosophy to grossly misjudge human anatomy. Lents, in his ideological fervor, “ignores biomechanics analysis,” “ignores engineering analysis.”
Now right here’s an attention-grabbing query. Lents like to hang around at computational biologist Joshua Swamidass on-line neighborhood Peaceable Science. Swamidass is one other ID critic, although a Christian one quite than an atheist like Lents. Will the oldsters over there watch the video and prod their good friend Nathan Lents to reply to the distinctive case it makes that Nathan doesn’t know what he’s speaking about? Let’s discover out.
