Going deep... going bats... (long post)

How does some start a book? Especially a self help book? The weight of the thought that there must be countless people who know as much or more than you must be crushing. Even if you are an "expert" in your field, there are surely thousands of voices that will deride you. And yet, people still write.

So, what am I going on about? It's been on my mind, and my heart to do some writing. And I don't have the world's most impressive credentials. People say I'm talented, and they may be right. I'd put my drawing skills up against anyone. And there was a time I'd have done the same with my skill as a bassist, though the time has now passed. But this isn't about drawing or bass playing. Though art in it's various forms is my passion, it is not my only interest. I have a handful of qualities that will inform this series of writings. I'm open-minded. I'm reasonably intelligent and well informed. I am an amateur philosopher. I am an amateur scientist. And, I am an amateur theologian. All of that should sound fairly dangerous when mixed together.

So, here's the deal. I don't have blind faith. I've wished for it and prayed for it, and it's not mine to posses. So, I pretty much obsess over convincing my self there is a God, and that he cares about me and my life. And it is a struggle. So, I think I've developed some skill at it.

Science, REAL Science, is both observable and reproducible. If it cannot be observed, it is theory. If it can be observed, but not reproduced it is interpreted. Interpretation is Philosophy. Philosophy can, and should be, debated. Much of what is being taught to our children as fact is Philosophy that has the illusion of reality called "Consensus". Consensus is about as useful to real science as playdough is to real construction. Remember, before the humanists could ever make fun of the Church for persecuting Galileo, they had first reached "consensus" that the universe did, in fact, revolve around Earth. They say they learned better. Well, so did we. And the Bible is fairly silent on celestial mechanics, so it's not a matter of religion.

Now, for Philosophy. The most effective lie is one wrapped up in truth. Take something observed and interpreted, and mix in some observable and reproducible, and you can convince a lot of people that it is all hard science. So, what I am not saying is that I have hard science that God is real. I have Philosophy. I happen to think my Philosophy is as good as theirs. What I AM saying, is I don't think they have hard science to say I came from primordial ooze. So, I think I've reasoned out some pretty solid arguments about God and Nature. I think it's time they went trough the Crucible

Let's start small. The evolution of the bat. First, let me say I am not fundamentally opposed to the argument of natural selection. There is plenty of room, and evidence, that change and specialization through breeding can, and apparently does, occur. However, the argument of natural selection is necessary, but not sufficient, for the idea that all organisms evolved from a single, or even a small selection, of primitives with no outside intervention. That is to say, Darwinism.

The order Chiroptera (hand wing) contains the only flying mammals on the Earth. Bats. Which brings up one "rat hole" (rat hole being a tangent that gets far off the subject) immediately. While I don't agree with their premises, I will use accepted scientific nomenclature where appropriate. Thus the family, or rather "Order" of bats. As I said, these are the only mammals on Earth that truly fly. And they are unlike any other mammal, and yet quite like other animals.

The flying squirrel actually only glides. It's mechanism for "flight" is excess skin between it's limbs that catches air as it leaps from tree to tree. Sure, a skill worth evolving. And, a reasonable evolutionary move. A small, arboreal mammal learns it's safer to leap from tree to tree than it is to climb down and climb up. Others observe and imitate. One particular animal has a little extra skin. Maybe it was fat and then lost weight. Maybe it was a freak. But, it would have had to have been a genetic "sport". Something reproducible. And getting to this one extra tree meant this little guy could eat. He survived. He made babies that could also "fly". They thrived and specialized. Flying squirrels.

Bats are a whole other case. They really fly. They fly on membrane stretched between their fingers. They have light, specialized bodies, kind of like birds, that make flight possible. So, how do we get bats? The obvious and easiest path is that a bird evolved into a mammal. This would make sense and need the smallest amount of change. Feathers become fur, and voila! The hair and warm blood would certainly help out. I think the argument of a live birth over and egg is an evolutionary advantage is weak at best, but ok. I'll take it. The problem is, no one in their right mind would try to say that a bird became a bat overnight. And, their are no transitional bird/mammals in the fossil record to speak of.

So, bats must have evolved from a mammal. This already makes life easier as other mammals have sonar, the sound device bats use to hunt. We can say "That came from a common ancestor" and let it go. Same with eyes, ears, fur, tails, nostrils, etc. The real problem is those wings. Unlike any other mammal. So like a bird. Or a pterodactyl. So, our primitive is possibly an arboreal insectivore mammal. It develops the ability to leap to catch buts. With an additional food source, it survives and thrives. Specializes. Then one is born with flaps of skin between it's fingers.

Oops. Someday, when these become wings, they will be a mighty evolutionary leap. Right now they are a gigantic pain in the ass, and hinder more than they help. As he instinctively claws at his prey, like other insectivores, he actually catches air in his flaps and slows down just enough to miss this bug. He has to hunt nose first, and then land on his feet. This is NOT an evolutionary advantage. Maybe our squirrel should try to swim instead. Catch fish, maybe.

Nobody is arguing that a rat grew wings overnight. That would be laughable. So the wings had to grow incrementally. Over thousands of years. The problem is, until this membrane actually becomes a wing, it is a detriment to the creature. Nowhere near as stable as the flaps on our flying squirrel. So, maybe they grew flaps like a flying squirrel, and then wrapped them around their fingers? This is the gorilla in the room of evolutionary argument. Until a large change occurs an adaptation is not necessarily a beneficial evolutionary step. A dinosaur that simply grows feathers has not moved forward. Developing hollow bones so you can fly makes you weak and vulnerable until you can actually fly. A larger brain is just dead weight until you become significantly smarter. Light sensitive cells that may someday become eyes become a distraction first, until a brain develops to process the images. And, lets not forget an almost universal in the animal kingdom. Being a freak makes it hard to mate.

So, in summation. No one has convinced me that evolution did happen. However, if it did happen, it needed a lot of help. There is a point at which, unless you are actively fleeing the idea of god, that the odds against fumbling and stumbling accidentally from Big Bang to modern man become absurd. Let's be clear. I don't believe in "Intelligent Design". I believe in Creation. I think if you believe in evolution, you should arguing for intelligent assistance. It makes it much more plausible. And, I think the idea that I am fearfully and wonderfully made in the image of God is beautiful. So, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.


------

And that's enough for now.

Brian Norwood

Platypi Online: The Platypus Portal