BLOG

From Creationism and Baraminology Research News, a report on this paper about why Scriptural Geology (aka flood geology--understanding the rock strata as products of a global flood) was quashed as movement during the 19th century.

GRISDA has a paper by Warren Johns explaining why he thinks that scriptural geology failed in the 1800s. It has some good ideas. Here are his suggestions:

• Restricting flood layers to higher and higher portions of the geologic record


• Lack of human fossils in geologic strata


• The shift away from the hard facts of geology by the scriptural geologists


• The major journals and educational institutions were hostile to traditional religious beliefs


• The professionalization of geology made it difficult for part-time geologists (such as the scriptural geologists) to have a voice


• Liberal theology was replacing orthodox theology as the dominant view

And the mystery is that these galaxies--nine of them, each only 5,000 light years in diameter and with as many stars as normal, much larger galaxies--have been measured to be 11 billion light years away. That means we're supposedly seeing them as they appeared 11 billion years ago. Now, according to big bang cosmology, the universe is about 14 billion years old. The compact galaxies we see today should appear to be only 3 billions years old. So what's the problem?

The problem is that galaxies so young shouldn't be so compact. The apparent engine of galaxy formation is gravity, and the longer gravity can work on a system, the more compact the system should get. But most of the "old" galaxies we observe today are not as compact, comparatively speaking. If galaxies do indeed change from one type into another, what phenomenon caused these young compact galaxies to become less compact with age?

In a Hubble news release today, astronomers pondered the issue: 

 "Seeing the compact sizes of these galaxies is a puzzle," said Pieter G. van Dokkum of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., who led the study. "No massive galaxy at this distance has ever been observed to be so compact. It is not yet clear how they would build themselves up to become the large galaxies we see today. They would have to change a lot over 11 billion years, growing five times bigger. They
could get larger by colliding with other galaxies, but such collisions may not be the complete answer."

. . . .

How did these small, crowded galaxies form? One way, suggested van Dokkum, involves the interaction of dark matter and hydrogen gas in the nascent universe. Dark matter is an invisible form of matter that accounts for most of the universe's mass. Shortly after the Big Bang, the universe contained an uneven landscape of dark matter. Hydrogen gas became trapped in puddles of the invisible material and began spinning rapidly in dark matter's gravitational whirlpool, forming stars at a furious rate.

*Tirade warning*
I hate it when scientists have to invoke dark matter to explain conundrums. No one knows what dark matter is. Using dark matter to explain a mystery seems to be like labeling a major engine part a "thingamajig" in hopes that other mechanics will have no qualms installing them, although none of them know what the "thingamajig" actually is. I'll look forward to the day when we have more information to work with than the simple label, "dark matter." Then maybe we'll know with more certainty whether dark matter and hydrogen gas ever had such a furious relationship.
*Tirade warning ended* 

 In the meantime, we can enjoy the discovery of compact galaxies, and puzzle along with astronomers as they observe and study these "small" exhibits of creation.

Image courtesy NASA, ESA, A. Feild (STScI), and P. van Dokkum (Yale University)

Expelled opened last Friday and I watched it. If you care at all about the debate between Darwinism and alternate views of origins, you should watch it too. And take your family: The PG rating is for some brief holocaust scenes and perhaps an incident or two of mild language (such as "hell"). In it, Ben Stein treks the U.S. and Europe interviewing proponents and critics of intelligent design.

The film built a convincing case for the discrimination that has been leveled at ID advocates in universities and science establishments (such as Guillermo Gonzalez, Richard Sternberg, Robert Marks, and others), and contrasted that discrimination perfectly with the freedom of speech we expect to hold sway in American academia. Using vintage footage and shots of the Berlin wall and Hitler's crusade against the Jewish race, Expelled suggests what can happen when Darwinian ideas are applied to society. I was glad to see the film briefly point out the connection Planned Parenthood--and especially its founder, Margaret Sanger--had with Darwinian ethics.

Some critics have attacked the documentary as low-quality and amateurish, probably because it relies heavily on shouldered cameras, close-ups, and snippets of vintage tape. But because Expelled is a documentary, these techniques are forgivable and contribute to an overall style that keeps the story interesting and fast-paced. The only moment I felt a touch bored was during a cartoon clip illustrating how many hundreds of times in a row you'd need to pull a jackpot to match the odds of life arising by Darwinian evolution.

I found Stein genuinely enjoyable to watch, as he questioned his interviewees with a kind of blank, unperturbed stare that often made the other party look nervous. He does a convincing job playing the role of an unconvinced skeptic who is genuinely seeking answers about intelligent design and Darwinism--and because of that Expelled will be influential for those who are still undecided in the debate.

In news outlets and blogs the debate is escalating. The National Center for Science Education, recognizing the impact Expelled could have, has created an entire website to "refute" the content of the film, arguing (for instance) that the discrimination directed at people like Richard Sternberg was self-induced. These guys aren't persecuted, they're just paying for their own sins.

Casey Luskin has posted a 3-part response on the Evolution News & Views blog to skeptic Michael Shermer's anti-Expelled article for Scientific American. On the same blog, Martin Cothran responds to other critics of the documentary. At Jewcy.com, David Klinghoffer delves into the connection between Darwinism and Hitler, and Sahotra Sarkar counters. MSNBC's Cosmic Log posted a list of negative reviews (that is, pro-Darwin reviews) here--I guess in case you're having trouble making up your own mind.

Tell me if this isn't a good idea: designing ion engines for space. The European Space Agency (ESA) is integrating ion engines into at least one of their spacecraft. While ion engines have miniscule thrust power, they can operate on solar power for years, unlike conventional fuel boosters, which are powerful but burn up quickly. Theoretically, a spacecraft running on an ion engine would start out slowly but accelerate indefinitely, reaching the edge of our solar system yet still increasing in speed.

The ESA, for now at least, seems to be interested in using ion engines for another purpose, which is to keep their Goce spacecraft in low-earth orbit. In this case the ion boosters would function as a "cruise control," in the words of one ion propulsion developer.

Go here to read the labels for the image. 

Image courtesy ESA 

Paleontology: Scientists have been studying the fossil of a snake-like creature with hind limbs. To cross-reference another discipline, some scholars think the wording of the curse on the serpent in Genesis indicates the creature was limbed before it was doomed to "eat dust" and crawl on its belly.

Human biology: Meanwhile, here's a video of an Asian Indian baby girl who through a strange congenital defect was born with two faces. Doctors say the deformity is a unusual case of conjoined twins. Sadly, local Indian villagers are worshiping the baby as the reincarnation of a many-faced goddess, and the family has declined to allow doctors to CT-scan the child for internal abnormalities. Whatever the villagers and family think about the girl's divinity, she may not live long if they offer her incense instead of good medical care.

Preparing for the big one: Intel has publicly recognized the threat that the sun's coronal mass ejections (CME's) pose to the earth's computer systems, and is studying how to build a cosmic ray-proof computer.

And finally, here we go again: For 2008 climatologists predict yet another severe hurricane season. Never mind that the last two seasons were flops. 'Course I don't blame forecasters, who are undoubtedly doing the very best they can. But we could do without any shoreline scaremongering. After all, we know that whether hurricanes come or go, it's really global warming that's to blame.

Upright of course. A chow mix named "Faith," born without front legs, is inspiring many as she goes on tour with her agent, Mike Maguire. This dog has learned to adapt to its difficult situation by walking like its owner, bipedally.

I must clarify this is not an example of dog evolution, just resourcefulness. After watching this video of the two-legged dog walk, I've decided the most remarkable thing about this chow is surely the very thing the videographers didn't show us: the marking of territory. That, after all, must be accomplished on one leg, no?

Theology and Steak has a great post refuting theistic evolution, the belief that God used evolution to create the universe and life on earth. Summed up simply, it's a way of accepting the whole of mainstream science, and throwing God in without actually attributing anything specific (or heaven forbid, supernatural) to Him. The author of the post points out that among the Presbyterian Church USA, 60 to 90 percent of members and clergy believe "evolutionary theory is compatible with the idea of God as Creator." He also gives excerpts of a statement signed by some 11,000 churches indicating the stories of the Bible need not be taken literally.

Last year I had someone ask me to make a place in my blogroll for "evolutionary creationists" if I remember the term correctly. His position was apparently similar to theistic evolution (TE), but he preferred the emphasis on "creation". I didn't find the distinction important enough to warrant a change of terms. Incidentally, I don't have a place in my blogroll yet for theistic evolutionists, though perhaps some of them would categorize themselves with old earth creationists or ID theorists. (Some TE advocates are firmly opposed to the ID movement, however.) Like theistic evolutionists, ID theorists discredit the randomness of Darwinism, but unfortunately don't discredit evolution, but instead believe the process of evolution reflects design. God guided the process, but what he did no one really knows. As much as I admire ID theorists, I'm disappointed they stop short of their potential.

Last week while criticizing Darwinists who try to force people to choose between science and religion, Casey Luskin at the Discovery Institute blog accused creationists of promoting "a false dichotomy that forces supporters of evolution to abandon religion." Luskin sounds just like one of the churchgoers mentioned above who believe evolution and the biblical record are completely compatible. What he and so many others apparently haven't given two minutes of thought to is that the Bible teaches that the physical death of humans was a result of sin--not a precursor to it. Why was Jesus' death effective on our behalf? Because, being sinless, he didn't deserve to die in the first place. Not so if death is merely an artifact of evolution.

Luskin is wrong--the dichotomy isn't false. Creationists don't ask evolutionists to abandon religion, but we do challenge them to be theologically consistent. Otherwise the doctrines our faith rests on will turn as wishy-washy as the times.

In most species, faithfulness is a fantasy? So former NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer can hardly be blamed? Well, such a conclusion isn't surprising when you view man as just another genus in the great tree of life, bearing no other privileges or responsibilities beyond that granted by his advanced intellect, superiority, and knack for expressing deep feelings for others, even if those feelings are themselves a fantasy. Only a pure-blooded Darwinist would draw conclusions about human ethics by observing the lifestyles of fish, termites, and primates; and unfortunately there are enough of them out there (Darwinists, I mean) to raise the question of whether Spitzer is being judged unfairly--whether, in fact, it's some of those New York laws that aren't quite in step with what Mother Nature intended.

 There's absolutely no indication that God ever intended animals to remain monogamous. But that was his intention for humans, as Jesus said, "from the beginning."

Darwinists are still a bit mad over The March of the Penguins, I'm certain.