CORR Recap: “Teaching Origins Objectively”

March 30, 2007 at 5:14 am | Posted in Journal of Anti-Science meetings | 7 Comments

This meeting was a joke. Only 10 people showed, including myself and a WSU faculty scientist that I recognized. Fitting for March, at the end there were only 4 including J. David Lehman, who is apparently taking a vacation from rescuing Mormons from their own religion.

The meeting consisted of the viewing of a 2 1/2 hour long John Calvert vehicle, “Teaching Origins Objectively.” The putrid propaganda piece focused on the mock trial the Kansas Board of Education held in 2005 as 23 “expert witnesses” tore apart a virtually undefended, though by no means abandoned, effigy of mainstream science. Notoriously, mainstream science had no witnesses because scientists who support evolutionary theory, which is pretty much all of them, boycotted. Attorney Pedro Irogonegary, who supported the boycott, was the only person at the trial that defended mainstream science. This subject was harped on during this 150-minute long brainwashing, which showed the testimony of the anti-science, Minority Report supporters. The Minority Report was the one adopted by the Kansas State School Board in 2005 that was supposed to allow for unqualified, stand-up comedy style, criticism of evolution in the classroom without the requirement that the criticisms have any backing of empirical evidence or strive for an explanation that is possible in the natural universe. As long as long it’s considered as “more adequate.”

The boycott makes sense to me. A scientific debate can only be achieved when only science is involved. Science demands that scientific methodology be used. Scientific methodology is designed to eliminate as much bias as possible, including any a priori convictions by the observers, the scientists. It was already apparent that the board had a majority that supported the Minority Report, a document that when read demonstrated that a clear a priori conviction by those in charge of the kangaroo court. Thus, scientific methodology would not be respected, in fact openly argued against in the hearings, so a scientific debate could not be achieved. The only valid choice for a scientist to make is to not attempt to hold a scientific debate in that venue. This also explains why I was the only pro-science person left at the end of the meeting, but I don’t go to these things under the delusion that a scientific debate is possible. I stomach these things to try to do what I can to help those of the innocent public to wander in. It’s hard sometimes. The WSU faculty scientist left in obvious, though kind and quiet, disgust.

I said at the beginning of this recap that this meeting was a joke. All of these meetings are jokes that I never find to be the least bit humorous. I thought that this might because I’m having trouble identifying the punchline, so at the conclusion of the video and a short prayer led by Dr. Paul Ackerman, who said beforehand, “I feel that any discussion that will happen will be informal so let’s put the meeting to a close,” I asked for it.

“What’s the goal?”

Ackerman looked puzzled at the question, and stretched for, freely associated, “It constitutes research on origins. Gives information that is not available here at the university. I think the views and statements of Calvert are sound.” And then he said something about the “fallacy of the suppression of evidence” that I couldn’t understand in the context that he provided. Then he said, “Why are you asking? You asking it is intimidating.”

I said, “Perhaps you feel intimidated because you feel guilty for showing it.”

He asked me what I meant and I said, “CORR is a Christian organization. Many good things are done by Christian organizations, such as helping the poor and otherwise unfortunate. You seem to be Hell bent on using this group to promote scientific illiteracy.”

He said, “All of the CORR meetings since… … …”

I helped him, “Since Dave left and you started presenting?”

He continued, “Right. They haven’t been about this.”

I asked, “Then why did you show the video?”

He said, “Because it’s now available.”

I began to walk out and Ackerman mentioned to something to me about the boycott. I said, “They boycotted because the court was shown to be biased. ” I pointed out the fact that the board members presiding over the meeting were the three biggest anti-science boobs available on the board.

He said that it was only that way because scientists boycotted the meeting. I said a simple reading a the Minority Report shows bias, and the fact that the hearings were even held showed that. I finished with, “Stop playing dumb. You’re better than that.”

On my way out Lehman was following close behind me. I held the door open for him. He asked me, “Are you still beholden to evolution?”

I said the only thing I felt he could understand and would feed his lack of maturity in understanding that science and religion are different things, “I pray to it every night.”

I couldn’t do much at this meeting. No new faces were there for very long. I have noticed I’m losing my diplomacy, and I can’t find a way to feel the least bit bad about that.

7 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. Diplomacy aside, you are still hero to all of us.

  2. I second that :D

  3. Hey, nice to see your blog is still active. I have asked my wife to look for posters for these at WSU, but she hasn’t seen any.

    Feel free to send me an email if you want some company to help prod these guys a little.

    Cheers.

  4. […] March 30, 2007 at 12:00 am | In Defending Science | This was originally posted here on March 30, 2007 at the “Defending Science, Scientists, and Non-Scientists” […]

  5. I think that the boycott was a little imature and that the evolution scientists should have came to blow the “anti-scientists” out of the water like they say they could. I do not think that “anti-scientists” is a proper term for these people. Just because they don’t agree on what people believe to be commonly accepted doesn’t mean they are anti-science. Think about Galileo and Copernicus, amazing scientists of their day, challenged the status quo, werent anti-scientists, rather the opposite. Let me tell you this, science grows by listining to people that might have some seemingly wackey ideas, and studying them out. This is how society and science grows, heck that is a basic idea of the scientific study, to listen to peoples knew(wacky or seemingly foolish) ideas and considering what they say, studying it out, rebuting. If we do not listen we limit our full potential as the world’s scientific community and prove arogant. By not showing up it showed the evolutionists to be more anti-science by not listening to and rebuting their ideas.

    • I absolutely agree with your sentiment, Kyle. I called them anti-science in regards that most of these presentations consisted of misrepresentations of what Thomas Kuhn referred to as ‘normal-science’ You take someone like Galileo for example, he certainly was an outsider but he at least did justice to the argument he was squashing. Also, after going in as deep as I did I learned that they had no interest in proving something scientifically, but invalidating the scientific method itself. This is Silkworm, by the way. I haven’t been here for awhile.

  6. I find it absolutely hilarious evolutionists fight tooth and nail NOT discuss in the class room the obvious appearance of design.

    Yes it looks and walks and talks just like a DUCK. but so what. we have pre-determined 150 years ago it was not a duck. even though it looks JUST like one, and we have plenty of quotes from famous evolutionists to prove it looks just like a DUCK.

    I feel like these guys are behind the curtain in the wizard of oz, and they keep saying “PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE GUY BEHIND THE CURTAIN”. look at what we have pre-determined what you should believe.

    Francis Crick- Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved

    Richard Dawkins- “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

    And

    “Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”

    SO even though biology is so complicated it appears to be designed for a purpose. so much so that we have to CONSTANTLY keep in mind what we see was not designed.

    But yet they are BOTH sure its not what it actually appears to be.

    Thats liberal logic for you


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: