The Mighty Tiktaalik roseae
Creationists really need to find an alternative to bashing evolution -- biologists from the University of Chicago have discovered fossils in the Canadian Arctic of fish with transitional anatomical traits. The New York Times reported this morning that these scientists say this is the long-sought missing link in the evolution from water-dwelling to land-dwelling creatures. These fishes' forward fins have nascent digits, wrists, elbows and shoulders, and other features in their heads and trunks that resemble crocodiles and other tetrapods.
Besides this discovery, proponents of evolution have other transitional animals to point to, such as Archaeopteryx (the link between birds and reptiles), and a type of whale that lived on land. One of the central arguments of creationists in pooh-poohing Darwinian theory is that there is no evidence in the fossil record of transitional creatures. Um, wrong -- evolutionists have three (count 'em, THREE) examples now.
What is to become of the creationists' harangue? The NYT quoted Duane T. Gish, retired official of the Institute for Creation Research, as stating, in response to this discovery, that he still found evolution "questionable because palaeontologists have yet to discover any transitional fossils between complex invertebrates and fish, and this destroys the whole evolutionary theory."
I'm not really sure what he means by this (as in, why he considers this a valid response to the challenge presented), but it sounds like he's incredibly flummoxed, although, like any good religious fanatic, he's sticking to his guns that the scientists must be wrong, all wrong, not possibly right. Only good Christians are right, right? I wonder what his first reaction was when someone tried to break the news about Tiktaalik roseae (as scientists named the tetrapod-ish fish, at the suggestion of Nunavut elders) to him? He likely clapped his hands over his ears, and sang, "La la la la la la la laaaaah" as loudly as possible.
Given that creationists' beliefs are based on nothing but stories in a book written and rewritten and interpreted and misinterpreted over and over throughout hundreds of years, they have enormous latitude in fabricating arguments. Think about it -- they are not required to apply any of the intellectual rigor or provide the proof that we require of scientists (and indeed, creationists lean on evolutionists to have to find fossil proof to even begin considering evolution as a plausible alternative to their oh-so-compelling "an otherworldly being decided one day to invent the Earth and all it's creatures in their modern form out of thin air" yarn, which, conveniently, cannot be proven, and, more conveniently, doesn't have to be).
So, despite the fact that the Tiktaalik discovery should deliver a smashing blow to their agenda, I predict they will bounce back with some totally insane response that, somehow, Christians will accept, and book burners everywhere will continue their onslaught on real education in our nation's schools. It will probably be something totally random, like, "We cannot possibly consider evolution as anything but a sham until 49 fossil examples of creatures have been found which can be equally divided into 7 stages of transitional mobility, representing the 7 days our Lord took to create the Earth." Or, "We'll only begin to think about giving merit to evolutionary theory when these scientists find a golden unicorn." Or maybe they'll just join the soft-headed proponents of intelligent design, raising their hands and stating, "Oh, this is all just too complicated for us to understand, so let's just say God or some other almighty being must have made it all up."
Religious fanatics seem to me to be incredibly energetic and driven, so it always amazes me how they allow themselves to be so lazy with their thought processes. Ah, but then again, insane people are can be pretty energetic, and their reasoning capabilities are suboptimal. Faith is very convenient.
Besides this discovery, proponents of evolution have other transitional animals to point to, such as Archaeopteryx (the link between birds and reptiles), and a type of whale that lived on land. One of the central arguments of creationists in pooh-poohing Darwinian theory is that there is no evidence in the fossil record of transitional creatures. Um, wrong -- evolutionists have three (count 'em, THREE) examples now.
What is to become of the creationists' harangue? The NYT quoted Duane T. Gish, retired official of the Institute for Creation Research, as stating, in response to this discovery, that he still found evolution "questionable because palaeontologists have yet to discover any transitional fossils between complex invertebrates and fish, and this destroys the whole evolutionary theory."
I'm not really sure what he means by this (as in, why he considers this a valid response to the challenge presented), but it sounds like he's incredibly flummoxed, although, like any good religious fanatic, he's sticking to his guns that the scientists must be wrong, all wrong, not possibly right. Only good Christians are right, right? I wonder what his first reaction was when someone tried to break the news about Tiktaalik roseae (as scientists named the tetrapod-ish fish, at the suggestion of Nunavut elders) to him? He likely clapped his hands over his ears, and sang, "La la la la la la la laaaaah" as loudly as possible.
Given that creationists' beliefs are based on nothing but stories in a book written and rewritten and interpreted and misinterpreted over and over throughout hundreds of years, they have enormous latitude in fabricating arguments. Think about it -- they are not required to apply any of the intellectual rigor or provide the proof that we require of scientists (and indeed, creationists lean on evolutionists to have to find fossil proof to even begin considering evolution as a plausible alternative to their oh-so-compelling "an otherworldly being decided one day to invent the Earth and all it's creatures in their modern form out of thin air" yarn, which, conveniently, cannot be proven, and, more conveniently, doesn't have to be).
So, despite the fact that the Tiktaalik discovery should deliver a smashing blow to their agenda, I predict they will bounce back with some totally insane response that, somehow, Christians will accept, and book burners everywhere will continue their onslaught on real education in our nation's schools. It will probably be something totally random, like, "We cannot possibly consider evolution as anything but a sham until 49 fossil examples of creatures have been found which can be equally divided into 7 stages of transitional mobility, representing the 7 days our Lord took to create the Earth." Or, "We'll only begin to think about giving merit to evolutionary theory when these scientists find a golden unicorn." Or maybe they'll just join the soft-headed proponents of intelligent design, raising their hands and stating, "Oh, this is all just too complicated for us to understand, so let's just say God or some other almighty being must have made it all up."
Religious fanatics seem to me to be incredibly energetic and driven, so it always amazes me how they allow themselves to be so lazy with their thought processes. Ah, but then again, insane people are can be pretty energetic, and their reasoning capabilities are suboptimal. Faith is very convenient.
posted by Clown Hair at
8:49 AM
1 Comments:
I really like the idea of an "Institute for Creation Research." What kind of research could they possibly do there? Researching various ways to say "nyahnyah-I'M-NOT-LISTENING!!"? But, as far as why people would be so pig-headed about this - political reasons aside (I'd imagine that an enormous creationist organization would certainly require at least 49 pieces of evidence before they'd be willing to say "sorry - we were wrong," and like you said - that probably wouldn't be enough, either) - I'm sure there's an enormous comfort to be taken in creationism. It's an easy way to explain away everything that happens, or doesn't, and trust that an all-powerful God is watching over you.
To my great surprise, during a recent conversation with a work friend about the idyllic Swiss landscape, she let loose with a comment about how mountains, sunsets, etc. of that ilk are proof that God exists - how else to explain that kind of beauty? When I realized she meant it, I changed the subject immediately - my initial thoughts of "oh my goodness - she's a creationist!" were tempered by my remembering that she voted for Bush because she found Kerry untrustworthy - logic has no place in her world (to be fair - it's a kind of logic, but not the same brand I use). You must discard conventional logic to have deep faith. I wonder what she'd say about this newest evidence? I'd expect she probably just wouldn't process it - the idea of a powerful God, I'd imagine, is important to her. She might think that believing this new evidence would deny God's existence.
Faith is, as so many have said, an elaborately constructed house of cards, and yanking out the creationism card, at the foundation, would lead to collapse. Accepting evolution means accepting the possibility that there might not be an Almighty to support you - there might not be an afterlife. I think the creationists' inability to process paleontologists' evidence stems from a deep fear of feeling/being alone in the universe.
...or, maybe the Institute for Creation Research has discovered something we don't know about...like a blueprint for the world! Unearthed from deep within the earth's crust, written in God's own hand on crumbling parchment. We can't know, I suppose, until they release their research findings.
By
Anonymous, at 10:42 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home