Evolutionary arguments have gotten more sophisticated over the years. So have creationist arguments.
The evidence attached to phenomena is very contextual. For example, I can see vestigial organs as evidence of descent from another species, or I can see them as evidence of a common designer. More than once I have seen a machine contain a component that obviously wasn't designed for it but was adapted from some other machine by reason of expediency. One has only to compare a Ford to its counterpart Lincoln model to note how designers build one design from the other.
An examination of individual vestiges often turns up hidden functionality. One instance is the human coccyx, or tailbone. Sometimes babies are even born with a tail. All suggestive of an ancestor that had a functioning tail. Yet closer examination reveals that babies' tails are never boney, but are tumours composed of fatty tissue, certainly not the skeletal tails of other species, and we now know that the tailbone is an anchor for muscle tissue that holds the anus in place, so it is hardly vestigial in the sense of being a leftover.
Thinkers such as Joseph Chilton Pearce have proposed that we shape our universe with our thoughts and expectations, and these writers offer anecdotal evidence of it. In one of my recent blog posts I remarked that if the past does indeed exist simultaneously with the present and the future, there is no more reason to think that anything in the past causes something in the future any more than to think that the future causes the past. For all I know, we were created and now the past has changed because of our thoughts. This is not my conclusion, but I would be hard pressed to disprove it.
If our universe is the hologram I think it probably is and we are holo-characters similar to then ones on a Star Trek holo-deck, then it should be no surprise if were to find that this holo-world came into being 6000 years ago with fossils already intact. Creation with a past built into it.
My point is that we need to not be too harsh in our assessment of other people's views. Personally, I have trouble with evolution as a paradigm. I think it's a fad that will be one day be superseded by some other fad.
No comments :
Post a Comment