Tuesday, November 23, 2010

How Certain is "Natural History"?

I was watching a show tonight on the beginning of the oceans (I missed the first part). It was full of tiny bits of facts stuffed with lots of "scientific imagining" at its own admission. (I may have the exact word wrong, but they basically admitted to making a lot of it up.)

It is amazing how certain they are of so many things, without any solid evidence to back them up, just their own guesses.

It was interesting to note their focus on the shift to plate tectonics. They noted the clever "everything fits together" without noting the size differences of the continents. Its kind of like taking the pieces from several different sized puzzles and then insisting they all fit together. Though perhaps they did, that doesn't prove the stories they weave.

Clearly, the plates move, but they were quite far from proving that all we can see can be explained by slow gradual processes. It is ironic that they claimed the alternative was a belief that "God made it static" when that doesn't fit with what even the most hard core Creationist believes. (Check out the Flood of Noah for lots of shifting, for example. See also the Mount St. Helens eruption for fast-forming canyons.)

My wife asks me why I watch these shows. I like true science, yet find little of it. Lots of myth telling though. I am not sure, though maybe she is correct when she says it is so I can argue with the TV! :)


No comments: