some comments on creationism and evolutionism
To all:
There is an old truism, that truth can be distinguished by that fact that, following it, the solution to a problem can be found; and, conversely, if something does not solve a problem, then it cannot be based on the facts.
In discussing the furor between creationism and Darwinism - or general evolution - in the schools, a large part of the problem is that the argument is narrowed down to just those two alternatives! In a society that depicts itself as so progressed, so progressive, so advanced and so intellectual, it is all but a crime that not only is no other theory suggested, but that the very idea that any other theory could be considered is frowned upon! It has all the earmarks of a battle for market share, rather than a search for the truth! Each side has all their eggs in one basket, and are, apparently, more than willing to commit that grievous crime of regularly ignoring evidence, or distorting facts and reasoning, in order to keep their audience, and expand into other demographics!
In fact, there are numerous holes in Darwinism, and evolution in general. Evolutionists tend to gloss over difficulties, by saying, among other things, that "when all the facts are found, they will bear this out", or, when truly pressed by embarrassing difficulties, literally pontificating that "we already know evolution is absolutely proved, so, even if it looks unlikely, this must be in accordance with the theory"!
For example, numerous different coloring patterns could equally hide vulnerable deer fawns. Why, then, is only one pattern to be seen, namely, spots? Why are there not different phases, that is, subspecies, of each deer species, that have different coats on their young?
Evolutionists say that the fact that pellucid species - those that live at the lightless bottoms of caves - are both born blind and colorless is proof that evolution has tailored their characteristics to their surroundings. But evolution, supposedly, is also blind! It doesn't say, "There is no light; therefore, we mustn't have color in the animals." Evolution maintains those conditions that don't threaten the animals. But, in a totally black world, vivid color is not a disadvantage! There is no reason, in terms of survival, for color to be bred out of an animal that lives in caves! An animal could have bright yellow and red coloring and not be seen, deep in a cave! Why, then, does evolution, apparently, direct animals in caves toward colorlessness? And, even though they can't see in the dark, why does that automatically make their eyes atrophy genetically, eventually even being covered over with skin? And, for that matter, why doesn't that happen in the sunless deep ocean, where bright yellow batfish burrow in the soil, bright red tube worms sit next to fumeroles, and fish with giant eyes prowl for prey?
And, conveniently forgotten by Darwinists is the fact that, to get to a particular morphology, an animal has to get halfway there. And, if it is utterly questionable that they would get halfway there, there is no reason to assume they will go the whole way! Beavers, for example, regularly reconsume their own dung, because the indigestible cellulose in the original food was consumed first, leaving the nutrients behind, so what is excreted has to be eaten again, to obtain the full nutrition. What would possess an animal to consume its own dung, in order to evolve in such a way that it can eat cellulose fiber? Why wouldn't it just change its eating habits? Bear have complicated and involved internal chemistries that allow them to survive in near cryogenic freezing, but they, likely, at one time, didn't have those systems! They didn't spring into being, one winter, though, to allow them to survive the cold, and any one of any proto-bear species that tried to survive without those systems, or with even a portion of them, would not have been alive later to breed, to pass on what they had!
In light of this, the elegant interplay between flowering plants and insects is particularly knotty to explain by evolution. The symbiosis between flowers and bees, for example, involves the flowers not being able to cross pollinate; bees "developing", for some reason, leg fur that carries pollen; flowers developing extruding stamen; bees searching for nectar; bees storing the nectar, for some reason, in leg sacs, right next to where the leg fur would brush against the stamen; flowers providing nectar, and advertising it with scent; bees being able to see only a few colors; and flowers providing those colors on their petals. Did flowers have protruding stamen before bees started visiting them? Did bees have leg sacs before learning to get nectar from flowers? Why did bees visit flowers, in the first place, if flowers didn't have scent and color? And add to that the apparently self-defeating aspect that nothing, evidently, causes bees to visit the same breed of flower each time; bees can visit any number of different types of flowers at one time, vastly lowering the likelihood of transferring pollen successfully from one member to a species to another, and, at the same time, lowering the “survival benefit” of the nascent process! The proposed, but, apparently, never completely spelled out interplay leading to this situation of flowers evolving color and scent to attract bees, presumably because of its “benefit” in “allowing them to flourish”, is so delicate that the slightest interruption, it seems, could have shattered the progression!
A squirrel can have curled ears, with a tuft of hair at the end and Darwinians will declare, unequivocally, that this was an optimum response to their environment. The potto, a kind of prosimian, has three long hairs in the middle of its back. No one knows what they are for, but Darwinians insist that, because Darwinism is unquestionably true, they must have a crucial survival value. And, if they turn out to be able to tell the animals how high above them another branch is, on the basis of that, the Darwinists will “conclude” that “knowing how high a branch is above them is a critical survival feature.” Never mind, though, that, as slow as a potto is, even knowing where to retreat to would not necessarily save it from an enemy.
Incidentally, this is not meant to equate evolution with Darwinism. Darwinism is only one school of evolution thought. The Greeks seem to have postulated a kind of “ladder of existence”, with a kind of pre-ordained perfection being automatically sought for by life forms. Lamarckianism, for example, suggested pangenetic alteration as a kind of semi-conscious response to environment, fostering change. Other theories, for example, would even suggest that there was some kind of non-adaptive influence by the environment, on an animal, chemicals in the surroundings, for example, being credited with changing species. This is not to suggest legitimacy in any, however, but at least one theory, the “ladder of life” almost seems to suggest an intelligent design behind what evolution may occur. And, in fact, religion may almost be willing to accept evolution if an intelligent source were invoked. It is, after all, the concept of the development of mind and soul from the nothingness, that is the foundation for the schism between religion and science, on this issue. God, after all, is credited with creating human souls from the nothingness; religion may be willing to accept evolution if an intelligent Deity were credited with it. A question might be broached, though, as to why God would go through all the preliminaries, if His interaction with man is at the core of existence.
For its own part, though, creationism does come across as something of a joke; “spiritually oriented” individuals trying to steal the panache and attractiveness of a scientific theory, by putting on a scientific-looking show, themselves. To be sure, falsity on the part of evolution would breed proofs of its inadequacy, framed in scientific terms, and verifiable by scientific standards, but that is not the road creationists have taken. Instead, they have taken the story directly from Genesis and crafted a scientific-sounding model around it. If they haven’t demonstrated the actual failure of evolution, they also haven’t fully established the inevitable correctness of their own theory.
As far as evidence, though, it is fully consistent with, say, at different times, portals opening to another world, permitting other species to enter. If there is any kind of “progression” to be seen, from one animal to another, it may be because the portals only allow creatures similar to those already here to enter. Neither theory, nor any other with wide currency, is fully compatible with observable fact.
But if creationism has, as its motivation, losing confidence in spirituality to the scientific, emphasis on evolution also has an ulterior motive. The rise of interest in the scientific has been attended by an equal tendency toward confidence in science to “answer all the questions”. Indeed, much as religion - all religions - has done, science has couched its value on its ability to “provide all the answers”. To say “I don’t know” can be as disastrous for “shills” for religion, as for science “hucksters”.
This is, incidentally, not meant to demean the value of true religion or true science, but merely to point out that there are insincere, popularity merchants, for both pursuits. Both groups using much the same methods.
And it has to be admitted, there are science “barkers”, too, promising untrue benefits and advantages, in order to avoid losing an audience! Everything can be explained in terms of four fundamental forces, three classes of lepton-neutrino families, eight quark types, three fundamental rules of mechanics, three laws of thermodynamics, Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism, chaos theory, statistics, the Schrödinger equation, Heisenberg Uncertainty, and relativity. Nothing else is necessary. Grand Unified Theories and Theories of Everything clutter scientific institutes, these days. Everything that can ever be known, is known now. Nothing else need be added.
And to doubt the ineffable completeness and independence of what has been written so far is verboten!
Just about every college, it seems, has at least one office that has a sign with the famous quote by Lord Kelvin, at the end of the 19th century, opining that everything had been learned, and that the only thing left to do was calculate physical constants out to their last decimal places. Then, the sign reminds you, subatomic particles were discovered, and physics took off.
The lesson of that, though, seems to be wasted on the scientific community, these days, since it is like freezing helium to get them to admit that the science of today doesn’t know absolutely everything! You have a question, science will give you an answer! Actually, they will give you a response, but you are supposed to believe that it is the answer! Admitting that there isn’t a theory to cover every eventuality is poison for those in the scientific community, these days. To admit faults in any of the official doctrines is to suggest that the community isn’t doing everything it should! And that can be very dangerous.
In terms of the community being able to procure expensive research grants! If they can't prove that they have “the way” to get at the truth of anything, that calls into question whether it is a good investment to throw them endowments! To keep the money flowing, science has to paint itself in terms of utter infallibility.
In that way, science can be said to have been “oversold”. A “bill of goods”, claiming every answer to be immediately available, in some book or other!
A devoted and honorable scientist would acknowledge the flaws in evolution, and say to the waiting throng, “Give us some time, while we puzzle this out.”
Or they might even invite the throng to participate, offering their own ideas!
Instead, they have ad flacks proclaim: “Lookee! Lookee! Lookee! Right in this tent! The answer to every single question in the world! Right here! Right now! No waiting!” No matter is not immediately and completely addressable, in terms of existing dogma! And, if anything should come up that doesn’t jibe with the established order, like the potto’s three hairs, then that is taken only as an elaboration on the theory, rather than acknowledged as a legitimate challenge!
If devoted Darwinians accuse religion of invoking creationism out of a cynical search for influence, they have to admit that the scientific community has done much the same, with evolution! Neither, however, is completely satisfactory. It might be interesting to see what suggestions can be provided for the many disparities the world offers.
Julian Penrod
![url]](http://[url]http://www.drdino.com/img/Plesiosaur.jpg[/url])
![url]](http://[url]http://www.drdino.com/img/babyerie.jpg[/url])
[I Jest]
