CORR: Reposted from May 4, 2006May 4, 2006 at 12:00 am | Posted in Journal of Anti-Science meetings | Leave a comment
Only 13 people in total attended this meeting, and the great majority was there in defense of science. It would have been the same old, same old, but, along with my ally in anger over this madness, there was another PhD, a biology professor, there who provided me a massive amount of amusement.
Segments from a popular creationism/ID video, “A Question of Origins (1998),” was shown, followed by a video of Dr. Menton, and a video that was some sort of creationism/ID Animal Planet.
From this we were exposed to more factually inaccurate material that a bulk of the discussion revolved around, mixed in with Mark’s, the other PhD, argument that there is no conflict between science and religion. I felt he both very well supported and eloquently delivered his point.
Many of the arguments provided by the videos were something like, “Woodpeckers have a lot of cartilage in their skull, a sticky substance on their tongue that doesn’t stick to their beak, and a solvent for the sticky substance in their throat so they don’t swallow their tongue. How can evolutionists explain this by chance?” Etc, etc.
By chance is what I took most issue with. There are different types of chances. My argument was that chances subjected to physical forces are directed chances.
A lot of time and effort was spent trying to get the point across that what is being presented as valid textbook science (in order to argue against) is not. This was frustrating, and my ally walked out, only to come back at the end because he was apparently too angry to leave. I can sympathize.
A lot of this discussion about factual inaccuracies, which the presenters either denied or dismissed, revolved around a part of “A Question of Orgins” that I offered as an example. I tried to simply point out what is merely one of a vulgar amount of misrepresentations of science. The quote from the video is, “If birds came from reptiles, as evolutionists claim, then what mated with the first bird?”
This statement shows complete ignorance of how evolution works and only serves as a silly misrepresentation to argue against. It implies that a reptile gave birth to a bird that was all alone until another reptile gave birth to another bird. That’s ridiculous and not a textbook or accurate representation of evolution.
One of many scenarios that can occur, according to science, is that a reptile is born with a mutation that makes him different. If the mutation does not lead to its premature death, it reproduces and its offspring has this same difference, this mutation. This difference spreads throughout this group of reptiles as more offspring are born with this mutation through generations. So now, a population of this species is different than the rest of it (that is the population with these mutations), though still part of the parent species at this point and can still reproduce with the rest of the group. Then, just like before, another change occurs in this population, that again spreads. So now we have three populations of the same species in this group: parent reptiles, mutated reptiles, and mutated mutant reptiles. This happens over and over again, through generations of time, until one of these populations become so different from the rest that they can no longer produce viable offspring with the rest of the original species. So they are now their own species and reproduce amongst themselves. This change and spread and branching off occurs over and over again until a population of these original reptiles eventually become, gradually, what we know today as birds.
You can see how different the video’s representation of what the scientific community is saying, and what they are actually saying are profoundly different. Profoundly. Science does not support what A Question of Origins claims that it does.
Although I would like to recount what Mark said in the meeting, it’s probably not a good idea here. I would like to thank him for attending, and to assure him that even though it is a pain to see science butchered.
That’s pretty much it. There wasn’t a whole lot of progress made, because there wasn’t very many people there.
Hopefully the format of the next CORR meeting will be different.