Creation science; an example

A common complaint made against creationists is that their ideas have no relevance within the field of practical science. I don't agree with this notion, and offer the following article on the Narwhal as evidence. I think Lightner does a good job of looking at the puzzle of the Narwhal tusk from the perspective of Biblical creation.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'In the past, some Christians mistakenly believed that all animals were created by God just as we see them today. While this view recognized God as Creator and that animals were well adapted to their environments, to insist on it ignores the real history of the world given in the Bible. Sea creatures were told after their creation to be fruitful, increase in number, and fill the seas (Genesis 1:21–22).

- i.e. This would mean going into new environments... and this would lead to changes (due to the influence of new environmental factors)

It's important to admit that many creationists in the past were wrong in their views on some things. Charles Darwin pointed out some flaws in the creationist thinking of his day. He pointed out that the claim all creatures were the same as they'd always been was false. He was correct in this, but he was incorrect in thinking this disproved creation and proved evolution.

B. 'In reality, a far bigger puzzle for the evolutionist is the origin of teeth in general. In most mammals teeth just happen to be in the right place for chewing. To an evolutionist, all structures such as eyes, teeth, and lungs are the result of random mutations (which add variety) and natural selection (which removes variety). While mutations and natural selection do occur, no such random process can be expected to create information to put well designed structures in the right place at the right time. [1.]

- Ever wonder why your teeth are in your mouth? according to evolution theory, it's just a fluke, as they could just as easily be in your feet :=)

C. 'Due to the effects of such catastrophes as the Curse and the global Flood, many harsh and different environments have arisen on the earth since creation. Thus it was important for creatures to be designed to have the built-in potential to vary, so as to be able to adapt and cope with changing environments.

D. 'As a veterinarian, there are several characteristics of the narwhal tusk that lead me to believe it is the result of degenerative changes affecting one of the teeth God originally created in the kind that gave rise to today’s narwhal. First, it is asymmetrical, that is it is found on one side, but not the other. Mammals are designed with bilateral symmetry; the left side of the animal is a mirror image of the right.12 When one side appears significantly different from the other, it is a sign of abnormality.

- I think this is a good example of how to use the idea of creation to look at the world. (This is not to say that what our author says is necessarily true; although it sounds as if it might be.)

E. The tusk is absent in over half the narwhal population (juveniles and most females). This indicates that it is not essential to survival. The tusk may provide some advantages to the narwhal in their limited arctic range; however, it is possible that the tusk is one of the reasons that they have such a limited range.'

F. 'Just as there is information that starts tooth growth, there is also information that stops it. It appears that something has happened to the information that stops tooth growth for one of the narwhal’s teeth, so a tusk develops.

- What we see here is an example of what materialists see as evolution (i.e. progressive evolution) and what c.s see as devolution, if I can use that term. The more I look at examples like this the more I'm struck by the idea that what we see in the world isn't evolution (i.e. an 'upward' move from molecules to man) but devolution. i.e. a degenerative process.

There's so much confusion on this issue because evolutionists continually conflate all change (large or small, directional or non-directional) with evolution. It's hard to believe this is done honestly and without polemical intent. Change however is not the same as evolution; and to treat it as if it was is to muddy the waters, making clear thinking impossible. [2.]

Notes;
1. The Enigmatic Narwhal - by Jean Lightner Creation.com
2. An example of the notion change equals evolution;
'Women are evolving fatter: New Scientist and PhysOrg said that natural selection is making women shorter, plumper and more fertile. “The take-home message is that humans are currently evolving,” said Stephen Stearns of the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center in Durham, North Carolina. “Natural selection is still operating.” - Creation/Evolution Headlines
- Contra Stearns, natural selection is Not evolution.
- Contra Stearns, women are not evolving. (Is it only women who are evolving? Is this fair in a PC world?) This is silliness, it really is. Obviously these 'number's are always going to fluctuate. Surely he can understand that much at least. Trivial changes in population figures (sorry) have nothing to do with M2M Evolution.