Replies

In the case of the Sphinx, the Egyptologists' reaction was extremely defensive and they sought to dismiss the Geologists' findings, out-of-hand.

This happens. Let us remember the example of continental drift and plate tectonics, once routinely dismissed as pure silliness -- until the undersea evidence to support the idea was found. Sometimes, the great breakthroughs are like that. But usually the grand conjecture does not come ahead of the evidence. (In the case of continental drift, there was some initial evidence -- the suggestive shape of the continents.)

But far more numerous are the examples of misguided pseudo-science, powered by the mania of derranged cranks and kooks, who devise their grand schemes, and who bitterly complain that the world won't pay attention to them. To the uneducated, all of these may be incipient breakthroughs too. And even to the educated (but factually uninformed), what may at first glance seem silly may indeed be the start of a breakthrough. So it may be with the field of "Sphinxology," with which I am totally unfamiliar. A breakthrough may be coming, or it may never be more than the whacky fantasy of a minor cult. (Or a major one, like astrology.)

And how do we ever distinguish between genuine science and Bermuda-triangle, crop-circle, ancient-astronaut foolishness? Ultimately, the facts will prevail -- if they are persuasive. Often, these things take time, better instruments need to be developed, more data needs to be gathered, etc. There may be be some "silly belief" of today that will become scientific orthodoxy tomorrow. That is the hope of every basement inventor and attic theoretician. But the scientist must be primarily concerned with ideas that are supported by verifiable facts, not fanciful conjectures with no significant factual foundation. Evolution is an example of the former; ID of the latter. At least at this point.

Thanks for your post!

I don't know what "Sphinxology" is either, but since the term wasn't used in the articles that I read - it most likely is not related to the Geologists' findings.

You put Intelligent Design in the category of "fanciful conjectures with no significant factual foundation." I disagree.

IMHO, there already are many accepted facts which point in the ID direction but are dismissed out-of-hand. I believe your term was something like "retrospective astonishment."

The evolutionists have set the bar of proof higher for ID than for themselves; therefore, I suspect a compliant proof for ID would utterly shatter confidence in evolution when it should not. IMHO, the subject should have been the randomness element only. Just my two cents...

Re: Continental Drift. I knew a guy (plant fossil expert) who had drawn family trees of fossil plants on both sides of the South Atlantic. He did his work in the early 1950s before plate techtonics was a well-established theory. What he found was that very old trees consisted of identical species in both Africa and South America. Younger trees were consisted of slightly different species (though clearly descended from the older species) on both sides of the ocean. Even younger (still many millions of years old) trees were quite different. He attributed the split in the tree of trees as evidence for having Africa and South America joined, then later being separated. There is a clear cladistic bifurcation in the fossil record.

Of course, the problem with the splitting of Africa and South America (before plate techtonics) was in finding a mechanism.