|email - November 2013|
|by Do-While Jones|
Are some things so complex they could not have been designed, and had to have happened by chance?
Less than an hour after we posted the October newsletter, we received this hasty (as evidenced by the short time and typing errors) email from William about our review of the video, Flight—the Genius of Birds. He took exception to the question the video posed based on the observation that all flying machines are the result of conscious design.
"They end by simply noting that all other instances of flying (hot air balloons, dirigibles, fixed wing aircraft, rotary wing aircraft, and rockets) are the result of conscious design. Is it not reasonable to assume that biological flight is also the result of conscious design?"
Yes it is not reasonable to assume biological flight is the result of conscious design. Us [sic] humans are the most intelligent creatures known to exist and we are incapable of designing biological flight. Birds have been flying around long before humans or any other primates existed. Of course, you contend humans walked the earth the same time as dinosaurs and trilobites lived. Unfortunately for you the fossil record shows you are wrong. I find it sad that your flawed theology drives you to propagate distortions and conspiracy type thinking that the entire world of scientists in various disciplines are trying to trick people into thinking that the diversity of life is a result of evolution. Find me a coat button, a shoelace, a crucifix, an arrowhead, a loincloth, a human fossil or any other trace of human life in those old rocks and then the world will listen to you. Until then, and a some [sic] ignorant Christian fundamentalists will cling on to the idea that if evolution is true, then there is no God.
Sent from my iPad
Just imagine what would happen if we sent William’s iPad back to a scientist living in1955.
For those of you too young to remember 1955, we had rotary telephones, (at most) three black-and-white TV channels (without remote controls), and computers were so big and expensive that universities had to rent them, and run them in rooms equipped with that new invention—air conditioning!
So, a scientist in 1955 looks at William’s iPad, and sees that it has the capability of a wireless telephone, combined with text messaging, a web browser, a camera, a record player, a dynamic color map showing current location, and more computing power than all the computers in the world. No scientist would have said, “This is far too complex to have been designed by a human being—it must have happened by chance!” They would have assumed that it must have come back from the future, or from some advanced extraterrestrial civilization.
But William’s argument is that since we humans are incapable of duplicating biological flight, it must have happened by chance.
On a totally unrelated subject, William erroneously thinks that the discovery of an out-of-place artifact would disprove evolution. He apparently thinks that no out-of-place artifact has ever been found because evolution hasn’t been disproved. The truth is that so many out-of-place artifacts have been found that the term “out-of-place artifact” has an entry in Wikipedia, and they have their own abbreviation (OOPArts).
As one might expect, every reported out-of-place artifact has been dismissed because it doesn’t fit with the orthodox view, and the discoverer has been labeled a kook.
There are also, no doubt, many unreported OOPArts. If William found a coat button or shoelace under a T. Rex skeleton while on a dinosaur dig, would he really report it to his professor? Probably not! His professor would think William is a crazy creationist who planted it there. If William did have the courage to report it, his professor would say it must be a “later intrusion,” or evidence that William had failed to protect the integrity of the stratigraphy by allowing the dig to become contaminated by modern artifacts, thereby invalidating the chronology. The discovery of the button would not be reported in the article they submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal because it would cause the article to be rejected, and the authors would look like fools.
|Quick links to|
|Science Against Evolution
|Back issues of
of the Month