View Single Post
      06-28-2012, 01:32 PM   #73

Drives: M3
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sitting down, facing the keyboard

iTrader: (0)

A much more current example often still used is the incorrect "science says that bumblebees can't fly" argument, which then implies that since we've all seen a bumblebee fly, that there is much that science doesn't know, and can only be explained via supernatural means, a God of some sort. Some even take this further to suggest that this "proves" that science cant be trusted.

This is yet another example of how science improves over time, whereas scripture does not. The argument started back in the 1930's when a prominent German aerodynamicist, using what little was known at the time in that field, did some calculations and found that the lift generated by a bee's wing should not be enought to enable it to fly, given it's weight.

Hearing that, then seeing a bee actually fly does not mean that science is inherently unworthy of your consideration or "faith". It just means that the knowledge to fill in the blanks isn't fully developed yet. Of course, science thinks it's OK to leave some answers blank, or unknown, to be answered later. It does not abhor a vacuum to the point where it must fill in blank with the old stand by "it's the work of God".

In the 1930's, they only knew enough to apply very simplified linear treatment of oscillating aerofoils, which led to the whole "this shouldnt work" answer.
Today, our improved understanding of steady viscous fluid dynamics allows us to accurately model what is happening, and we can prove that their wings leverage vortex separation in every oscillation cycle, which actually increases the lift momentarily.

Nerd link:

There are things today we dont fully understand. I have absolute FAITH that as knowledge grows, someday all the things that appear supenatural in origin now, will have a valid explanation, just like the bee. In the meantime, it's perfectly OK to leave that answer blank; you dont need to fill it in with some other speculative, unprovable explanation.