The Body’s Emergency Response System: Irreducibly Complex


The other day I was running late for an outdoor bluegrass concert. So I hurriedly packed up the items I would need: camp chair; back pack with additional clothing (gets cool when the sun goes down); and literally launched myself into the drivers seat of my truck. Unfortunately on the way to the seat my left knee met with some resistance; the unforgiving rotating light switch.

Ayyyeeee!

Well, the leg started to bleed. And since the abrasive cut was not low enough to avoid my knee-high shorts, I had to take the time to wipe and bandage this time-waster; or it would stain my clothing.

I knew I could carry on unconcerned if I wanted to. Why? Simply put; blood coagulation, part of the process known as the blood-clotting cascade. Eventually the flow would stop. I wouldn’t bleed out. “Soldiering on” would work okay. Blood stained shorts be damned. I was on a mission towards Bluegrass Heaven.

But since the shorts were new, and not yet ready for damnation, Bluegrass Heaven would have to wait. I took the time to bandage up.


Why am I telling you this bit of personal trivia? Because it gives us one more example of the Intelligent Design behind God’s Good Creation. “Huh?” Let me explain.

Blood clotting is the body’s emergency response system; a system I’m convinced was wonderfully designed.

There are some really bright scientists who agree.


Imagine a man having a stroke. He’s rushed to the hospital, where a team of medical professionals springs into action. This is much like what happens when you cut yourself. Your body has its own emergency response system – the blood clotting process.

When you get a cut, your body sends out a distress signal, like a 9-1-1 call. This summons tiny particles in your blood, called platelets, to the site of the injury. These platelets transform and start to form a plug, slowing down the bleeding. Then something called coagulation takes place. But now things get a little technical here. So let me bring in the expert.

Biochemist Michael Behe explains it better than I could in the latest Secrets of the Cell episode; an explanation that includes his irreducible complexity argument for Intelligent Design.

Behe concludes the blood clotting process is too complex and interdependent to have developed through Darwinian evolution. It’s like a finely tuned machine, where every part is necessary for it to function properly. (That’s the irreducible complexity of it.) This suggests that the system was designed with a purpose, rather than being the result of incremental & random evolutionary processes.

That’s what I think too. See what you think.

Video created by Discovery Science

Companion Posts

+++

God’s Good Creation

Motherhood Is An Act Of Self-giving That Creates Space For Another

Matrescence: Debunking the Bounce-Back Culture

Wyspiański, Stanisław (1869-1907) (malarz); Macierzyństwo, portret żony artysty Teofili z synem Stasiem; 1902

An excellent celebration of motherhood by Grace Babineau

[M]otherhood is an act of self-giving that creates space for another. The loss of self that mothers feel is indeed the foundation of new life. Yet pregnancy is often painted as an illness from which women need to recover or “bounce back,” a change that can never truly be accomplished after recognizing what we now know from science. How easy it is to see a woman’s body as depleted of strength, sleep, and superficial beauty after giving birth. What mothers so often fail to recognize is that their bodies have been poured out into another human being and subsequently made more beautiful through sacrifice.

Verilymag.com

+++

Celebrate Motherhood

Women AND Children First!

The Men vs Women scorecard is getting messy. “Fairness” is difficult to judge. In an empirical sense, sometimes men are treated unfairly. Sometimes. And yet, even though she recognizes this messiness, Louise Perry persists in calling herself a feminist, a maternal feminist.

….not only because I enjoy confounding my critics’ expectations (although I do). I believe that there is some merit in using a looser definition of feminism that incorporates the recognition of substantial differences between the sexes. I assert that there are important ways in which men and women differ from one another, both physically and psychologically, and that these differences mean that the interests of the sexes are sometimes in tension. 

Women are less likely to be found in positions of power. This is true for a variety of reasons, the most important of which is that it is women who give birth to babies, and women who tend to experience the strongest emotional pull towards being in close proximity to their young children. This basic biological fact means that all mothers will have to spend a short period of time out of the labour force when they give birth, and many mothers will want to extend that time further in order to care for their children. That’s a completely legitimate desire, but it inevitably impairs a woman’s career progression. Combine this with women’s higher average agreeableness (that is, the urge to put the interests of other people before one’s own), and we end up with an important problem: the interests of women, particularly mothers, are less likely to be given voice in the corridors of power. Feminism—specifically, a feminism orientated towards maternity—is, I posit, the political movement that exists in order to counteract this problem.    
———–
I make no secret of the fact that I oppose the kind of feminism that seeks to erase the differences between men and women in the hope of erasing the status gap. I reject the kind of feminism that insists on 50/50 representation in boardrooms while forgetting about 50/50 representation in waste disposal, since the goal is not “equality” per se, but rather masculine status

I oppose that project not only because it’s hopeless, but also because it doubles down on the disdain directed towards femininity and so ends up causing material harm to other women. An unfortunate feature of the influx of women into elite professions over the last half century is that the women who tend to get to the top of the ladder are the women most likely to deprioritize motherhood relative to career. 

My proposal, instead, is that feminists should play a different status game entirely by pugnaciously asserting the status of motherhood—a status no man can ever achieve, whether he be a CEO, an astronaut, or the President of the United States. Fairer Disputations contributor Helen Roy describes the self-sacrificial beauty of the maternal ideal: 

I don’t know a mother who would not die for her children. There is no greater love, and, speaking politically now, there is no greater responsibility. Contrary to the oft-parroted shibboleths of modern feminism, a mother’s role is not beneath her. It is actually above her, in the sense that motherhood inherently elevates women as cultivators of the gratuitous gift we know as life itself. 


Perhaps you’ve seen the 1997 cinematic blockbuster Titanic starring Leo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet.

While various popular movies, like Titanic, and other dramatizations of the disaster have played up isolated incidents of chaos and cowardice, most survivors told a different story. For at least the first hour after the iceberg collision, the ship’s crew downplayed the danger. Many passengers remained optimistic. There was no commotion, no panic and no one seemed to be particularly frightened. Charles Lightoller, the highest-ranking crew member to survive, was in charge of loading lifeboats on the port side. “There was no jostling or pushing or crowding whatever,” he testified at a British inquiry. “The men all refrained from asserting their strength and from crowding back the women and children. They could not have stood quieter if they had been in church.”

Accounts of how John Jacob Astor, among the richest men in the world, behaved in the face of death was inspiring. According to multiple survivors, Astor put his pregnant young wife in a lifeboat, politely asked if he might accompany her, and, when told that only women were allowed, simply stepped back with the rest of the men.

He died in the sinking.

The lower class “steerage” folk had a tougher time getting to safety. But the classic “women and children first” still provided a guiding light for those men too.

And still should.


Perry, one of the sharpest ladies around, is a feminist advocate for women & children first. You should read her entire piece.

+++

Women AND Children First!