Where Is Zombie Science Heading? Al-Daheeh Continues the Path of Dawkins and His Colleagues

Where Is Zombie Science Heading? Al-Daheeh Continues the Path of Dawkins and His Colleagues Our problem with Daheh is not that he is a Muslim who embraces and promotes Darwin’s theory. Unfortunately, he has been preceded by many others. But our real problem with him is that he chose to repeat what Michael Behe calls “the most frequent objection to intelligent design,” and the story he told in his “apology” about repeating the reverse retina argument to him to say that there are flaws or mistakes in design, proves that he knows what he’s doing. Don't admit that there is even a scientific system for validating assumptions that are interpreted evolutionarily, don't admit that there are scientific papers that you should consider before you assume consensus on an issue! Don't assume that there are references written by specialists that you should review! This serious destruction of the ABCs of scientific research, from someone who claims that his goal is to get people to open up to experimental science, should stand up to him, and show how dangerous he is. To get back to the beginning of the story, in 1986, the famous atheist Richard Dawkins published his book, The Blind Watchmaker, which included his objections to the design argument, his assumption that there are errors or defects in the design of the eye, and thus proves that it is not designed in the first place, and that it originated through random, undirected gradual processes. He says in his book: "Any engineer would have naturally assumed that the photocells were directed toward light, with their conductors pointed backwards towards the brain. He would have laughed at any suggestion that the photocells were far from light, with the conductors as close to light as possible. However, this is exactly what happens in all vertebrate eyes. Despite this statement, Dawkins believes that vertebrate eyes work well! But “the same principle would offend any designer with an organized mind.” Six years later, evolutionary biologist George C. Williams followed with a harsher statement: "There would be no blind spot if the eyes of vertebrates were indeed intelligently designed," he also said. Similarly, in 1994, biographer and textbook author Kenneth Miller wrote that the human eye, "which is the ideal model for intelligent design," is poorly designed. "The intelligent designer, who deals with the elements of those synaptic extensions, will inevitably pick the direction that achieves the best and highest degree of visual quality. In 2005, renowned biologist Douglas Futuyma published a textbook in which he claims that "no intelligent engineer is expected to design ... the foolish functional arrangement" of retinal neurons. That same year, noted biologist Jerry Coyne wrote that the human eye "is not the kind of eye an engineer can create from scratch." If we review the published scientific literature before the evolutionists publish their words, we will find in it what proves the validity of their words. Let's follow up the disaster with passages from chapter 7 of Dr. Jonathan Wells's book (Zombie Science), which was released mid-2017: So, from an evolutionary perspective, the human eye seems to be badly designed, and the theory doesn’t make any more sense. But, what if we look at the eye from a function’s perspective? The two basic types of light-sensitive cells in vertebrate retina are sticks and cones. The latter are very sensitive to light, and function well in dim light or at night. They can actually sense even a single photon, but only see black and white. The number of cones is much smaller than sticks, and they are not sensitive to light, but they see colors. Both sticks and cones require large amounts of nutrients and a tremendous amount of energy. One classic book of the eye describes them as "greedy".7 In mammals, they have the highest metabolic rate of all body tissues.8 About three-quarters of the blood supply to the eye flows through a dense network of capillaries called the placental capillaries, which lie behind the retina.(9)(10) Oxygen and nutrients, including modified vitamin A, are transported from the blood medium into the capillaries.() In addition to transporting oxygen and nutrients, the pigmented epithelial layer performs another basic function. The rods and cones contain heaps of disks that are packed with light-sensitive chemicals. During the light-sensing process, toxic chemicals are formed that must be disposed of so that the light-sensitive cells can continue to function. If sticks and cones had to face the incoming light directly as the evolutionists had to, the blood-filled capillaries and pigmented epithelial layer would have to be in front of the retina where they block almost all light. In contrast, neurons are relatively transparent, blocking very little light. Because of the metabolic needs of sticks and cones and their need to renew themselves, the reversed retina is actually much more efficient than the "organizing" design that biologists imagine. Blind spot is not a serious problem, because firstly it is very small, and secondly because the blind spot of the left eye is not in the same place as the right eye. This means that in a person with healthy eyes, the visual field of one eye covers the blind spot of the other eye, and vice versa. Most of the above research documenting the basic functions of placental capillaries and epithelial tissue was published before 1986! They simply assumed that evolution was a fact and that they knew how the eye should be designed. They then concluded that the human eye was poorly designed, claimed to be evidence of evolution, and ignored counter-evidence. For Jonathan Wells, to claim that you practice science, and then to contradict evidence, you do not practice science, you practice zombie science, or dead science that insists on bringing it back to life, science as practice is to follow evidence, and nothing else is called science at all. To find scientific references and scientific papers - the place where you are supposed to go to get "science" - going in a direction, and you go after the dogma where I took you, you practice charlatanism and sorcery to deceive the masses, and do not practice science at all! To come in 2017, to complete the march of evolutionists, and to go out and tell people that I thought there was a "consensus" on the matter, so I went out to tell you what I think the "consensus of scientists" is, and you don't know who the scientists are in the first place?! You are in disaster. To come out with a more frequent objection by evolutionists to intelligent design, and in total disregard for people's identification that there is such a thing as intelligent design theory, you are showing people how much you hold on to your Darwinian dogma. Conclusion: The problem is not that he made a mistake, but that he himself proved his authority in choosing the information that is relevant to this file. As long as he chose to complete the march initiated by the godfather of atheists Richard Dawkins in 1986, he should expect a counterattack. (1) Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), 93. (2) George C. Williams, Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenges (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 73. (3) Kenneth R. Miller, “Life’s Grand Design,” Technology Review 97 (February–March, 1994): 24–32. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/. (4) Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 49. (5) Jerry A. Coyne, “The faith that dare not speak its name: The case against intelligent design,” The New Republic (August 22 & 29, 2005): 21–33. http://pondside.uchicago.edu/ee/faculty/Coyne/pdf/New_Republic_ID.pdf. (6) Jonathan N. Tinsley, Maxim I. Molodtsov, Robert Prevedel, David Wartmann, Jofre Espigulé-Pons, Mattias Lauwers, and Alipasha Vaziri, “Direct detection of a single photon by humans,” Nature Communications 7 (2016): 12172. doi:10.1038/ ncomms12172. PMID:27434854. (7) Gordon Lynn Walls, The Vertebrate Eye (New York: Hafner, 1963), 652. (8) Sidney Futterman, “Metabolism and photochemistry in the retina,” pp. 406–419 in Adler’s Physiology of the Eye, ed. Robert A. Moses, 6th ed. (St. Louis: C. V. Mosby, 1975), 406. (9) Albert Alm and Anders Bill, “Ocular and optic nerve blood flow at normal and increased intraocular pressures in monkeys (Macaca irus): A study with radioactively labeled microspheres including flow determinations in brain and some other tissues,” Experimental Eye Research 15 (1973): 15–29. doi:10.1016/0014-4835(73)90185-1. PMID:4630581. (10) Paul Henkind, Richard I. Hansen, and Jeanne Szalay, “Ocular circulation,” pp. 98–155 in Physiology of the Human Eye and the Visual System, ed. Raymond E. Records (Hagerstown, MD: Harper & Row, 1979), 139–140. (11) Roy H. Steinberg, “Interactions between the retinal pigment epithelium and the neural retina,” Documenta Ophthalmologica 60 (1985): 327–346. doi:10.1007/BF00158922. PMID:3905312. (12) Michael J. Denton, “The inverted retina: Maladaptation or preadaptation?” Origins & Design 19:2 (1999), issue 37. http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/invertedretina192.htm. (13) Richard W. Young, “The renewal of photoreceptor cell outer segments,” Journal of Cell Biology 33 (1967): 61–72. doi:10.1083/jcb.33.1.61. PMID:6033942. (14) Richard W. Young and Dean Bok, “Participation of the retinal pigment epithelium in the rod outer segment renewal process,” Journal of Cell Biology 42 (1969): 392–403. doi:10.1083/jcb.42.2.392. PMID:5792328. (15) Steinberg, “Interactions,” 328. - Management of the Brahin Center — Source: Brahin Center website - Published 2017-12-19 (archived at the Internet Archive) https://braheen.com/articles/evolution-design/مسيرة-العلم-الزومبي-إلى-أين؟-الدحيح-يكمل-مسيرة-دوكينز-ورفاقه