- BC Games
Letter: So much to ponder in figuring out the universe
To the editor:
Read in a recent poster for an upcoming lecture: “A set of 70 million-year-old fossils from southern Alberta has added weight to theories that dinosaurs may have first sprouted feathers to show off, not takeoff. These wing-like structures would have been used for reproductive activities (courtship, display, brooding) and were only later…co-opted for other roles including flight.”
Some scientists, who dismiss any kind of a Creator, use such examples as proof of Darwinian mindless evolution. I added ‘mindless,’ as evolutionists have never mentioned mind, which is essential for any kind of decision-making to be able to ‘select.’ Like Richard Dawkins says: “Natural selection is a cumulative process, and Darwin teaches us to seek out graded ramps of slowly increasing complexity as flowers use a bribe of food, usually nectar.”
As I could never accept the man-made Bible stories, or plain accidental evolution, I coined the word creavolution, to mean a creative brain within the process of evolution.
In the light of our present understanding I would call it “software” that could have been programmed by super intelligence with the Big Bang that is then activated when planetary conditions are right.
However it all started, and whatever for, we’re here now and I’m wondering about a million things. “How the clever bumblebee is able to fly by somehow exploiting some very intricate combination of vortex dynamics, which is beyond quantitative mathematical analysis. We discovered that the flapping motion causes the leading edge vortex to spiral out to the wingtip, siphoning off the vortex and delaying stall. The augmented lift, coupled with the delayed stall, is the principle mechanism that insects use for generating lift.
“This is the conclusion, with the help of high-speed photography, how the bumblebee can fly, after decades long denials by scientists that they shouldn’t be able to fly.” Did that little bee brain figure this out all by itself, or does ‘software’ make more sense?
I’m amazed that biology professor Richard Dawkins is regarded as ‘a giant’ in the scientific community and can say that “physical evidence of God is the necessary catalyst, if he existed and chose to reveal it, God himself could clinch the argument noisily and unequivocally in his favour.” This is just as foolish as some religious beliefs he is trying to discredit, however justified.
Today, as I write this, I got a reminder that 68 years ago an all-Christian bomber crew dropped a plutonium bomb on the city of Nagasaki, with the prayers and blessings of Catholic and Lutheran chaplains. And the carnage goes on, and the planning for more, just like my fruitless appeal to Bill Gates and Ted Turner. (http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/ol_symposium_jan03.html)
This massacre cost more than a trillion dollars, devastated Iraq and more than a million people lost their life and many more millions were crippled for life and left homeless.
I’ve been orbiting the sun since 1935, and have researched the causes of our problems, and sought to learn if there are possible solutions. What do I really know? I’m just thinking while standing on the shoulders of giants and trying to consolidate ‘some’ of their genius. But as far as a Creator-God is concerned—this a billion times a billion times bigger than we could ever imagine. I just borrowed this ‘superlative’ from cosmologist Alan Guth who said: “This force (Big Bang) was so powerful it could take a bit of space as tiny as a molecule and blow it up to the size of the Milky Way in a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of the blink of an eye.” Wow.