KellanStec

Recently, a campus group presented a creationist speaker. I thought it would be nice to have a voice of reason in the audience, so I decided to go along with some of my heathen friends. I compiled a list of questions, and even cited some sources from the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences.

I had never been to a creationist speaker before. I had watched some of the videos from Kent Hovind, and was never convinced. I had a struggle determining if they were serious about what they were saying. This speaker was not much different. His name is Brian Young, and he is the founder of the the Creation Instruction Association. I can’t find a video or anything, but trust me when I say he used most of the same tired creationist rhetoric–right down to T-Rex eating pumpkins nonsense. Just youtube Kent Hovind and you will find basically the same thing.

I will be going over some of his talking points in this series of posts, and replying to some of the things he said. I will also cover his responses to my questions, as well as pointing out things he said that are entirely untrue factually. Additionally, I will go over some of the things that were said to me after the presentation by a few of the attendees. I will start with some misconceptions he seems to have about evolution itself.

Mr. Young, at one point, said that “evolutionists” (why do they use this term?) believe not only that man had evolved to its complexity today, but a woman had also evolved alongside man, separately, as if they had nothing to do with each other before they started reproducing. I’m not sure if this is really what he meant or if I am incorrect in my understanding, but either way, what he said was wrong. It was either wrong because it is not factual (gender and sexual reproduction far pre-dates humanity according to the theory) or because it was misleading (he was preaching in front of an audience eager to nod their heads at his every word). Bad comment either way.

Another comment he made was that evolution is racist. He made the comment that “white people are more evolved than black people” and looked at the colored people in the audience, as if questioning them if they believe this. This is also completely false for both reasons mentioned above. Racism is the idea that certain races are “better” than others. The theory of evolution takes no position on “good” or “bad”. The only related claim it makes is that some adaptations are more beneficial. Now, the misunderstanding here is that, since the idea is that white men migrated out of Africa, they are somehow more evolved since their skin became lighter, thus, evolving. This is untrue. There is nothing inherently better in evolving, because the organism is only adapting to its environment. Better for the environment, yes, but there is no ideal formation here. Only different formations. Black, white, green, and purple skin are all equally evolved.

Another misconception was the constant referral to dinosaurs as reptiles. Note to creationists: do not do this. It is wrong (partially). The common perception of dinosaurs is scaly skin, and reptile-like. They, however, were not reptiles. Scientists classify animals based upon a lot more than outward appearance. Dinosaurs are in the same class as reptiles under the current taxonomy system based on skull and skeleton structure. and are technically considered Reptilia. However, so are birds. I wouldn’t call a bird a reptile any more than I would call a dinosaur one in the same context as Mr. Young’s comment.

One related misconception is that he seemed to think that evolution tells us that all dinosaurs evolved into birds. He made the audience laugh by envisioning a T-Rex turning into a chicken. Not many serious biologists will believe anything close to this. The idea is that only some of the dinosaurs evolved into birds. Again, this is not based on a superficial glance at either group. This is based on specific skeletal similarities and other features, such as behavioral habits.

Another misconception that he seemed to have, is that organism lose things that are not useful by choice. He used a tail example (again, with a comic on screen of a person opening a door with their tail) as reasoning we never should have lost our tail, because he would use it all the time if he had one. This is just silly. No organism (except perhaps for humans in the future) is able to choose which body parts to evolve. The theory of evolution says that there must have been some type of selective pressure to evolve without a tail. It is not based on how much our ancestors liked their tails.

Think of it this way: when our ancestors were not bipedal, they needed their tail for things since they couldn’t use their hands all of the time. Perhaps it was balancing in a tree or something. Once the primates moved from the trees, the primates were able to use their hands to carry things, and no longer needed their tails to support themselves in a tree. It also could be that they were incapable of supporting themselves in a tree due to weight–look at gorillas. I don’t know why the apes lost their tails, but there must have been some type of selective pressure against them. Saying “Hell, I’d use one if I had one” is a horrible argument, and represents a huge misunderstanding of how evolution works.

One thing that bothered me about these misconceptions is that the speaker was advertised as talking about creation and evolution in a fair manner. However, with so many misconceptions about evolution–even ones that have been used by creationists for years–leads me to believe he doesn’t know a whole lot about evolution or science in general.

This is all for the first posting. The second will cover the idea that demonstrating that since scientists are occasionally wrong, this leads us to believe that the Judeo-Christian creation story from the Bible is accurate.

Filed under: Science, Religion by kellanstec