In my odd exploits on the web, I run into
the craziest theories. One of the comments on some front page, referenced via
ERV, via
the main page of
the subpage she noted (on the topic of Judgment Day (Nova program)), was this
nifty little ID article about how Darwinists tend to reference natural bridges as evidence against the idea of ID. Namely that you can create things which cannot, in fact, be built from the ground up like natural arches. The point to which is the suggestion that though this analogy completely destroys their case they should still insist that it means that a designer exists and also to counter with some pathetic argument about how the original bridge material was naturally deposited in the first place. A point which misses the point and is obvious in the first place.
In any event, the first comment to this post offers up a new theory of micro-geology. Just like one can divide up evolution into micro and macro evolution and suggest that though there's tons of evidence for them there is some difference and thus suggesting a different mechanism. Even though it's the same thing for longer. "I can see the logic of one small step in a short amount of time. But, many steps over a long period of time? YOU MUST BE KIDDING!"
Mainstream science insists that all of the geological structures we see today have come about by a combination of purely natural materialistic processes such as erosion, deposition, volcanism, tectonic movement and other such concepts. I do not think anybody can dispute that these processes exist, but can they account for every single structure known to science?
To answer the question, yes those processes exist... yes they account for every single structure known to geology.
I accept that these forces can subtly change geographical features in the same way that micro-evolution can subtly change the form of sucsessive generations of a life-form, but can purely natural processes create entirely novel structures, indeed has it been shown that every known geological structure has a natural origin?
Yes. Though, you are welcome to suggest that space aliens made the grand canyon or something, though the compelling evidence suggests long term erosion.
Of course not, and therefore it is begging the question to merely assume that only non-materialistic explainations apply to geological structures.
We have compelling theories as to how such structures formed. We understand the processes and can explain, not only how, when, where, and why the geological structures exists, but can make accurate predictions about them. Geology is one of those sciences where it's pretty much finished. There's still a lot to know, but there's no massive mysteries left. It's like chemistry where there's plenty to know but the core of the science is so rooted it's down to filling in a few blanks. (Any geologists or chemists are invited to take me to task.)
For example those who have seen the grand canyon find it outrageous that something so beautiful might have come about by these slow natural processes.
Why? Why is beauty evidence of something fast and unnatural? I've seen the grand canyon a number of times. My reaction: "Damn, that's a big canyon."
We all know that earthquakes, erosion and volcanoes (for example) are destructive process, in the same way that a genetic mutation is an act of destroying information (not creating it).
Exactly the same, in that they are not. Genetic mutation does create information in the classic sense. Most are neutral and throwaway, some are harmful and lead to a lesser heredity (for an extreme example by killing the organism) and a precious few provide an improvement and as a result are preserved. Ask yourself, if you could in any endeavor keep only those results which helped and cast off everything which didn't... would you end up better off? Now, if after more time would you end up even better off? In fact, the longer this process goes on the more and more improvements would be accrued, it doesn't take any thought, mind, brain, designer, it takes something to keep the good and cast off the not-so-good and a hell of a lot of time.
However, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that this argument of 'earthquakes are destructive and therefore can't make pretty things' is significantly stupider than the argument that mutations don't create information. In the latter the problem is just that the person making the argument is ignorant of evolution and making a breathtakingly stupid argument, whereas in the former the argument is simply sophistry, and anybody with two braincells can note that earthquakes just shake up a bunch of dirt (and/or water) and create a number of potentially beautiful results and calling them destructive is silly and based on a few thoughts by some silly apes who like to build things. Things which tend to fall down here and there. And there's another oddity, it's always the places we haven't built stuff to fall down which are "beautiful". Don't you think the world would be prettier without our buildings?
The nano-errosionists have never offered a valid explanation for how their dumb, unguided processes are able to create things of beauty.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
And that beauty is such a give-away, a clue to where we should next be looking for design. If something in nature appears to be designed, has irreducible complexity and has specified complexity then it's pretty plain to anybody other than a self-denying evolutionist that it must be a designed object.
Specified complexity? When you make up something and get laughed out of the park, you shouldn't pretend it still works. Yeah, the problem is, nothing about geology seems designed. Really, for the most part, it's a bunch of dirt. Some parts are rather big, other parts are pretty neat looking, but when you look at the wings of a butterfly there is at least something that goes off in your head which says... pay attention to that... that is a good design.
I am reminded of Paley's argument. When you are walking and see a stone, you think to yourself that could have been there forever. However, when you are walking and see rather than a stone, a stone. The same argument doesn't apply. What is the difference between a stone and a stone. Why could one have simply formed by natural processes and the other one be clearly indicative of a designer. -- Wait, the argument seems to have developed another problem, though I can't quite put my finger on it.
Remember, the famous scientists at SETI use techniques comparable to ID's to detect design in radio signals. Why should we be afraid to do this for our planet?
Nobody is afraid of looking for the design in things. We just don't like idiots looking at things we have a perfectly reasonable scientific explanation for and screaming "GOD DID IT!" -- It's annoying and adds exactly nothing to our understanding of things. Also, it isn't an argument for anything it's a conclusion pulled out of your ass. What is this God thing? And why do you thing this thing is explained by such a thing?
