Blue Jay Pigmentless Blue Trick

I have been thinking.

I am not a person given to thinking about evolution. I don’t see the use. But, I did think about thinking about evolution and special creation this week. I have wondered about how the world could have such a deceptive appearance of great age, if it is only 6000 years old. This difficulty for the special creationist stems from some special creationist insistence that one need only posit that God put the dinosaur bones in the earth. This obviously solves the problems of the appearance of age, but it adds a greater one, eg. God is a big fat liar.

The thing got me thinking about Blue Jays. Now for thousands of years the Blue Jay has been deceiving us simple folk by “pretending” to have blue pigment in its feathers. Or has it? It would seem that if we had tried to get blue pigment from those feathers 500 years ago, before we knew how light refracted into the blue spectrums, we would have thought the Blue Jay was deceiving us and was not actually blue at all. Ludicrous, eh? But obviously our lack of understanding has nothing to do with the Jays honesty.

Now suppose, just suppose that there is some third fact, some unknown reconciliation of evolution and special creation? What if, for example, we one day find that the universe was actually only two dimensional until, say 4000 BC at which time it became three dimensional in a process that none of us ever considered.

We think that either we must have special creation OR evolution. We must have either a universe that existed with the same essential physical rules as we have today that is 6000 years old or a universe that is billions of years old. But what if there is a third possibility?

Sadly, I haven’t the knowledge of physics to advance such a concept. I don’t even know if anyone else already has. I am just wondering, what if such a thing remains to be discovered, as the color of the Blue Jays plumage waited?

Just wondering.
As an aside I will share with you an idea that DuckDuckGoose’s Grandfather taught me. I don’t really buy it, but it shows how a third way can explain how two people in apposition can both be wrong, when they can’t both be right. I often tell people this theory so that they have a distraction and quit bothering me about the whole evolution/special creation debate.

In about 1900 a fellow wrote a book suggesting that the word “made” in the Genesis accounteof creation should better be translated “said”. That is, the account is not of how God made the world in 7 days but about how he spent 7 days telling moses about it. now the Hebrew word for “made” is the same word that is often translated “said”. The key to any word’s meaning is always it’s context.Interestingly German has the same meanings for a single word. I learned in German class that “Die Kuu mached moo.” is “The cow made or said moo” Mach means made or said, depending upon the context.

The point of the book (don’t quote me, I think it was “Creation Revealed in Six Days” by J.P. Wiseman) was that the Genesis passages say nothing at all about how long it took to create the world only about how long it took God to instruct Moses about it.

That is, on the first day God told Moses about how he created the world and maded light and darkness. On the second day God told Moses how He had made the land and the sea.

So, this third way of understanding what seems such a straightforward creation account shows how limited we are in how we look at such large issues.

Personally, I am 90% convinced that there is still a major puzzle piece missing that will show that the Darwinians (and their children) were 30% or more wrong, the special creationist are 30% or more wrong, and some new idea actually nails it.Only time will tell.

This is what I get for going to church and leaving him alone with the computer. He says yes, there’s a debate here. As follows:

Otherwise, mods feel free to move this to MPSIMS along with the others.

<< sigh >>

Well, I think we’d have to confess that it isn’t a logical impossibility, but I do think it’s terribly unlikely.

The OP seems to be based on an acceptance that creation science and evolution are equal opposites and that the reasons for people holding the views of either camp are equivalent in value and action; my experience (as one who has occupied positions on both sides of the fence) is that this is very far from being the truth.

The theory of evolution (and those who pursue it) does not need to invoke or invent special explanations to prop itself up when a large hole appears - such is the basis of the idea itself - the bits of evolutionary hypothesis that were not sustainable (because the evidence was lacking or contrary) have been discarded or modified in favour of hypotheses that provide a better ‘fit’ - creationism, on the other hand, frequently resorts to ‘Well, God must have just done a miracle’ - an explanation that must be accepted on faith, as there is no evidence.

I think it is essential to consider the possibility that one is wrong; fortunately, this consideration is built into the scientific method; one makes a hypothesis and then attempts to falsify it.

The way I see it, Darwinism represents the realization that Blue Jay feathers aren’t the result of a pigment, but of diffraction, while creationism is representativeof the belief that Blue Jay feather color is the result of pigment.

At first glance, and in the absence of any other information, the latter seems perfectly reasonable: blue feathers are colored blue, and life exists because God created it (per Genesis).

However, we have learned much since Genesis was written. We now know that diffraction, not pigment, produces the blue color, and we now know that evolution, not special creation, explains much of what we see regarding the structure and diversity of nature.

As for whether Darwin was right or wrong: we has both. The fundamentals fo his arguments put forth in The Origin of Species remain, while many of the details have changed, and much has been built upon this foundation that Darwin did not envision. He even allowed that much of what he wrote would likely be proven to be rubbish, but that the essence of his theories would stand.

Science is an ongoing process of discovery. So, yes, it is entirely possible that the theories of 100 years from now will differ significantly than those of today, just as those of today differ significantly from those of Darwin’s day, and even moreso from those of Moses’ day. But, it is doubtful that everything we know (or think we know) today will be tossed out completely and replaced with a third, completely new, possibility. The theories of tomorrow will be built upon the theories of today. Much as evolution itself operates…