Skip to main content

Trees Again

Image
By
At the risk of beating a dead horse, Creation Moments had another talk about trees, this time the fact that trees seem to be able to communicate by way of pheromones to warn each other when gypsy moth caterpillars start to attack. Once the trees have been warned, they begin to produce as many as eight poisons that kill the caterpillars when they eat the leaves (full link is here: http://www.creationmoments.com/radio/transcripts/tree-wars).

All this shows, to the creationists, that God is concerned about everything, not just humans. While I can understand this sentiment, and would expect no less from a Creator, I cannot agree for the following reason. When the creationists make this statement, it is really just a hook for creationism, not truly a statement of faith to the glory of God. What's behind this statement is an implicit argument for fundamentalist creationism, which I will always fight, in arguing for design. The facts before us are much better explained as an example of evolution, in which the trees have evolved defenses against their attackers. Were we to observe the process long enough, we would expect to see the gypsy moth caterpillars begin to evolve their own defense against the poisons that would render them harmless. Then the process would begin all over again, with the tree evolving new defenses and the caterpillars evolving resistance.

It is just one of thousands of arms races in the natural world, all of which are explained by evolution.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

By
Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...
18 comments
Read more

How I Left Creationism

By
There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...
23 comments
Read more

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

By
Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...
11 comments
Read more