Please note that links will take you directly to the source. AiG is not responsible for content on the news websites to which we refer.
If you believe the artist’s reconstruction, it’s yet another brick in the wall of evolution: a giant, proto-bird dinosaur, named Gigantoraptor erlianensis, that was described in this week’s issue of Nature.
One of the most frequently posited arguments for evolution is the supposed similarity of ape and human DNA. For instance, it seems that nearly any article about “human-like” chimpanzee behavior manages to squeeze in a mention of ninety-some percent similarity between chimp and human genomes.
Veterinarian-turned-paleontologist Cynthia Marshall Faux has a new hypothesis to explain the “often” awkward positions of fossilized dinosaurs. Faux and a colleague say brain damage and suffocation are likely culprits.
A study published in this week’s issue of the journal Nature supports the nearly two-decades-old idea that Mars hosted vast oceans more than two billion years ago.
5. Business 2.0: “Product design, nature’s way”
Many of us love spending time in awe of God’s creation—whether in a nature park or at a zoo. The Creator’s designs range from awesome to ingenious to puzzling (or often all three!). But while some of us merely enjoy observing, there are others who seek a different goal: imitation.
A recent article in Business 2.0 outlines a number of innovations that have been prompted by “Mother Nature.” Among mentions of numerous “biomimicry” projects are three featured designs:
- highly efficient impellers, pumps, and fans inspired by nautilus shells
- a compact DaimlerChrysler car based on the shape of the boxfish
- an ambient-light-powered electronic display that imitates butterfly wing reflectivity
Sadly, many out there can comfortably speak of design in nature, but only when the designer is a vague, anthropomorphized “Mother Nature,” not the omnipotent God who spoke all of creation into existence.
Of course, these are just a few of the latest products based on God’s incredible designs. But who gets the credit for coming up with nautilus shells, boxfish, and butterfly wings? The article’s first sentence says it all:
For all their skill and technological prowess, human engineers still can’t match Mother Nature’s best designs.
Sadly, many out there can comfortably speak of design in nature, but only when the designer is a vague, anthropomorphized “Mother Nature,” not the omnipotent God who spoke all of creation into existence. As Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator.”
It doesn’t sound like God will be receiving royalties (of any kind!) for His designs anytime soon.
Sunday’s Cincinnati Enquirer, one of the Creation Museum’s “hometown” papers, included an insightful and forthright Creation Museum write-up by Enquirer columnist Peter Bronson. The national media has been awash during the past month with various museum-related flotsam—ranging from the skeptical to the vulgar to the curious to the appreciative (and beyond)—and we have mentioned only a modicum of it.
Remember, if you see a news story that might merit some attention, let us know about it! And thanks to all of our readers who have submitted great news tips to us. If you didn’t catch last week’s News to Note, why not take a look at it now? See you next week!