Creation Guys Episode #004: “Intelligence, Bones and Chromosomes”
On May 10, 2008 in Feedback, Science Related, Uncategorized
It’s often said that Intelligent Design is simply “creationism repackaged” - is that true? After all, they both think we are the result of intelligence, don’t they? What about “vestigial bones” found within whales that, according to Creationists, never used to walk on land - doesn’t this completely debunk the “creation myth”? And what on Earth would a Creationist say if you showed them “undeniable biological evidence” clearly showing a “connection” between men and chimps?
Tune in to this episode to see how a couple of “anti-science bible-thumpers” hold up under direct scrutiny!
If one does not accept any arguments for vestigal organs, then effectively, there’s no point in asking
“What good is half a wing?”
nor does Behe’s “mousetrap” example even apply.
Because if something is always useful according to the creation argument (correct me if I’m straw-manning), then half a wing is useful even if it’s not for flying, therefore, it’s equally plausible birds with wings once had half wings but just were not flying.
In order for Behe’s mousetrap example of an “irreducible complex” to be valid, you must admit if something is not perfectly useful, it’s completely useless. So, if vestigal organs today are not completely useless, nor is a mousetrap. A mousetrap with one missing part can’t serve as a mousetrap, but serves perfectly as a mouse plate, or other things.
“Vestigal organs” are not completely useless, they’re just less useful for another imagined purpose. They are not an embarrassment to evolution, only an embarrassment to people who can’t think in an open fashion.
Josh,
Behe’s mouse-trap analogy is suppose to help people understand things like blood-clotting, and vision. You cannot simply do away with blood-clotting, you need that functionality there, and working tremendously well. If it’s wrong, blood clots in place, or blood doesn’t clot at all.
Half-a-wing can be good for something, yes, but then natural selection would make sure that whatever function it has, it continues to do well, not change.
Natural Selection is very much against you in this area.
Jonathan
I’m not sure I understand what you mean.
But I would think (and hopefully wrong), that natural selection is blind for the animal. That means, selection does not ask whether an animal likes it or uses it, or that’d be benevolence and Godly.
Even so, yes, half a wing should continue to do well, that doesn’t mean things can’t get better. (Are you saying everything in the biological word is perfect and no room for improvement?)
Add A Comment