The design genius for ankles and wrists

Image credit: Blake Cheek via Unsplash.

When engineers enlighten evolutionists on where their theory falls short, the results can be instructive and entertaining. Sometimes they are spectacular. Such is the case with respected mechanical engineer Stuart Burgess and his presentation at the recent Westminster Conference on Science and Faith. Burgess addresses some of the claims made by forensic scientist Nathan Lents in his 2018 book, Human Errors: A panorama of our mishaps, from pointless bones to broken genes. As Burgess says, “It should read Lent’s mistake.”

Professor Lents is a proponent of the “unintelligent design” hypothesis. He looks at engineering marvels like the human wrist and ankle and only sees “faults,” “pointless bones,” and “anatomical flaws.” Burgess has studied these wonders of biology more closely than Lents, and explains in detail why they are indeed “ingenious” solutions to engineering problems that far outshine the genius of human engineers. Burgess just burns. You have to see this:

A certain generosity

Lents is like fellow evolutionist Jerry Coyne in that he shows a certain generosity: Coyne and Lent make so many mistakes that they’ve both provided material for Darwin skeptics to work on for years. For example, Lents writes in his book, “Humans have way too many bones.” About the wrist, he says, “It’s a lot more complicated than it needs to be…. The small area that only the wrist itself has eight fully formed and distinct bones tucked inside like a cairn – which is about as useful as they are to anyone. Burgess says exactly what functions depend on each of these useless “rocks.” The design is extremely intelligent. And the same goes for ankles.

By the end of the presentation you will have no doubt that in these cases – which may be representative of many others – Darwinists have been misled by their philosophy into grossly misjudging human anatomy. Lents “ignores biomechanical research” in his ideological zeal, “ignores engineering research”.

Now here is an interesting question. Lents enjoy hanging out in computational biologist Joshua Swamidass’ online community peaceful science. Swamidass is another ID critic, albeit more of a Christian than an atheist like Lents. Are people over there going to watch the video and get their friend Nathan Lents to act on the exceptional case that Nathan doesn’t know what he’s talking about? let’s find out


Comments are closed.