One Book, One Dogma

A medieval bulgarian bibleTwo articles in the January Acts & Facts edition argue a similar point. According to them, the young Earth creationist approach of biblical literalism is superior to world-views influenced by observation of the actual universe. The articles aim their attacks primarily at fellow Christians who don’t take the YEC position, but take slightly different angles.

The first is by Jason Lisle, and is called The Two-Book Fallacy. It begins:

The founder of the scientific method, Francis Bacon, taught that God has written two books: the Scriptures and the book of creation (or nature). Today, many professing Christians affirm this view. After all, the Scriptures teach that God’s attributes are clearly seen in nature (Romans 1:20). So we can learn about God through both Scripture and science—the systematic study of nature.

Continue reading

How Old are Polar Bears?

You’ve probably heard the news: Polar bears have been around a lot longer than we thought. “About 600 (338 to 934) thousand years” in fact. The research used to determine this involved molecular clocks, however, which has prompted an article by Brian Thomas: Circular Reasoning in Polar Bear Origins Date. Brian has incorrectly accused scientists of this fallacy before – what is it this time?

Polar bear skeleton
Continue reading

Opals, What is it With Opals?

For some reason, creationists seem to like Opals. I’m not entirely sure why. One possible explanation is the Ken Ham is Australian, and so are opals. This is pretty weak, though. I don’t see many Creationists commenting on Kangaroo’s…
Opal Doublet Continue reading

…Or Maybe He Was Just Late (two DpSU’s)

It’s later than usual, but it is here. Brian Thomas is arguing that nature could not produce the spiders’ diving bell (see also) or the Hornets’ “well-developed heat pump system” (which is part of a system that turn ultra-violet light into something that it can use for energy). This is because that “is something that’s not easy [for us] to do.” which means that, according to him, “If it’s not easy for a person with foresight to do, then it is surely impossible for nature, which has no foresight.”

The problem here is that the argument that it is harder for “nature” (evolution/Natural Selection) to solve a problem than it is for humans is fallacious. That is not (necessarily) the case. As an example, in 1996 Adrian Thompson conducted an experiment with evolving electronics (see here, slides 21-26, for an overview, here for more detail). The idea was to evolve a circuit that could differentiate between inputs of 1 and 10 kHz (well, actually “1.042 kHz and
10.416 kHz”) to output 0 and 5V for the different frequencies (it doesn’t matter which voltage corresponds to which frequency. It actually flipped during the experiment, between generations 2550 and 2800). The circuit had to do this without the aid of any kind of timing device (unless, of course, it evolved its own). Continue reading