Yesterday, the New York Times reported on the theories of evolutionary biologist Dr. David Haig.? He claims that the kidneys and heart are "amazing bits of engineering" but pregnancy "doesn't work very well!"? His basic premise is that mother and child compete for survival during pregnancy so that evolution can continue.? Huh?? Nearly 6.5 billion people http://www.geohive.com/?have come to grace our planet through this "flawed process!"? This guy's not that bright for a Harvard man!
?
I have been amazed at the incredible ability of a woman's body to house a developing person from conception to birth since I could think such "big thoughts."? Basically, a woman keeps a "foreign body" inside her womb without rejecting it.? On top of that she marshals her body's resources to nourish and protect that child until it comes screaming onto the planet with the aforementioned 6.5 billion other fellow humans.? Though scientific exploration into this field is a noble and worthwhile effort I think evolutionary preconceptions make scientist's conclusions weak and empty.
?
Dr. Haig has other scientists in his orbit who believe, and I quote, his work is "Absolutely cool!"? Dr. Karamanuchi, also of Harvard, has replicated the results of studies that show fetal proteins create imbalances in the mother.? Duh!? These are foreign proteins that are being acted upon outside the womb according to immune system?requirements for survival.? To make the?leap in logic to assume that the mother and child are in a "tug-of-war" is exceedingly foolish.? From a creationist perspective it appears entirely different.?
?
First I need to give kudos to the brilliant research that is done to investigate the inner workings of women during pregnancy.? Next I need to point out that there is another side to the story.? Women are known to "lay down their lives" for their children.? I believe that biology reflects this conscious behavior.? I view this as a sacrificial biology rather than a parasitic form.? This would make the assumption that the system was designed by a loving creator that had the capacity for sacrifice.? This thought is alien to evolutionary biology which suggests that we live in a "dog-eat-dog" competition for scarce resources that will result in the most vicious individuals surviving.? Personally, that's a little too dark for me.
?
I believe that the observations of these scientists can be interpreted in a different light.? Genetic expression is clearly the direct consequence of the DNA's environment.? In the presence of good nutrition, low stress and adequate physical activity the genes will have their optimal conditions for healthy expression.? To the extent that there is deficiency, emotional strife or poor circulatory activity these healthy genes will be expressed less fully and poor quality output will show up in less healthy individuals.? I do not refute the possibility that there are components of evolution that make sense.? I especially embrace the idea that scientist's thoughts can evolve into a twisted mess of illogic and hubris with regard to God and their own created beauty.? Sometimes it makes me sad to see such brilliance turned to such foolish ends.
