2009

February 27, 2009

Geology / Interesting Facts about Water

I’m in OKC for the Ruse/Dembski debate, so I thought I’d wade through OU’s library.  I don’t often have the time/access to large libraries that I’d like so it’s fun just to browse and see what one can learn.  I found a book called Marine Chemistry by Horne which listed the following interesting facts about water (pg 15):

  • Water has the highest heat capacity of all solids and liquids except NH3 – this prevents extreme ranges in temperature, and allows heat transfer by simply moving water
  • Latent heat of evaporation – highest of all substances
  • Latent heat of fusion – highest of all substances except NH3
  • Thermal expansion – the temperature of maximum density dereases with increasing salinity – helps control temperature distribution and circulation in lakes
  • Surface tension – highest of all liquids – helps in physiology of the cell and other surface phenomena
  • Dissolving power – dissolves more substances and in greater quantity than any other liquid – obviously this helps with aqueous biological phenomena
  • Dielectric constant – water has the highest of all liquids
  • Electrolytic dissociation – small – allows it to be neutral but still contain both H+ and OH- ions
  • Transparency – relatively great – important in biological phenomena
  • Conduction of heat – highest of all liquids

Anyway, I thought that was interesting.

Permalink | |

February 25, 2009

General / A Very Cool Fish

JB

Check out this fish!

Permalink | |

February 17, 2009

Discussions around the Web / Cavemen are Like Us and a Great Creationist Profile

JB

Two things I noticed on the web today:

  • The #8 story of science in 2008 is that neanderthals were just like us.  The funny thing about this is that Answers in Genesis has been trying to convince everyone of that for years now.  Funny – I don’t see them getting any credit for that 😉
  • The ICR posted up a great profile of Benjamin Carson.  Benjamin is the chief of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University Medical School.  His profile is incredible check it out.

Permalink | |

February 17, 2009

Biological Change / Genetics and Biological Similarity

JB

The recent sequencing efforts of a variety of organisms has been contributing a whole lot to what we know about the genome, and especially the genome’s contribution to an organism’s form.  One thing Paul Nelson (I think) has brought up before is the fact that the contents of the genome might not be as important as how it is read.  Todd Wood made similar claims in his paper on biological similarity.  Wood made some waves in Creationary camps by suggesting that perhaps chimps and humans originated with the exact same DNA!  Now, I don’t think that this was the case, nevertheless it is interesting food for thought – might the same DNA lead to two radically different organisms based on how it is interpretted by the organism?  And might two very different sets of DNA lead to near-identical organisms based on how it is interpretted?

We keep on finding clues to this puzzle that indicate that this might be an affirmative on both cases.

In the case of voles, we find vast genomic differences between species that have nearly-identical morphology.

In the case of sea urchins, we see that they have genomes that are much more similar to humans than fruit flies are.  According to this article:

Sea urchins are closer to human and vertebrates from an evolutionary perspective than other more widely studied animal models, such as fruit fly or worms. The sea urchin, in fact, has 7,000 genes in common with humans [NOTE – this does not mean they are identical, just the same general gene], including genes associated with Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and Huntington’s diseases and muscular dystrophy. “Another surprise is that this spiny creature with no eyes, nose or hears has genes involved in vision, hearing and smell in humans,”… [emphases and NOTEs added]

Also striking is the similarity between humans and kangaroos on the genetic level:

“There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order,” center Director Jenny Graves told reporters in Melbourne.

Now, for those of you unfamiliar with the evolutionary tree, marsupials and placentals were supposed to have diverged long, long ago, in a small mole- or badger-like creature.  But here we have kangaroos and humans having the same genes (again, not necessarily identical) in the same order, which is supposedly the evidence for our descent from apes (note that I know of no scientist who says that we descended from kangaroos, and yet what we have here is very much the same type of genetic evidence).

In any case, the point is that similarities and differences within genomes may mean something else entirely from what we think it means today.  Are the fundamental components of body morphology even genetic?  Anyway, lots of good questions are lurking around in there.

Permalink | |

February 10, 2009

Geology / A Creationist Interpretation of Pyramid Rock, Victoria

JB

Tas Walker recently posted his flood-centered interpretation of Pyramid Rock, Victoria.

Permalink | |

February 09, 2009

Biological Change / BSG UK Conference Highlights

JB

Todd Wood has been blogging the BSG UK conference, titled Genesis and the Origin of the Species.  This latest post links to all of his daily entries.  The conference is coming soon to the US!  I probably won’t get to make it (new child on the way), but it sounds like fun!

Permalink | |

February 06, 2009

Information Theory / RNA Editing and Data Encapsulation Formats

JB

I was thinking about data encapsulation today.  In a computer program, if I want to pass the words “hello world” to a website, I can’t just stick it in the URL – spaces aren’t allowed in URLs – they serve a different function there.  Instead, in URLs, spaces get translated to %20s, so I would pass it as “hello%20world”.  Different formats have different rules for encapsulation, so if I want to take a single set of characters, and move them from one system to another, it is possible I may have to encapsulate/de-encapsulate multiple times. 

So, I was thinking about this with regards to RNA editing.  Before I start to make this analogy, let me start by saying the instances of RNA editing I know about don’t seem to be working in this way.  Nonetheless, I think it is an interesting angle to research to be sure.

What I am wondering is if there are times when the DNA code might be “encapsulated” in a slightly different format, which then gets de-encapsulated by RNA editing to be passed on to the next phase.  In computers, this happens when additional control information must be passed on using the same alphabet.  In our previous example, in the control system alphabet for web requests, the space has a special use.  Therefore, if we need to use a space within the URL itself, we have to encapsulate it so that it doesn’t get confused with its special use.

Anyway, just wondering out loud (a) if this happens at all, and (b) whether it occurs through RNA editing or some other mechanism, and (c) what are the different levels of control information and how are they designated.

Permalink | |

February 02, 2009

General / Winter/Spring 2009 BSG Newsletter is Up

JB

For those interested, the first newsletter of the BSG: A Creation Biology Study Group has now been posted.  It is a members-only publication, so if you want to read it, you’ll need to get a membership (it’s not expensive).  Note that the BSG does not require a statement of faith for membership.  I am the newsletter editor, so if you want to contribute (which, by the way, is an excellent way to get started in Creation research) let me know and we can decide what to do.  This newsletter consists of member news, book reviews, a literature review, and suggestions for student projects.

Permalink | |

March 25, 2009

Geology / Evidence for a Pre-flood Floating Forest

JB

I just ran across a video of Kurt Wise talking about his floating forest hypothesis regarding the origin of coal seams.  From memory, his main lines of evidence for this are:

  1. Coal too flat (top, bottom, and benches in the middle) to have been formed from a gradual process
  2. Plants in coal have a different root system from modern plants – the only similar root system are plants which grow entirely in water
  3. Fossil sequence similar to sequence of habitats in quaking bogs – smaller moving towards larger, and semi-aquatic moving towards amphibians in animals

Anyway, I think he was only referring to certain coal beds, not all coal beds.  Nonetheless, based on the biomass, he was estimating that there was an entire pre-flood continent-sized floating forest which got buried.  It is very interesting!

Here’s part 1 and part 2.

Permalink | |

March 20, 2009

Geology / Interesting Political Implications of Creationism

JB

John Hawks has an interesting look at the recent return of skeletons to a Native American tribe for reburial.  This is really interesting because it indicates that there are more implications for our thoughts/ideas/theories than we realize.  Hawks is an anti-Creationist, so he thinks the connection between the bones and modern tribes is ridiculous.  I’m not aware of current Creationist thinking on biogeography of human remains, so I don’t know whether or not a modern Creationist would agree with Hawks or with the tribe, but nonetheless it is an interesting intersection of ideas with the reality of politics.

While I appreciate Hawk’s desire for administrators to administer based on principle rather than on money, I think he leaves out one additional component that may be worth considering – one that John West brought to my attention a few weeks ago – that public decisions have valid interests besides experts.  Experts have been wrong – even whole communities of experts, and on matters of public policy, everyone has to live with the consequences, not just the experts.  Therefore, the public has a say, too.

So, while it is very likely that Hawks is correct – the University president is probably most interested in money, one possibility that should not be overlooked is that, even though the University president is not a Creationist, the University president recognizes that there are other valid interests which include people and groups that the University president doesn’t agree with.  Being respectful to these groups and these ideas, even when they are in conflict with your own or experts, is wise, not spineless, though it should always be done with care.

Permalink | |

March 19, 2009

Geology / The Folding of Rock Layers

JB

AIG has an excellent article posted which shows how folded rock layers fit into a creation model.  They point out that there are several instances of rocks in which a series of rock layers are folded but not fractured.  This indicates that the rocks had not yet hardened when the folding occurred.  When the folding occurs across multiple rock layers, that means that none of the rocks could have been hard when the folding occurs.

Permalink | |

March 16, 2009

General / Interviews with Creation Biologists

JB

I found these on YouTube and thought you all might be interested:

Also, Steve Austin has a video out called Where Darwin Went Wrong.  I find it interesting because it makes a good comparison of how Creationists and Evolutionists think of geology.  It is actually more about Lyell than Darwin, but it talks about a specific case where Darwin employed Lyell’s methodology, and the problems that this caused with the evidence.  It’s a good little video.

Permalink | |

March 06, 2009

Biological Change / Lightner’s Most Recent Article on Genetic Change

JB

Jean Lightner just posted a good article up on AiG’s website covering Creationary beliefs about biological change.  She notes that Creationists should expect both bad mutations because of sin and death that is in the world, and good mutations because of the care that God put into His creation.  She also made an interesting case for directed mutation in human pigmentation.

Basically, the argument goes like this:

  • MC1R (a gene for human pigmentation) is a highly mutable gene
  • MC1R tends to be regionally adapted
  • 100 Africans were tested, and none of them showed any sequence divergence from other members of the group [UPDATE – Jean pointed out in the comments that this should be “amino acid sequence” – there were some silent DNA mutations]
  • The skin cancers that develop from improper pigmentation don’t show up until you are about 57 years of age, and thus will have already finished having children – therefore, natural selection will be unable to effectively remove variants from the population
  • Therefore, it seems reasonable that mutations happen in this gene because of need, rather than accident, and when there is no need, there is little or no mutation.

This is a really cool direction of research.  I also wonder what sort of mechanism would be used to control this.  Is there a feedback loop somewhere which tells the skin that the pigmentation is set at the right level?  Are the mutations prevented by methylation or some other epigenetic mechanism?  Is there something there functioning as a counter to determine how many generations it should search for an optimum versus attempt to establish a constant sequence?

Anyway, another nice thing about this article is it cited my CRSQ paper.  Yay!  Now I just have to find time to finish my BSG paper 🙂

Permalink | |

March 06, 2009

General / Christian Scientist Featured in Science Careers

JB

UPDATE – original link broken – now fixed.

A friend of mine forwarded me this very cool profile of a scientist, Imre Miklós Szilágyi, in the Science Careers section of Science’s website.  Here’s an excerpt:

Szilágyi sees his religious faith and his research efforts as two complementary aspects of his life. Within the scientific environment, “I have some options where I can express my faith,” Szilágyi says. He directly referred to God both in the acknowledgements of his master’s and doctoral dissertations and while receiving his awards. He runs a Bible-study group for young adults, and together with a friend he founded a Christian scientific group.

But although Szilágyi’s views often lie far outside the scientific mainstream, he expresses those views only off-campus and in his personal time. For him, “the debate over evolution, design, creation, supernatural intelligence, etc., is not a scientific question in the first place but the collision of worldviews, the confrontation of materialism and idealism,” he says. He takes the Bible literally, but when he lectures on the subject–outside of work–he presents what he calls “the options” and indicates which one “to me … seems to be more probable.” But he insists that it is up to “everybody to make his or her own decision.”

“As a Christian who works in the field of science, I find it quite important to deal with the relation of Christianity and science,” Szilágyi says. But “I know that it is a minefield in today’s scientific life and can be quite dangerous for one’s scientific career. … Therefore, I do these activities absolutely separately from my university work. … I am very cautious and careful that whenever I am talking [about these issues] I do not represent my university.

“My belief is very important for my career because this is the first thing that gives me my motivations so that I could work hard and I could achieve the best I can,” Szilágyi says.

Anyway, the article is very nonspecific about this person’s beliefs, but it is very encouraging that Science would publish something like this.  I’m starting to sense a sea change.  There are simply too many people who see the obviousness of God’s design in nature for the scientific establishment to be in such denial.  I imagine that students are starting to see this, and what is a professor to do?  Fail his whole class?  There is definitely a sea change forming, though it may take a generation for it to fully take hold.

For those of us who are Creationists, this also means that the evolutionists’ rhetoric will now help us.  Since the evolutionary biology community has spent the last 15 years chanting “ID is Creationism”, as ID starts to take hold, this will actually be implicit support for us, too.  If ID is Creationism, then support for ID and tolerance for ID will hopefully lead to tolerance for Creationism as well.

Permalink | |

March 01, 2009

General / Dembski vs Ruse at the University of Oklahoma

JB

I got the opportunity to hear the Ruse/Dembski debate at the University of Oklahoma.  For those interested in it, I wrote a summary of the major points on Uncommon Descent.  Paul Nelson also posted someone else’s play-by-play of the Plantinga/Dennett debate at the APA.

Permalink | |

April 13, 2009

Geology / Paul Garner and The New Creationism

JB

Paul Garner, an excellent Creation Geologist from the UK, has a new Creationism blog out, and it is fantastic reading.  He also has a new book out, which I have not yet read, called The New Creationism: Building a Scientific Theory on a Biblical Foundation.  Some posts of interests from his blog:

Anyway, Paul Garner is a first-class researcher.  I got the opportunity to meet him at the 2006 BSG meeting, and again at ICC last year.  I am so glad that he is blogging now!  [Hat tip to Todd Wood]

Permalink | |

April 10, 2009

General / Is Biology Boring?

JB

One of the reasons I did not go into biology after high school was that I had this idea that biology was extremely boring.  The reason I thought biology was boring was because the classes about biology and the textbooks in those classes were, in fact, boring, and left no reason for me to want to pursue it.

It wasn’t until much later that I realized that, because of Creation, by looking into biology we are seeing God’s own handiwork.  Isn’t that an amazing conception?  How could that possibly be boring?

Charles Jackson described this in a recent debate (see full debate here):

I am suggesting that it is not inappropriate to discuss in the classroom anything that’s controversial, that’s already in the minds of the students, and that they are capable of comprehending…It will take longer to teach a unit, but the students will learn it better.  Controversy–if you were a government teacher, during an election year, the discussions you could have would be fabulous.  And the discussions that I had in my biolgoy and Earth science classes were wonderful during a unit when I address origins.  I bent over backwards to be fair about the evolution thing.  My students thought I believed in evoluiton.  I had a Catholic boy get chewed out by a Muslim girl for not believing in the Garden of Eden.  So we had some really good discussions.  The students like this.  It worked great.  Whenever there’s something controversial, it boosts student interest.  They get very interested.

On the whole, I homeschool, so what gets taught in public education doesn’t impact me much.  However, from my own personal experience, I wish that someone had interested me more in biology.  His point (which there was even a more interesting part slightly earlier) was that you build from where students already are.  Whether you agree with Creationism or not, it is not inappropriate to bring it up in a science context, and do discussions on it, because that’s the best way of teaching – even if your purpose is to teach evolution.  If you don’t, it just bounces off and makes no impact.  Students need to be engaged where they are, not where the evolutionists wished that they were.

Studying Creationism has ignited my passion in biology – a passion which I never knew that I had.  I hope more science teachers realize that connecting God to science doesn’t stop science, but instead broadens the interest base by a huge margin.

Permalink | |

April 03, 2009

Geology / Spotlight on Marcus Ross

CMI has an interesting profile on paleontologist Marcus Ross.  Check it out!

Permalink | |

April 03, 2009

Biological Change / SNPedia

JB

A new wiki is out, called SNPedia, which documents the effects of DNA variations on phenotypes.  You can also check out the SNPedia blog.

Permalink | |

May 25, 2009

General / New Baby!

JB

My wife and I just had Bartlett baby #5 this weekend!  Everyone is healthy and in good shape, and we are all home now.

Permalink | |

May 20, 2009

General / Upcoming Creation Research Society Conference

JB

The Creation Research Society is hosting a conference July 10-11 at the University of South Carolina Lancaster.  Registrations for the conference can be done here.  Here is a semi-official list of presentations:

  • Lack of sufficient selection pressure to explain non-random patterns of mutations suggests directed mutations may increase genetic diversity (Jean Lightner)
  •  
  • The Origin of Grand Canyon by Late Flood Channelized Flow (Michael Oard)
  • Universe in Near Real Time Universe in Near Real Time (Steve Miller)
  •  
  • Matching the age of a Galaxy with its Rotation Velocity Profile (Keith Davies)
  • Rapid Cosmological Formation Processes in a Young and Initially Cold Universe (Keith Davies)
  •  
  • The Region of Eden: Analysis and debate (Joel Klenck)
  • Genetics, Developmental Biology, and Fossils Provide no Evidence for the Evolution of Teeth and Jaws, but Support the Creation Model of the Original Kinds of Genesis (Don Moeller)
  • What Really Happened to Atlantis in the Days of Peleg (William M. Curtis)
  • Truths and Solutions for the Bible, or the Vacuous Contradictions of Evolutionary Humanism (Rick Lapworth)
  • Analyses of Pertified Human Brain (Suzanne Vincent and Larry Skelf)
  • A Preliminary Hypothesis for the Origin of the Carolina Sandhills (John H. Whitmore, Ray Strom, and Danny Faulkner)
  • Post-Flood Ocean Cooling and the Ice Age (Steve Gollmer)
  • Genesis 10 & 11: A correlation (Stan Udd)
  • Survey and Analysis of Creation Views Espoused by Churches (Larry S. Kisner)
  • Genesis and Demise of the Dinosaurs  (Joel Klenck)
  • A Paradigm of Reality Towards a Theory of Everything (Pal Asija)
  • Ancient Binaries In A “Young” Configuration: The Strange Story Of V409 Hya and GSC 2537-0520  (Ronald G. Samec, Gregory Behn, Heather A. Chamberlain, E. R. Figg, Christa M. Labadorf Danny R. Faulkner)
  • Some Perspectives on Neanderthals: What Do They Mean for the YEC Model? (Anne Habermehl)
  • The Discovery of Design (Don B. DeYoung)
  • Words, Definitions, and Thoughts in the Battle of Worldviews (Horace D. Skipper)
  • An Analysis of the Star of Bethlehem DVD (Danny R. Faulkner)
  • The Moon’s Recession from the Earth: Still a Valid Young-Age Indicator (Spike Psarris)

There are also going to be talks (with titles pending) from Hamilton Duncan, Gene Chaffin, and James E. Brownd.  The abstracts will be published in a future CRSQ.  I wish I could be there!

Permalink | |

May 19, 2009

Geology / Ariel Roth Discusses the Flood’s Impact on Geology

JB

I’m a huge fan of Ariel Roth.  Recently, he gave a presentation to the Creation Science Fellowship of Costa Mesa discussing Noah’s flood and its impact on the geological record.  It’s kind of slow-going (it’s two hours and fifteen minutes!) and he doesn’t hit any real evidences until after about a half an hour.  This video combined with Mike Oard’s video on geomorphology presents a pretty good lay-level overview of how Noah’s flood affects your outlook on geology.

Permalink | |

June 10, 2009

Biological Change / BSG Conference Registration Now Open

JB

The BSG (Creation Biology Study Group) has officially opened the registration for their conference.  The title of the conference is “Genesis Kinds – Creationism and the Origin of Species”.  It will include the set of talks they gave in the UK earlier this year, plus contributed talks by members of the Creation Biology Study Group and the Creation Geology Study Group.

With my new baby (and a lot of stuff going on at work), I can’t make it this year, but it sounds like quite an event!

Register Here

Permalink | |

September 28, 2009

Discussions around the Web / Petrified Logjams, Microbes, Stone tools, and More

JB

Interesting Bits from Around the Web:

Permalink | |

September 16, 2009

General / Stone Age Tom-Toms

JB

It turns out that stone-age people developed navigation systems, too.  Here is a report of a system used in England using regularly-spaced markers.

On the amusing side, here are some of the pitfalls that can happen when you try to correct a major finding in a scientific journal.  The take-home lesson – scientists and journal editors are people, too, and science and scientific journals are subject to the same people problems and groupthink that plague every other organization.

Permalink | |

September 05, 2009

General / A Passage for Isaac’s Passing

Our pastor shared a story from the Bible at Isaac’s graveside ceremony today.  I’ll just paste it in for you:

And the LORD struck the child that Uriah’s wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth. And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them. And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice: how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead? But when David saw that his servants whispered, David perceived that the child was dead: therefore David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead. Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the LORD, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat. Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread. And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me. (2 Samuel 12:15-23)

Permalink | |

October 24, 2009

General / CleverBadger’s Response on Creation Research

JB

CleverBadger made a response to my earlier post. 

I don’t have time to respond at the moment, but thought my readers might appreciate it.  I don’t have time at the moment to respond, but if I find time later I will add my response(s) to the comments.

Anyway, many thanks to CleverBadger for taking time to seriously engage on the issue.  If my readers have their own comments (positive or negative) on CleverBadger’s arguments, please post them in the comments as well!

Permalink | |

October 23, 2009

General / Summer 2009 BSG Newsletter is Available

JB

The new BSG (Creation Biology Study Group) newsletter has now been posted (note – you may have to rename the file to have a .pdf extension after downloading).  If you are a BSG member, you can view all the newsletters on the newsletter page.

If you are not a BSG member, you can sign up here (I believe the membership fee is somewhere around $20).  The BSG is a YEC-oriented biology group (and we ask that you be with us in our general goal), but it does not require any statement of faith to join.

If you would like to contribute to the next newsletter, please email me at bsg@bartlettpublishing.com.  The goals and types of content we are looking for is found in the original announcement of the newsletter.

For more information about the BSG, see the BSG website.

Thanks to all of those who contributed articles for making this a great newsletter!

Permalink | |

October 12, 2009

Discussions around the Web / Is Creation Research Just Circular Reasoning?

JB

One objection that I often hear about Creation Research and specifically Creation-oriented journals is the accusation of “circular reasoning”.  A recent discussion I was having with Clever Badger was on just this topic.  While I don’t think that the charge is legitimate, I believe that those who level the charge are doing so in good faith.  There is a legitimate question on the methods of science in there, and I think it deserves a good and well-thought-out answer.

Here is Clever Badger’s objection:

The problem here is that it presupposes a literal interpretation of Genesis. In other words, the ARJ [Answers Research Journal] isn’t looking for objective research – it’s looking for writers who can force data to fit a predetermined conclusion (e.g. that the diversity of life on Earth today can be somehow traced back to pairs of animals coming off of a boat several thousand years ago). That’s not how science works. The ARJ is basically saying that they don’t want articles that disagree with their position

Basically the accusation is circular reasoning – that people are presupposing a literal interpretation of Genesis and then using that presupposition to argue for that very conclusion, and call it a publicly valid argument.  I have, indeed, seen bad arguments of that sort, but I think that Clever Badger is misinterpreting a lot of what is going on – both in Creation circles and secular circles.

First of all, Clever Badger is implicitly stating that the same kind of presuppositions are not occuring in secular science.  To examine that claim, let’s take a look at two journal purpose statements.

The first, is the Creationist ARJ’s journal (note that while I am a fan of ARJ, the reason that they are being focused on is merely because AiG [the publisher of ARJ] was the original target of Clever Badger’s post – there are many other good Creation journals as well):

ARJ is a professional, peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework…

ARJ is a professional, peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework…

Now, let’s look at the mission statement for another publication – the journal Evolution:

Evolution, published for the Society for the Study of Evolution, is the premier publication devoted to the study of organic evolution and the integration of the various fields of science concerned with evolution. The journal presents significant and original results that extend our understanding of evolutionary phenomena and processes.

So, ARJ is a journal published by a Creation organization, for the purposes of furthering our understanding of Creation in an interdisciplinary manner.  Evolution, is a journal published by the Society for the Study of Evolution, for the purposes of furthering our understanding of evolution in an interdisciplinary manner.

Hmmmm……

As you can see, every scientist presupposes the basic tenets of their field.  The purpose of these fields is to learn and understand more on the basis of these tenets.  The journal Evolution presupposes common ancestry (I challenge anyone to find an article in Evolution giving a comparison of common ancestry to other hypotheses), the journal ARJ presupposes Biblical Creation. 

I think that the stumbling point is that many people think that Biblical Creation is the stopping point, rather than the starting point.  For some people it is, but for many Creation researches, Biblical Creation is the starting point of what we do.  The goal is to use Biblical Creation to better understand nature.  In fact, many of the foundational principles of many branches of science were based on just that supposition.

For instance, many do not know that Steno, known as the “Father of Geology”, was motivated by Creation, and used Biblical Creation principles to formulate his laws of stratigraphy.  It was precisely because he believed in the global flood that gave him the intellectual capacity to argue that Shark’s teeth found inland were the remains of buried animals and not created by God in situ, as was a common geological notion in his time.

Likewise, Gregor Mendel, was motivated by his disbelief in evolutionary principles for his experimentation in pea plants.  His paper, which is the foundation of genetics, was actually explicitly anti-evolutionary (it took the evolutionists about 50 years to find a way to incorporate genetics into evolutionary theory).

Similar stories exist for Keppler and many other scientists who were foundational to their field.  They used Scripture to understand Creation better. 

Another interesting example is the Big Bang theory.  Most people don’t know that LeMaitre, who originally proposed the Big Bang, was working from the same data everyone else was.  The only difference is that he also added to his data a touch of Biblical history and Catholic theology.  The notion that the universe expanding was not new, but LeMaitre was the one – based on his belief in a beginning – who used that notion to propose that the world originated as a “cosmic egg” (which is very Thomistic in its outlook).  In fact, an early, unpublished paper by LeMaitre described the his ideas specifically in support of Genesis, saying that the beginning happened “as Genesis suggested it”.

As you can see, presuppositions are present in all of science, and Biblical presuppositions have been key in the founding of nearly every major branch of science.  Many people have a view of science that is very dry, calculating, and objective.  Science has never been as dull, or as objective, as people’s descriptions of it.

In specific reference to Creationism, it is interesting to note that criticisms of evolution have been allowed in the secular, scientific literature, but only when it is posed as an “unsolved problem” for understanding evolution, rather than as a possibility that evolution is false.  For instance see this abstract.  I know of several ID papers published in this same manner over the last few years, but the authors have asked me not to disclose them as IDists because they want the papers to be evaluated “on their own merits”.

So, going back to my discussion with Clever Badger, Clever Badger also notes the apologetic aspect of Creationism.  However, showing that scientific theory X doesn’t make sense, or that theory Y is a better explanation for facts A, B, and C is in fact a legitimate part of science. 

But can an external belief be valid in such a context?  Absolutely so!  External beliefs are perfectly valid heuristics for finding scientific ideas.  In fact, in Gilkey’s Creationism on Trial, he notes that historians of science believe that Gould’s punctuated equilibrium came from his Marxist beliefs (they both hinge on revolution, rather than gradualism, being the defining mode of life).  Why isn’t this invalid?  Because Gould never uses Marxist ideology as evidence.  The submitted evidence is all externally verifiable.  Likewise, for apologetic Creationism, the Bible is used as a heuristic for finding one’s own position, but not as an external justification for it.

So, to summarize, there are two basic forms of Creation research (though many engage in both):

a) use Biblical Creation as an assumption to learn more about nature.  This is not circular because it does not use the findings as a reason to believe that Biblical Creation is true, nor does it claim that its findings should be reasonable or valid to people in a different perspective.

b) engage in apologetics for Biblical Creation.  This is not circular because although the Bible was used by the researchers as a heuristic for their own positions, it was not used as an external justification to others.

Certainly there is interplay between these two poles, as some ideas discovered by the group in (a) can in fact be used and/or proven without reference to scripture, despite the fact that it was originally studied in that way.  Likewise, apologetics can sometimes reveal very interesting aspects about the nature of creation.  This latter notion is often what happens with my studies.  It starts off as apologetic, but later sparks additional ideas and questions which lead to a greater understanding of God’s creation for those who share my assumptions.

So, hopefully this gives you a little insight into the thinking behind Creationism.

Permalink | |

October 11, 2009

Biological Change / Dried Green Tomatoes, Coordinated Mutations, and Natural Evil

JB

I’ve been on quite a gardening kick lately, and one of the things I have been growing is tomatoes.  I am growing several different heirloom tomatoes, and none of them want to ripen on the vine.  Either that, or being ripe on the vine is what is attracting all the bunnies to eat them.  In any case, I have to pick them while they are still green.

Well, my last two batches of tomatoes decided that they didn’t want to ripen up.  They just wanted to stay green.  Now, I know that Fried Green Tomatoes is a classic southern dish, but that just takes too much work and is too much of a mess.  So, I decided to try drying them.  I just sliced them up, stuck them on a rack with a little salt, and stuck them in the oven @ 225°F for a few hours.  They tasted delicious. There’s only one problem – many people think that green tomatoes are poisonous.

This is because they are part of the Solanum genus (nightshades).  Solanums have a type of chemical in them called alkaloids, the most famous of which is probably Solanine.  This substance is neurotoxic to humans.  Many people say that green tomatoes shouldn’t be eaten in medium or large quantities because of the large amounts of solanine in them (but ripe, red tomatoes are fine because the solanine gets catabolized during ripening).

So, curious as to whether I was creating a toxic hazard or an edible treat, I decided to do some digging.  What I found was that

  1. Most reports of green tomatoes being toxic are entirely based on their being part of Solanum and therefore containing solanine, not on any real case reports of someone getting sick (nearly all examples of someone getting sick that I read about were from potatoes [not tomatoes] that had turned green)
  2. Technically, in tomatoes, it isn’t even solanine, but rather a related compound called tomatine, which is produced.
  3. There has been no reports of tomatine causing illnesses, and some reports on tomatine’s beneficial properties (including reducing cholesterol)
  4. You may even be able to eat the leaves of tomato plants safely
  5. Peruvians eat a variety of red tomatoe which has the same tomatine content as green tomatoes, without any apparent ill effects

So, I’m not as worried as I was about my dried green tomatoes, but I’m still not completely convinced they are safe.  If anyone knows anything more, please post in the comments.

But that’s not the interesting part.

While I was investigating, I cam across this paper on tomato alkaloids.  On page 5759 (the 9th page of the PDF) it gives this amazingly interesting fact:

Until the recent discovery of dehydrotomatine, it was
thought that tomatoes contain only one glycoalkaloid, usually
called α-tomatine or tomatine. The question arises why each
of the major Solanum plants produced two glycoalkaloids
[potatoes, α-chaconine and α-solanine (106); eggplants, solamargine
and solasonine (115); tomatoes, dehydrotomatine and
α-tomatine].

So to my mind, this brings up several interesting questions:

  1. Why are these glycoalkaloids in pairs?
  2. More importantly, if we assume that these are from an original created kind, how did each one manage to get a different type of glycoalkaloid, and still get exactly two?
  3. Is the usefulness or harmfulness of these substances an intentional part of creation or simply a byproduct of its diversification method?

So, for instance, many of these substances are used medicinally.  Is the wide variety of alkaloids there for the purpose of healing, or is that merely something that we’ve imposed on them?  Are the ones that are toxic there for the purpose of harming humans, or is that just a byproduct of how the plant’s biochemistry evolved?

The wierd thing, which I think may be key to figuring at least some of this out, is that these alkaloids are evolving in pairs.  I think there must be some underlying mutational mechanism which is causing the coordination of the glycoalkaloids.  Thus, with a single mechanism, perhaps both compounds can be changed in a coordinated style, to maintain their synergistic reactions (whatever they are), but yet be modified in a way that is useful either to the plant or to others.  Perhaps the radiation of glycoalkaloids is stochastic – if it were purely stochastic, then this would possibly give weight to the idea that they were _designed_ for medicinal uses, since this would make sure that all (or nearly all) of the potential glycoalkaloids were available somewhere in creation.  If, instead, they were adaptive, then we would probably say that their use to humans is a byproduct and not their reason for existence.

In any case, if I had time, looking into these chemical structures, their gene sequences, and possible mutational mechanisms would make a fun project.  Of course, I may need to wait until the Tomato Genome Project is completed.

I had better stop now and get my last batch of dried green tomatoes out of the oven!

References:

Permalink | |

October 10, 2009

Biological Change / The Origin of Retroviruses

Endogenous, Exogenous, or Neither?

JB

ARJ has an interesting review paper by Liu and Soper on the origin of retroviruses.  Liu has written a number of papers on retroviruses, and this is in large part a culmination of his work.

The paper has a lot of interesting information:

  • Many retroviral env proteins are immunosuppressant
  • Many retroviral env proteins help cells fuse together to form larger complexes
  • Ty elements in yeast are similar to retroviruses, but lack evn proteins
  • Solo LTR’s can be created by an LTR being inserted during the repair of a double-stranded break (indicating that a solo LTR is not necessarily the result of a ERV deletion)
  • Viruses can package pieces of host DNA and move it between hosts (known as transduction)
  • Expressed ERVs prevent infection from similar ERVs
  • Different retroviruses have different target site preferences

The authors use these and other items to infer that retroviruses were originally part of the genome itself, and were later exogenized into free particles for infection.  They also propose that retroviruses were used for horizontally transferring genetic material.

My personal hunch is that retroviruses have neither an origination outside the organism nor inside the originally-created DNA (at least not exclusively).  I tend to go with Blanden and Steele’s suggestion in Lamarck’s Signature that they are instead used for somatic selection.  That is, somatic cells do the real evolutionary work, and retroviruses package up that material and transport it – either back to the germ line or to other somatic cells. 

Thus, retroviruses are essentially created by (or at least used by) somatic cells to move new genes back to the germ line for more efficient adaptation to new environments.

Anyway, it’s a hunch.

Permalink | |

October 06, 2009

General / Laps for Little Ones

JB

Support the Little Light House by sponsoring us in Laps for Little Ones

The Little Light House is one of the best ministries I’ve ever been involved with.  They are a Christian, private, tuition-free school for special-needs kids.  That’s right, the kids who go there don’t have to pay anything at all.

This isn’t day-care – it’s an intensive, customized program for each child.  The school day lets out at 1PM, and the staff spends the rest of the day planning each child’s next day.  When a child gets to school, they have a card of things that they are going to work on that day.  It’s both extremely fun and extremely helpful for the children — and the parents.

While our oldest son, Danny, was alive, he attended the Little Light House.  His world expanded so much while he was there.  His ability to play with others and interact and do new things hinged upon the teachers at the Little Light House and their love and their help.  Danny had to be fed through a tube, received many, many, many medications at specially-timed intervals, and, if everyone was lucky, he only threw up three times a day.  Yet the Little Light House had no problems seeing to his every need while he was there, and providing every manner of therapy.  At the Little Light House, they have physical therapy, speech therapy, occupational therapy, and probably a lot of other therapies I’m not so familiar with.  And everything is done in a specifically Christian way.

Isaac had the same genetic defect that Danny had, and, had he lived long enough, would have enjoyed the services of the Little Light House as well.  As soon as we discovered his condition, we reserved him a spot there, because we knew that their help was the difference between night and day for us.

Below are pictures of Danny learning at the Little Light House.  Also, for those of you who didn’t get to know Danny or Isaac, I pasted their memorial videos below.  In any case, please consider helping out the Little Light House – they have been a huge blessing to us, and to many, many, many other children.

You can donate now by going here.

Here is Danny’s Memorial Video:

Isaac’s Memorial Video:

A few pictures of Danny at the Little Light House if you don’t have time for the video:

The picture below might look like playtime to you, but this was actually crucial for Danny.  He had problems touching a variety of surfaces – many different textures made him cry and gag and puke (yes, really).  The Little Light House worked with him to help him adjust his senses to be able to touch and play with a huge variety of textures.

Permalink | |

Bartlett Publishing Blogs Researching Creation

November 29, 2009

Biological Change / On-the-fly Untemplated Protein Modifications

JB

A HUGE new discovery – it appears that cells can react to cell stresses, and then start building modified proteins to account for the stress.  These modifications are not genetically coded. 

In the specific test case, cells reacted to the presence of reactive oxygen species (ROS) by adding methionines into proteins at various locations to protect the protein’s function.  The sulfur in methionine helps protect against ROS in the cell.

Here is the writeup in science daily.

HT to Darwin’s God.

Permalink | |

November 15, 2009

Discussions around the Web / Tim Heaton on Creationism

JB

Tim Heaton wrote a number of criticisms of young-earth Creationism in a recent paper in the journal Science and Education.  Tim has been kind enough to discuss the paper over at Paul Garner’s blog.  He also posted a copy of that paper and one other.

Anyway, it would be worth your while to read the paper, Paul Garner’s post, and the comments.

Permalink | |

December 11, 2009

General / DNA and Protein – Quite a Match!

JB

I thought I should alert readers to this essay by Mike Gene about the makeup and interaction of proteins and DNA.  From the essay:

Thus, as a consequence of amino acid structure, proteins will not only form folded structures using the same rules that form the double helix of DNA, , but they will form a cylindrical structure whose appendage (side chains) seem to be well-matched for scanning and binding to the winding major groove along the double helix. That is, the pattern of outreaching side chains can reach into the major groove and interact with the pattern of base-pairs inside the wide crevice of the major groove. But how well matched is the alpha helix and major groove?…. [quoting another source] “the structural coincidence of the alpha helix diameter of 12Å being the same as the width of the major groove in B-form DNA”.  Why think it is merely a coincidence that the alpha helix diameter and the width of the major groove are the same? On the contrary, it simply enhances and extends the inherent rationality and complementarity that lies behind these two crucial biological molecules

Permalink | |

December 03, 2009

Biological Change / Putting Mutations in Context

Using Creation Theory to Explore Biology

JB

I thought I would direct your attention to my latest paper, Towards a Creationary Classification of Mutations.  The goal of this paper is to get beyond defining whether or not a mutation is beneficial or not, and looking into whether or not the mutation is part of a larger genomic architecture.  I include the outline of an experimental methodology which could be used to evaluate this.  I would love any feedback you have on the paper, especially if you can think of additional criteria to consider, and/or additional experimental methods that could be used to evaluate these criteria.

My hope is to help make Creation a help to biologists doing experimental work, rather than just a claim to be justified.  I believe truly that God is the foundation of knowledge, and that we can put the concepts of creation to work in exploring biology.  So, my hope is to outline ways in which creation can aid in this exploration.

Let me know what you think!

Permalink | |

December 02, 2009

Geology / YEC Research at the Geological Society of America

JB

It looks like young-earth creationism made a decent splash at this year’s Geological Society of America meeting.  ICR’s Steve Austin led a field trip of Mt St Helens (Also, if you’re interested, Steve also has a book on Mt. St. Helens).  This is one of many official premeeting field trips, but one of the few which completely filled up.

Here are the presentations that were given by known YEC’ers at the GSA:

Steve Austin wrote up an article at ICR’s website which discusses a lot of the events at GSA.  Keep up the good work, guys!

HT to Paul Garner

Permalink | |

December 01, 2009

General / Creation and the Fossils, Pt 1

Diversity and Disparity in the Geologic Column

JB

A lot of people have questions regarding the fossil record and how it squares up with creation and evolution.  Terms like “transitional forms” can cause a lot of confusion, primarily because they are used in different ways by different people.  Anyway, I wanted to take this post to look at the fossil record from a high-level view, and point out how this relates to creation and evolution.  This is the first post in a series on this topic.  They will probably build on each other, so it will be a good idea to take them in sequence.

In evolutionary theory, at least with natural selection, the way in which organisms diverge from each other is by gradually accumulating differences. (ref 3)  As more and more differences accumulate between species, they become more different, eventually becoming different genera, then different families, then orders, then classes, then phylums, then kingdoms. (ref 4)

One way of phrasing this is to say “diversity precedes disparity”.  That is, as minor differences accumulate (diversity), this will eventually lead to large-scale differences (disparity).  Also, because the evolution is unguided, long periods of time are required to accomplish any major change.

In creation theory, organisms are created according to a basic “kind” (known technically as baramins).  These organisms, being created by God, have built-in mechanisms for adaptation.  Organisms can change rapidly, because the change is directed by internal response mechanisms.

A corresponding way to phrase this is “disparity precedes diversity”.  That is, God creates the basic kinds (disparity), which then branch out over time based on specific adaptive needs (diversity).

In evolutionary theory, the geologic column records great ages of time.  In creation theory, the Paleozoic and Mesozoic represent Noah’s flood, and the Cenozoic represents historical times after the flood.  In evolutionary theory, only the last bit of the cenozoic represents historical time.

So, with these concepts in mind, let’s take a look at the “Cambrian explosion”.  The “Cambrian explosion” is a period of time in evolutionary theory where most of the phyla came into the rock record.  In the Cambrian, most phyla are represented.  What does that mean?  Well, whether or not evolutionists can identify supposed ancestors to the Cambrian phyla, the fact is that in the fossil record, diversity did not precede disparity, but rather the opposite – disparity came first.

Compare this to the last few million years of evolutionary time.  How many phyla have come into existence in the last few million years?  None.  How many classes?  None.  How many orders?  None.  How many families?  None.  In the modern period, however, you have an amazing amount of diversity among organisms. (ref 1, ref 2)

So, it seems that there are two problems we can recognize.  The first is that diversity DID NOT precede disparity.  The second is that diversity does not produce disparity!  Take a minute and let that last one soak in.  As I mentioned, we have an incredibly diverse biosphere compared to what the fossil record shows.  Yet, we have no major evolutionary changes occurring within 4 orders of classification in about the same time period as the cambrian explosion.  So, not only does diversity not precede disparity, there is no evidence that diversity could produce disparity if it was there at all.

References:

1) Davison, John A.  An Evolutionary Manifesto.  http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/davison-manifesto.html

2) Wilson, E. O.  The Diversity of Life (chapter: Biodiversity Reaches the Peak)

3) Berkeley’s Evolution 101: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml

4) Darwin’s Origin of the Species, pgs 90-96.

Permalink | |

Link1 | Link2 | Link3

Copyright © 2024. All Rights Reserved.

Designed by UnixGuru Consulting.