ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Religion & Law Blogs -> Thoughts in a Haystack

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Religion & Law

: Thoughts in a Haystack

Counting Noses

By John Pieret

ADVERTISEMENTS

Jim Lippard has taken one for the team and sat through Creation Ministries International's "documentary," The Voyage That Shook The World. You can see his review/debunking here.

Jim notes that the film at one points sets up a novel opposition between evolution and creationism in that evolution supposedly argues for the fixity of species while creationism is in favor of their mutability:

The film suggests that the religious view is that the wide diversity and geographic dispersal of living things emerged in the last few thousand years since the flood of Noah, which entails a rapidity of evolution that evolutionary scientists would reject as implausible. I believe the film's offered cases of rapid morphological changes in finch beak sizes are correct, along with its cases of hybridization that include hybrids between land and marine iguanas in the Galapagos. CMI creationist Robert Carter asserts that this is evidence of a young age of the Galapagos islands, because otherwise all the species would have mixed rather than being distinct, rather than concluding, for example, that some of these species are reproductively isolated and others aren't. I almost had the impression that I was witnessing the evolution of a new form of creationism-as-hyperevolution, that required special creation only because a young earth didn't allow enough time to generate the diversity of current life on earth.

I don't think that is all that new, in that it goes back at least as far as John Woodmorappe's 1996 book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study and Answers in Genesis' list of Arguments Creationists Should Not Use (aimed at Kent Hovind's more egregious nonsense). It falls out of their need to limit the number of animals on the ark (to keep their story only ludicrously improbable), while explaining the enormous diversity of extant life on Earth. At number 8 on AiG's list, "No new species have been produced," they say:

The concept of kind is important for understanding how Noah fit all the animals on the Ark. If kind is at the level of family/order, there would have been plenty of room on the Ark to take two of every kind and seven of some. For example, even though many different dinosaurs have been identified, creation scientists think there are only about 50 "kinds" of dinosaurs. Even though breeding studies are impossible with dinosaurs, by studying fossils one can ascertain that there was likely one Ceratopsian kind with variation in that kind and so on.

After the Flood, the animals were told to "be fruitful and multiply on the earth" (Genesis 8:17). As they did this, natural selection, mutation, and other mechanisms allowed speciation within the kinds to occur. Speciation was necessary for the animals to survive in a very different post-Flood world.

In just 4,000 years we went from some 15,000 pairs of animals on the ark (if memory serves for Woodmorappe's number) to 10 million to 100 million species today. Even if we restrict the number of species to those that have been named and catalogued by human beings, that would be about one new species a day since the Flood. And we never noticed!

A major disproof of creationism is the fact that, for every "solution" they come up with, they create at least two new problems.

________________________________________

Update: Jim clarifies in the comments (for the denser sorts such as I) that what he saw as new was:
I don't recall seeing a version of creationism that relied only upon a young earth as the argument that there must have also been special creation. And, of course, I still haven't seen that, since the "limits to change" and "no new information" arguments both came up in this film.
Another aspect of creationism is its ad hoc nature, where consistency is no priority at all.

________________________________________

Via John Lynch.
.

Full post as published by Thoughts in a Haystack on August 01, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.017 secs (new cache)