|
Geoffrey Simmons, M.D. Item#
B082 The lawyers and philosophers got the
Intelligent Design movement rolling in the early 1990's. Next the
mathematicians and biologists joined in, quickly followed by the chemists and
physicists. This past year several medical doctors have joined the fray
revealing why Darwinian "just so" stories fail to explain the
fantastic complexity of the human body. Howard Glicksman,
M.D. recently started a monthly web column at ARN exposing why the step-by-step
theories of Darwinian evolution can not account for the complex
interdependencies of the human body. Now Geoffrey Simmons, M.D. catalogs over
80 examples of purposeful design in human body that defy explanation by the
Darwinian process of chance mutation and natural selection. Darwin might have thought twice about
publishing his theories if he'd had access to today's medical and
microbiological discoveries. Drawing on years of research, Dr. Simmons
demonstrates that the almost infinite complexity of the human anatomy simply
could not have developed by chance. For example: ·
the
body runs on "battery power"...from the hundreds of mitochondria in
each cell ·
the
two sexes-evolutionary theory cannot explain why they exist ·
every
cell is its own pharmacist, chemist, and metallurgist ·
The
brain resembles a continent swept by electrical hurricanes and chemical tidal
waves that somehow make sense out of reality ·
A
fertilized egg makes a journey as complex as the path of a golf ball that
rolls 30 miles and lands precisely in the 18th hole of a course it's never
seen. ·
The
immune system contains multiple defenses that confine trillions of microorganisims to your skin. The great thing about Simmons' book is
you don't have to have a biology degree to understand it. It's written for
the layman and includes helpful drawings, diagrams and photos to illustrate
his points. At the end of the preface Simmons states that he once asked Carl Sagan why he thought humans could have developed into
such complex beings through mere evolution. Sagan's
answer simply stated, was "six billion years." Simmons concludes
"I thought he was wrong then, and I know he's wrong now." He then
ends the book claiming "I am not a theologian, nor do I pretend to be.
I'm merely a collector and analyzer of biological and medical facts. The
data, as I see it, points directly to an Intelligent Designer, much like a
car speaks for an automaker, a soufflé for a chef, and a play for a
playwright. Alternative explanations may yet be found or proposed, but the
theory of evolution cannot satisfy what the facts demand." Endorsements: "Geoffrey Simmons makes
Darwinism's sleight of hand plain to see." "In What Darwin Didn't Know, Dr.
Simmons gives a marvelous, entertaining, physician's-eye view of the
intricate functioning of the human body. The relentless detailing of
biological elegance and complexity overwhelms facile Darwinian stories as a
tidal wave overwhelms a beach." "Several years ago the prestigious
peer-reviewed journal Science carried a research article titled 'Did Darwin
Get It All Right?' The subtitle answered the question with a 'No.' There is a
tide of data mounting against the Darwinian (though not necessarily Darwin's)
concept that randomness can explain the wonder of life. In What Darwin Didn't
Know, Geoffrey Simmons converts that tide into a tidal wave of evidence. In
his book, Simmons treats us to the respect for the complexity of life he has
gained as a doctor with 35 years of experience. His frontline experience with
the challenges of maintaining life has given him insights that armchair and
laboratory biologists never have." "Sit back and enjoy as Dr. Simmons
leads you on an exhilarating romp through your own anatomy. Journey past your
taste buds. (Did you know they're in your throat, too?) Explore the
complexity of reproduction. Celebrate the miracle of your birthday. Examine
the differences between man and ape. And in the end, be prepared to confront
the overwhelming evidence against Darwin's explanation for your
existence." Dr. Geoffrey Simmons has studied the
human body and evolutionary theory for more than 40 years. He received his
M.D. in 1969 and now practices medicine in Oregon. Geoffrey Simmons, M.D. holds two
degrees (BS in Zoology and MD) from the University of Illinois. His
internship and residency in Internal Medicine were completed at LAC-USC
Medical Center from 1969-1970 and 1970-1974. Simmons has nearly forty years
of experience working in the medical field, including three years at the
Astoria Clinic in Astoria, Oregon and twenty-six years in the
Eugene/Springfield community. Over the course of the last twenty-six years
living and working in Eugene, Simmons has had a solo practice and has also
worked for both the Oregon Medical Group and PeaceHealth
Medical Group where he continues to practice now. Having maintained an active role in the
Eugene medical community for many years, Simmons is well connected and
informed on local issues and needs. He has served on the Board of Trustees of
the Lane County Medical Society (LCMS) for four years. Positions he has held
with the LCMS include: LCMS Disaster Preparedness Task Force Chair, Medical
Reserve Corps. Chair 2002 and LCMS President-elect 2002/03. Other local
groups he has served within the last ten years are the Oregon Medical Group
(board member, 1995), PeaceHealth Medical Group
Physician Advisory Council (1997), Sacred Heart Medical Center (SHMC) -
various committees including: Medical Education Committee, Disaster Committee
and By-Laws Committee. Simmons is presently on the SHMC Disaster Preparedness
Committee and the Eugene Citizen Corps. Table of Contents List of Illustrations Part I: Basic Issues Part II: External Connections Part III: Internal Systems Part IV: More Enigmas Darwin Dissected Chapter 1 Excerpt: The Problem of Change Why would man steadily improve in size,
skills, and intelligence-given the exposure to the same air, radiation,
climate, and foods-while other species have remained unimproved? Did human
changes come about by accident, or were they the result of intelligent
design? Or could they be both? These have been, and continue to be, major
questions-and there are many very strongly held beliefs. Curiously, in 1860,
Darwin declared,"I had no intent to write
atheistically." Yet that is exactly how he has been interpreted. Although the theories of natural
selection, survival of the fittest, and random mutations have retained their
appeal for nearly a hundred-and-fifty years, these processes have had little
to no impact on many species. One might therefore ask if the
"minimum-changers" are innately resistant to mutagens (factors
causing mutations), such as variations in global temperature, radiation,
ultraviolet light, pathogenic viruses, and toxic chemicals. This is unlikely
since all living cells are exquisitely sensitive. Have these steady-state
species reached the pinnacle of evolutionary perfection? This is also
doubtful, but pinnacles are hard to define. Are they the toughest, smartest,
most prolific, fastest, best-camouflaged, or meanest members of their group
around? If one looks closely, this is often not the case. Do animals go
through short evolutionary bursts or pauses (millions of years)…and the
exceptions of today are merely in a pause? No one can answer this, but it
defies contemporary scientific principles. Did an asteroid strike near the Yucatán Peninsula 65 million years ago, causing tidal
waves and nuclear winters that selectively drove dinosaurs to extinction and
yet spared many prehuman mammals? If so, one might
wonder why the entire evolutionary clock wasn't set back. Then again, is
surviving a matter of survival of the fittest- or of the luckiest? Questions
such as these cloud evolutionary thought. Even the
most ardent supporters of the theory of evolution still call it a theory-with
very good reason: no knowledgeable scientist has ever called it the
"facts of evolution." The Problem of Complexity The Genes Did these all-knowing genes come about
through a series of accidents? If so, that would mean that an average of two
bases were added to our chromosomes per year throughout the presumed three
billion years of life. They were also placed in the right order at the right
time on the correct chromosomes, and were fully capable of coordinating with
the other genes. For example, the genes that control human eye color and
shape must either reside close by each other or have a way of communicating.
The gene specifying the texture of a person's hair would not function well if
it were placed with the genes for the ear or for bladder function. A major
challenge to evolution has been whether repeated mutations could truly have
created changes in the correct order. Interactivity No such data exists. The body automatically maintains its
design integrity. There are no fossils found with lopsided extremities.
Somehow the top half coordinates with the bottom half, the left side with the
right side, the front with the back. Just the complexity of managing
simultaneous, coordinated growth alone is overwhelming. Can it possibly be
coincidence? Look at how we transfer sugar,
minerals, proteins, fats, carbohydrates, and vitamins from our dinner plates
to our mouths, down to the gastrointestinal tract, through the walls of the
small bowel, into the bloodstream, through the liver, and ultimately to every
cell in the body. Millions of macroscopic and microscopic processes are
utilized. How does the body even know which sugar (and there are many types)
to absorb, or which protein (and there are hundreds) goes where, when, and in
what quantity? How does it know which substances are safe to absorb, and
which should be ignored, quickly eliminated, or destroyed? How does the small
bowel know how to cooperate with the 500 different kinds of bacteria that
live in it? These are incredibly complex functions that work together-and
only together-to maintain the health of an individual. How does the body know when there's too
much or too little sugar in the bloodstream and whether more or less insulin
should be secreted? How does it mobilize the sugar stored in the liver and
change it into energy,using
as many as 1000 mitochondria per cell? Questions such as these are endless,
yet they address important bodily functions that were unknown at Darwin's
time. Evolution says we easily changed from prehistoric fish digesting algae
to primates whosavor meat.
But not only do humans have many more and different digestive processes than
our presumed forebears, but experts overlook the relatively sudden appearance
of a tongue and a full set of teeth- with a total lack of precedents. There
are few, if any, examples of mouths with partial tongues, a single, odd
tooth, or both. The Problem of the Whole-Package
Phenomenon Six billion years doesn't even come
close to the time needed to evolve a ten-trillion-plus-cell body. To start,
the active amino acids in the primordial soup would have had to link up in
such a way that they could reproduce, protect themselves, find nourishment,
and add new functions as needed. The likelihood of that happening is akin to
having a swimmer from England meeting a swimmer from Florida in the middle of
the Atlantic without a GPS system. If the swimmers are to survive beyond
that, they would also need to build shelter, catch food, and reproduce-or
else they would perish. To further understand purposeful
changes and irreducible complexity, imagine a prehistoric blind man called
Gene who started building a wooden bridge off Key West. Although he could not
see and lacked knowledge of any distant lands, he added one seemingly
"useless" plank after another, aiming directly for Portugal. One
day when he was extremely old, he completed the ten-million-plus plank
connection. He accomplished this task despite lightning strikes and
hurricanes, without making any significant errors. And so it goes with human
evolution. There are thousands of such lengthy bridges,
and millions of well-aimed, individually useless steps (planks)… and yet,
according to evolutionists, we came about without a plan. An incredible number of steps (planks)
are needed to manufacture and use insulin. We all secrete this twisted,
multifaceted hormone after each meal to control sugar. A shortage results in
uncontrolled sugar levels in the bloodstream, or diabetes; an excess may
cause hypoglycemia or fainting. In the process of insulin manufacture, none
of the several "pre-insulin" molecules are useful (envision a car
being made along an assembly line). Not only is this an all-or-none process,
but so are the mechanisms that tell the body when to secrete insulin, how
much insulin to produce or secrete, for how long, where to send it, how to
link it to nutrients in the blood, how to transport it, and how to turn it
off when the job is done. The Problem of Intermediates If humans truly had monkeys as
prehistoric intermediates, shouldn't there still be, somewhere in the world,
a remote family of humans that still walk on all fours, or a few folks with
very long arms, or people who hang from and procreate in trees, or groups who
still eat ticks found on their spouses? Shouldn't some humans have retained a
hairy coat? Desmond Morris wrote that there are 193 living species of monkeys
and apes and that 192 are covered with hair. It seems odd that only one line
requires parkas, gloves, and electric heating for chilly nights. Survival of
the fittest should have enhanced those who had natural protection from the
cold. And where did that tail go? The entire appendage just dropped off. Listen to Mr. Darwin's worries on the
subject: The number of intermediate varieties
which have formerly existed on the Earth must be enormous. Why then is not
every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain:
and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be
urged against my theory. Ape babies pass through the birth canal
with their faces looking up, whereas most human babies face downward. How did
the birth of a child swing around 180 degrees without any intermediate
stages? It seems as though the entire human race would have perished if that
change had evolved slowly-a baby would die quickly if its head passed through
the pelvis sideways and got stuck; it would probably kill the mother as well.
If this flip-over had happened suddenly, the change would have required an
immeasurable number of simultaneous, purposeful, genetic mutations in both
mother and baby. It couldn't have just happened. So if it could not have
happened slowly and it could not have come about quickly, where's the answer?
That depends on one's belief system, not known facts. It's also odd that the
gorilla, which is double human-size, delivers an infant that is 50-percent
smaller than the average human baby. Maybe we humans should have smaller
babies, which favors survival-not ones whose heads are so large they can
damage and sometimes kill their mothers. Perhaps the original primates
delivered their babies face down, and apes (not us) are the changed ones. If
so, one would then have to explain how the intermediate monkeys survived childbirth.
The Problem of Purposeful Function The Problem of "Gifts" What Darwin Didn't Know The laws governing inheritance are
quite unknown; no one can say why the same peculiarity in different
individuals of the same species, and in individuals of different species, is
sometimes inherited and sometimes not so. If a pig could be made into a fatter
pig, Darwin felt that gills could change into lungs, fins into legs, and a
monkey into a man. Although an artist makes it look simple, the genetic
change from one species to another is more complicated than transforming
Paris into Hong Kong. Although man and monkey are 95 to 98 percent genetically
similar, the difference at the chemical base level is still in the millions.
(Note that the DNA of the zebra fish is 92 percent similar to humans. Why
don't zebra fish and monkeys hang out together?) Despite huge gaps in the fossil
evidence, and though he lacked even the simplest of genetic information,
Darwin's guesses have dominated modern scientific thought like no other. Even
his strongest proponents have admitted there have been significant problems
with his theories and have merely offered Band-Aid guesses of their own. What
Bertrand Russell once said may readily apply: The fact that an opinion is widely held
is no evidence whatsoever that it is not utterly absurd. Bottom-Line Points
Excerpted from What Darwin Didn't Know by Geoffrey
Simmons, M.D. Copyright © 2004 by Harvest House Publishers. Excerpted by
permission. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or
reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher. |