Hidden Messages from Evolutionists Crying for Help?

"There have always been ghosts in the machine." Dr. Alfred Lanning from "I, Robot" tries to send a subtle warning that things are not as they seem.
**********************************************

The overwhelming integrated complexity of just about every stage of biology continues to amaze scientists. In the movie "I, Robot", Dr. Alfred Lanning attempted to send subtle messages (which his watcher would not detect but hopefully someone else would) that something was wrong. "There have always been ghosts in the machine" he mysteriously warned. A couple of recent articles make me wonder if even biologists who claim to believe in evolution have secret doubts, doubts that they are attempting to convey by subtle means in their reports.

Take for example, this recent article about the development of eggs and sperm in plants. Oh sure, the article made the usual assertions that the findings of their study help fortify their understanding of evolution, but a look at the language of the researchers themselves reveals a different story.

“The big question in our field for the past 50 years or more has been: How does this process happen in such a beautifully orchestrated pattern?” It’s been clear that there’s a program here telling the plants exactly what to do, and that it is working not on cells, but on nuclei.” Dr. Sundaresan says. Note the language he uses. "orchestrated", "program". That is not the language of an evolutionist, but of someone who believes in Intelligent Design or Creationism. Yet increasingly, scientists lack the language to convey what biology is doing without using such terms.

Another example, “It’s amazing that even though the split supposedly happened over a hundred million years ago,” Sundaresan said, “all these nuclei still have the capacity to become egg cells.” Did you catch that? Supposedly? Does Dr. Sundaresan dare entertain thoughts of departing from the High Holy Orthodoxy of Evolution? Off with his tenure! Lock up his funding!

The article also mentioned that the process by which flowering plants evolved was not documented in the fossil record.

Another recent article cast severe doubt on the fictional but widely-believed evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds. It seems that thigh muscles in birds serve not for locomotion so much as to operate their unique avian baffle-type lung system. None of the "bird-like dinosaurs" had anything like that system. "The finding means it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs." Science Daily reports.

They at last were free to point out some of the same objections that Creationists and Intelligent Design adherents have been saying about the supposed link: "For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from," Ruben said. "That's a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories.

"But one of the primary reasons many scientists kept pointing to birds as having descended from dinosaurs was similarities in their lungs," Ruben said. "However, theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link.

"A velociraptor did not just sprout feathers at some point and fly off into the sunset," Ruben said.

Ruben doesn't sound much like an evolutionist here, although the article does take pains to say that birds and dinosaurs surely evolved from something, somewhere!

"We aren't suggesting that dinosaurs and birds may not have had a common ancestor somewhere in the distant past," Quick said. "That's quite possible and is routinely found in evolution." May not have had a common ancestor somewhere in the distant past? It's possible, not certain? The High Priests of Naturalism better perform an exorcism quick, there is a whole nest of heretics out in Oregon!

Ruben even utters the unthinkable truth, that some publicly accepted portrayals of evolution are driven by politics rather than science. "Frankly, there's a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises questions," Ruben said.