The latest staggering insight from Creation Moments is that there are numerous benefits from trees. As anyone who knows anything about trees knows, trees turn carbon dioxide into oxygen, provide us with food, shelter and medicine, and I would add that trees provide useful ways of conserving energy when serving as shade for housing or windbreaks. Yes, trees are quite nice, and I wish that there were more of them than there are, especially in the Amazon.
But of course, this is all done from the perspective of creationism whereby each kind of tree existing today was brought suddenly into existence (link here: http://www.creationmoments.com/radio/transcripts/multiple-blessings-trees) rather than being the end result of several billion years of evolution. In fact, the fossil record has thus far indicated that coniferous trees developed first, with flowering trees following in the Cretaceous Period, and one of the oldest trees to still be with us today is the ginko tree. All very fascinating to read and learn about, but the creationists commit the great crime of distorting and cheapening our history in ignoring the facts to promote a sudden creation that is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. The more we learn about trees, both past and present, the more fascinating their story becomes. But they are evidence of long evolution, not recent creation. The very rings of trees themselves are helping us to unlock the story of past climates, a key evidence in charting the rise and fall of both precipitation and temperature.
The ending of the piece is the most poignant. The author asserts that the fascinating knowledge being discovered about trees is an example of "how science done in faith--that is, as our search for knowledge about what God has made--serves to glorify our Creator!" I have no problem with those who believe that making discoveries about the natural world is a means to glorify God--scientists like Isaac Newton believed firmly in this vision--but I do have a problem when this is done by ignoring most of the body of science to select what is essentially trivia. Or, to put it bluntly, by ignoring evolution but standing in awe of the majesty of trees. Surely God would be more honored if the believer used the brain that He gave them to examine the evidence about the world without blinders than if one purposely denied and obfuscated the truth about the natural world, the truth that speaks toward evolution.
Of course, science is not done "with faith" but instead with evidence. That is how we learn about the world around us. Creation Moments would do well to consider this fact.
But of course, this is all done from the perspective of creationism whereby each kind of tree existing today was brought suddenly into existence (link here: http://www.creationmoments.com/radio/transcripts/multiple-blessings-trees) rather than being the end result of several billion years of evolution. In fact, the fossil record has thus far indicated that coniferous trees developed first, with flowering trees following in the Cretaceous Period, and one of the oldest trees to still be with us today is the ginko tree. All very fascinating to read and learn about, but the creationists commit the great crime of distorting and cheapening our history in ignoring the facts to promote a sudden creation that is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. The more we learn about trees, both past and present, the more fascinating their story becomes. But they are evidence of long evolution, not recent creation. The very rings of trees themselves are helping us to unlock the story of past climates, a key evidence in charting the rise and fall of both precipitation and temperature.
The ending of the piece is the most poignant. The author asserts that the fascinating knowledge being discovered about trees is an example of "how science done in faith--that is, as our search for knowledge about what God has made--serves to glorify our Creator!" I have no problem with those who believe that making discoveries about the natural world is a means to glorify God--scientists like Isaac Newton believed firmly in this vision--but I do have a problem when this is done by ignoring most of the body of science to select what is essentially trivia. Or, to put it bluntly, by ignoring evolution but standing in awe of the majesty of trees. Surely God would be more honored if the believer used the brain that He gave them to examine the evidence about the world without blinders than if one purposely denied and obfuscated the truth about the natural world, the truth that speaks toward evolution.
Of course, science is not done "with faith" but instead with evidence. That is how we learn about the world around us. Creation Moments would do well to consider this fact.
Comments
Post a Comment