Airplanes Evolve by Intelligent Design, Therefore …

We’re really going out on a limb here, because it’s difficult to predict what the Discovery Institute might do next, but we’ve seen enough of their antics and gyrations that we’re likely to be right about this.

Look what we just found at PhysOrg: Law of physics governs airplane evolution. A few excerpts will show why we’re fairly confident that, even as we speak, the Discoveroids are cooking up a post to use this as evidence for their bizarre theory of intelligent design. PhysOrg says, with a bit of bold font added by us for emphasis:

Researchers believe they now know why the supersonic trans-Atlantic Concorde aircraft went the way of the dodo — it hit an evolutionary cul-de-sac.

In a new study, Adrian Bejan, professor of mechanical engineering and materials science at Duke University, shows that a law of physics he penned more than two decades ago helps explain the evolution of passenger airplanes from the small, propeller-driven DC-3s of yore to today’s behemoth Boeing 787s. … The Concorde, alas, was too far from the curve of these good designs, Bejan says. The paper appears online July 22, in the Journal of Applied Physics.

Relax, dear reader. We’re not here for the Concorde. You’ll soon understand. This is a link to Bejan’s paper: The evolution of airplanes. You can read it online without a subscription. The abstract alone will excite the Discoveroids:

The prevailing view is that we cannot witness biological evolution because it occurred on a time scale immensely greater than our lifetime. Here, we show that we can witness evolution in our lifetime by watching the evolution of the flying human-and-machine species: the airplane. We document this evolution, and we also predict it based on a physics principle: the constructal law. We show that the airplanes must obey theoretical allometric rules that unite them with the birds and other animals. For example, the larger airplanes are faster, more efficient as vehicles, and have greater range. The engine mass is proportional to the body size: this scaling is analogous to animal design, where the mass of the motive organs (muscle, heart, lung) is proportional to the body size. Large or small, airplanes exhibit a proportionality between wing span and fuselage length, and between fuel load and body size. The animal-design counterparts of these features are evident. The view that emerges is that the evolution phenomenon is broader than biological evolution. The evolution of technology, river basins, and animal design is one phenomenon, and it belongs in physics.

We’re not imagining things. You know the Discoveroids are leaping around, rubbing their hands with glee. Even now, one of them is feverishly working on a post that will declare, as does our title: Airplanes evolve by intelligent design. Therefore …

Let’s return to PhysOrg:

In the case of commercial aircraft, designs have evolved to allow more people and goods to flow across the face of the Earth. Constructal law has also dictated the main design features needed for aircraft to succeed; the engine mass has remained proportional to the body size, the wing size has been tied to the fuselage length, and the fuel load has grown in step with the total weight.

“The same design features can be seen in any large land animal,” said Bejan. “Larger animals have longer lifespans and travel farther distances, just as passenger airplanes have been designed to do. For example, the ratio of the engine to aircraft size is analogous to the ratio of a large animal’s total body size to its heart, lungs and muscles.”

There is joy in Seattle. PhysOrg continues:

To apply his theories to airplane design, Bejan teamed up with Jordan Charles, a researcher and development engineer, and Sylvie Lorente, a professor of civil engineering at the University of Toulouse, to mine the historical databases of successful commercial aircraft. As they plotted thousands of statistics including year of introduction, size, cruising speed, engine weight, fuel weight, range, wingspan and fuselage length, many patterns began to emerge. But two in particular stood out.

In one chart, a clear curve tracks the increasing size of commercial airplanes through nearly a century of aviation. As time moves on, new commercial airliners come in all sizes but the biggest are joined by even bigger models. In another chart, the line that best tracks the relationship of body mass to airplane speeds is nearly identical to mass and speed statistics from various mammals, lizards, birds, insects and more. Evolutionary constraints found in nature, in other words, can be seen at work in the airline industry.

We can hear Casey swooning. Oooooooh! Oooooooooh! Here’s more:

There was, however, one outlier on the chart — the Concorde.

“The Concorde was too far off from the ratios that evolution has produced in passenger jets,” explained Bejan, who points out that the doomed aircraft had limited passenger capacity, a low mass-to-velocity ratio, an off-the-charts fuselage-to-wingspan ratio, massive engines and poor fuel economy. “It would have had to adhere to the constructal design rules to succeed.”

Tough luck for the Concorde. But that’s not our concern here, so that’s where we’ll quit our excerpts. What caused us to write about this wasn’t nostalgia for the Concorde. Rather, it’s that Bejan’s paper is obviously ripe for quote-mining and for making wild leaps of illogic that point to the Discoveroids’ magical designer in the sky.

This is much too good for them to pass up. Even though we’re jumping out ahead and predicting their behavior, they won’t be able to resist. Come on, Casey. This one’s for you!

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

Other Creationist Voices

From time to time we like to bring you creationism from news sources we don’t usually encounter. Your Curmudgeon believes that we should try to learn what everyone on this flat world of ours is thinking.

Today’s lesson comes from The Voice, published in London, which considers itself ‘Britain’s Best Black Newspaper.’ Their headline is Religion and evolution encourages racism.

The alleged linkage between evolution and racism is an old subject around here — see Racism, Eugenics, and Darwin. We get jaded and think we’ve heard it all before, but perhaps The Voice has something new to say. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Evolution theories and a misunderstanding of the Bible are to blame for the racist ideologies that exist in Europe, a scientist has claimed.

Who is this scientist? We’re told:

Dr Philip Asante, a pharmaceutical scientist and theologian, has suggested in his book The Truth about Racism that a misinterpretation of biblical texts about slavery is partially responsible for the racist attitudes that persist today.

Here’s a link to Amazon’s listing for his book: The Truth about Racism: Its Origins, Legacy, and How God Wants Us to Deal with It . They say it’s published by WestBowPress. We Googled for them. Yup — their their website says they’re a vanity press. Amazon also gives us some information about the author. They say:

Dr. Philip Gyang Asante has a PhD in Biblical Studies, a Master’s Degree in Business Administration, and a Bachelor of Science Degree in Pharmacy.

We’ve never run across a creationist pharmacist before. This should be fun. Then The Voice tells us:

He also believes that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution supports the idea that certain ethnic groups are superior to others.

That’s been endlessly debunked. It’s so absurd that we even wrote a spoof about it here: The Scientific Case Against Darwinian Emancipation. Back to the news:

Asante said: “The so-called Christians at the time of transatlantic slavery used bible texts to justify their own means and gains. Then produced this theory of evolution which in its essence erases a creator, God – replacing him with the idea that we just evolved over billions of years from a primordial soup – and supports the notion that the white race is superior to all other races because they have evolved further.”

Admit it, dear reader. This is the first time you’ve ever heard of the Christian-Evolution-Slave Trade Conspiracy. Where else can you learn about these things except here at your Curmudgeon’s blog?

For journalistic balance, the newspaper quotes someone from the London Black Atheists, who says the problem isn’t evolution, it’s religion, because the bible endorses slavery. The creationist pharmacist disagrees:

But Asante insisted that the slavery referred to in the bible is different to today’s understanding of the word. “Bible texts such as Ephesians 6:5 that encourages ‘slaves’ to obey their masters, have been used to justify great atrocities against human beings. But the slavery in the bible is not the very hostile, very brutal and inhumane treatment of people that defined the enslavement of Africans. Slavery in the bible is more about servanthood. Bond servants were part of the family, treated well and given possessions. It was a very different kind of slavery.

Hey — we’re learning lots of new things today. Bible slavery was good slavery, but evolution slavery is the bad kind.

Then the newspaper gives us another opinion, this time from Bishop and broadcaster, Dr Joe Aldred:

“Racism, prejudice has a number of origins. As a Christian I would want to begin with the predisposition of human beings to sin and to be selfish.” The religious leader added: “Inequality did not start with transatlantic slavery. For example, in many cases tribalism in Africa is a form of oppression.”

And he adds this:

This is why I believe it is impossible to eradicate racism. There should be strong laws to protect people from abuse. But actually, focusing your attention on eradication instead of finding ways to progress, despite the racism, takes the power away from you. It puts you in the position of being the victim, and this is where the most intelligent black person can be reduced to nothing by some idiot with a banana and a racist slur.

Well! We don’t know what to make of all that, so we’re interested in what you think, dear reader.

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

Ken Ham: Aliens Are Going to Hell!

The Creationists' Universe

The Creationists’ Universe

That drawing was produced at great effort by the elves in our art department. It’s the creationists’ view of the universe. We had to leave out the Moon, because the little fellows were too exhausted. You can see a man — the climax of creation, and certainly no kin to no monkey — standing on the immovable flat Earth which is supported by pillars, and the sun goes around the Earth. Our world was created to be the principal focus of divine attention. That’s how the bible describes things, so that’s what a true creationist believes.

We’ve posted a few times before about the creationists’ view of life on worlds other than Earth. For example, Discoveroids and AIG on Extraterrestrial Life. and also ICR’s New Position on Alien Life.

Now we have a new essay from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia, famed for his creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG) and for the infamous, mind-boggling Creation Museum.

We emphasize that was it was written by ol’ Hambo himself, so you know it’s important — and absolutely authoritative. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

I’m shocked at the countless hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent over the years in the desperate and fruitless search for extraterrestrial life. Even Bill Nye “the Science Guy,” in our recent debate, happily gloated about tax dollars being spent toward this effort. And now, secular scientists are at it again.

Of course, secularists are desperate to find life in outer space, as they believe that would provide evidence that life can evolve in different locations and given the supposed right conditions! The search for extraterrestrial life is really driven by man’s rebellion against God in a desperate attempt to supposedly prove evolution!

Hambo’s right — we’re desperate! Here’s more:

A UK news site recently reported, “Aliens are out there. We’ll find a new earth within 20 years.”

Hambo doesn’t provide a link, and we can’t find that UK story, but he’s talking about this, which was reported by ABC News: NASA predicts finding evidence of extraterrestrial life within 20 years. Let’s read on:

You see, according to the secular, evolutionary worldview there must be other habited worlds out there. As the head of NASA, Charles Borden, puts it, “It’s highly improbable in the limitless vastness of the universe that we humans stand alone.” Secularists cannot allow earth to be special or unique — that’s a biblical idea [scripture reference]. If life evolved here, it simply must have evolved elsewhere they believe.

Those accursed secularists! They hate the biblical teaching that the Earth is special. They’re gonna get what’s coming to them — for eternity! Hambo continues:

The Bible, in sharp contrast to the secular worldview, teaches that earth was specially created, that it is unique and the focus of God’s attention [scripture references]. Life did not evolve but was specially created by God, as Genesis clearly teaches. Christians certainly shouldn’t expect alien life to be cropping up across the universe.

Yeah — alien life is un-Christian! Here’s more:

Now the Bible doesn’t say whether there is or is not animal or plant life in outer space. I certainly suspect not.

The bible doesn’t mention bacteria either. We assume ol’ Hambo believes they don’t exist. Moving along:

And I do believe there can’t be other intelligent beings in outer space because of the meaning of the gospel. You see, the Bible makes it clear that Adam’s sin affected the whole universe. This means that any aliens would also be affected by Adam’s sin, but because they are not Adam’s descendants, they can’t have salvation.

No salvation for aliens! Even if they do exist, they’re all going to hell! Another excerpt:

Jesus did not become the “GodKlingon” or the “GodMartian”! Only descendants of Adam can be saved. God’s Son remains the “Godman” as our Savior. … To suggest that aliens could respond to the gospel is just totally wrong. An understanding of the gospel makes it clear that salvation through Christ is only for the Adamic race — human beings who are all descendants of Adam.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Salvation is only for the “Adamic race.” You heard it from Hambo: Jesus is a racist! On with the article:

Many secularists want to discover alien life hoping that aliens can answer the deepest questions of life: “Where did we come from?” and “What is the purpose and meaning of life?” But such people are ignoring the revelation from the infinite God behind the whole universe. The Creator has told us where we came from: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

Stupid scientists! Why don’t they listen to Hambo? He’s got all the answers. One last excerpt:

We need to start proclaiming the authority of God’s Word from the very first verse — even on the subject of alien life! For more information on the supposed existence of ETs and other common questions about a biblical worldview, I encourage you to order [AIG book promotion deleted].

So there you are, dear reader. You heard it directly from ol’ Hambo. If aliens exist, they’re going to hell. And if you think they exist, that’s where you’re going too.

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

Ken Ham Wants Soldiers for the Battle

A few weeks ago, when London’s Telegraph reported this story, BBC staff told to stop inviting cranks on to science programmes, we didn’t post about it because … well, the story made sense. How can we have any fun around here if we report that the sun rose in the east this morning? For example, the Telegraph said:

BBC journalists are being sent on courses to stop them inviting so many cranks onto programmes to air ‘marginal views’

[...]

Some 200 staff have already attended seminars and workshops and more will be invited on courses in the coming months to stop them giving ‘undue attention to marginal opinion.’

[...]

“Science coverage does not simply lie in reflecting a wide range of views but depends on the varying degree of prominence such views should be given.”

Everyone knows that’s how it should be done — well, some journalists apparently don’t know that. This last excerpt from the Telegraph is another reason we didn’t write about their news:

The [BBC] Trust said that man-made climate change was one area where too much weight had been given to unqualified critics.

Again, that makes sense, but it’s not the sort of issue we write about. However, we failed to grasp what that news would mean to creationists. Today we bring you the reaction of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia, famed for his creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG) and for the infamous, mind-boggling Creation Museum.

We should have realized what “marginal views” would mean to a flaming creationist like ol’ Hambo. He’s red in the face, foaming at the mouth, and sputtering mad. At his personal blog we find this: BBC Staff Told Not to Represent “Marginal Views” on Science Programs. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

First the United Kingdom bans the teaching of creation in schools, and now the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Trust prevents BBC journalists from fairly representing [BWAHAHAHAHAHA!] views on its science programs. According to a recent report in the UK’s Telegraph, journalists with the BBC have to take courses that teach them not to air “marginal views” — and they include controversies surrounding climate change.

Okay, but why does Hambo care about climate change? He tells us:

Now, many secularists claim that climate change is almost completely man made, but biblical creationists hold that major climate change really began with the global Flood of Noah’s day, and has been changing ever since.

Aaaargh!! Let’s read on:

Well, what the UK is doing to “marginal views” of climate change is really no different than what has happened to the question of evolution and creation in UK schools. Rather than allow viewers to critically evaluate various claims, the BBC in the UK wants to only air certain views.

It’s a Satanic Darwinist conspiracy to suppress The Truth. Send money to AIG. Do it now! Hambo continues:

This attempt to completely remove or significantly minimize “marginal views” from BBC is an outcome of the blatant intolerance of Christianity by the secularists. They reject God and His Word, so of course, climate change cannot be attributed to a global Flood of Noah’s day as described in the Bible.

And here’s where ol’ Hambo ties it into creationism more directly:

In many ways, the climate change controversy is similar to the creation/evolution debate. Creationists don’t deny animals change or different species form, and they don’t deny climate change — but what is debated is to what degree animals change and why climate change occurs!

And as I’ve said before, what has happened in the UK is now happening in the U.S. when it comes to such issues. Many journalists here in America already severely distort views that are considered “marginal,” such as biblical creation — and some do not represent such views at all.

Here’s one more excerpt, and it’s somewhat alarming:

We are definitely seeing an increasing intolerance of Christianity in our Western world. This should wake up Christians to the spiritual battle raging around us — and we need to be soldiers actively involved in this battle.

Hambo’s rant goes beyond being just another a marginal view, or the usual preacher’s solicitation for contributions. It borders on being a call for violence against his imaginary adversaries. That’s not very smart.

Hey, Hambo: You’ve got a nice little tourist attraction for drooling rubes, and it provides you and your family with a good income. It’s one thing to preach about Genesis, but don’t throw it all away by trying to stir up a “spiritual battle” that can easily spin out of control.

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article