Last month I pointed out the unwitting admission by some Darwinists that Darwinism is useless to modern medicine (and for that matter modern science). [see: Darwin dissed by doctors, and a design revolution continues at MIT].
This month I’m pleased that world’s most prestigious scientific journal, Nature, has published a letter from a biophysicist who has (perhaps unwittingly) shown that the design revolution continues, and Darwinism is slipping into total irrelevance.
Physiologists have successfully analysed a large range of biological systems using this ‘device-oriented’ approach. For more than a century, medical students have used it to learn that the kidneys filter blood to make urine; the lungs transport oxygen from air to blood; muscles contract; sodium channels produce action potentials; and so on. Each device description in physiology Ã¢â‚¬â€ on each length scale from organ, to tissue, to cell, to organelle, to protein molecule Ã¢â‚¬â€ is associated with a device equation, just as a device description in engineering (for example, of a solenoid) is followed by an approximate device equation for its function, for example, its inputÃ¢â‚¬â€œoutput relation.
it seems clear, at least to a physiologist, that productive research is catalysed by assuming that most biological systems are devices.
Productive research is catalysed by assuming the systems are devices? As in designed rather than mindlessly evolved?