BLOG

Dr. Henry M. Morris, Jr. (1918-2006) passed away last Saturday, after a long life of writing and creationist work.  Dr. Morris founded the Institute for Creation Research and is considered by many to be the father of the contemporary creationist movement.  He authored more than 50 books, and his Genesis Record and Genesis Flood  (co-written with John C. Whitcomb) became classics during his own lifetime.  His most recent work was the New Defenders Study Bible.  His faith and trust in God inspired a new generation of "biblical literalists" who will, I believe, run with his vision and multiply it tenfold.

I myself have been influenced by Dr. Morris, and I owe many of my insights into Genesis directly to him.  I wish his family my deepest sympathies.  He will be dearly missed.

Creation-Evolution Headlines has a short bio of Morris.

National Geographic News has run another story about the soft tissue that was accidentally discovered inside a fossilized (so they thought) Tyrannosaurus rex thighbone last year.  In this story, Geographic passes along the suggestion that organic dino tissue might not be so rare after all, now that Dr. Mary Schweitzer, the Montana State University scientist who identified the T. rex flesh, has found other such material in "more than a dozen other dinosaur specimens."  This shocking discovery is significant because, as National Geographic puts it, "Traditional ideas of how fossils form do not allow for the preservation of soft, perishable organic tissues.  [S]cientists are beginning to rethink a long-standing model of how the fossilization process works."

The story goes on to explain how Dr. Schweitzer found the additional dinosaur tissue.  Using a special solution her team was able to dissolve away the hard minerals of several fossils--which of course is what fossils are made of--without dissolving the tissue.  About half of the specimens Dr. Schweitzer treated were completely, er, fossiliferous, which means they dissolved completely away, leaving nothing behind.  But many left behind soft, flexible material that appears to match what she found in the T. rex thighbone:  unfossilized blood vessels, cells, and "collagen-like" bone matrix. 

Should soft dinosaur tissue cast legitimate doubt on the age of these dinosaur fossils?

Some of these specimens, for instance the T. rex femur, are believed to be more the 70,000,000 years old (the Cretaceous Period).  That is after all where Tyrannosaurus rex  fits on the evolutionary time scale.  If dinosaurs really lived, say, one million years ago, about half of all evolutionary theory would be overturned.  No one could believe dinosaurs evolved into birds anymore.  No one could use the old "rock layer" argument to try to prove that certain ancient animals evolved into modern animals anymore.  No one could really rely on paleontology to support evolution anymore, because if dinosaurs aren't prehistoric, what is?  An evolutionist, therefore, simply cannot concede that soft tissue indicates young fossils.

This is true even if there is little or no observable difference between modern an ancient tissue.  Dr. Mary Schweitzer, quoted:  "One of these cells is 65 million years old, and one is about 9 months old. Can anyone tell me which is which?"  (While showing two microscope slides of blood cell-like structures.)

 Carl Wieland and David Menton in the latest issue of Technical Journal  [Vol. 19(3)] addressed the discovery of the T. rex tissue and made some interesting observations.  One such observation is that the preconceived, evolutionary notion of long ages (and ancient fossils), rules out the possibility of finding dinosaur tissue in many paleontologists' minds.  As a result, they never thought to look.  But when the T. rex thighbone was broken open (in order to lift it by helicopter), it was with surprise and awe that evolutionists looked inside, and saw unfossilized tissue.  Evolution, as a theory, has predicted wrongly.

It has been one the great criticisms of creationism--in this case young-earth creationism--that it does not predict what we find in the world, whereas evolution does.  Let me suggest that the reality is vice versa, and soft dinosaur tissue is case in point.

Instead of taking a second look at evolution, the scientific community is taking a second look at fossilization.  Dr. Schweitzer herself is developing her own theory to explain the soft tissue phenomenon; she thinks the tissue is locked in place by a sort of polymer barrier that may be formed as iron is released from the dead organism's bloodstream and generates free radicals.  Expect a paper (perhaps several) to be published on this topic in coming months.  Whether or not these theories are cogent or correct, every evolutionist must believe them, since they have no other option.  Young-earth creationists won't need to shut their eyes if Dr. Schweitzer's theory turns out to be a crock.  We think dinosaurs lived recently.

To find tissue purportedly preserved for several thousand years is remarkable, but not unbelievable.   To find tissue purportedly preserved for 70 million years is way past the edge for me.  Wieland and Menton point out in TJ  that "complex biomolecules, such as proteins, are thermodynamically destined to fall apart eventually (from the random motion of molecules) even if they were to be protected from all outside influences such as air, moisture, bacteria, etc."  They also show that evolutionary scientists are allowing the "presupposition [of millions of years] to rule the data," and they footnote two mainstream articles that have demonstrated how known chemical breakdown rates of biomolecules are much too fast to allow those same molecules to last for millions of years.  (Those footnotes are "Lindahl, T., Instability and decay of the primary structure of DNA, Nature 362(6422):709-715, 1993" and "Paabo, S., Ancient DNA, Scientific American 269(5):60-66, 1993")

The subject of ancient DNA has been a hot topic in scientific circles in recent years, and a controversial one.  A 2001 article published in Nature Reviews gives a good rundown on the current evolutionary thinking surrounding ancient DNA, and it places a cap of one million years on good DNA preservation (page 355).  Also, this page contains a whole list of abstracts to scientific papers dealing with the issue of ancient DNA.  (Keep in mind that while some of these papers claim to have found DNA in, for example, 135-million-year-old specimens, not all scientists are subsequently convinced of the reliability of the findings.  DNA isolation and study is tricky and can be prone to contamination by modern microbes.  Refer to the 2001 article above.)

 This issue of soft dinosaur tissue is big, and so the study of "ancient" proteins--properly called paleoproteomics, according to National Geographic.  My hunch is that both will go the way of astronomy, where evolution predicts little, and most new discoveries present new quandaries to be dealt with.  Creationism, however, offers both a Biblical and scientifically reliable viewpoint, and I hope to see this tissue issue produce some new converts.

You've probably already heard about the Shiite shrine destroyed today in the Iraqi city of Samarra just north of Baghdad.  A group of men dressed as Iraqi police entered the shrine, handcuffed the guards, planted explosives and fled.  The sacred Shiite landmark contained the tombs of the 10th and 11th imams, 9th-century descendents of the Prophet Muhammad.  Tens of thousands of Iraqis filled the streets of Samarra and Baghdad alike to protest the bombing.

What amazes me is that people are trying to shuffle the blame on Americans for this attack, people like those at The New York Times, which said immediately following its opening report:

Samarra has long been one of the most violent cities in Iraq, and American forces there have struggled to contain a virulent Sunni-led insurgency. The American military has tried various offensives, only to have insurgents regroup and carry out further strikes. The Americans have also had little success in propping up Iraqi security forces in the town.

The implication here ("American forces have struggled"; "American military has tried"; "Americans have had little success") is that America is indirectly responsible for this latest bombing of a Muslim holy site, even if the bombing itself was premeditated and performed by Iraqis.  Some Muslims seem to agree with this lop-sided viewpoint:  "God is Great, death to America which brought us terrorism."

 Does anyone notice who is missing in this blame-game?  How about the actual insurgents who planted the explosives?   (They may have  Sunnis)  We assume these men were are both Iraqis and Muslims.  Did their parents teach them that the best way to handle factions--or political disagreement--is to kill their countrymen and bomb landmarks of their own religion?  How about the numerous suicide bombings that have targeted Iraqi civilians?

I would suggest that the problems in Iraq and much of the Middle East are deep; cultural and religious.  Blaming those problems on America, the American military, or President Bush is naive, hateful, or political, all of which motives become more and more obvious with each bang.

ScienceDaily has a brief article about how plants reject self-pollination or pollination by other closely (genetically) related plants of the same species.  Once pollen, representing the plant's male reproductive organs, reaches the pistil of the plant, it implants itself and grows there as a pollen tube, with the goal of reaching the ovule, the female side of things.  If the pollen is recognized en route as belonging to a near cousin, some plants release a toxin which effectively stops the pollen tube in its tracks, preventing the too-similar genetic code from producing serious mutations in its offspring.  Enemies to evolution, those plants.

Michael Yon has photo slideshow here that I found fascinating, which documents live military operations from amidst the gunfire.  Yon is an imbedded reporter and photographer in Iraq, and his Online Magazine blog is widely read.  He also has a new book out, titled "Danger Close."

Note:  The photo slideshow exhibits blood and gunfire.

While I have not proven the case for creationism, I think I have shown the following:

(a) the differences between material, intelligent, and supernatural causes, and their impact on scientific experimentation;
(b) leaving out a method of causation in consideration will lead one to erroneous results (also my arguments from here);
(c) many of the basics of evolution (such as common ancestry) exist by _assuming_ that life does not require intelligent causation;
(d) the God that Christians worship is a God of order, and there exists a specific record of important interventions.

 This is from Crevo's Creation and Evolution Blog, where he has posted an entry discussing the four above points.  Crevo also has a post at his Creation Bits site that deals with whether historical observations are valid scientific evidence. (Most Christians, trusting the Bible, would say yes, while most evolutionists would say no.)

The latest at Creationism and Baraminology Research News deals with directed mutagenesis.

Researchers have concluded that you only have a 50/50 chance of correctly discerning the tone--serious or sarcastic--of an email message.  This applies even if you are confident you know the tone of message in question.  Does this apply to valentines?  Or at least e-valentines?  Maybe you lovers out there should double-check that message you received from your sweetheart today. . . You know, the one you've already responded to.

MIT researchers have taken imaging to a new level, capturing amazing images of a virus.  The images "show for the first time a virus poised to inject its genetic material into a host cell."

The Spirit Rover on Mars has found--and photographed--some rock patterns not yet seen on the planet.  There seems to be some excited disagreement about what caused the patterns.

An expedition sponsored by the University of Memphis has discovered a 18th-dynasty tomb in Egypt's Valley of the Kings, contained five mummies and some pottery.  The discovery results from the Amenmesse Tomb Project, a work that has been ongoing since 1995.  You can view a diagram of the KV-10 tomb or learn more about the tomb and the Amenmesse Tomb Project at its official website.

Last, Yahoo News has a fun story about Toxoplasma gondii, a parasite that inhabits the guts--and brains--of rats.  These parasites have been observed to alter the rats' behavior, similar to other instances in nature where an organism changes the behavior of its host by affecting the brain, often to a specific purpose for the parasite.  But what's really weird about Toxoplasma gondii is that it doesn't just live in rats:  Approximately three billion humans host the parasite as well.

I bet I just ruined someone's appetite. 

It's a few days stale, but Mike Gene over at Telic Thoughts has posted a spot-on entry about evolutionists who use propaganda to scare people away from ID.

The logic of intelligent design tells us that it is not the same as creationism. Many proponents of intelligent design are not creationists. And more and more creationists are distancing themselves from intelligent design. Nevertheless, most critics of ID insist on equating intelligent design with creationism. While I am sure there are many critics who are sincere (although misinformed) when equating intelligent design with creationism, nevertheless, the accusation has many of the hallmarks of propaganda.

Mike goes on to describe several techniques that are normally used, from "intentional vagueness" to "appeal to fear."  Read the whole thing here.