Archive for the ‘Creationism’ Category

Scientist: Dinosaurs May Rule Alien Worlds

The Register relates another paper published in the Cornell Earth and Planetary Astrophysics Journal that the Yucatan strike shot out meteors laden with bits of dinosaur DNA which in turn found root on other planets, eventually evolving into dinosaur-like life forms.

Riiiiight.  It’s kind of funny to see “Scientists” and “Dinosaurs Rule Alien Worlds” in the same headline.  Well, not if I was reading Weekly World News.

So basically, this stuff got ejected fast enough to reach escape velocity and leave the atmosphere, then survived millions of miles of interstellar travel through absolute zero and unshielded stellar radiation, survived re-entry and impact into primoridial goo, then…POOF…began to spontaneously replicate, combine, reproduce, and eventually increase in complexity until…DINOSAUR SCIENTISTS!

Because creationism is just soooo unscientific it can’t even be considered by “legitimate” scientists.  Not even dinosaur scientists.

Seriously, though.  If life is spawned on other planets because of meteors laden with all sorts of juicy and frisky amino acids and dinosaur DNA being launched into space because of the impact of other meteors…where’d the first impact come from?  This theory, like so many others, continues to skirt the issue of initial causality.  Sure, it “explains” how the aminos, microbes, whatever got HERE…but it only forestalls the important question of where did the ORIGINAL SEED MATERIAL come from?  It doesn’t answer The Question, it merely asks the question differently.

…I want to see Nature’s Engineering Degree!

Yet another installment of, “How an Incredible Design TOTALLY Supports the Theory of Evolution!”  Courtesy of Wired Magazine.

High-Speed Video of Locusts Could Help Make Better Flying Robots

Oh how I long for the day when the evolutionist crowd can manage to kick out some puff piece without anthropomorphizing inanimate objects or non-sentient critters.  But that day is not today.

Even though researchers have been studying how insects and other creatures fly for a long time, “we still don’t completely understand the aerodynamics and architectures of wings,” comments Tom Daniel of the University of Washington in Seattle

Because, you know, the best minds in modern science and engineering still struggle to understand just HOW all these things work, given that they all came about through random chance.  Design? We understand. Blueprints?  No problem.  Complex computer algorithms and microchips? Got it handled.  How a hummingbird really works?  Not a clue.

What locusts lack in agility, they make up for in distance: the four-winged insects are built to fly hundreds of miles at a time.

D’oh!  We should make this into a drinking game.  Any time an article nominally in support of evolution uses the words, “built” or  “designed” you have to take a swig.

Most earlier models of insect flight relied on stiff, straight wings, overlooking the important effects of flexibility and shape, says Thomas. “Engineers like these things simple,” he says. But this new study shows that wings with a little flop can actually get more air-pushing lift from each flap.

Hmmm.  Engineers learning from nature.  Amazing what that random optimization thing can do for you, eh?

Figuring out the details of how locusts and other insects fly may help researchers design tiny robotic fliers. “There is a growing interest in the exploration of micro air vehicles,” says Daniel. “Nature’s designs may be useful in creating synthetic ones.”

DRINK!

It is amazing to me that engineers can’t seem to recognize the work of a fellow designer.  It’s like someone who want’s to design a better timepiece looking at a fine Swiss watch for ideas, without ever acknowledging or addressing the question of the origin of the original design.

Whatever lets you sleep at night, I guess.

Despite the title, according to this article, there is no “.vs” between evolution and design.

Prehistoric mammal swung tail like baseball bat

Or..at least, we’re pretty sure, kinda, but it sounds like a good script!

The findings about glyptodonts — which looked like a cross between an armadillo and a Volkswagen beetle car — apply to dinosaurs that also had spiked tails, the team of researchers believes.

Any time you see the words, “researchers believe,” please feel free to replace with, “we’re pretty much just making this shit up as we go along.”  Same diff.

Glyptodonts lived in both South and North America, first emerging around 2.5 million years ago and going extinct 8,000 years ago, possibly due to hunting by humans.

Wait.  I thought that the idea that dinosaurs and humans lived together during the same period was solely the purview of a bunch of wacky creationist types?  I’m confused.   I thought “faith” and “science” can’t mix, and yet here we have these scientists rambling on about their beliefs.  Hmm.

The study, published in the latest Proceedings of the Royal Society B, “reinforces the idea that in that (sweet spot) was something useful to cause more damage during an impact,” Blanco said, adding that glyptodonts might have evolved this defensive technique to help fight off “terror birds,” prehistoric South America’s dominant predator.

(Please apply the same grammatical rule to “might” as that proposed for “researchers believe.”)

And of course, my all-time favorite, the ubiquitous and seemingly unavoidable imputation of will and intent to the marginally sentient in deciding to “evolve”.  Can’t you just picture the conversation at one of their weekly staff meetings?

Uh, hey guys? GUYS?! Yeah, well, as I’m sure some of you have noticed, a lot of us have been getting knocked off lately by these freakingly hellish terror bird thingies.  And I, for one, am just flat stumped as to what to do about it.  Any ideas?

It is then that Walter, heretofor a fairly quiet and unassiming sort, rather tentatively raises a proto-metatarsal and tremulously suggests, “Well, uhm, I mean, you know, we COULD evolve a defense.  I’ve been thinking a lot lately about trying to grow some spikes in the middle of my tail, maybe add a little bone density down there.  I’m pretty sure it would work.”

The assembled glyptodonts sit for a moment in stunned silence, and then suddenly all are shouting at once.  What an idea!  Walter, you’ve done it!  Walter for President!  Woo-hoooo!

Utter freaking genius, that Walter.

Glyptodonts might have therefore evolved their body armor, not to mention their spiked tails, to withstand this bird’s potentially deadly kicks.

Another of Walter’s breakthrough ideas.  One thing though:  Walter sort of left out the “how” of reprogramming his DNA in response to the external stimuli provided by Raptor-lite.  The key element in the logical disconnect of it all is that one word “therefore.”  Therefore” implies a cause-and-effect relationship, a stimulus -response action.  “I experienced this, THERFORE, I took this action.”  “I analyzed these facts, and therefore, I came to this conclusion.”  One might attempt to chalk it up to a meaningless grammatical slip or colloquialism, but this kind of thing is so prevalent in these kinds of articles that I don’t think we can’t call it a typo.  It reveals a trend in thought, a propensity for ascribing motive, ability and aforethought to a series of responses to environmental conditions or changes.

In addition to defense against predators, Blanco and his colleagues believe glyptodonts used their tails in fights against each other over territory, food, mates and more.

Ah yes, more “beliefs.”  They have to use the word “believe” here because they have no evidence for these assertions, other than, “Well, sounds kinda plausible to me based on other things I’ve seen.”  These scientists have no ability to observe glyptodonts in the wild, to observe their actual behavior, and so must make deductions and inferences based on mostly anecdotal evidence, no matter how sketchy.  Which, I’m told, is a methodology summarily dismissed as “unscientific” when attributed to Creationists.

Potato, putahto.

Hutchinson said he was surprised by “how the positions of spikes and nubbins on the tail clubs in a variety of species seem to line up pretty well with the mechanically most reasonable positions.”

He concluded, “That’s what evolution should produce, of course, but it’s always satisfying finding different kinds of evidence for sufficiently good biological design.”

I am continually amazed at dissonance reduction that goes on with these people, whereby the better the “design” of a species or an apparent adaptation, the better the case for the amazing efficacy of evolution.

I, for one, have to heartily agree with Mr. Hutchinson on this one.  I am continually gratified to find evidence of biological design in nearly ever aspect of our creation.  God’s hand in the amazing workmanship and incredible complexity of the life around us simply cries out in support of design.

It’s heartening to see the academic community finally coming around to embrace the same ideas.

Let’s run through that quote one more time.  “Evolution should produce…evidence for sufficiently good biological design.”

That Walter.  What a freakin’ genius.  Here our most advance scientists struggle to map and understand DNA and the human genome, and yet, millions of years ago critters like Walter had already figured out how to redesign themselves to not only be more resistant to predators, but to optimize their design in a variety of insightful and provocative ways.

So, in review, evidence of design supports the theory of evolution.  No further discussion required, and certainly no alternate or competing theories need be entertained.  Moving on…

UPDATE:

Found this from one of the auto-links on this post:

However, Kenneth Miller does give some insight on where the attack is coming next. It is teaching the “controversy.” A controversy that is wholly politically manufactured and not scientific. It also comes from an attempt to discredit evolution by holding it to an impossible burden of proof. The reason is that it is impossible is that the people in the movement take it as an article of faith that evolution must be false because it contradicts their religious view of an inerrant religious text or their interpretation of it. That is not a rational standard, but rather an irrational one which is why Kenneth Miller’s remark that everything is at stake is not an understatement.

Replace creationism with evolution, and science with religion:

It also comes from an attempt to discredit creationism by holding it to an impossible burden of proof. The reason is that it is impossible is that the people in the movement take it as an article of faith that creationism must be false because it contradicts their scientific view of an inerrant scientific [theory] or their interpretation of it. That is not a rational standard, but rather an irrational one which is why [Kenneth Miller’s] remark that everything is at stake is not an understatement.

Evidence must only be examined within the context of evolution.  Evidence can never disprove evolution, only modify the theory.  Any other approach is apparently holding science to an impossible standard, the very approach they take with creationists.  They are blind to their own hypocrisy.

Intelligent design costs prof his job
Regents reject tenure request without evidence, testimony

The Discovery Institute said it also had reviewed the e-mail record regarding Gonzalez’ teaching, and found “an orchestrated campaign conducted against Dr. Gonzalez by his colleagues, with the intent to deny him tenure because of views he holds on the intelligent design of the universe.”

As WND reported earlier, Gonzales was one of three members of the ISU faculty denied promotion or tenure of the 66 considered at the time.

The rejection followed earlier opposition to his work because of his acknowledgment of intelligent design. In 2005, three ISU faculty members drafted a statement and petition against intelligent design in the science curriculum that collected 120 signatures.

“We … urge all faculty members to uphold the integrity of our university of ‘science and technology,’ convey to students and the general public the importance of methodological naturalism in science, and reject efforts to portray intelligent design as science (my emphasis),” the statement said.

Soooo…get into an discussion with an evolutionist about ID, and they will invariably trot out the, “SHOW ME THE PROOF!  GIVE ME SOME EVIDENCE!”  And yet, time and again Universities engage in this kind of intellectual gatekeeping , effectively ensuring that you CAN’T build a case for ID, because the powers that be have made an arbitrary decision that it’s “not science.”

So, they require evidence, while preventing professors from presenting any.  They want scientific evidence, but won’t examine any evidence from an ID guy because it’s not science.  I believe that’s called a “catch-22.”

Gigantic fossil rodent discovered

The authors say the animal would have lived alongside carnivorous “terror birds” and sabre-toothed cats.

“If you are a rodent you cannot run so well so you would have had to fight with these predators,” said Dr Rudemar Ernesto Blanco of the Institute of Physics in Montevideo, Uruguay, one of the authors of the paper.

“It might have reached this size to protect itself.”

To protect itself.  Yet another example of one of my pet peeves when dealing with evolution.  The idea that the species somehow adopted a certain form “in order to” respond to its environment.  As in, due to the size and number of predators, this rodent made itself larger to increase its own survivability.

Perhaps it was merely a symantical gaff, but, this sort of thing seems to happen quite often.  Why not just roll with the idea that at some point in pre-history, there grew some pretty honkin big rodent critters?  Why try to fold in this idea that the size was some situational or environmental “reponse?”

And, as I have repeatedly ask, can someone please point to the mechanism whereby this giant wombat someone “detected” the presence of large predators and thereby proceeded to reprogram its own DNA to grow larger in response?

This is almost too easy.

Skull Suggests Two Early Humans Lived at Same Time

Surprising fossils dug up in Africa are creating messy kinks in the iconic straight line of human evolution with its knuckle-dragging ape and briefcase-carrying man.

The new research by famed paleontologist Meave Leakey in Kenya shows our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, calling into question the evolution of our ancestors.

So you suddenly have some clear distinctions between the evolutionary paths of the human species, where before a linear and intrinsically linked sequential development had been held as near immutable for decades. Hey, you know the reason that it’s always been so hard to find that “missing link” guy?  Because. Maybe. It. Was. Never. There.

They have some still-undiscovered common ancestor that probably lived 2 million to 3 million years ago, a time that has not left much fossil record, Spoor said.

Yes. Absolutely. Continue to insist dogmatically on a common ancestor, despite the fact there is, by your own admission, no actual physical evidence for it.

This is and will continue to be my biggest beef with the anti-creationists/acolytes of the Temple of Evolution.  The hypocrisy.  The foundational tenet of evolution is a common ancestry, out of which sprang the multi-varied species of our world through all that adapting and responding and evolving into more complex forms (in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics).  Therefore, evidence is categorized and framed only within that frame of reference, because it must be in order for the theory to remain valid.  Faced with two concurrently developing species, rather than sequentially as previously assumed (declared, heralded, decreed, whatever…), you therefore INFER an ancestor who existed even earlier than previous estimated, despite the lack of evidence, because it must be true if the theory is to remain viable

You establish as “fact” that which must be true in order for your worldview to conform to your pre-established expectations, despite being unable to provide any evidence of it.  And this is different from the creationists how?

Someone, somewhere, I believe, said that creationism would remain in the realm of religious faith and wishful thinking until the creationists/ID folks could provide solid scientific evidence of a creator or design influence.  So, where does that put the evolutionist in light of this imaginary common ancestor which now MUST exist, where before it didn’t, and despite any “solid scientific evidence,” simply because evolutionary theorists demand it in order to preserve their canon manifesto holy book St. Darwin of Galpagosea  theory?

Ah, you poor misguided soul, they say as they sadly shake their collective heads with the long-suffering indulgence of a saint.  The evidence for the common ancestor is clearly the two simultaneously developing offshoots, and if you weren’t such a wild-eyed, unscientific, Bible-thumping creationist, you’d be able to see that. Tsk, tsk, tsk.  You know, despite the fact that previously the evidence for a common ancestor was a single, unbroken line of evolutionary development.  Now, away with you, neophyte!  Do YOU have a PHD? NO?  Well then, trouble me no more with your plebian babblings.

I believe someone, somewhere called that “shifting the goalposts.”  Another quote, in chuckling about those wacky creationists, said something to the effect of:

If a fossil is discovered to cover a gap between two species, they’ll shout – “Look, there are two gaps now, on either sides of the fossil”

Uh, yeah.  And if a gap is discovered between two species, some people say, “Look, there must be a common ancestor we don’t know about 2 or 3 million years ago.”  I can TOTALLY see the difference there.

Overall what it paints for human evolution is a “chaotic kind of looking evolutionary tree rather than this heroic march that you see with the cartoons of an early ancestor evolving into some intermediate and eventually unto us,” Spoor said in a phone interview from a field office of the Koobi Fora Research Project in northern Kenya.

That old evolutionary cartoon, while popular with the general public, keeps getting proven wrong and too simple, said Bill Kimbel, who praised the latest findings.

And yet that is what continues to be published in textbooks.  

Scientists hadn’t looked carefully enough before to see that there was a distinct difference in males and females.

Why? Because they needed an intermediate species to help fill gaps in the fossil record.  And so in with an emphasis on supporting the prevailing meme, they failed to properly (read: objectively) analyze the information.  Oooh. Ouch.  MeOW.

All the changes to human evolutionary thought should not be considered a weakness in the theory of evolution, Kimbel said. Rather, those are the predictable results of getting more evidence, asking smarter questions and forming better theories, he said.

Color me shocked.  Shocked, I tell you.  Let me translate:  “Despite how completely this throws our understanding of evolutionary theory into a freakin chaotic mess, let’s make sure that we don’t abandon our fundamental premises.  And make sure that we color these finds in shades of ‘refining’ evolutionary theory, rather than having to basically start over from scratch when it comes to human evolution.”

Again.  Evidence can only be examined in the context of evolution.  If the evidence rocks your world, you change your theory….of evolution.   You come up with a new theory…of evolution.  In the proudest tradition of the scientific method, you take a cold, calculating, objective look at the data, and smoosh the theory around until it fits the evidence, or you “interpret” the evidence to fit the theory.  As long as the new shape still looks like evolution.

Because it’s the only game in town….and the people with the power to do so intend to make sure it stays that way.

Well, I had thought to gin up one last creationsim post, but from reading the comments on and from several other anti-creationism (or in some cases, anti-creationIST) blogs, I’ve come to the sobering, if not unsurprising conclusion that as far as “science” is concerned, the battle is over and creationism lost.  And anyone who hasn’t yet awoken to this reality is just tilting at windmills, getting all red in the face as they wave their Bible at you and call you a heretic.

Creationism is presumptively defined within the “scientific community” as inherently unscientific.  It is a cut and dried, either/or proposition.  It’s evolution (and thus science), or creationism/ID and theological posturing.  This is the corporate position, and the only acceptable view.

 Any attempts to approach the issue from any other viewpoint are met with the sort of indulgent head-patting and amused smiles usually reserved for young children and Alzheimer’s patients.

 Hard to fight that.

So, failing that, I return to one of my tried and true favorite pastimes:  making fun of the Democrats.

Found this link somewhere.  It’s a very disturbing (if not completely unsurprising) example of the moral “mandate” so many Dems feel to circumvent established law if it serves their higher cause.

http://www.danegerus.com/weblog/Comments.asp?svComment=18096

Read through it.  Amazing stuff.  Don’t like the results of the vote?  Change the results.  Heyyyyy, wait a minute.  Now wasn’t it the Dems who were screaming the loudest about voter disenfranchisement and a “stolen election?”   Hmmm.  Funny, that.

Dropped off the net for a while, literally, as my internet access went kerflooie, until I figured out I had a bad modem.  Swapped that out and Tada!  Back on the web.

Well, I kind of lost some steam with the creationism bit, but I wanted to drop in one more post, in response to Brian Switek’s response to me, entitled “Why fight creationism?

 Again, the crux of his argument seems to be something along the lines of because it’s unscientific, and therefore clinging to Biblically-based creationism is rather akin to suffering under religious authoritarianism such as experienced by Da’vinci and other “heretics” of the past.  Well, more concisely, his view seems to be that combatting creationism is a waste of valuable time better spent on researching actual science, especially since creation-science types are pretty much writing themselves out of the mix anyway.

If I haven’t made it clear before, let me reiterate:  I don’t in any way mean to suggest that creationist views and religious ideology should supplant the scientific method.  I enjoy science.  I love learning about the way our world works and the amazing complexity and interdependence of the life and natural processes of this world.

I just don’t happen to think it within the realms of possibility that it could all just “happen” through a series of random accidents and fortuitous spontaneous breakthroughs.

In his well-written and erudite response, Brian however commits himself to the same flaws in logic of which I wrote here, specifically, a vague anthropomorphization to explain the internal mechanism whereby a species adapts to an external change in environment.  Here are some specific examples:

provided the selective pressure for the lobe-finned fish to develop limbs and crawl to other pools as to avoid death.

would have given creatures like the ancestors of tetrapods good reason to develop their lungs and start exploiting food along the shore than to try swimming through the thick vegetation of the water habitats.

they were marvelously pre-adapted by evolution to exploit a new niche

An external change gave the tetrapods a “good reason to develop their lungs.” Okay, so they’ve got the reason. Now what?  Do they think to themselves, “Hmm, guess it’s probably a good time to develop lungs.  Ready…..GO!

Clearly a silly example; or is it? Examples such as these seem so suggest that species respond in an almost cognitive fashion, and that this somehow results in a kind of genetic memory that is imprinted on their DNA.  What’s the real answer?  “Evolution,” (as in the proper noun) was kind enough to “pre-adapt” species (and by that I take to mean “build in?”) the capability to exploit a new niche?  So Evolution pre-engineered in capabilities? Tetrapods were given a reason to developed their lungs?  Lobe-finned fish responded to selective pressure, pushed up on their arms, and “decided” to leave the water in order to avoid death?  The water murks up, the plants move in, and you have a choice: adapt or die.  So you adapt. Huh?

H-O-W!?!?!

If I understand correctly, the tetrapod already had the capability to breath air, it just didn’t know it, as it was too busy breathing water.  But, when the water option ran out, in a last ditch, dying effort it said, “Screw it.  Here goes nothin’,” and launches himself up on the shore.  Gasp, gasp, gasp….hey.  Wait a minute.  I’m not dead!  Woo-hoo!  I can breath air!  Nice!  Good thing Nature built-in a previously unneeded capability to process air as well as water.  Now I just gotta find me a chick tetrapod with the same deal!  “Anyone?  Uh….anyone?”

“Dangit.”

This is exactly the kind of intellectual sleight of hand that causes me the most trouble with much of the current evolutionist theories.  To vaguely suggest that “Nature” did it or “Evolution” did it is NO DIFFERENT than saying that “God” did it!  Do you see what I’m trying to get at here?

What I want evolutionary theory to provide me, to provide us, to provide science the world over, is reproducible evidence of the the internal, bio-chemical mechanism whereby RNA and DNA, all those little peptides and amino acids are re-arranged or reprogrammed, how from one generation to the next they are imparted with new replication data that results in a different species, one now better suited to live on land, rather than water.  How does “Nature” pre-adapt a species to a range of potential changes?  And on a wide enough scale to ensure viability?

I’ll readily admit that much of my data on evolution might be a bit dated, as I’ve kind of been out of the “fight” for a few years.  However, from what I’ve been able to gather, evolutionary theory is still long on what happened, and a little short on the how it happened.  And to me, if you continue to insist on the what, without being able to provide the how, well then my friends, you are operating in faith as surely as that Bible-thumping creationist.

Up from the comments again, I feel the need to ask this question.

What is the threat posed by the theory of creationism?  There are myriad blogs and articles and online journals that speak of “combatting” creationism, or which at least stress the need to remain “scientific” and not allow archaic religious sensitivities to influence our purely scientific endeavors.  Some of the most strident speak of creationism as some sort of dark bugaboo which threatens the very foundation of our society and way of life, or some such.

Now, there are a lot of things worthy of combatting.  We are combatting Islamic fundamentalism in the war on terror.  You combat viral infections and the spread of disease.  We understand the threats these things pose.  Islamic fundamentalism has demonstrated vividly why it must be opposed.

So, what is the comparable threat from creationism?  Or for that matter, evolution?  How and why does a school of thought pose such a grave danger that it can so polarize people into very nearly armed camps?  What exactly is the expected result, this catastrophe we must avoid at all costs?

 Why is it we demand that evidence ONLY be examined within the context of evolutionary theory?  Why are departures from this norm met with such virulent opposition? 

I found an interesting link/post via one of the comments, entitled “Combatting creationism with History.”  The premise being, of course, that the Bible is a quaint collection of melded cultural myths, an archaic holdover from the scientific dark ages to which people cling out of a sense of maudlin sentimentality, if nothing else.  Gee, nothing new there, to be sure.

I guess I am curious as to why creationism needs to be combatted?  Why does it so often seem that the scientifically-illuminated feel honor bound to “destroy” or otherwise “combat” the theory of creationism on a scientific basis?  Is there a core belief among these warriors of science that a belief in the causality of creation rather than random chance is some sort of dangerous delusion from which people need to be rescued?  Are they some sort of moralistic/scientific crusaders who see it as a mission to release people from their intellectual servitude to such antiquated ideas about the origins of our universe?

Then can we all just right now stop calling it the “theory” of evolution, and accept that it has, for all intents and purposes, been accepted among the vast majority of the scientific community as a natural law, akin to the Laws of Thermodynamics?  And therefore, that attempting to find fault with some of the premises of evolutionary theory puts one in the “flat earther” category, calling gravity “magic” and insisting that ideas such as entropy and exothermic reactions are so much heretical nonsense?

What I find interesting in these “scientific” viewpoints is the tacit assumption that our modern creation “myth” was culled together from various ancient sources and “tuned” to fit modern theology by some nameless group (perhaps the Council of Nicea?).  And yet, there seems little credence paid to the idea that the Babylonians or Chaldean or whomever could have instead been influenced by a creation tradition found among many of the tribal people they conquered and/or enslaved.  The Babylonians were well-known as a pollyglot of various cultural traditions incorporated from assimilated people.  Why is it so far-fetched to assume that their creation mythology could have been influenced by the long-standing oral traditions of captured ancient Hebrews whose culture predated their’s by thousands of years?  I’m just asking.

I recently visited the Pacific Science Center in Seattle on my last trip back to the States.  Yeah, I know. What was I thinking? Christians are all supposed to be all, “because God did it!” and shun such heretical institutions as this.  However, what I did find interesting was a video presentation on gravity and space, wherein the featured scientist related that recent stellar measurements and observations from the Hubble telescope suggested that the universe is in fact expanding at an increasing rate, rather than at a slowly decreasing rate, as has been the prevailing theory.  Almost like things were being pulled, rather than pushed.  His comment was something to the effect that, “I guess we don’t really know anything about gravity, like we thought we did.” 

So, for years, the Big Bang theory and its exploding singularity required that after the initial release of energy, the universe would expand to a finite limit, and then slowly collapse back in upon itself as gravitiational forces took over (yes, folks, I did actually go to college.  Yes, yes, more heresy, I know).  However, now it would seem, just the opposite appears to be taking place.  Hmmm.  Wait, you mean a scientific discovery has set the entire acacdemic world on its ear, and radically altered pre-existing theories?  Why, that NEVER happens!  Okay, okay, it happens all the damn time.

Now, with all that said, I think about the derision with which the anti-creationism crusaders view our quaint little Biblical narrative.  Of course, then I also think about the repeated Old Testament references to God “stretching out the heavens.”

I guess I take issue with the idea that simply because a concept is in the Bible, it must therefore be held as presumptively unscientific. My visits to places like the Pacific Science Center serve only to bolster my faith, not lead me to doubt it.  To me, the discoveries of science only point that much more decisively towards a creative force, one deeply mirrored in the Biblical narrative.  No, in many cases, not literally, but certainly conceptually.

To me, there is a great deal of scholarship out there which is summarily dismissed not because it is scientifically inviable or logically flawed, but merely because it is creationist in its context.  This hardly seems to support the kind of inherent skepticism required by the scientific method.

I guess I find it difficult to lend credence to those who would (and I must say, justifiably so) criticize many Creationism defenders’ reliance on the “just because” or “well, it’s obvious” defense, when the scientific evolutionists continue to refer to biological organisms adapting or reacting to changes in their evironment, without any references to the actual biological/physiological mechanism whereby genetic code is reprogrammed based on input from external stimuli.  What “drove” the early amphibians to seek land vs. water?  And for the love of pete, stop anthropomorhpizing “Nature” in all your freaking documentaries.  An amorphous “Nature” is given the causal force behind adaptive change, without really explaining what this force is, or how it influences the genetic make-up of species to “spontaneously” adapt to new conditions.

So I guess, ultimately, it is to my mind a “pot-n-kettle” kind of argument.  Don’t claim the moral and/or scientific highground if you can’t provide any better answers to the questions of ultimate causality than those wacky creationists.  Science and creationism don’t have to be mutually exclusive, unless of course, that is the internally mandated and pre-determined viewpoint.