Creationism vs Evolution

A parable. A little silly, but I think the point is clear:

Elephantsâ?? wings

Once upon a time, four blind men were walking in the forest, and they bumped into an elephant.

Moe was in front, and found himself holding the trunk. “It has a tentacle,” he said. “I think we have found a giant squid!”

Larry bumped into the side of the elephant. “It’s a wall,” he said, “A big, bristly wall.”

Curly, at the back, touched the tail. “It’s nothing to worry about, nothing but a piece of rope dangling in the trail.”

Eagletosh saw the interruption as an opportunity to sit in the shade beneath a tree and relax. “It is my considered opinion,” he said, “that whatever it is has feathers. Beautiful iridescent feathers of many hues.”

The first three, being of a scientifical bent, quickly collaborated and changed places, and confirmed each other’s observations; they agreed that each had been correct in the results of their investigations, except that there wasn’t a hint of feathers anywhere about, but clearly their interpretations required correction and more data. So they explored further, reporting to each other what they were finding, in order to establish a more complete picture of the obstacle in the path.

“Tracing the tentacle back, I find that it is attached to a large head with eyes, fan-shaped ears, and a mouth bearing tusks. It is not a squid, alas, but seems to be a large mammal of some sort,” said Moe.

“Quite right, Moe â?? I have found four thick limbs. Definitely a large tetrapod,” said Larry.

Curly seems distressed. “It’s a bit complicated and delicate back here, guys, but I have probed an interesting orifice. Since this is a children’s story, I will defer on reporting the details.”

Eagletosh yawns and stretches in the shade of a tree. “It has wings, large wings, that it may ascend into the heavens and inspire humanity. There could be no purpose to such an animal without an ability to loft a metaphor and give us something to which we might aspire.”

The other three ignore the idling philosopher, because exciting things are happening with their elephant!

“I can feel its trunk grasping the vegetation, uprooting it, and stuffing it into its mouth! It’s prehensile! Amazing!”, said Moe.

Larry presses his ear against the animal’s flank. “I can hear rumbling noises as its digestive system processes the food! It’s very loud and large.”

There is a squishy plop from the back end. “Oh, no,” says Curly, “I can smell that, and I think I should go take a bath.”

“You are all completely missing the beauty of its unfurled wings,” sneers Eagletosh, “While you tinker with pedestrian trivialities and muck about in earthy debasement, I contemplate the transcendant qualities of this noble creature. 'Tis an angel made manifest, a symbol of the deeper meaning of life.”

“No wings, knucklehead, and no feathers, either,” says Moe.

“Philistine,” says Eagletosh. “Perhaps they are invisible, or tucked inside clever hidden pockets on the flank of the elephant, or better yet, I suspect they are quantum. You can’t prove they aren’t quantum.”

The investigations continue, in meticulous detail by the three, and in ever broader strokes of metaphorical speculation by the one. Many years later, they have accomplished much.

Moe has studied the elephant and its behavior for years, figuring out how to communicate with it and other members of the herd, working out their diet, their diseases and health, and how to get them to work alongside people. He has profited, using elephants as heavy labor in construction work, and he has also used them, unfortunately, in war. He has not figured out how to use them as an air force, howeverâ?¦but he is a master of elephant biology and industry.

Larry studied the elephant, but has also used his knowledge of the animal to study the other beasts in the region: giraffes and hippos and lions and even people. He is an expert in comparative anatomy and physiology, and also has come up with an interesting theory to explain the similarities and differences between these animals. He is a famous scholar of the living world.

Curly’s experiences lead him to explore the environment of the elephant, from the dung beetles that scurry after them to the leafy branches they strip from the trees. He learns how the elephant is dependent on its surroundings, and how its actions change the forest and the plains. He becomes an ecologist and conservationist, and works to protect the herds and the other elements of the biome.

Eagletosh writes books. Very influential books. Soon, many of the people who have never encountered an elephant are convinced that they all have wings. Those who have seen photos are at least persuaded that elephants have quantum wings, which just happened to be vibrating invisibly when the picture was snapped. He convinces many people that the true virtue of the elephant lies in its splendid wings â?? to the point that anyone who disagrees and claims that they are only terrestrial animals is betraying the beauty of the elephant.

Exasperated, Larry takes a break from writing technical treatises about mammalian anatomy, and writes a book for the lay public, The Elephant Has No Wings. While quite popular, the Eagletoshians are outraged. How dare he denigrate the volant proboscidian? Does he think it a mere mechanical mammal, mired in mud, never soaring among the stars? Has he no appreciation for the scholarship of the experts in elephant wings? Doesn’t he realize that he can’t possibly disprove the existence of wings on elephants, especially when they can be tucked so neatly into the quantum? (The question of how the original prophets of wingedness came by their information never seems to come up, or is never considered very deeply.) It was offensive to cripple the poor elephants, rendering them earthbound.

When that book was quickly followed by Moe’s The Elephant Walks and Curly’s Land of the Elephant, the elephant wing scholars were in a panic â?? they were being attacked by experts in elephants, who seemed to know far more about elephants than they did! Fortunately, the scientists knew little about elephant’s wings â?? surprising, that â?? and the public was steeped in favorable certainty that elephants, far away, were flapping gallantly through the sky. They also had the benefit of vast sums of money. Wealth was rarely associated with competence in matters elephantine, and tycoons were pouring cash into efforts to reconcile the virtuous wingedness of elephants with the uncomfortable reality of anatomy. Even a few scientists who ought to know better were swayed over to the side of the winged; to their credit, it was rarely because of profit, but more because they were sentimentally attached to the idea of wings. They couldn’t deny the evidence, however, and were usually observed to squirm as they invoked the mystic power of the quantum, or of fleeting, invisible wings that only appeared when no one was looking.

And there the battle stands, an ongoing argument between the blind who struggle to explore the world as it is around them, and the blind who prefer to conjure phantoms in the spaces within their skulls. I have to disappoint you, because I have no ending and no resolution, only a question.

Where do you find meaning and joy and richness and beauty, O Reader? In elephants, or elephants’ wings?

Great story.


Blasphemy!

The feather was not magic!

But Dumbo believed in it, which made all the difference.

Of course, Dumbo eventually discovered the truth: that the feather was a sham all along, and that he never really needed it to fly.

Gives one hope for humanity.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
But Dumbo believed in it, which made all the difference.

Of course, Dumbo eventually discovered the truth: that the feather was a sham all along, and that he never really needed it to fly.

Gives one hope for humanity.[/quote]

Oh, you got the analogy! <3!

Edit: not that I didn’t expect you to, I mean, it wasn’t that complex. But I like what you wrote.

Chemist Shows How RNA Can Be the Starting Point for Life
By NICHOLAS WADE

An English chemist has found the hidden gateway to the RNA world, the chemical milieu from which the first forms of life are thought to have emerged on earth some 3.8 billion years ago.

He has solved a problem that for 20 years has thwarted researchers trying to understand the origin of life â?? how the building blocks of RNA, called nucleotides, could have spontaneously assembled themselves in the conditions of the primitive earth. The discovery, if correct, should set researchers on the right track to solving many other mysteries about the origin of life. It will also mean that for the first time a plausible explanation exists for how an information-carrying biological molecule could have emerged through natural processes from chemicals on the primitive earth.
DIAGRAM AT LINK

Reconstructing the Master Molecules of Life
By NICHOLAS WADE

The molecules at the beginning of life were probably made of RNA, a close chemical cousin of DNA. RNA can both act as an enzyme, to control chemical reactions, and record biological information in the sequence of bases along its backbone.

But how could the first RNA molecule have emerged from the organic chemicals thought to have been present on the primitive earth?

Chemists can plausibly show how each of the three components of an RNA nucleotide â?? a base, a sugar, and a phosphate group â?? could have formed spontaneously. But the base cannot attach to the sugar, known as ribose, because the energy of the reaction is unfavorable.

Researchers have been stuck at this roadblock for 20 years. Chemists at the University of Manchester, led by John D. Sutherland, have now provided a way around.

The diagram above shows, in blue, the reaction that doesn’t work and, in green, the new work-around.

[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
Mattlebee wrote:

That’s such well-established practice it almost goes without saying.

So why on earth were you trying to say otherwise? [/quote]

I wasn’t. I wasn’t disagreeing with the idea that there’s selective and partisan interpretation of the Bible by its adherents. I was trying to say that as someone denouncing the Bible for its erroneous descriptions of reality, your evidence wasn’t semantically sound - no more, no less. I wasn’t saying the Bible was right; I wasn’t saying you were wrong.

In a sense I was being a Devil’s advocate without actually advocating anything (Doubting Thomas?).

[quote]
Well you were lumping me in with those who see it as more than a guideline, which would be people who believe it has some higher truth that we all should be following i.e. advocates.

No, I wasn’t lumping you in, and I tried to make it clear when I said “by you I mean…” I wasn’t using the word you to address the person I answered to,[/quote]

Whether it was a singular or collective “you”, it’s hard to see how it could possible exclude me when it’s in direct challenge to something I said (or was perceived to say).

In general terms it doesn’t, but when it comes to religion then “spreading the good word” is part of most/all of them. For Jehovah’s witnesses it almost defines them.

[quote] The fact that you can cherry pick from the Bible to support either side of an argument isn’t a revelation (pun possibly intended). It’s a very simple concept that I doubt has gone over many people’s head.

Which is exactly what you did, now you tell me you did it consciously, but got your panties in a bunch regardless, at least from my view of your previous post.[/quote]

I had no ego invested in whether you accepted what I said or not, since I wasn’t defending my own beliefs, so my panties were always going to stay nicely smooth and unruffled. I was curious, however, to see whether you might be as guilty as many creationists are of sending flaming rebukes after imagined/assumed claims.

[quote]
And the argument might not be a revelation to you, but trust me, a lot of people don’t agree with this.[/quote]

There’s a lot of protective denial, sure, but even amongst Christians everyone knows whether they believe that the Earth was made by God in 6 days of 24 hours, or made by God in 6 days of indeterminate length. Either the definition of day is just what it appears to be, or someone reinterprets it to fit with both their beliefs and the science.

There are of course far more subtle and amusing attempts to rationlise things that many won’t know about, but the majority of modern Christians will have at least had to consider their position on the age of the Earth conundrum.

[quote]
Thanks for answering my question. You WERE indeed playing dumb.[/quote]

Well, I’d say I was operating within narrow parameters to avoid adding support for either side. “Playing dumb” suggests I was deliberately trying to misinterpret you to be bloody-minded. I knew I was commenting dispassionately on a questionable proof, but I suspected that having been fired up by earlier combat you might just roll your eyes and open up with both barrels out of reflex, assuming I was “another one”.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Mattlebee wrote:

…However, having seen how quickly Push succumbed to your pretty avatar…

Samson and Delilah, Mattlebee…Don’t worry, my hair will grow long again.[/quote]

Perfectly understandable given what a delectable photo it is. I was lucky in that I wasn’t blindsided by the pic suddenly appearing mid-thread - it was already there when I started reading. Although it drew me in, having seen you already take a hit I was able to take a cold shower before continuing.

E-seduction is serious business. I should know! But no, dear push, as enticing as I could be according to that description, I don’t think I have this kind of power. Putting up an avatar was only to clear any confusion my name had caused.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Aye, I think so. The stereotypical passionate, fiery Latina does indeed reside here. Be wary, my Anglo friend. She is from another world…

[/quote]

Stereotypes exist for a reason. :wink:

The whole problem we have is the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is not really a valid solution to postulate something even more improbable.

I’m not sure what you mean with statistical improbability, but maybe this is a good analogy:

1,000 Pennies

Ten bucks worth of pennies is all it takes to show how fast a little selection can turn randomness into perfect order.

Randomly scatter the pennies on a table. Apply a little “natural” selection (after all, you’re not supernatural): pull out all that come up heads and set them aside (they will “survive”). Flip all the tails again. Save the heads. Repeat until “perfect order” is achieved.

How many “generations” will that take to “evolve” the race of pennies from evenly mixed to pure heads? Nine or ten, with average luck. Make it slightly more realistic by giving the “favored race” (Darwin’s term) just a slight survival advantage: save just two or three each time. You can still have all heads in less than an hour. All it takes is “random replicators” (Dawkins’s term) and a bit of selection pressure. The point is, a random system can become very organized, very fast, with just a little selection pressure.

Really? Do tell.

[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
I’m not sure what you mean with statistical improbability[/quote]

The whole problem we have is the problem of explaining statistical improbability (spontaneously occurring life). It is not really a valid solution to postulate something even more improbable (a creator who has human limitations like jealousy).

Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sexy, Senhora Berry, you do your cause a great disservice to use an example such as the one above. You told me you had an academic biology background, did you not?[/quote]

I thought it was a pretty good analogy.

shrug

[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
you do your cause a great disservice to use an example such as the one above

Really? Do tell.[/quote]

Im also interested in how that example is a great disservice to her argument

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?[/quote]

That’s why for me it’s always elephants, no need for wings.