- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,463
- 515
- 38
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
I was popping over to AiG to source some material for a new thread when I came across their News of the Week. Hilarious, in an odd and sad way, as usual.
1. FOX NEWS: “Mars Probe Finds Deep Hole on Red Planet”
2. BBC NEWS: “T. rex was ‘slow-turning plodder’”
3. ScienceNOW: “Stem Cells Without the Fuss?”
4. LiveScience: “Origins of Human Nervous System Found in Sponges”
5. PhysOrg.com: “Study of staph shows how bacteria evolve resistance”
6. ScienceNOW: “Froggy Went a-Rafting”
7. Harvard University Gazette: “A tale of two scholars: The Darwin debate at Harvard”
8. USA Today: “Poll shows belief in evolution, creationism”
And that rounds up the propaganda - oops, news of the week.
1. FOX NEWS: “Mars Probe Finds Deep Hole on Red Planet”
... Then we arrive at paragraph three:
Once again, faith in abiogenesis is fueling irrational exuberance in the search for extraterrestrial life.
That's conspiracy theory at its utmost paranoid. Of course a hole that might be a habitat for life would attract attention; if there was life on Mars, wouldn't you be terribly interested in it, even if you were a die-hard creationist? Mars-science explorers can hardly be faulted for wondering if a particular hole might harbor life; if it did it would be as big a discovery as any. Conspiracy theory simply isn't necessary.The hole might be the sort of place that could support life[.]
A-ha! Now we know why this possible hole is receiving such attention: because it could be, just could be the habitat for that ever-so-elusive Martian life. The article goes on to explain that this possible cave “may cause more scientists to ponder about potential subsurface biology on Mars.”Once again, faith in abiogenesis is fueling irrational exuberance in the search for extraterrestrial life.
2. BBC NEWS: “T. rex was ‘slow-turning plodder’”
Fearsome, lethal Tyrannosaurus rex: a cunning, quick, dexterous dinosaur that ruled the ancient world, right? Not quite. Several of those attributes weren’t true of the famous T. rex, including—as is being reported this week—the idea that T. rex was a quick predator. On the contrary, a Stanford University team reports in the Journal of Theoretical Biology that T. rex “was unlikely to have topped 40km/h (25mph) and would [have taken] a couple of seconds to swivel 45 degrees[.]” The team came to this conclusion after detailed computer modeling of T. rex motion based on previous biomechanical work.
One important principle that this research highlights is the substantial amount of guesswork that plays into our scientific understanding of the past. The science presented to the public—including to schoolchildren—is often caricatured and even distorted. This pseudoscientific environment, fueled by the rush of the media to repackage esoteric experiments into all-important, absolute facts, and general disinterest of the public to research things for themselves, is an obstacle to the constructive discussion of science. A prime example are the millions who blindly accept old-earth dating methods without even a modicum of understanding how the technique works. Many can claim dinosaurs died out long before man arrived on scene, but far fewer can explain how we “know” this.
T-Rex was a slow-turning plodder instead of a cunning, swift predator; therefore all of evolution and most of geophysics might be wrong tomorrow, and the only reason anyone would accept evolution is because they are being brainwashed. These guys have just set a new world record for the Furthest Mental Leap! (Unsupported by any logic, of course.) The one accurate bit of the article is that the media indeed rush to package esoteric experiments into absolute facts, and that this is recognized as an intrinsic problem in science communication of any kind. But it's not as if the problem isn't universal: thousands of AiG's readers blindly accept the conventional model of the Solar System without having ever heard of the phases of Venus, but we don't say that they've been brainwashed by heliocentrism!One important principle that this research highlights is the substantial amount of guesswork that plays into our scientific understanding of the past. The science presented to the public—including to schoolchildren—is often caricatured and even distorted. This pseudoscientific environment, fueled by the rush of the media to repackage esoteric experiments into all-important, absolute facts, and general disinterest of the public to research things for themselves, is an obstacle to the constructive discussion of science. A prime example are the millions who blindly accept old-earth dating methods without even a modicum of understanding how the technique works. Many can claim dinosaurs died out long before man arrived on scene, but far fewer can explain how we “know” this.
3. ScienceNOW: “Stem Cells Without the Fuss?”
... And, again, we can’t understand why there is still a push that all fronts—in particular those with ethical concerns and loss of life—progress when there has been greater success with the use of adult stem cells, which does not cost life in order to save it.
Well, we can't understand either why they should insist that adult stem cell research should have anything to do with "Upholding the Authority of the Bible from the Very First Verse". Are they that short of noteworthy news?
4. LiveScience: “Origins of Human Nervous System Found in Sponges”
The creationists’ view, by contrast, is to emphasize that similarity can never prove evolution nor disprove creation. Evolutionists explain similarity through their worldview as the inevitable result of shared ancestry across all life. We creationists explain similarity through our worldview as the understandable result of one Designer creating a system of life that shares the same world. Indeed, the only statement in the article that uniquely supports either creation or evolution is the final paragraph:
"No new information", "no new genes", and "similarity is explained by common design" - a trifecta of creationist fallacies!Other genes would also have had to evolve or to have been co-opted to create complex nervous systems, such as our own. Scientists think an estimated 77 to 1,000 genes are important for human synaptic communication, Oakley said.
Thus, while similarities are easily explained by creation and evolution, the differences are only explained well by the creation model; the evolution model, despite its supposed emphasis on empirical support, has never shown that mutations increase information—such as yielding the hundreds of genes required just for our nervous system—as Darwinian evolution requires. While this is interesting postulation, note that mechanism for the creation of new genes has neither been described, nor demonstrated, but is apparently blindly believed to have taken place.
5. PhysOrg.com: “Study of staph shows how bacteria evolve resistance”
What actually happens, as even evolutionists will confirm, is that certain members of a population of bacteria have—due to mutations—a makeup that prevents the antibiotic from having its desired effect. For example, an antibiotic may destroy bacteria by eliminating its ability to absorb a certain nutrient. While this may kill most of the bacteria, those bacteria that lack this ability (due to destructive mutations) would not be affected. With the former group of bacteria removed, the latter group of bacteria would increase in number, resulting in the appearance that the single, monolithic population of bacteria has adapted to beat the antibiotic.
This PhysOrg.com article, which reports on careful observations Rockefeller University researchers conducted on bacteria in a patient, does not explain how the bacteria became resistant to antibiotics. However, it does note that the bacteria became resistant to one antibiotic that was not even used on the patient. This reinforces the reality that resistance is not induced by the introduction of antibiotics that force bacteria to evolve, but rather that resistance is the result of antibiotics killing all the bacteria that are susceptible to the antibiotic, leaving the resistant varieties to thrive.
i.e., evolution happened. When will they stop doing our work for us?This PhysOrg.com article, which reports on careful observations Rockefeller University researchers conducted on bacteria in a patient, does not explain how the bacteria became resistant to antibiotics. However, it does note that the bacteria became resistant to one antibiotic that was not even used on the patient. This reinforces the reality that resistance is not induced by the introduction of antibiotics that force bacteria to evolve, but rather that resistance is the result of antibiotics killing all the bacteria that are susceptible to the antibiotic, leaving the resistant varieties to thrive.
6. ScienceNOW: “Froggy Went a-Rafting”
The researchers also concluded that this island-to-island speciation occurred “only 50 million years ago, more recently than the existence of a land bridge between any Caribbean islands and Central and South America,” further supporting the idea that rafts made of “decaying plants, reeds, and roots, which can stretch for a mile and can surf along the ocean currents,” carried adult frogs or even frog eggs to new destinations.
We don’t agree with the timeline given (which is based on the assumption that evolution occurred). We do believe that the researchers’ methods to discern frog relationships are largely valid, as frogs would have all descended from an original amphibian (possibly frog) kind.
But, in particular, this research supports our post-Flood view of speciation that includes the possibility that animals traveled great distances on naturally occurring rafts. Once again, scientific research ostensibly reinforcing the evolution model is equally applicable to the creation model.
But of course, the same methods that researchers used to discern frog relationships (i.e. phylogenetic analysis) also show that all mammals have common descent, and that humans share common descent with apes. Would AiG still agree with those methods then? And the creationists still need to figure out how the frogs could have gotten to Central America in the first place ...We don’t agree with the timeline given (which is based on the assumption that evolution occurred). We do believe that the researchers’ methods to discern frog relationships are largely valid, as frogs would have all descended from an original amphibian (possibly frog) kind.
But, in particular, this research supports our post-Flood view of speciation that includes the possibility that animals traveled great distances on naturally occurring rafts. Once again, scientific research ostensibly reinforcing the evolution model is equally applicable to the creation model.
7. Harvard University Gazette: “A tale of two scholars: The Darwin debate at Harvard”
Indeed, the view nowadays from the scientific mainstream is not merely that accepting creation precludes one from contributing to natural history and the like, but rather that accepting creation precludes one from contributing to any body of science. On the contrary, while creation-believing scientists are definitely in the minority, there are thousands of successful, doctored scientists (including some listed on our creation scientists page) who accept the Genesis account of creation, and thousands more who reject Darwinian evolution (though not necessarily accepting the Bible’s account of creation).
...
At the very least, we hope that some of the bright minds at Harvard were reminded that belief in creation is held by enough people—from all academic and intellectual backgrounds—to merit more than scoffing and instant dismissal.
Of course creationism merits more than scoffing and instant dismissal: it merits well-considered dismissal. The assertion that creationists are viewed as unfit to participate in any science is presented without any proof or citation. And dare we hope that some of the bright minds at AiG will be reminded that Agassiz and his contemporaries in geology began with the presupposition of the Global Flood, and then rejected it based on the sheer force of the evidence?...
At the very least, we hope that some of the bright minds at Harvard were reminded that belief in creation is held by enough people—from all academic and intellectual backgrounds—to merit more than scoffing and instant dismissal.
8. USA Today: “Poll shows belief in evolution, creationism”
Also interesting is the fact that more respondents said evolution was probably true than definitely true, whereas more respondents said creationism was definitely true than probably true. This is presumably because of the foundational role of creation within the Christian/biblical worldview; Bible-believing creationists stand on the Word of God as not only definitely true, but also as our “starting point.” By contrast, many who accept evolution may do so merely because it is what they were taught in schools, or because they have the impression that science overwhelmingly supports it (without having reviewed that science themselves). Thus, these individuals label evolution as probably true, leaving only the die-hard, committed naturalists to accept evolution as definitely true.
But creation is not creationism. And I would agree that many who accept evolution indeed probably do so simply because it is what they are taught in schools. We might, of course, dare hope that some people answered that evolution is "probably" true to make a statement about the provisional nature of science. Nevertheless, creationists would never make the same argument against heliocentrism; one wonders why.
And that rounds up the propaganda - oops, news of the week.
