The Need for Clarification on Soft Tissue News

Something other biblical creationists and I emphasize is the importance of definitions. Despite our efforts, the corral gate is occasionally left open, a pony wanders through, and clarification is needed. Some of the difficulty is because of assumptions by readers.

For example, I was using the phrase special creation and assuming that the definition was clear to everyone. Since I had that wrong, I wrote an article specifying which meaning I use. The concern about wording this time involves reports of soft tissues and fossils.

Dinosaur soft tissues are exciting for creationists and make Darwin sad. Ambiguous wording or assumptions cause confusion about what is really meant.
Aerodactylus scolopaciceps with soft tissue, Wikimedia Commons / Steven U. Vidovic, David M. Martill (CC BY 2.5)
This is not the same as complaining about someone referring to pterosaurs and ichthyosaurs as dinosaurs (even though they were contemporaries and their names ended in -saur). Such brabbling can be waved off. The problem occurs when reports and other things refer to soft tissues. Those words make creationists prick up our ears like a Scottish terrier and listen closely — especially since Dr. Mary Schweitzer and Mark Armitage brought dinosaur soft tissues to the fore.

Those reports should have had evolutionists packing up their carpet bags and taking the train to Jobsearch Town, since they devastate old earth claims and that dinosaurs have been extinct for millions of years. Instead, they keep using rescuing devices and claiming Earth is very old. Darwin needs the time his wonders to perform and to deny recent creation.

However, confusion results when there are reports of fossilized soft tissues. The word fossil is used quite loosely, Lucy. Ian Juby points out the fact in this video, beginning at the 20 minute 13 second mark. A fossil does4 not necessarily turned to stone. Reports of dinosaur soft tissue fossils can mean literal soft tissues, or it can mean remarkably-preserved impressions. Whether actual or impressions of soft tissues, creationists are getting good news and Darwin is frowning.

Authors occasionally cause confusion with ambiguous or imprecise wording. Other times, readers may miss important words that make an important distinction.

Today’s article started life as an internal memo sent to all CMI staff writers, concerning reports in the secular literature of ‘soft tissue preservation’ in fossils. It is a reminder that terms like ‘fossilized soft tissue’ or ‘soft tissue preserved’ can mean two different things. Both are encouraging to the creation/Flood model, but for different reasons. Unfortunately, scientific reports do not always make it clear which is being referred to. However, the distinctions matter, and it is important that biblical creationist writers leave their readers in no doubt about which of these two different situations is being referred to. We commend this article (a mildly edited version of the memo) to our readers.

Yeah, I've had articles happen that way. A bit of an idea, providentially-provided additional information, and then it blooms. Anyway, to read and learn, click on "Soft tissue in fossils vs fossilized soft tissue — a clarification." Just brings tears to my eyes. I have to get a tissue — naw, just making another point about ambiguity with the word tissue.