Evolution, Aircraft, and Equivocation

By -
Did you know that computers, legislation, automobiles, bicycles, airplanes, and so on can evolve? Sure, no problem! It is legitimate to use the word evolve in these situations, but the problem is, evolve has many definitions. (One definition is so vague, it's almost useless: change over time.) But Darwinistas play fast 'n' loose with the definitions.
Equivocating on definitions of "evolution", one propagandist says that the evolution of the airplane is like biological evolution. Oh, please!
Yours truly in front of a MiG-21 at the Kalamazoo, Michigan air museum, about 1998.
One tinhorn laid down some pictures of similarities in the development of airplanes, correctly used the term evolution, and then conflated that use of the word with biological evolution. This involved arbitrary assertions, personal preferences, and a bit of emotional manipulation by claiming that biological evolution cannot be denied by "reasonable" people. Well, no, we'd better believe it, don't want people thinking we're not reasonable, do we? Never mind that his explanation is not the only one! The better explanation is that similarities in organisms (as well as mechanical devices) occur because of intelligent design, and our Creator made things according to his design plans.
Did you know airplanes evolve? A 2014 research article titled “The Evolution of Airplanes,” written by Duke University’s distinguished Professor of Mechanical Engineering Adrian Bejan, makes that very claim. He begins with all the visible differences between a biplane and a jumbo jet. Airplanes have gotten bigger and faster over the decades. We could say airplane design evolves in the sense that it changes over time.

 A second look reveals some common features like engines and wings. What is the best way to explain both the similarities and differences at the same time? Are we seeing a core common design enhanced with many ingenious variations? Or did all modern airplanes descend from a common, primitive airplane ancestor, evidenced by similar ancestral traits but with new features adapted to new conditions? These questions sound a lot like those asked by evolutionists and creationists about living creatures. Bejan wrote his article to supply those answers.
To read the rest of this enlightening article, click on "Major Evolutionary Blunders: Berra's Blunder".

Popular posts from this blog

Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism

By -
Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen A large difficulty in researching and writing this article is that of definitions. It is important to have precise definitions when people can understand words and concepts in different ways 1 , and this article involves words with various meanings and connotations. There has been a noticeable increase in vitriol from the so-called "new" atheists (often followers of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, Shermer, Nye, Krauss and others) and from evolutionists toward Christians and creationists. (I am making distinctions here because not all evolutionists are atheists, and not all Christians are creationists.) Some of us speculate that adherents of the religion of atheism 2 ,which has evolution as one of its cornerstones, feel threatened because evolution's flaws are exposed by Intelligent Design and creation science. This battle is not simply intellectual, but also spiritual. From a biblical Christian perspective, atheists realize that God e
Read more

Discerning Fake Science

By -
Image
Unfortunately, I have to keep gnawing on this bone: scientists are people, too. They make mistakes and have biases. As such, they are not the impartial arbiters of truth and science that many people believe. Many want to do science, others manipulate data for their own agendas. Since nobody is a blank slate and everyone has some kind of bias, it follows that nobody is completely impartial. Try to present creation science materials to atheists and other evolutionists, they often cry, "But that's biased! Those liars for Jesus are trying to convince us of their views!" Brilliant, Sherlock! Doesn't everyone want to present an argument to convince others of their point of view? Also, the ad hominem  is entirely irrational — not only from it being a logical fallacy, but also because biblical creationists serve a holy God who requires righteousness and hates lying. To say that we are lying to get others to believe in God is utterly vacuous. As mentioned several times before,
Read more

Misotheists Dehumanizing Christians and Creationists

By -
Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Making fun of an institution through satire and parody can be found throughout millennia to illustrate perceived absurdities of belief systems. These are used for various targets, but the most common seem to be political or religious.  C. Richard Dawkins ridiculing Ray Comfort, image credits: Flickr / David Shankbone ( public domain ), modified with FotoSketcher So why attack individuals instead of ideas ? It seems like practically everyone does it. Just ask the uncool kids in school. This is far beyond satire or persuasion . A quote commonly (but probably erroneously) attributed to Socrates is, "When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser". This child sees a useful principle in that statement. Although it is common to encounter proponents of atheistic naturalism ridiculing biblical creationists in rallies, books, videos, and so on, it is greatly intensified on social(ist) media. With the option of anonymity, attacks increase with
Read more