Tuesday, 16 August 2011

One in the eye for creationism

Those of us who grew up 'fundy' well remember the 'proofs' offered by our respective churches that made the idea of evolution look illogical.  Near the top of the list was the complexity of the eye.  How could such a wonderful thing have gradually evolved?  Gadzooks, it must have been an act of special creation.

The jargon has changed - the talk these days is of 'irreducable complexity' - but the underlying argument is the same, and new generations of kids are convinced that scientists are just plain willfully stupid compared to their omniscient pastors with their strutting used-car-salesman rhetoric. 

So it's nice to see Scientific American demolish the apologetics by delivering 'one in the eye' in the July 2011 issue.  Even nicer that a PDF of the article by Trevor Lamb is online and ready to print out, or email, far and wide.

Let there be light!


  1. The reality of everything from evolution to the origins of and physics of reality and consciousness is more amazing than Fundamentalism could ever be by manifold times.

    The life that has come and gone over millions of years is stunning and amazing. The pursuit of truth and explanations as to origins of all things including us is even more amazing.

    Yes...let there be light....and there was light

  2. I fear they will look and look but not see, there is too much money and power available selling hokey religion.

  3. it appears that the article makes sense to you because it's what you want to believe.

    an objective reading of it, however, reveals numerous contradictions and vague generalizations that are the hallmark of the evolutionist.

  4. http://www.icr.org/article/6311/

  5. Sorry Gavin, but that post is going to generate some controversy and counterpoint.

    Science evolves too. Scientific FACT from the past dissolves, as flawed theory is replaced by new facts, which in turn generate new theories.

    Our current scientific theories are endorsed by the leading PhD's in the political circle of Dept. heads and Nobel laureats. If new science is brought in that discredits currently accepted theory, it is exhaustively examined, but can be pushed aside by the chief PhD's if it threatens to pull down the whole idea.

    Case in point, ole whats her name, who proved the dinosaurs were not killed off by the asteroid theory. She faded away and we don't hear about her discovery anymore, because it threatens the whole evolution theory and lends support to the flood. And where did that salt flat up in the Bolivian mountains come from?

    Unless proven without a doubt, all science is in fact THEORY. The Carbon 14 dating theory has to be calibrated according to when the test materiel is thought to have originated. The human memory past 1900 is now what is written down in books. There are no eyewitnesses to what happened before photography, and the actual eyewitnesses to history are dead.

    So the human race has for facts, only what we who are living can see with our eyes and hear with our ears. Don't get me wrong, I love science. It is knowledge.

  6. Case in point, ole whats her name, who proved the dinosaurs were not killed off by the asteroid theory. She faded away and we don't hear about her discovery anymore, because it threatens the whole evolution theory and lends support to the flood.

    Her name is Gerta Keller and her discovery is still debated and has nothing to do with threatening the "whole evolutionary theory".

    Keller's theory is that a second asteroid hitting the earth in the Indian ocean caused the extinction of the dinosaurs - nothing about lending support to "the flood".

    I guess some people think that if the Yucatan asteroid didn't cause the extinction of the dinosaurs 65,000,000 years ago then they must have died in Noah's flood a mere 4,300 years ago. I don't know HOW they come to that conclusion but religion is what it is.

  7. So why were the dinosaurs from the huge to the tiny exterminated, but the rest of living creatures did not die?

    My point was not really about the flood it was about how science had accepted for fact, the theory that the asteroid had caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. Dr. Gerta proved it wrong but due to the politics of the greater PhD's she came up with an alternate volcano THEORY in India.

    So taking all these different theories into the equation, why did the dinosaurs die and not everything else?

    I used to think Carbon 14 dating was amazing, until I did some reading on the subject and discovered the formula has to be calibrated for the time period in which the sample is estimated to be from.

    Down boy! Sit Brian, sit. I used to be an atheist until I started wondering where the Big Bang came from. The church thing didn't do anything for me so I read the book myself. And now an alcoholic dog is talking to me. I must be crazy.


  8. Jack,
    Although I was somewhat puzzled by your use of the word "exterminated" in your talking about the K–T event of 65 million years ago, I was even more puzzled by the time I finished reading your comment.

    Are you positing the theory that the Chicxulub impact was not at least a major factor in the extinctions of that time?
    Do you really think an alcoholic dog is talking to you?
    Although you gave scientific theories a keyboard-lashing, you didn't say what you believe happened.
    Do you believe the Biblical flood was responsible for the dinosaurs' demise?
    Are you aligned with Young Earth Creationists? (When you wrote, "There are no eyewitnesses to what happened", you seemed to come close to what the Young Earth Creationist known as 'the BananaMan' says, when he asks, "Were you there?"

  9. So taking all these different theories into the equation, why did the dinosaurs die and not everything else?

    Everything else did - it was a near extinction of everything, not just dinosaurs.

    Keller's theory has nothing to do with a volcano. Her theory is that a second meteor impact in the Indian ocean (Shiva crater) 300,000 years after the Yucatan impact caused the extinction.

    Carbon 14 dating is not used for dating things that are millions of years old.

    Carbon-14 dating is a way of determining the age of certain archeological artifacts of a biological origin up to about 50,000 years old. It is used in dating things such as bone, cloth, wood and plant fibers that were created in the relatively recent past by human activities. For things older than that, other dating methods are used.

  10. Norm, I've never heard of the Young Creationists. As for the alcoholic dog, I watch Family Guy too, and whenever I have read Corky's comments I imagine the voice of Brian the dog reading aloud what Corky typed.


    Keller suggests that the massive volcanic eruptions at the Deccan Traps in India may be responsible for the extinction,

    I guess you were reading a different article than the one I read. Re C-14, I did not know it was only used for fifty thou or less.

    I had a profound revelation while reading your comment. I learned something very valuable today. Thanks. And I really mean it. It has changed my outlook on discussing things like the flood and evolution.

  11. jack635, you wrote, "I've never heard of the Young Creationists."

    What I actually mentioned were the "Young Earth Creationists", who are those people who believe in Young Earth Creationism(commonly referred to as YEC).

    If you haven't heard of YEC I'd find it surprising, since about 40% of people in the USA believe in YEC, and over half of Republicans believe in YEC.

    And, the likelihood of a person believing in YEC is generally inversely proportional to his level of education.

  12. Norm, I don't think that "over half of Republicans" are young-Earth Creationists.

    And, overall, the education and IQs of Republicans exceeds those of Democrats.

  13. Larry, the statistics I've seen have shown most Republicans to be believers in Young Earth Creationism.

    (Over 50% of Republicans in the USA being Young Earth Creationists.)

    Please let us know if you have evidence that shows otherwise.

  14. Norm, statistics may not lie, but some statisticians certainly do. Do you actually know ANYONE who believes the Earth is 6000 years old? Apparently, Jack635 doesn't either.

    And, I know literally hundreds of Republicans personally. Only folks on the extreme fringe, and completely uneducated would even consider such a notion. And, that is most certainly not the GOP, which represents mainstream America.

  15. Sorry I'm not from the U.S.A but I think your republicans and democrats are probably like our conservatives and liberals. So are the republicans conservative and the democrats liberal? And I don't know anyone who is 6000 years old, nor do I know where this 6000 year old earth theory comes from.

  16. Do you actually know ANYONE who believes the Earth is 6000 years old?

    Yes, I actually do.

    Apparently, Jack635 doesn't either.

    I don't know what jack635 believes.
    I'm guessing that since he mistakenly referred to Young Earth Creationists as "the Young Creationists", he may think they're a singing ensemble, akin to the Young Ambassadors.

  17. Just a thought:

    The Young Ambassadors singing We wish you a merry Christmas

    I wonder what percentage of you are laughing right now?