If I hadn’t believed it, I wouldn’t have seen it

Surprising and obvious things that science didn’t know

As mentioned over at Creation Evolution Headlines

Scientists presume to speak with confidence about the origin of the universe and billions of years, but have been clueless about some everyday things close to home in the present.

Discovery in the knee: One would think after centuries of dissections and surgeries that the human knee is pretty well understood. Not so; a “new” ligament has been discovered, reported the BBC News, named the anterolateral ligament. It looks pretty obvious from the photo in Medical Xpress. It’s important, too: it helps protect the knee when we twist or change direction. Without it, the knee can suddenly give way. A surgeon outside the study group remarked, “If you look back through history there has been a veiled understanding that something is going on on that side of the knee but this work finally gives us a better understanding.”

Mr Paul Trikha, a knee surgeon at the Surrey Orthopaedic Clinic, who was also not involved in the research said:

“I do around 150 ACL repairs each year. When I saw Dr Claes’ research, it blew me away.

“Knowing about the ALL has given us a better understanding of what other structures may be damaged during this common injury and this will hopefully open up opportunities to improve surgery for our patients.”

Having had 6 knee surgeries myself, including poor results from ACL repair, I find it a bit disturbing that a rather obvious ligament was “unknown” even though documented way back in 1879. From Wikipedia

The anterolateral ligament (ALL) is a ligament on the lateral aspect of the human knee, anterior to the fibular collateral ligament.

Perhaps the earliest account of the ALL was written by French surgeon Paul Segond in 1879, in which he described a ligamentous structure between the lateral femur and tibia.

Just another example that even scientists tendsto see what they expect to see and can overlook the obvious. As it is said:

If I hadn’t believed it, I wouldn’t have seen it.

Given how expectations effect observations, consider the following statements showing how evolution is supported by many purely dogmatic statements, rather than evidence.

“There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place.”

—Kerkut, G.A. (1927–2004), Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960 (available online in the Public Domain at ia600409.us.archive.org/23/items/implicationsofev00kerk/implicationsofev00kerk.pdf).

An example of what Kerkut warns against is the well known statement from Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.

As professor D.M.S. Watson admitted years ago:

‘evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible’ (Adaptation, Nature124:233, 1929).

As to the necessary details to make evolution work at the chemistry level, consider the popular (over 205,000 views so far) blog “A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Anti-Spam Quiz: