‘Schweitzer’s Dangerous Discovery’
by David Catchpoole and
Jonathan Sarfati
Published: 19 July 2006 (GMT+10)
That’s the title of an article in Discover magazine1 about Dr Mary Schweitzer’s discoveries
of fresh dinosaur tissue (which we’ve earlier reported on—Dinosaur bone blood cells found, Creation 16(1):9,
1993; Sensational dinosaur blood report!
19(4):42; 1997; Dino soft tissue find,
27(4):7, 2005).
Why ‘dangerous’? A sub-heading (our emphasis in bold font) explains:
‘When this shy paleontologist found soft, fresh-looking tissue inside a T.
rex femur, she erased a line between past and present.
Then all hell broke loose.’
Science via AP (From www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/)
- The arrow points to a tissue fragment that is still elastic. It beggars belief
that elastic tissue like this could have lasted for 65 million years.
- Another instance of “fresh appearance” which similarly makes it hard
to believe in the “millions of years”.
- Regions of bone showing where the fibrous structure is still present, compared to
most fossil bones which lack this structure. But these bones are claimed to
be 65 million years old, yet they manage to retain this structure.
The ‘line’ referred to is the supposed 65 million years that dinosaurs
are reputed to have been extinct. The Discover article described how the
fresh dino tissue had ‘electrified’ creationists, ‘who interpret
Schweitzer’s findings as evidence that Earth is not nearly as old as scientists
claim. “I invite the reader to step back and contemplate the obvious,”
wrote Carl Wieland [CMI—Australia’s
Managing Director; his article
‘Still soft and stretchy’ prompted atheist-inspired criticism from long-age compromisers]
last year. “This discovery gives immensely powerful support to the proposition
that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly
fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most.”’
The Discover article went on to document the unwillingness of many in the
scientific community to believe the findings. Even to the point that Dr Schweitzer
‘was having a hard time’ trying to get her work published in scientific
journals.
‘I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said,
he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible,’ says Schweitzer. ‘I
wrote back and said, “Well, what data would convince you?” And he said,
“None.”’
‘If you take a blood sample, and you stick it on a shelf, you have nothing
recognizable in about a week,’ she says, adding, ‘So why would there
be anything left in dinosaurs?’
Schweitzer can understand why so many are skeptical. ‘If you take a blood
sample, and you stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week,’
she says, adding, ‘So why would there be anything left in dinosaurs?’
Why indeed? Unless of course they haven’t been extinct for millions of years,
and their remains were preserved quickly by an unusual event. Schweitzer says of
the moment she found dinosaur red blood cells in the 1990s: ‘I just got goose
bumps, because everyone knows these things don’t last for 65 million years.’
Smelly bones
Schweitzer recounts how, after that first discovery, she noticed that a T. rex
skeleton (from Hell Creek, Montana) had a distinctly cadaverous odour. When she
mentioned this to long-time paleontologist Jack Horner, he said ‘Oh yeah,
all Hell Creek bones smell.’
Astonishing, isn’t it? So ingrained is the notion among paleontologists that
dinosaur bones must be millions of years old that the ‘smell of death’
didn’t even register with them—despite the evidence being right under
their noses.
Evangelical Christian?
The article author wrote that Schweitzer is an ‘evangelical Christian’.1 However, he is only one of many non-Christians
to invoke a professing Christian as a ‘useful idiot’ to undermine the Christian faith.
It’s important to understand that both words, ‘evangelical’ and
‘Christian’, have definite meanings, but it’s rare for atheists
to use them honestly. For example, the great 20th-century physician-turned-preacher
Dr D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said that
an evangelical must (by definition) accept ‘creation, not evolution’,
‘the fact of the historical fall of the first man, and that it happened in
the way described in the third chapter of Genesis,’ and ‘assert the
fact of the flood.’ This is actually a corollary of the definition that evangelicals
accept the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture.
Schweitzer’s attitude to Scripture actually reflects a liberal, rather than
evangelical approach to the Bible.2
Rather than accept the biblical account of a rapid creation, she still believes
in millions of years, ‘That makes God a lot bigger than thinking of Him as
a magician that pulled everything out in one fell swoop.’ Schweitzer also
said, that her ‘faith’ (in what, we are not told) had deepened. ‘My
God has gotten so much bigger since I’ve been a scientist. He doesn’t
stay in boxes.’
However, such trite slogans are irrelevant. The important thing is what God said
He did, not what someone thinks ‘their’ ‘god’ could
have done! And the founders
of modern science, who believed that they were ‘thinking God’s
thoughts after Him’, didn’t deny His recorded thoughts.
And although Schweitzer says, ‘I see compassion in the world around me’,
we also see the Fall—including
in T. rex skeletons!
That is the insuperable difficulty of trying to marry Christianity and long ages.
Note that we don’t claim that one can’t be a
Christian and a long-ager. Many people are saved despite ‘blessed inconsistency’—there
is no hint in the Bible that the ability to hold mutually contrary thoughts in the
same skull is an unforgivable sin. See also:
The article also claims that Schweitzer has suffered ‘religious attacks’
from biblical creationists, although of course not demonstrating that there was
any ‘attack’. It is actually not the first time that Discover
has resorted to emotionalism as a substitute for argument—see Feduccia v Creationists.
Schweitzer says, ‘It rips my guts out’. [This seems to be saying: ‘Your
statement offends me, therefore it must be false’.]
‘These people are claiming to represent the Christ I love’ [though not
loved enough to believe what He said about a recent creation (Mark 10:4–9) and global Flood (Luke 17:26–27) and the inerrancy of Scripture (John 10:35).].
‘It’s no wonder that a lot of my colleagues are atheists’ [perhaps
it’s because there’s not much incentive to believe the Bible when professing
Christians don’t?].
‘You know, if the only picture of Christ I had was your attitude towards me,
I’d run [while deploring ‘Christian hatemail’ (if there was any
in this instance), it’s worth noting that the biblical Christ was hardly the
innocuous wimp he is often portrayed as being—note e.g. his use of the challenge–riposte method—or else no one would
likely have bothered to have Him crucified].
It is a shame that Dr Schweitzer is so entrapped in the billions-of-years paradigm
that she is unwilling to abandon it in the face of huge problems, both biblical
and scientific.
Related articles
Further reading
References
- Yeoman, B., Schweitzer’s Dangerous Discovery, Discover
27(4):37–41, 77, April 2006. Return to text
- Perhaps there is confusion arising from the fact that Schweitzer,
though American-born, is of Germanic heritage—because in Germany, the word
evangelische usually refers to any Protestant church, no matter how liberal.
Return to text
(Available in Finnish)
| Manna from heaven? Because this site and the information it contains is free, you might think so. However, lots of hard work went into producing it. Your gifts help to produce this ‘manna’ for others.  | | |
|
