Darwin Visits MWCC: Academic Apathy & Creationist Jibberish Abound
By: Cheyne Ordonio
Issue date: 3/1/10 Section: Opinion
Despite the student's run-on sentences, I tried to follow. I even had to rewind my recorder to reassure myself that he just threw in the law of thermal dynamics as an argument against Evolution. After much research, and without getting too technical, I've come to understand his point of view that the Universe, over time, descends into disorder. And he's right, to a point. The Universe will eventually dissipate into what scientists call the Big Rip, but that's billions of years from now. Furthermore, his point of view comes from intellectually dishonest quasi-science foolishness that is metaphor riddled and incorrectly applied to the Theory of Evolution. Not to mention, evolution is not a religion. It is an impartial explanation of the variety of life, developed by the scientific method, which is a set of principals used to arrive at an objective conclusion. Hence, no faith required.
I began to worry that the fake Darwin was ill prepared for this creationist ambush as the onslaught of tyrannical stupidity continued even as Darwin tried to answer the question.
"Genetics and evolution do not go hand in hand, they contradict each other, which is why evolution has never become a law but genetics has. Nuclear fission actually is what makes genetics a law," ranted the creationist student.
At this point I was lost. First of all, genetics is not a law; it is a discipline within the field of biology. Within the discipline of genetics there are many theories, but there is no law. Secondly, what does nuclear fission have to do with genetics? But I had no time to ask the student for clarification as he continued his shenanigans.
"Genetics doesn't agree with evolution, because genetics says that any changes or forms that occur are due to genetics, to genetic differences and variances. But that within that, there is a controlled change in difference, but the genes are the same, always stay the same. In other words, if a beak changes in size, that has to do with genetics, not an environmental change of adapting to your environment. So, isn't that arguable that evolution is about adaptation, but genetics is saying, 'No! It's not about adaptation, it's about genetics, or if there was a bird previously that had the larger beak…' It's arguable to say that genetics contradicts evolution."
I began to worry that the fake Darwin was ill prepared for this creationist ambush as the onslaught of tyrannical stupidity continued even as Darwin tried to answer the question.
"Genetics and evolution do not go hand in hand, they contradict each other, which is why evolution has never become a law but genetics has. Nuclear fission actually is what makes genetics a law," ranted the creationist student.
At this point I was lost. First of all, genetics is not a law; it is a discipline within the field of biology. Within the discipline of genetics there are many theories, but there is no law. Secondly, what does nuclear fission have to do with genetics? But I had no time to ask the student for clarification as he continued his shenanigans.
"Genetics doesn't agree with evolution, because genetics says that any changes or forms that occur are due to genetics, to genetic differences and variances. But that within that, there is a controlled change in difference, but the genes are the same, always stay the same. In other words, if a beak changes in size, that has to do with genetics, not an environmental change of adapting to your environment. So, isn't that arguable that evolution is about adaptation, but genetics is saying, 'No! It's not about adaptation, it's about genetics, or if there was a bird previously that had the larger beak…' It's arguable to say that genetics contradicts evolution."
Be the first to comment on this story