by Steve Risner
After a short break, we’re looking back at interviews done by Dr. Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina University, a paleontologist who discovered soft tissue in dinosaur bones. Her findings are consistent with what Biblical creationists believe and have believed all along: that creation of the earth and therefore life forms like dinosaurs happened about 6000 years ago and that dinosaur fossils were likely from the Flood of Noah’s day which was about 4400 years ago or so. Creationists have been attacked for saying such things, but it’s obviously true. We will look at some of the things Dr. Schweitzer, a Christian and former YEC (young-earth creationist), says about her discovery today.
Let’s start with something we’ve often said about how scientists, in their bias, may work in some of these scenarios. Dr. Schweitzer says:
And the danger of thinking you know everything is that it squashes curiosity and discourages further investigation. When I started down this path that I'm on, everybody “knew” organics don't persist in dinosaur bone. The bones are just too old. Organics degrade. You can't get DNA. You can't get cells. You certainly are not going to get cells in tissues. Well, so nobody looks. And if nobody looks...
Everybody “knew” organics don’t persist in dinosaur bones for two reasons: 1) because they believe dinosaur bones are tens of millions of years old and 2) research shows us that soft tissue can only persist for, under the most ideal conditions, for maybe 100,000 years if we’re lucky. Dr. Schweitzer acknowledged this, saying, “So, that leaves us with two alternatives for interpretation: either the dinosaurs aren’t as old as we think they are, or maybe we don’t know exactly how these things get preserved.” In other words, what we believe may be incorrect or what we have studied in the lab and determined fairly conclusively is incorrect. Hmm. It seems a lot of times that scientists don’t want to follow the science, especially if it means they need to abandon preconceived ideas and beliefs that are unverifiable.
Other things Dr. Schweitzer said on this topic of not believing what her evidence was trying to tell her were things like: “…of course everyone knew there cannot be organics in bone this old…” And, after being questioned by someone about what looked like blood cells in the sample, she said, “’What do you think they are?’ And I said, ‘Well, I know they can't be blood cells, but they're in the right place, the right location, the right size, and they're nucleated.’” After another colleague saw the red blood cells, she recalls, “My colleague brought it back and showed me, and I just got goose bumps, because everyone knows these things don't last for 65 million years.” She went so far as to walk on eggshells for a while, even using vague terms to not draw too much attention. “I never called them blood vessels or red blood cells. I said, ‘vessel-like structures,’ ‘cell-like structures.’”
Creationists are often badgered for taking Dr. Schweitzer’s work for what it seems to indicate: that the belief in dinosaur bones being at least 65 million years old is wrong. Many scientists have decided to hold on to this belief and have instead rejected the scientific research telling us soft tissue cannot persist for tens of millions of years. Do you see the problem here? They’ve decided to uphold a belief rather than trust the science. Yet, creationists are ridiculed for such things routinely. In fact, Professor Jack Horner, Dr. Schweitzer’s mentor, even recategorized the facts of the research to be called “assumptions.” In Discover Magazine, Professor Horner says that if soft tissue can last 65 million years, “there may be a lot of things out there that we’ve missed because of our assumption of how preservation works.” You see, it’s not factual anymore that research tells us soft tissue cannot last 1/650th of the time frame they require. It’s an assumption. Perhaps it would do the good professor a little better to realize that claiming the dinosaur fossils are 65 million years old is an assumption—an unprovable one at that. While I can agree our assumptions can cause us to miss things, he’s declared the wrong bit of information an assumption.
With her discovery, her fist instinct, because she “knew” that soft tissue couldn’t be there, was to deny it and then, after she came to grips with it, to hide it. She says in this interview, “And so I sat there and I thought, ‘I'm not telling anybody.’” Obviously, she didn’t stick with that strategy. But, again, creationists are criticized for giving Dr. Schweitzer grief over this find, but the truth is she believed her own colleagues would bad mouth her. And they did. In her words, “The results were not well accepted. I mean, they were very controversial.”
This is one place of several where science can break down in terms of its objectivity. Either fear of ridicule and loss of funding squelch new discoveries or the desire for more funding and notoriety force sensational finds that really might not be so sensational. I believe the discovery of “Lucy” was like this. I wrote a little about that in this blog post called “Lucy’s Split Personality.” Following that link, you can see another famous scientist pointing to the exact same problems with some scientists. Johanson says, “It is hard for me now to admit how tangled in that thicket I was. But the insidious thing about bias is that it does make one deaf to the cries of other evidence.” The “other evidence” in this case would be research I’ve linked to previously that tells us soft tissue cannot remain remotely intact for 65 million (or in some cases a half billion) years.
But this is truly an example of, “Don’t confuse me with the facts. I’ve already made up my mind.” Dr. Schweitzer even recognizes the truth in the research, saying, "Everyone knows how soft tissues degrade. If you take a blood sample and you stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week. So why would there be anything left in dinosaurs?" Jeffrey Bada, an organic geochemist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, cannot imagine soft tissue surviving millions of years, says an article on the topic in Discover Magazine.
As I’ve stated often and even in this series, the “unbiased science” that we all want to trust so much comes down to money and publicity. Dr. Schweitzer complains about this, rightly so I would think, saying, “That's the saddest part about doing science in America: You are totally driven by what gets you funding.”
For creationists, truth doesn’t rest on funding. It is based on the Word of God. John 17:17 says, “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.” The ultimate source of truth is not found in science or scientists but in the God we serve. There are truths that the world can give us—the weight of a gallon of milk, the speed of the moon rotating about the earth, the conductivity of a certain metal. But there are truths far more important than this that truly give us meaning and purpose. Truth that answers questions like: Where did I come from? What is my purpose? Where am I going? Who am I? These questions are found answered in the Word of God. I hope you’ll join me as I join David as he says in Psalm 25:5, “Lead me in your truth and teach me, for you are the God of my salvation; for you I wait all the day long.”
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
by Steve Risner
In my post last week, we took a look at some statements from Dr. Mary Schweitzer (famed North Carolina State University paleontologist who is noted as the person to bring to light soft tissue found in fossils allegedly tens or even hundreds of millions of years old) that I thought we could all agree on —God is awesome, and His creation praises His name and points us to Him (more or less). I like to find common ground if possible, and this was a pretty easy bridge to connect. But moving on in the same article found in Discover Magazine, Dr. Schweitzer says some things I fundamentally disagree with. Let’s take a look.
Some of this quote is from the article and not directly from the good doctor. But the article reads as follows: “Unlike many creationists, she finds the notion of a world evolving over billions of years theologically exhilarating: ‘That makes God a lot bigger than thinking of Him as a magician that pulled everything out in one fell swoop.’”
Although I’ve been criticized for thinking I know more about “science” than this professional who is an expert in her field, this article in Discover Magazine tells us up front here that this paleontologist’s opinion on theology is what we’re talking about. It says, “Unlike many creationists, she finds the notion of a world evolving over billions of years theologically exhilarating.” This is where the argument lies—in differences of opinion on theology and not on the “science,” if we’re going to be gracious enough to call it that.
Why someone would think that death and destruction over billions of years of struggle is theologically exhilarating is something I can’t connect with. To be fair, creationists understand that life can evolve. But we have to be careful to understand what “evolve” means; it means different things to different people and in different contexts. We all know organisms can adapt over time in many cases. We all understand that epigenetic changes, population isolation, genetic drift, and predominantly degenerative mutational changes can cause a population to be slightly different over large periods of time. This has nothing to do with universal common descent or evolution from a single common ancestor. So, I suppose, understanding that creationists understand and acknowledge that over time there can be slight genetic changes in a population means the theistic evolutionist doesn’t have a monopoly on the topic.
But since there isn’t a shred of evidence to show us that one kind of organism can mutate over time into a completely different type (for example, a multicellular glob of algae will never develop over time into tube worms or an anemone which will never evolve into a fish that will never evolve into some sort of walking/slithering fish on land that will become an amphibian or some other such nonsense), we don’t believe that. We know the Bible makes no mention of deep time or universal common descent beyond whatever God created during creation week being the common ancestor of that particular kind of organism. Later, whatever walked or flew off of the Ark was ancestral to all the various species of organism that are part of that kind. We’re getting in the weeds here. The point is that struggle and death over billions of years doesn’t sound “theologically exhilarating” to me at all. It sounds awful, and it has no support from the Bible in terms of how God brought life to earth.
They go on in this article to quote Dr. Schweitzer saying, “That makes God a lot bigger than thinking of Him as a magician that pulled everything out in one fell swoop.” Again, we’ll have to disagree here. First, no one claims “magic” is involved unless they’re trying to make their opponent look weak and foolish. That’s not what anyone says who wants to be taken seriously. God is not a magician. If Dr. Schweitzer believes anytime God moves supernaturally that this is Him being a magician, doesn’t that mean she lifts her nose to all miracles found in God’s Word or around the world since? The Resurrection would be some magical moment that the Great Magician pulled the wool over our eyes, right? We all know magicians are fake. We all know the magic we see on stages done by magicians are just illusions and slight of hand. Is that what God is? Does He just trick us all into believing He’s all powerful? I would hope she doesn’t believe this. I’m sure she doesn’t, but it’s the implication in her statements that lead me to this. We also don’t believe He “pulled everything out” all at once. It took Him 6 days, not because He needed the time but because that’s how He chose to create and so He could model the work week for us, among other things.
But what seems more awe-inspiring? That God sort of wound up the universe and is just sitting back watching as the it evolved and then life, without His creative hand, spontaneously just began? It slowly changed and diversified over billions of years, again without His input, to become all we see around us including humans—the apple of His eye and pinnacle of His creation. Or does it seem a little more impressive that God just spoke everything into existence, and it was? Which requires more power and wisdom? Which demands a God that is beyond all imagination? Which requires God at all? When I look at the awesome beauty in nature—especially the night sky but the amazing creation can be appreciated all around us at all times—I join with the Apostles in Acts 4:24 and say, “Sovereign Lord… You made the heavens and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.” He alone is worthy of that sort of praise, and He alone is capable of such unimaginable feats.
Dr. Schweitzer is saying she thinks billions of years of struggle and death is some elegant form of creation. I think it’s horrifying. She seems to believe that mutations, which are usually unnoticed but can often times create terrible developmental issues and put an organism into the bondage of some terrible disease or disorder, are “theologically exhilarating.” To be fair, I’m sure she didn’t think all that through when she made this statement, but it is what her statements logically lead us to.
Previously, we noted that Dr. Schweitzer had said, referring to seeing God in nature, “I see His compassion in the world around me.” How are billions of years of struggle and death with developmental issues and disease compassionate? This is logically inconsistent and theologically not in line with the Word of God at all. Again, I do not believe this is what she was thinking about when she made these statements, but it is the conclusion we must draw logically and necessarily from her comments.
In my estimation, not only is theistic evolution devoid of any support from Scripture (which is pretty important), but its implications about God are repulsive as well as unbacked by actual physical evidence. But in all this, the fact that the Bible has nothing to say about such processes is remarkable. To suggest universal common descent is in harmony with the Bible, and especially with Genesis, is laughable. It’s like saying after you read a Weight Watcher’s cookbook, you saw no conflict with that book and with using ice cream and large amounts of sugar in all your recipes. The two are obviously at odds with each other. How seriously would you take someone who suggested they are not?
We’ll continue to dissect Dr. Schweitzer’s discoveries and what she had to say about them next time. Thank you for reading.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
by Steve Risner
In 2005, a paleontologist from North Carolina State University found soft, flexible tissue in a Tyrannosaurus rex leg bone that was supposedly 68 million years old. Dr. Mary Schweitzer rocked the scientific world with this find, at first not believing it herself. This is because scientific research has shown that the degradation of soft organic matter is very quick, relatively speaking. In ideal conditions, it has been determined that soft tissue may last tens of thousands of years or, in extreme cases, maybe one hundred thousand years. This is not even close to 68 million years. But that’s not even the biggest deal in the story. Dr. Schweitzer also found soft tissue in fossils allegedly almost 200 million years old. Other have found soft tissue from tube worms that they believe are over 500 million years old! And we’re supposed to not think this creates an issue for deep time proponents?
I’ve been looking through things Dr. Schweitzer has said on the subject in interviews and the like. She seems like a very nice person and is a believer. In her interviews, she seems genuine and kind-hearted. She says that she grew up as a “conservative Christian” but turned to being a theistic evolutionist while in college. The story basically looks like she wasn’t prepared. Her parents didn’t talk to her about what the secular world was going to try to convince her of before she went to school. They probably should have. I hope to make sure my children are well prepared for whatever might be out there to challenge their faith. Not that I want my children to be brainwashed; of course, no one wants that. But I want them to know how to analyze data and how to look at arguments and be capable of seeing what the data might say and how those arguments may be either strong or weak and what they’re based on.
The previous thing we looked at that Dr. Schweitzer said was, “[God] is under no obligation to meet our expectations. He is bigger than that.” This is in response to her believing that God did not create in six days as His Word says but did so as fallen human beings have determined He must have—over eons of time. What I find ironic here is that this statement doesn’t really apply to Biblical creationists at all, or not much anyway, but it does apply to those who come to His Word believing that what the humanist origins myth says as they force it to fit their preconceived ideas. It’s bizarre, really, that she would try to apply this to people who read the Bible and believe God is big enough to do exactly what He said and that He’s capable of explaining it to us. Coming to the Bible believing things that are clearly contrary to it and then trying to force the Bible to be in line with those contrary teachings is exactly what it seems like she’s talking about. They force God to mean what they want Him to mean and say what they want Him to say. That’s not how Biblical interpretation works at all.
However, Dr. Schweitzer says some things I very much appreciate and agree with. Things like “God is so multidimensional,” she says. “I see a sense of humor. I see His compassion in the world around me. It makes me curious, because the creator is revealed in the creation.” I think this is beautiful and right on. I believe God is far more complex than most of us give Him credit for. In fact, I don’t think we can accurately understand His character and all His complexities. He’s way too big for a human brain to process. That God is revealed in His creation is awesome! Paul says in Romans 1:19-20, “What may be known of God is manifest in them for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” As previously discussed, this passage is a reminder to us that the fact that there is a Creator is clear to us all. There are many who are hostile toward God that reject Him and claim there is no evidence for His existence. They deny what we all know to be true.
Psalm 19 also beautifully explains God’s revelation in nature this way: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat.” This is another passage we recently looked at because someone informed me that this passage was either supportive of theistic evolution or difficult for Biblical creationists. Neither was true, but I was told this nonetheless. David, the writer of this psalm, was a great worshipper of the Lord and this psalm is a great reflection of that. Nature does reflect the greatness and character of God. But let’s not confuse the humanist origins myth and its version of how to interpret data with what nature is showing us.
Nature doesn’t say these fossils are millions of years old. Nature says these animals were alive once and are now dead. Nature says there is a detectable amount of certain radioisotopes within the fossils. What that means is completely up in the air. We don’t know if these findings necessarily indicate that a sample is millions of years old. All we know is if we apply a principle to the data, the fossil should be a certain age. But we have no idea if that principle, which cannot be calibrated or verified at all, is correct or not. So, nature doesn’t say life developed over millions of years from simple to more complex organisms. Nature doesn’t say fossils are millions of years old. Nature doesn’t say the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Nature tells us that a certain fossil was found in a certain layer in a certain area. What we gather beyond that is imagined by the observer; it’s not what nature tells us. The philosophical or religious beliefs of the person looking at it might say these things. This is not the same as nature saying them. Interpretation of the data is a big piece in this puzzle. But the greatest piece to the puzzle of origins is the Bible. A solid understanding of what it says on origins is critical in understanding anything we see in nature.
We’ll cover a little more next time. Thank you for reading. Keep the faith, my friends.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
by Steve Risner
Recently, we’ve been exploring some very interesting findings by Dr. Mary Schweitzer and several others since. Dr. Schweitzer is a Christian and a paleontologist. In interviews she’s done, she has said she started college as a “YEC” (which should be labeled a Biblical creationist rather than a young-earth creationist) but later chose to reject that and became, I believe, a theistic evolutionist. This means she is a Christian that does not believe what the Bible says about creation but accepts what the secular version of creation says—that a pinpoint of all matter and energy rapidly began expanding 14 billion years ago and out of it came all the things we see in the universe including life on earth.
What findings of hers are we so excited to read about? About 20 years ago, she published that she had found soft tissue in a Tyrannosaurus rex leg bone. This was remarkable because scientific studies have shown fairly conclusively that soft tissue might be able, under ideal conditions, to last a hundred thousand years or so but most likely much less. This Tyrannosaurus was allegedly 68 million years old. So, either the science that seemed fairly conclusive was off by nearly one thousand times or the leg bone of this dinosaur was not nearly 68 million years old. Later discoveries would mean the research on soft tissue breakdown was nearly ten thousand times off. That, or the fossils weren’t nearly as old as they believed. Unfortunately, when faced with a challenge brought by real science, evolutionists will often make up something out of thin air to explain the problem. That’s what has happened here.
Let’s continue to look at some of the things Dr. Schweitzer said about this topic. Last time we ended with this statement: “If you step back a little bit and let God be God, I don’t think there’s any contradiction at all between the Bible and what we see in nature. He is under no obligation to meet our expectations. He is bigger than that.”
As I stated, I think she’s right here. The Bible, which clearly teaches us that God made everything in a week in a mature form and He did this about 6000 or so years ago, and what we see in nature do not contradict each other. But when she says this, she means the Bible doesn’t say what it clearly says about creation. She means that her interpretation of the data, which coincides with the humanist origins myth, fits nicely with the Bible not saying God created everything maturely about 6000 years ago.
I find it interesting that she says that God is not obligated to meet our expectations when that is what evolutionists and Big Bang proponents do—they force God and His Word to squeeze into their tiny little box of human understanding. God is not obligated to do anything, but He is truthful and righteous. When He speaks, He speaks truth. The God of the Bible is unimaginably bigger than the god of theistic evolution. I agree with the prophet in Jeremiah 32:17 when he says, “Ah, Lord God! It is you who have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you.”
I believe God is big enough to create all that there is from nothing. They believe He took billions of years to figure out how to fashion the universe for life and that He had little if anything to do with life forming on earth. I find Him absolutely essential to the universe’s existence and for life to exist. They find Him to be a bystander—watching but not really doing much with it; He sort of wound up the universe like a watch and has just let it go to do its thing.
Dr. Schweitzer goes on to say in this interview: “Finding soft tissues that responded to our tests like modern materials in many ways suggested that after three hundred years of looking at this stuff, we don’t know as much as we thought.”
I like this and think it’s something lost on many today on both sides but more so on the side of deep time and universal common descent. What I’m talking about is our knowledge—what we actually know about any of this. It’s miniscule in reality. Sure, we know much more now than we did a decade ago or a century ago or 300 years ago. But I feel the comparison is like saying we had 4 drops of the ocean in a bucket and now we have a quart. Compared to the size of the ocean, while that quart is enormous compared to the first few drops, it’s nothing in reality. But man’s hubris makes him believe he’s gotten a lot figured out. Truly, we’ve figured some things out, at least partially. But in reality, we know so very little about the universe and about life and physics and chemistry. We know more all the time, but sometimes that means we know less—the old saying the more you learn the less you know applies here very well. We know so little about the universe that we employ a “fudge factor” into our calculations for things we see in deep space because without it, nothing adds up—literally. That “fudge factor” is dark matter and dark energy which, for the calculations to work, comprises over 95% of the universe! That’s right: we know about 5% of what’s going on out there, but we act like we’ve got it all figured out. Amazing, isn’t it?
Dr. Schweitzer then goes on, to finish this question of the interview, to say something that pains me to read. She said, “But I have no agenda, except to produce data.” This hurts because that’s not what she’s doing at all. Not even close. If she was just going to “produce data,” she wouldn’t be offended by people who interpret that data in a way that is different than hers. However, she is. A couple sentences before this she says, “…being a Christian evolutionary biologist…” We see that she does have an agenda, and she admits it while simultaneously saying she does not. Now, I’m okay with her having an agenda. All honest people will say they do in most cases. I have one. You do. We all do. But if she really thinks she’s just producing data with no agenda, it seems her understanding of how science works is a little lacking. Collecting data is one thing. Making that data tell a story is a completely different thing, and Dr. Schweitzer is apparently unaware of the difference. But this is extremely common in this discussion.
It’s almost ironic, I suppose, that some people in this debate will look at me and point at how I see the Scriptures telling us about creation and the Flood and they’ll say, “That’s just your interpretation!” Which is weird because my “interpretation” is exactly what the Biblical text actually says—literally. But then I’ll look at data, which is not a clear communication from a Divine Being but is just information collected and interpret it in way that makes sense and flows well but is contrary to their way of doing the same. While they scream “That’s your interpretation!” when it comes to a clear communication from God, they will simultaneously yell, “Liar! Stop lying!” when I choose to interpret the information differently than they do. It’s quite bizarre and a little silly, but it’s what they do around the clock.
We’ve gone over it a hundred times, but if we have a clear communication from the Lord and we have fallen man’s skewed interpretation of a cursed creation (keeping in mind that man has been at war with God since shortly after creation) and the two do not coincide, I’m going to have to choose to accept the clear written Word of God over a rebellious man’s view of nature which will likely change tomorrow after more information is gathered.
To wrap up this week, we’ll end with this statement from Dr. Schweitzer concerning how she felt about publishing her discovery. She waited a year to do so because she was “terrified” of the consequences. But she goes on to say, “…a scientist’s job is not to prove things but to question them.” While I agree that this should be true, we find even in her own experience that it is not. She questioned the status quo and received a great deal of backlash for it. And she’s not truly questioning the consensus because she forced her data to fit into the preconceived ideas that were popular at the time. Rather than really question the consensus and say, “Maybe these fossils aren’t as old as we all thought,” she said, “Hmm. This data doesn’t reflect what everyone else thinks, so I’ll have to create a rescuing device to find a solution to this problem.” The data was in stark contrast to the well-established scientific research that says soft tissue can last, if conditions are perfect, for maybe a hundred thousand years. This sample was believed to be 68 million years old. Other samples have been taken of soft tissue from finds believed to be 200 million years old and even 550 million years old. I feel like she didn’t really question much at all.
We’ll continue this saga next time. Thank you for reading.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
by Steve Risner
Last week, we introduced Dr. Mary Schweitzer and her discovery that gained her a great deal of notoriety. Some 20 years ago, Dr. Schweitzer had found very well-preserved soft tissue remnants in a Tyrannosaurus leg bone. She and many others of the day refused to believe it due to the common understanding and scientifically verified reality that soft tissue will degrade into an unrecognizable form in several thousand or, in ideal conditions, perhaps a few hundred thousand years. These fossils were believed to be 68 million years old. Since that time, Dr. Schweitzer has discovered more soft tissue remains in fossils that are allegedly nearly 200 million years old. Others have found similar things in tube worm fossils that are believed to be over 500 million years old. Studies have confirmed that soft tissue will generally break down over a relatively short period of time, so these findings shocked the scientific community.
As I stated last time, Dr. Schweitzer is a believer. I’m happy that she has found her Savior and believe her sincere desire is to serve Him. I just believe, when it comes to her beliefs on origins, that she is wrong. This belief comes from my knowledge of the Bible which clearly teaches what she believes on origins is incorrect. I’d like to delve into some interviews she’s done to explore more of what she thought about what she had found.
In an interview, Dr. Schweitzer spoke with Emily Ruppel. I quoted her in my last blog post and wanted to finish discussing that before we moved on to her next statement. She said, “I think the thing that surprised me most about that class was that I had no idea, coming from a conservative Christian background, that scientists are not all trying to disprove God in whatever way they can.” I thought it was strange she was insinuating that conservative Christians are ignorant about things related to science. Some are, of course. Many different groups of people have smaller subsets within their groups that are not versed on a variety of topics. But to suggest that it’s normal for conservative Christians to be in the dark about science is preposterous, especially when we consider many of the greatest minds science has ever known were Bible believing Christians. I wrote briefly on that in this blog post. It’s a common misconception.
I stated last time that I was prepared to hear the humanist origins myth when I went to school. I had read a variety of books on it, had teachers who loved to push it, and mused over it quite a lot. I tried to see if I could fit what I was being told in my college and doctorate level science courses (that were related in some way) with what I knew the Bible said. I tried for some time to do this. It doesn’t work. Anyone that tells you it does is fooling themselves and/or trying to fool you.
Immediately after the above statement in her interview, Dr. Schweitzer says, “What we were not told growing up is that there’s a lot of very rigorous, hard science that allows us to interpret the lives of organisms we’ve never seen—and knowing this made me rethink a few things, because I know God and God is not a deceiver.”
This is important for two reasons. The first reason is it goes back to exactly what I said earlier—that she wasn’t prepared. She admits she wasn’t told about how science works and what scientists do. Scripture tells us in Proverbs 22:6 and Ephesians 6:4 that we are to raise our children in the fear and knowledge of the Lord and when that child grows, he will not depart from the path he was set on. I think a proper education in this manner would include knowing what the world says and why it’s wrong. But the last thing she says is very important: “…I know God and God is not a deceiver.” This is profound and the implication is exactly the opposite she wants it to be.
God has clearly stated how and when He created in His Word. There could hardly be a more plainly given communication on the matter. Fallen man, who has been in rebellion against God since shortly after his creation, has invented a story based loosely on some data as he looks at a cursed creation. That story is told by many to replace the Creator—this is a fact. Many who adhere to the Big Bang and universal common descent do so because they want to explain existence without God. It’s the whole point for some of them! Far too many believers have decided it’s okay to follow these God-denying rebels down that path. They claim “God is not a deceiver” but fail to recognize that, while this is true, they make Him into a liar with their beliefs in the humanist origins myth. If I have to choose between accepting the clear teaching of the Bible on a topic or the ever-changing, currently popular story told by humans who know very little in reality, I’m going to choose the Word of God every time. How could you be a believer and not choose this way? Man is so arrogant to think he knows better than the Lord—the one who created it all. The hubris is astounding.
There is a long list of things where God says one thing and humans say another. I choose to believe God in those matters. The world says life is a just a chemical reaction and has no real meaning. God says humans are created in the image of God and He has a purpose for each of us. The world says a baby in the womb can be slaughtered up to the moment of birth; it’s just a glob of cells. God says He knew us before we developed in the womb and, again, humans are created special in His image. The world says do whatever you need to get ahead. God says don’t lie or cheat, and work hard. The world says men can have babies. God says that He created them male and female, and I find no other genders mentioned. The list goes on and on. I choose to accept and believe what God has told us rather than what humans have decided. Dr. Schweitzer was forced to choose between believing God Almighty and the creation narrative or believing humans and the humanist origins myth. I believe she chose poorly.
The good doctor goes on to say, “If you step back a little bit and let God be God, I don’t think there’s any contradiction at all between the Bible and what we see in nature. He is under no obligation to meet our expectations. He is bigger than that.”
How someone can read the Bible and say there is no contradiction between Genesis and universal common descent, I have no idea. I’ve been a student of the Bible my entire life. I’ve taken more science courses than I care to recall. I find the tale woven by evolutionists about abiogenesis and universal common descent has no place in the Word of God. There isn’t a single Scriptural reference to support it. Deep time is similar. There is a very clear timeline outlined in Scripture as to when God made Adam – day 6 of creation. Genesis says God called life out of the earth and seas and it was so—animals after their kind were there. There is no mention of universal common descent over eons of time.
A person who claims there is no contradiction between the Bible and universal common descent has no idea what they’re talking about, or they do know and are lying. No rational and honest person can read Genesis and make such a crazy claim. I don’t mean to be so harsh, but it’s preposterous to say such a thing. She’s right—there is nothing in nature that contradicts the Word of God. But the way humanists have chosen to interpret the data is in stark contrast to the Bible. We don’t see universal common descent in nature. We simply do not. We see life. We don’t see evolution (meaning universal common descent from single common ancestor). She’s swapped what we see—life coming from life and small changes taking place do to a variety of reasons—for what we’ve never seen either in real time or the fossil record—life slowly morphing from one type of organism into something different.
It's very common—far too common—for people to say “science” when they mean their interpretation of the data. Sometimes, I suppose, this works but in the case of universal common descent, it clearly does not. Universal common descent is something that cannot be confirmed and has never been observed either in real time or the fossil record. The common saying by evolutionists is, “Evolution (meaning universal common descent and not just change) happens too slowly for us to see here and now but too quickly for the fossil record to capture it.” If this isn’t special pleading, there is no such thing.
We’ll continue looking at Dr. Schweitzer’s findings and what she thinks about her discoveries and how others view them in our next blog post.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
by Steve Risner
I’d like to look at interviews done by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, the famed paleontologist who received notoriety when she published her observations that she had found soft tissue in dinosaur fossils. She was not the first person to find soft tissue, but she was the first one to receive a great deal of attention for doing so.
In 2005 (or 2004 depending on the source), Dr. Mary Schweitzer published work on how she looked inside a fractured thigh bone of a Tyrannosaurus rex and discovered soft tissue still inside. Now, to be fair, the tissue wasn’t wet and spongy at the time, but it was intact. This is how Discover Magazine describes it: “…Schweitzer gazed through a microscope in her laboratory at North Carolina State University and saw lifelike tissue that had no business inhabiting a fossilized dinosaur skeleton: fibrous matrix, stretchy like a wet scab on human skin; what appeared to be supple bone cells, their three-dimensional shapes intact; and translucent blood vessels that looked as if they could have come straight from an ostrich at the zoo.” This sample was dated by secular scientists to be about 68 million years old. Since then, Dr. Schweitzer has discovered soft tissue in samples alleged to be 145.5 to 199.6 million years old!
This created a variety of responses. Even Dr. Schweitzer’s initial response was one of denial. She said, in that same article in Discover about her first thoughts, “Uh-uh. This isn’t happening. This is just not happening.” Much of the world of paleontology rejected Dr. Schweitzer’s claims. This was because, in her own words, "If you take a blood sample and you stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week. So why would there be anything left in dinosaurs?" Soft tissue cannot remain after such long periods. Some scientists at the time rejected the find outright, saying she must have had contamination in the sample. Some said she rushed too quickly to get her findings published and should have taken more time. While she agreed she was in a hurry to get her findings out there, in response to this she said, “That's the saddest part about doing science in America: You are totally driven by what gets you funding.” This is all too true in the world of science today. Money and notoriety drive many scientists. Obviously, a research team needs funding to do their work, but a scientist working for money or to please a donor is less likely to be objective or to allow the facts to lead them wherever they may, in my opinion. Politics dictates truth for us, I guess. But the point is many rejected Dr. Schweitzer’s findings and some even called into question her credibility. But over time, it became undeniable. Others found similar things and, while being denounced initially, her findings have been confirmed by several other labs.
This is all very interesting in the origins debate because we know—actual science has demonstrated very well—that soft tissue cannot remain intact for even a million years, let alone tens or hundreds of millions of years. It could easily remain for the 4400 or so years since the Flood. But research published in Science and Antiqua both suggest that soft tissue—mostly collagen—can possibly survive intact for tens of thousands of years. They have even suggested it might last for a hundred thousand years, but it cannot survive for millions of years. Sixty-eight million is absurd and the almost 200 million years in one find is outrageous. Even more unbelievable is the discovery of soft, still flexible tube worms found in rock layers said to be over half a billion years old! That’s approaching the “laugh out loud” level of crazy, in my humble opinion. There are many other studies out there that confirm this. So, the publishing of this discovery was quite the thing.
A short list of other soft tissue discoveries since Dr. Schweitzer’s that cast doubt on the belief in deep time are: a 10 million year old frog that is still soft and has blood in its marrow, whole salamander muscle tissue that is allegedly 18 million years old, live bacteria from 30 million years, DNA nearly 30 million years old, pigment structures from 36 million years ago, lizard skin from 40 million years, hadrosaur nucleic acids and skin cells dated at 65 million years, mosasaur blood supposedly 67 million years old, connective tissue in a Triceratops dated at 68 million years, blood vessels in a hadrosaur believed to be 80 million years old, live bacteria in amber dated at 100 million years, skin pigment dated to 125 million years, amino acids in insects dated at 130 million years, squid ink thought to be 150 million years old, ichthyosaur skin dated to be 190 million years, live bacteria in salt 250 million years old, crinoid pigment believed to be 350 million years old, shrimp soft tissue dated to be 360 million years old, and finally tube worm chitin claimed to be 551 million years old. Research suggests these structures may be able to last for possibly hundreds of thousands of years under very good and consistent conditions. A million years would be a major stretch. We’re talking about 10 to 500 times that! You can probably see why the evolutionary believers made such a stink over her findings.
Dr. Schweitzer is a believer, and I appreciate this about her. I do find her beliefs on origins to be at odds with the written Word of God, but I cannot make any argument with her salvation. That is between her and the Lord, and I find no reason to doubt it. I think her beliefs on origins are incorrect simply because she makes claims that are clearly contradictory to the Bible—especially the Genesis narrative. I wanted to explore her stated beliefs on this and how she explains her findings. I also wanted to note how she disparages those who have taken her work and used it to support the Word of God. We disagree, but I don’t think this makes her a bad person. I don’t think this makes her a bad Christian. I don’t think this makes her a bad scientist. I just think she’s wrong on this issue. I base this on the clear teaching of the Bible. You don’t need to be a scientist to understand this. Many, including Dr. Schweitzer, mistakenly equate science with their interpretation of their findings. A discovery doesn’t come with all the facts and how it should be viewed. Scientific data and a person’s interpretation of that data are two very different things. I’ve written on that quite a lot. Long ago. And also here. And maybe here. I wrote several posts on that between 2014 and 2016 among other times.
So, while I believe it’s fair to say that Dr. Schweitzer seems to be a fine person and she holds sincere beliefs, some of those beliefs are not in accordance with the very plainly and clearly written Word of God. Let’s take a look at a couple of interviews she did trying to explain why her discoveries of soft tissue that should have long been rotted away are in line with deep time and universal common descent. She does not believe these findings support the Bible and, in fact, she thinks people who are using her work to support their belief in the Bible are being dishonest.
Dr. Schweitzer says she grew up in a conservative Christian home. When she took certain classes in college, she was blown away by the contrast between what she believed at the time and what she was taught in those classes. She said in a 2014 interviews, “I think the thing that surprised me most about that class was that I had no idea, coming from a conservative Christian background, that scientists are not all trying to disprove God in whatever way they can.” What surprises me the most about this statement is she believes that being a conservative Christian means you’re completely ignorant on things related to science. This is basically a slap in the face to Christians who have put their faith and hope in the Word of God, in my opinion.
I grew up in a conservative Christian home. While I tried to reconcile my belief in the Bible with what I was taught in college and graduate level biology courses, what they told me never struck me as surprising. I was prepared. Apparently, Dr. Schweitzer was not prepared. I believe it’s very important to raise our children to understand what the Bible says and how we should look at it to understand it while also making them aware of the ideas the world has that may challenge our understanding of God’s Word. She seems to not have been made aware of these challenges. This is not an accusation at all, but it does mean that while she believes her experience was the “normal” one, it clearly is not the only option. There are many conservative Christians who have viewed the evidence for universal common descent and deep time and find it unappealing and unconvincing. Many of those hold degrees in biology, physics, astronomy, and other related fields. Her error stems from being misinformed or uninformed and being impressed with the secularist’s version of origins—the humanist origins myth.
I’ve just scratched the surface on these interviews related to the earthquake of a discovery published by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, and I’m out of space for this blog post. We will get much further into this next time. Thank you for reading, and I appreciate any comments you may have. Until next time, be blessed.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
