Meanwhile, Out in Sunny California...

In the public school district of San Luis Obispo, a teacher has been reprimanded for bringing up creationism in a science class.  Kaytlyn Leslie writes for the Tribune:

An Arroyo Grande High School teacher violated state teaching standards by requiring students to discuss creationism as a viable alternative to evolution during life science classes, district officials said.

The teacher, Brandon Pettenger, seems to be no longer teaching the life sciences class, although Lucia Mar Unified School District officials declined to confirm that.

So what was he teaching? Not clear. The story continues:

After investigating complaints about Pettenger, Fiorentino said his department found no evidence that Pettenger was letting his personal religious beliefs influence his teachings.

“I don’t believe that the intent was something religious on the teacher’s part,” Fiorentino said. “Based on my investigation, it was just a way to motivate those 11th-graders into discussion.”

He said this appeared to be the first time any discussion of creationism had been a part of Pettenger’s curriculum.

If this is the case, there is no justification for removing him from the life sciences class. Whatever the rest of the world thinks, groups like AiG think they are doing science, even if none of it stands up to scrutiny. That needs to be addressed on one level because the kids are going to encounter it at some point and need to be aware of it.

A Geologist Reminds Us That Evolution is Not The Only Obstacle to Young Earth Creationism

The focus of the debate on science and creationism has largely been on evolution and that is what you find most of on sites like AiG and the Discovery Institute.  Typically, in the public schools, debates do not rage about the age of the earth.  They center on evolution.  David R. Montgomery, of the University of Washington and author of The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood
reminds us that evolution is not the only obstacle to young earth creationism.  He writes:

I don’t have to travel very far to make this case. There’s a slab of polished rock on the wall outside my department office that refutes so-called Flood Geology: the view that a global, world-shattering flood explains geologic history after the initial creation of Earth by God. This eight-foot-long slab is a conglomerate – a rock made from water-worked fragments of older rocks.

It’s what you’d get if you buried a riverbed composed of many different types of rock deep enough below ground for temperature and pressure to forge it into a new rock. Preserved in it, you can see the original particles of sand, gravel and cobbles made of various kinds of rock. And if you look closely you can see some of the cobbles are themselves conglomerates — rocks within rocks.

Why does this disprove the creationist view of geology? Because a conglomerate made of fragments of an older conglomerate not only requires a first round of erosion, deposition, and burial deep enough to turn the original sediments into rock. It requires another pass through the whole cycle to turn the second pile of sedimentary rock fragments into another conglomerate.

In other words, this one rock shows that there is more to the geologic record than creationists describe in their scripturally-interpreted version of earth history. A single grand flood cannot explain it all. Embracing young Earth creationism means you have to abandon faith in the story told by the rocks themselves.

Montgomery also reiterates the claim that young earth creationism is a break with established tradition:

Young Earth creationists imagine that people lived with dinosaurs and that Noah’s flood shaped the world’s topography. In fact, this brand of creationism, embodied by Ham’s Creation Museum in Kentucky, is actually one of the youngest branches of Christianity’s family tree.

Articles abound on just how badly the geological record accords with a strict, literal reading of the Genesis flood. Here are what I think are some of the best.

• Davis Young's excellent essay on how the geological world dealt with the increasing understanding of the natural world: History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth
• Mark Isaak's massive compendium of unanswered questions about a global flood: Problems with a Global Flood  
• Phil Senter's illuminating article about how even flood geologists cannot agree on what constitute flood deposits: The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology
• Carol Hill's article for the American Scientific Affiliation's Perspectives on the Christian Faith: The Noachian Flood: Universal or Local?

Happy reading!

Update on the Trouble in Massachusetts: People Respond

MassLive ran a follow-up story on the Holyoke controversy involving the creationism debate, after hundreds of people wrote letters. Here are some that MassLive ran:

chick-a-puppy -- The solution is simple, do not teach religion in a science class and everyone is happy. If you want to teach intelligent design, creationism, or anything else do it at home or Sunday school.

Freesoul -- Genesis, Chap I, verse 1: "In the beginning God created the Heaven, and the Earth." So much for the big bang theory. Class dismissed.

Death and Taxes -- What about the third belief that life was brought to earth by aliens. It's about as plausible as the rest.

Ymir -- That's biogenesis. Different subject.

The idea that evolutionary theory somehow explains life's origins seems to be ingrained in the public conscience.

Trouble in Massachusetts

Nestled in the small town of Holyoke, Mass. is a controversy over the proper role of scientific debate.  Mike Plaisance of MassLive (a conglomerate of regional newspapers) reports on events at Dean Technical High School:

Inclusion of creationism in a school project here is inappropriate and a concern but not a surprise, teachers union president Agustin Morales said Monday (April 27).
Morales said teachers have told him they feel it is inappropriate that a project at a school here is including discussions about the faith-based belief of creationism in the instruction about evolution.

Some people have said that the separation of church and state is asserted in the U.S. Constitution and that any favoring of one faith over another in a public institution like a school is unfair to those of other faiths who have equal stake in such institutions.

Stories are now abounding in the news about how college and college administrators are avoiding subjects that are controversial (Glenn Reynolds has one a day, it seems).  The outline of the course, which is reproduced in the embedded story, weaves in the humanities and the life sciences into a mock debate involving students playing the roles of school board, science teachers, media and other related organizations.  What it aims to teach is, truly critical thinking in this area and, if adhered to, would represent a welcome addition to the curriculum.  If the intent of the instructor is to open the class in open discussion of the merits of creationism in the form of a debate, there ought not to be anything wrong with that and I was quite ready to think this was a great idea until I read this:  

[Principle Barry] Bacom is aware that some people might find it inappropriate that a public school is including what many consider to be faith-based teaching in a lesson plan, he said. But he said the creationism vs. evolution debate is ingrained in the national consciousness and thus natural for students to learn.

It is a matter of exposing students to the full range of ideas and not a situation where he is pushing so-called creationism beliefs on teachers or advocating that creationism be taught, he said. [emphasis mine]

That last sentence made my hair stand on end.  It is right out of the Discovery Institute Playbook.  Consequently, this does need scrutiny, if nothing else to verify that proper science is being represented.  Debates between mainstream science and young earth creationism can and should occur, especially in a class-room setting.  Hopefully, that is what is happening. 

Unfortunately, all of this is occurring within the backdrop of the fact that the school system is failing and has been for years, to the point where the state is about to step in and seize control of it.  What role this plays is unclear.

Very, Very Busy. Back to it now.

I have been extraordinarily busy and have not had a chance to finish up any posts.  Back to it, hopefully.

AU, Baptist Ministers Seek to Intervene in Ark Encounter Suit Against Kentucky

Baptist News is reporting that two Baptist ministers have joined forces with Americans United for Separation of Church and State to intervene on behalf of the state of Kentucky in its defense of denying tax breaks to Ark Encounter.  Bob Allen writes:

Americans United for Separation of Church and State submitted documents March 30 asking a federal court in Frankfort, Ky., to let the quartet intervene in a lawsuit filed Feb. 5 by Answers in Genesis alleging discrimination when the state turned down $18 million in state tax credits for the Ark Encounter project being built in northern Kentucky.

“In their complaint against the State of Kentucky, Ark Encounter has made it clear that a key purpose of the park is to try to convert people to their narrow brand of Christianity,” Chris Caldwell, one of the four, told Baptist News Global. “They are free to do so, but I strongly believe they have no right to force me to help pay for it with my taxes.”

Caldwell, pastor of Broadway Baptist Church in Louisville, Ky., joined Paul Simmons, a one-time professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and two others asking the court to give them a stake in the case. Caldwell is a member of the Baptist News Global board of directors.

Whether this changes the complexity of the suit is not clear.

New Dates For Little Foot Push It Back to Au. afarensis Time-Period

On the heels of the Ledi jaw dates for early Homo at 2.8 million years ago, and the corresponding tentative conclusion that only Au. afarensis could emerge as a possible ancestor for early Homo, to the exclusion of any of the other australopithecines, comes a redating of the Australopithecus specimen from the cave of Sterkfontein to 3.67 million years ago.  From the story in Science Daily:

Ronald Clarke, a professor in the Evolutionary Studies Institute at the University of the Witwatersrand who discovered the Little Foot skeleton, said the fossil represents Australopithecus prometheus, a species very different from its contemporary, Australopithecus afarensis, and with more similarities to the Paranthropus lineage.

“It demonstrates that the later hominids, for example, Australopithecus africanus and Paranthropus did not all have to have derived from Australopithecus afarensis,” he said. “We have only a small number of sites and we tend to base our evolutionary scenarios on the few fossils we have from those sites. This new date is a reminder that there could well have been many species of Australopithecus extending over a much wider area of Africa.”

So, what is Au. prometheus, exactly and how does it differ from the other australopithecines in the area?  From the paper by Granger, et al.¹:

This species was named on the basis of a parietooccipital fossil from Makapansgat23. It has been suggested22 that several other Sterkfontein and some Makapansgat specimens also belong in this species making Australopithecus africanus and A. prometheus contemporaries in the assemblages of Makapansgat Member 3 and Sterkfontein Member 4. A. prometheus differs from A. africanus in features including Paranthropus-like larger, bulbous-cusped cheek teeth, a longer, flatter face, incipient supraglabellar hollowing and a more vertical rounded occiput22. (Note that we use the term hominid in the traditional sense to include humans and their ancestral relatives but exclude the great apes.)

One of the raging debates in human palaeontological studies concerns whether or not the robust australopithecines, Au. robustus and Au. boisei, represent their own clade, Paranthropus. This perspective is based on traits that are shared to the exclusion of other australopithecine species.  Opponents of this view argue that quite a few of the traits that make up this clade are functional in nature, involving mostly the chewing complex, and that as such, Au. robustus and Au. boisei are  outgrowths of Au. africanus.

The story continues, quoting Ron Clarke:

“It demonstrates that the later hominids, for example, Australopithecus africanus and Paranthropus did not all have to have derived from Australopithecus afarensis," he said. “We have only a small number of sites and we tend to base our evolutionary scenarios on the few fossils we have from those sites. This new date is a reminder that there could well have been many species of Australopithecus extending over a much wider area of Africa.”

Hope so, because right now, here is how it looks:

• P. robustus (or Au. robustus) only in South Africa
• P. boisei (or Au. boisei) only in East Africa
• Early Homo only in East and Northeast Africa
• Au. africanus only in South Africa
• Ar. ramidus only in North East Africa
• Au. afarensis only in North East Africa

As Slim Pickens would say: “What in the Wide, Wide World of Sports is a-goin' on here?”

All of this sort of leads to the question of who the last common ancestor of humans and modern apes was.  All we have to go on is a badly crushed skull from the Sahel River area in Chad that is purported to be somewhere around 7 mya, but is, in reality, a surface find, and some hominin-looking post-cranial remains from the Tugen Hills, in Kenya that are dated to between 5.6 and 6.1 mya.  By the time we get to Ar. ramidus, at least facultative bipedalism is in place, although there are still quite a few ape-like traits.  What is not clear from the report by Granger et al, is how the morphology compares to earlier hominins.  For example, can the traits observed in Au. prometheus be derived from Ar. ramidus?  If so, then it still represents a possible precursor and something like Ar. ramidus gave rise to both the australopithecines and the paranthropines.  The fact that the discoverers are calling it Australopithecus suggests that it shares enough derived traits with the australopithecines as a whole to be called that.  If the traits cannot be derived from Ar. ramidus, then it raises the possibility that the paranthropines and Ar. ramidus share a common ancestor.  At this point, until some systematic analyses can be done, we simply don't know. 

Of course, all of this is contingent on the dates holding up.  The article gives a pretty good run-down on how isochron dating works and indicates that the dates are consistent with what would be expected given the deposition.   I am sure that more will come out about this very shortly.  Until then...

¹Darryl E. Granger, Ryan J. Gibbon, Kathleen Kuman, Ronald J. Clarke, Laurent Bruxelles, Marc W. Caffee. New cosmogenic burial ages for Sterkfontein Member 2 Australopithecus and Member 5 Oldowan. Nature, 2015

Is This Really a Good Idea?

Resurrecting the Giants: Wooly Mammoth DNA Successfully Inserted into Elephant Genetic Code

Apex Tribune is running a story about work out of Harvard to resurrect the wooly mammoth. The thing about evolution is that balanced is achieved in an ecosystem. This balance changes over time depending on environmental constraints but it always re-balances. Artificially introducing the wooly mammoth back into this mix would destabilize the ecosystem of the region.

Elizabeth Mitchell, David Menton and Andrew Snelling Take on the Ledi Jaw

As noted, the promised report from Answers in Genesis about the Ledi jaw (LD 350-1) is out.  Let's see what they say.  This is an interesting group of authors.  Andrew Snelling is the resident geologist, while David Menton is a former anatomist who wrote a truly terrible article on the evidence for human evolution, which I tackled over six long, straggly posts, ending here.  In it he, effectively, revealed that he has little to no knowledge of the fossil record.  I have read little of Elizabeth Mitchell's posts, other than the one in which she championed the evidence for unicorns in the Bible. 

The opening salvo in the “Lucy Connection” contains this:

An extinct knuckle-walking ape, “Lucy” is generally depicted strolling about East Africa 3 million years ago on her two supposedly arched feet with tiny teeth smiling from her gorilla-like face and tiny brain. That image has created an imaginary place for Australopithecus afarensis in the human lineage.

The initial problem with this paragraph is that there is no evidence to back up their depiction of Au. afarensis. The fossil remains that make up Au. afarensis, of which Lucy is a member, clearly indicate a hominin that was bipedal; that much is not debatable.  It carries none of the traits of an ape in this regard.  However, Au. afarensis does have some ape-like characteristics as well.  In fact, there are quite a list of traits that are Hominin and some that are ape-like.  I chronicled those here, in the fourth part of my response to Menton's 2010 article on human origins.  (Aside: It doesn't bother me that Menton didn't read my post, although Ken Ham knows I write for BioLogos because he referenced one of my posts for them.  It does bother me that Menton persistently mischaracterizes the transitional evidence in Au. afarensis, which is pretty hard to miss, if you are paying any attentional, whatsoever.)

Now, on to the jaw, itself, for which they get the account correct (Here is my short post for BioLogos on the jaw).  In fact, they report pretty much exactly what the discoverers and Fred Spoor determined about the jaw and the reconstruction of the related OH 7 skull. 

The the wheels fall off.

They write:

Could the Ledi jaw’s owner have been a transitional form? No. Evolutionists strain to see something ape-like in the array of Homo traits in the Ledi jaw because its position in the fossil record is so “far back” they think it must be their much sought-after transitional form. Since it lacks a protruding chin no one would suggest this fossil belonged to a modern human, but the lack thereof does not demonstrate that it is Australopithecus afarensis or an ape descended from it or even a less-evolved part of the human lineage. The relatively chinless jaw is simply not typical of modern humans. Nothing about this fossil indicates that its owner still had one foot in the ape-camp and was only in the process of evolving into a full-fledged human.

They are correct that the lack of a chin keeps it out of the modern human camp.  They are incorrect that it doesn't have transitional characteristics. Here is the relevant quote from the article¹:

Indeed, in overall dental and mandibular size LD 350-1 matches smaller specimens of A. afarensis (figs. S1 to S4 and tables S1 to S3). In addition, LD 350-1 shares with A. afarensis a primitive anterior corpus, including an inclined symphyseal cross section, a bulbous anterior symphyseal face, and a projecting inferior transverse torus that is only slightly elevated above the corpus base (Fig. 2A).

What then follows in the scholarly article is a long discussion of no fewer than five distinct characteristics that align the Ledi jaw with Homo to the exclusion of Au. afarensis.  Villmoare and colleagues are keenly aware of the differences between australopithecine and human morphology.  This is why they can recognize these traits.  Thus, when Mitchell, Menton and Snelling write that nothing about the Ledi Jaw is transitional, and provide no evidence of their position, one is tempted to not take them seriously.  The next paragraph is no better:

The Ledi jaw’s bid to be Homo or an early transition to Homo rests largely on the fact that its assigned dates place it in the desired gap between the ape Lucy and archaic varieties of humans. Had its host sediment been dated substantially older, its human features would likely have been ignored or explained away. Evolutionists have been known to dismiss fossil evidence of very early Homo, no matter how similar to modern man, if the stratigraphically assigned dates are too old to fit into the evolutionary schema.

This is illogical. Why would evolutionists care how old it is? There are some, in fact, who would relish the idea of our line being pushed back even further.  The human features are there, regardless of how old it is.  That is why it is making waves—because it has the human features.  If it had been found to be older, the human-like features would not have vanished like the snows of yesteryear.  They would still have been there. 

The last sentence in the quote is, once again, presented without evidence and calls into question the integrity of the scientists involved in this discovery and others like it.  What evidence has been dismissed?  How has it been explained away? To call into question the motives of scientists and call them duplicitous without giving evidence to that effect is worthy of scorn and disrespect.  Put up or shut up.

Next.

The Ledi jaw wouldn’t even be close to being the oldest “Homo” if certain other fossil bones and footprints that are virtually identical to modern man were rightly recognized as Homo sapiens. For example, the Laetoli footprints are claimed to be 3.66 million years old and are virtually identical to modern man’s footprints, but no evolutionist considers them to be human because they are simply too old. The Kanapoi elbow fossil from the Lake Rudolf region of northern Kenya is the distal end of a humerus that is indistinguishable from Homo sapiens, but it is considered to be australopithecine in origin because it is also too old at 4.0–4.5 million years to be considered human. These assigned dates, based on a host of worldview-based unverifiable assumptions, blind evolutionists to the true identity of fossils like these. In truth, humans have been around since the sixth day of the Creation Week, the first two people having been created by God the same day as the land animals.

They are right, the footprints are too old, given that there is no evidence for modern humans until around 190 thousand years ago. The footprints are securely dated by radiometric techniques that the folks from AiG will never accept, despite their robusticity.  Same with the Kanopoi remains.  What this simply means is that, as with many transitional forms at this time, some characteristics were more human-like than others.  What these authors do not mention is that in other fossils from the time period, there are ape-like characteristics as well.  The elbow traits, along with the knee and hip traits are derived in the direction of Homo.  The simian traits are retained from their ancestors.

What these authors do fail to demonstrate is that there are fully modern humans in the same strata as the australopithecines.  That would sink our understanding of human origins once and for all.  Yet, that has never been done. 

They write that this fossil is dated using methods found to have “unverifiable assumptions.”  Curiously, this links to another AiG page on radiometric dating, which, in turn, links to an article authored by Steve Austin, of the ICR, on radiometric dating of Mount St. Helens, rather than actual peer-reviewed scientific articles.

Austin collected dacite samples from around the new St. Helens lava dome, which he knew had been formed around 1986.  He then separated them and sent them to a laboratory for potassium/argon dating.  When the results came back, he declared that radiometric dating was flawed because the results inticated that the dome had been formed around 350 000 years B.P.

In Kevin Henke's response to this report, he addresses how Austin misused the methodology to arrive at his conclusions.  He writes:

Considering that the half-life of potassium-40 (40K) is fairly long (1,250 million years, McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 9), the K-Ar method cannot be used to date samples that are much younger than 6,000 years old (Dalrymple, 1991, p. 93). A few thousand years are not enough time for 40Ar to accumulate in a sample at high enough concentrations to be detected and quantified. Furthermore, many geochronology laboratories do not have the expensive state-of-the-art equipment to accurately measure argon in samples that are only a few million years old. Specifically, the laboratory personnel that performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. Specifically, personnel at Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. This laboratory no longer performs K-Ar dating. However, when they did, their website clearly stated in a footnote that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old ("We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y."; also see discussions by Bartelt et al.). With less advanced equipment, 'memory effects' can be a problem with very young samples (Dalrymple, 1969, p. 48). That is, very tiny amounts of argon contaminants from previous analyses may remain within the equipment, which precludes accurate dates for very young samples. For older samples, which contain more 40Ar, the contamination is diluted and has insignificant effects. Considering the statements at the Geochron website and the lowest age limitations of the K-Ar method, why did Austin submit a recently erupted dacite to this laboratory and expect a reliable answer??? Contrary to Swenson's uninformed claim that ' Dr Austin carefully designed the research to counter all possible objections', Austin clearly demonstrated his inexperience in geochronology when he wasted a lot of money using the K-Ar method on the wrong type of samples.

lawilson200 of Mount St. Helens watch also notes these problems, as does Skeptoid.  If Austin sent the samples to the lab that he knew were produced in 1986, then he either did not know that K/Ar dating requires samples that are at least two million years old to date accurately, or he did know that and submitted them to intentionally get spurious results to publicize the perceived limitations of radiometric dating.  In any event, without the support of Austin's argument, the bad date argument for the Ledi jaw collapses. 

Mitchell, Menton and Snelling write that the geologists studying the area around where the Ledi jaw was found cannot be sure how many stratigraphic layers are missing between the Gurumaha tuff beds and the Lee Adoyta tuff beds, so we cannot know for sure what the total thickness was.  Yes, but we know where the jaw was found and the authors are clear about what the maximum and minimum ages for the fossil can be, based on the dates.  The AiG writers then make an argument that the tuffs could have been formed in hours because of the nature of volcanic eruptions.  This fails to account for the depositional environment between the tuffs, to wit:

Ecological community structure analysis based on mammalian fauna recovered from the Gurumaha fault block indicates a more open habitat (mostly mixed grass-lands/shrublands with gallery forest) that likely experienced less rainfall than any of those reconstructed for the Members of the Hadar Formation (6). The landscape was similar to modern African open habitats, such as the Serengeti Plains, Kalahari, and other African open grasslands, given the abundance of grazing species and lack of arboreal taxa, although the presence of Deinotherium bozasi and tragelphins likely indicate a gallery forest (fig. S6). The existence of Kobus sigmoidalis, aff. Hippopotamus afarensis, crocodiles, and fish in this package reflect the presence of rivers and/or lakes. Approximately one-third of the mammalian taxa present are shared with the youngest Hadar Formation (~3 Ma), while one-third are first appearances of these taxa in the LAV (Table 1). The remaining one-third of mammals recovered can only be identified to the genus level.

How would these landscapes have formed in hours? They reflect hundreds, if not thousands of years of development, and they certainly could not have formed in the middle of a world-wide flood.

The argument presented by AiG also points to a peculiarity of the young earth argument: arguing against a proposition using uniformitarian principles, while at the same time taking no stock in those principles, whatsoever, since they have to be thrown out the window in any flood model. 

They continue:

The evolutionary determination to subdivide varieties of humans into various species is based on evolutionary claims, when in reality all humans would best be called Homo sapiens regardless of their variations. Nevertheless, we are stuck with the terminology that calls the descendants of various people descended like us from Adam and from Noah via the dispersion from Babel by names that imply they are unrelated. Truly, however, when it comes to a fossil like this one, the real question should not be “where in the evolutionary history of humans does it fit?” but rather “does it fit within the norms for human beings or not?” Though limited by its incompleteness, analysis of LD 350-1 suggests it belonged to a person.

Once again, how, then, do you explain the traits that link it to Au. afarensis? Those are clearly non-human. To sweep them under the rug is simply not tenable. These traits are outside the known variation of all modern humans.  No one has them.  Further, they don't even track with traits seen in later hominin forms such as Homo ergaster, Homo erectus or archaic Homo sapiens.  They are clearly australopithecine.

In summary, then, this article written by Mitchell, Menton and Snelling suffers from three principle problems:

1. A failure to correctly describe the fossil material related to the Ledi jaw (Describing Au. afarensis as “An extinct knuckle-walking ape,” for example)
2. A failure to correctly assess the human and non-human morphology of the Ledi jaw, itself, instead simply denying that the non-human traits exist, when in fact, they clearly link it to the preceding australopithecine fossil remains in many ways.
3. Reliance on a single article for rejection of modern radiometric dating assumptions that has been heavily criticized for its misuse of proper methodology. (See this Davis Young article on radiometric dating for a good primer on how reliable it is).

These problems completely sink the AiG's analysis and conclusions of the Ledi jaw.  


¹Villmoare, B., Kimbel, W. H., Seyoum, C., Campisano, C. J., DiMaggio, E., Rowan, J., Braun, D. R., Arrowsmith, J. R., & Reed, K. E. (2015). Early Homo at 2.8 Ma from Ledi-Geraru, Afar, Ethiopia. Science. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa1343

Salamander From Hell

On the heels of the walking crododile from hell, we now have a car-sized salamander from a lake bed in Portugal.  The animal, named Metoposaurus algarvensis, is dated to the Triassic,and died out sometime around160 mya. Until then, as the story notes:

"Most modern amphibians are pretty tiny and harmless. But back in the Triassic, these giant predators would have made lakes and rivers pretty scary places to be," study co-author Richard Butler, of the University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom, said in a statement. [See Images of the Super Salamander and Its Fossils]

Like other metoposaurids, the amphibian sported a big, broad skull and hundreds of sharp teeth. When its jaws were snapped shut, the beast's head "really looks like a toilet seat," said study co-author Steve Brusatte, of the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. The skull was "circular-shaped with very thin, flat upper and lower jaws," and it would've flapped around this skull, snagging fish in the area's rivers and lakes, he added. Its puny arms and legs meant it likely couldn't move around much on land and thus would have spent much of its time in the water, Brusatte said.

Here is the artist's rendering from the LiveScience story.

As one commenter put it, it is very hard to incorporate this kind of animal into a creationist perspective. How would something like this not have been mentioned in the Bible? Or, for that matter, the snake from hell, the crocodiles from hell (all three of them) or the frog from hell?And that isn't even counting the tyrannosaurids. 

The Headline Says it All

Republicans fire 2016 starting gun at Christian college that teaches world is 6,000 years old

It didn't take the media long to latch on to that one, did it?   From the story:

The first Republican candidate for the 2016 US general election will officially declare his campaign on Monday at an Evangelical university that denies Darwin’s theory of evolution and teaches that the world is only 6,000 years old.

Senator Ted Cruz, a Tea Party darling from Texas with a reputation as a firebrand rhetorician, will announce his candidacy at Liberty University, a college for Evangelical Christians in the state of Virginia that claims to be the largest Christian university in the world.

This is the first of many such characterizations that will come, I am sure.

Ken Ham and Asteroids

Leave it to Ken Ham to take a science excursion into the “what if?” and ruin it. The Inquisitr is reporting on Ham's response to a new documentary, made by the Discovery Channel, in which they address the question of what would happen if a bolide were to hit the planet. These events happen regularly (in geologic time, anyway) but most are not of any size to create large-scale problems. The Winslow crater was created around 50k years ago but the last really biggie was the Yucatan bolide that ended the Cretaceous, 65 million years ago. Nonetheless, it is incumbent on astrophysicists to do studies about whether or not another one will strike and when.  The significance of this seems to have escaped Ken Ham, who thinks that this kind of search is stuff and nonsense.  He writes:

What you believe about the Earth's past doesn’t just influence how you view it—your belief also determines how you view the future! Because of their beliefs about the past, many evolutionists are concerned that somehow mankind will be catastrophically wiped out and life as we know it will end on Earth. One of the most popular versions of this apocalyptic tale is that a massive asteroid, or several asteroids, will strike Earth and obliterate life. The Discovery Channel even recently made a video simulating what it would look like if a 500-kilometer (310-mile) asteroid smashed into the Pacific Ocean. According to their simulation, such an impact would destroy Earth and vaporize life.

Why is it that evolutionists are so concerned that humanity will someday be catastrophically destroyed? Well, according to man’s ideas about the past, life arose naturalistically and the universe is governed completely by the merciless laws of physics. According to their worldview, evolutionists contend there isn’t anyone upholding or sustaining the universe. We are simply at the mercy of naturalistic processes. Also, according to one evolutionary idea about the supposed dinosaur extinction event, a massive asteroid impact wiped out the dinosaurs about 65 million years ago. If such an event happened once before, what’s to stop it from happening again and wiping out humanity this time?

This is a bit like the congresswoman from Montana, I think it was, that argued against the need for addressing global warming because the earth had only been around for six thousand years so it was not possible for humans to have affected it that much, anyway.  He continues:

The Bible has already told us how things will end—with judgment from God when Jesus Christ returns to Earth (2 Peter 3:10; Revelation 20:11–15). Those of us who have trusted in Christ as Savior have no fear of this coming judgment because our penalty for sin has already been paid by Jesus. But instead of fearing some hypothetical asteroid apocalypse, those who refuse to acknowledge Christ as Lord should fear this coming judgment, and it should bring them to repent and put their faith in Christ.

Given that he has so badly garbled the beginning of the Bible, I am not entirely convinced he has gotten the end of it right, either. I have done little in the way of study of millenialism, so I won't wade into it here.  Is it true that our ultimate salvation is of paramount importance?  Yes, it is.  Should we have a good personal relationship with Jesus?  Yes we should.

Having said that, Ham is spilling a lot of ink over an exercise in astrophysics to scare people about fire and brimstone.  What a completely humorless response.

I think I might watch the program.

Crocodile From Hell, Part II

And I thought this guy was bad.  Now a 9-foot tall “walking crocodile” has been found from late Triassic deposits, around 230 million years ago.  Jeanna Bryner reports:

A 9-foot-tall beast with bladelike teeth once stalked the warm and wet environs of what is now North Carolina some 230 million years ago, before dinosaurs came onto the scene there, scientists have found.

Now called Carnufex carolinensis, the crocodile ancestor likely walked on its hind legs, preying on armored reptiles and early mammal relatives in its ecosystem, the researchers say.

They named it Carnufex, meaning "butcher" in Latin, because of its long skull, which resembles a knife, and its bladelike teeth, which it likely used to slice flesh off the bones of prey, said lead study author Lindsay Zanno, of NC State University and the NC Museum of Natural Sciences. "'Butcher' seemed a very appropriate way to get that into the minds of people," Zanno told Live Science in an interview.

This is a part of the early Pseudosuchians, which are largely included in the archosaurs. The big forms, as with the large dinosaurs, did not survive the K-T extinction

Todd Wood: Intro to Origins

The Core Academy has just finished putting together its Intro to Origins series of classes.  The topics are varied, including a discussion of the current creation/evolution debate, and sections on creationism and theistic evolution.  Each class is $50, and with four kids being home schooled, I just don't have the money for them. 

I have every belief that the science will be treated fairly and respectfully, if from a young-earth perspective.  There is a code on the site that will allow anyone interested to get a 25% discount for a set period of time.  I disagree with Todd on most things regarding the age of the earth and cosmogony but he has never treated the science shabbily. 

Another View From Canada: Saner Heads

In an unsigned editorial in the National Post, the editors write: “Judge politicians by their actions, not their religion.” The editors point out something about the true motivations in asking candidates about their scientific leanings:

Last week, Alberta Party member Natalie Odd told the National Post she had cornered Mr. Dirks at an event and demanded to know his views on the planet’s creation. “He said, ‘it’s possible to believe in creation and evolution.’ I wasn’t getting an answer out of him,” she said. She argued Mr. Dirks’ views are “relevant” because he has been front and centre in a controversy over gay-straight alliance clubs (GSAs) in schools — which was odd timing, considering last week the government introduced an amendment compelling schools to allow such clubs. Indeed, on Sunday Mr. Dirks’ church was picketed by people who feel he’s being overly permissive.

This kind of nonsense goes on here, as well. There are no shortage of republicans that support young earth creationism, some of who are public about such support, and most of the time, as in the example of Ronald Reagan, their views are largely irrelevant. The editors end with this bit of wisdom:

Practically speaking, there’s little reason to whisper darkly about politicians’ motives, religious or other, when they are legislating in the clear light of day: It would be difficult to insert something into the curriculum without the rest of society catching on. It’s fair to ask them about these at election time, as an indication of how they are likely to act in office. But ultimately it is how they act, not their beliefs, by which they should be measured. You say an MP’s vote on an issue was guided by his religious convictions? Bully for him. Just tell us how he voted.

“By your deeds shall ye be known.” Judge politicians by their actions, and leave their faiths to them.

Amen.



As long as they don't run for science committees...

Ark Encounter Asks Judge for Injunction

In a very short AP article, it is being reported that the Ark Encounter is asking the judge involved in the suit that it filed in February to grant an injunction so it can get the tax breaks it requested from the state that were denied recently.  Here is the crux of the story:

Answers in Genesis sued state officials last month over a lost $18 million tax incentive from the state tourism department. The state had given preapproval for the incentive but in December rejected the Christian group's application, saying the mission of the park had changed from tourist attraction to ministry.

A lawyer for Answers in Genesis says the group should be treated the same as a non-religious applicant.

The Christian group also built the Creation Museum and is currently constructing a 500-foot-long wooden ark in Kentucky to anchor the biblical park.

Still not sure how this one is going to play out. It seems that Ham's ability to characterize it as a theme park and not as a ministry hinges on how connected the project is to Answers in Genesis, which is, obviously, a ministry. The ties between the two were hidden at first but now are much more visible.  It doesn't help that the legal team filing the suit are those retained by AiG. 

Some Thoughts on American Fundamentalism from Across the Border

There is currently a kerfuffle going on in Canada, regarding the new Alberta Education Minister and his position on biological evolution.  Jen Gerson, of the National Post, writes:

Alberta premier Jim Prentice’s hand-picked education minister Gordon Dirks told forum attendees last weekend that he was an “Old Earth guy” — a reference to a doctrine of Creationism that generally rejects biological evolution.

Mr. Dirks has declined to clarify his views. He’s also declined to comment on whether or not he accepts the scientifically accepted understanding of evolution when asked directly by the Post.

“The Minister isn’t going to comment on his political opponents’ purposely manipulated recollections of private conversations…. He supports the existing curriculum and the government ensures schools follow it,” said Mr. Dirks’ spokesperson, David Heyman, who added that questions about creationism were posed by members of the centre-left Alberta party in a bid to corner and embarrass the minister.

It’s an effective tactic; there has traditionally been no shortage of ridicule for politicians who espouse genuinely held religious beliefs on the subject.

This has been a tactic on the part of the press here as well, and in the last election cycle, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman and several others stumbled out of the starting blocks when they ran up against that issue. Only John Huntsman looked at the issue squarely in the eye and said he accepted biological evolution, but by then, nobody knew who he was.  Contained in the story is this observation, as well:

Irving Hexham, a religion and politics professor at the University of Calgary, said evolution — like abortion — is a divisive issue among evangelical Christians. If politicians from this background come out in favour of the mainstream view of evolution, they risks alienating themselves from their own religious community.

“The whole evolution thing has blown up in North America in a ridiculous way. I don’t think there is any reason why Christians can’t believe in evolution, and throughout the world, a lot of Christians do,” he said.

However, the topic seems to be remain contentious among fundamentalists, and evangelical Christians in particular.

“American fundamentalism took it as a boundary. You’re on one side or another. If you believe in evolution, you can’t be a true Christian and you’re out of the fold. It’s a litmus test.”

While this has been a simmering issue for some time, it has only been within the last three years or so that high-profile Christians, such as Ken Ham has brought it to the forefront and, while he has claimed that his position has never been that one cannot be a Christian and accept evolution, he clearly thinks as much, given posts with such titles as The Danger of BioLogos, and BioLogos Funds Project to Undermine the Authority of the Word.  In fact, a word search for “Biologos” reveals quite a few articles in which Mr. Ham wrings his hands in dismay at theistic evolutionists. It is quite clear he regards us with suspicion and distrust.

Ken Ham is a very powerful force in modern evangelical Christianity and he has many supporters within the evangelical community.  Only prayer will loosen the hold he and others like him have on the home school and larger evangelical communities. 

It has been suggested that the modern Christian landscape is ready for a new denomination: the young earth creationist, since, for many, that viewpoint so dominates their thinking.  I wonder if that might be so. 

Kent Hovind Guilty of Contempt of Court

Peter J. Reilly at Forbes, who has kept up-to-date on the trials and tribulations of Kent Hovind, reports that a jury has found him guilty of contempt of court.  He writes:

I just heard from Jonathan Schwartz of Interlock Media and freelance journalist Ben Sheffler that the jury has reached a verdict.  On the six count indictment, Hovind was found guilty on count three, which only applied to him – violating court orders to not interfere with title to the property. Hansen was found guilty on counts five and six, which only related to him – violating a court order to Creation Science Evangelism to refrain from further filings in relation the property and resisting a grand jury subpoena.  The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the more serious fraud charges against Hovind .  Hansen was found not guilty on one of the fraud charges (count two) with the jury not reaching a verdict on the other fraud charge (Counts 1 and 4).

As I mentioned in the last post, the target might just as easily be Paul Hansen, who was also indicted.  the jury's inability to come to a decision with regard to the fraud charges is big for the two, though, as those were the much more serious charges.  Here is more information.  What does this mean for Hovind? As Reilly notes, Hovind will continue the appeals to have the original charge dismissed.  It will be an uphill battle, though, given this recent instance of what the government surely saw as “meddling.”

Neandertals Hunted Eagles, Wore Talons as Jewelry

Nature News is reporting that a find of bone adornments was unearthed at the Krapina Neandertal site over 100 years ago but not recognized as being Neandertal in manufacture until just recently. According to the story in Nature News:

Neanderthals hunted mammoths, bison and other powerful animals for food — yet their fiercest foes may have been the massive eagles they snared to make jewellery. The talons of white-tailed eagles found at a Neanderthal site in Croatia show cut marks and patterns of wear that suggest the claws were donned as personal ornaments.

“They’re very powerful birds. It takes a certain amount of bravery and foolishness, even, to catch one of these things,” says David Frayer, a palaeoanthropologist at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, whose team describes the claws in paper published on 12 March in the journal PLoS ONE.¹ With wing spans of around 2 metres, the birds are Europe’s largest aerial predator.

Here is part of the image from the Nature News story, showing one set of ornaments.

This is more evidence of advanced/metaphysical thought on the part of Neandertals (not to mention their hunting abilities) and helps to paint a better picture of a complex society that was emerging in Europe at this time.

New BioLogos Post on LD 350-1

My post on the new fossil find in the Afar Triangle is up over at BioLogos.  This is a very, very important find because it stretches our own line, Homo back some 400 thousand years earlier than previously thought and relegates all but one of the australopithecines to side branches of human history.  All of those theories that Au. sediba, or Au. garhi or Au. africanus or Kenyanthropus might be ancestral to Homo?  Gone.  As Isaac Asimov would say, they are one with the snows of yesteryear.  Comments are welcome there and here.  

BTW, Ken Ham has promised (somewhat ominously) that there will be a response over at Answers in Genesis to the description of the find by the original authors.  I will tackle that when it comes out.