I just got back from a 'creation science' lecture. I am disappointed, there is no other word for it. It was billed as a scientific look at 'creation science,' however it was merely 1 hour and 45 minutes of a hodgepodge of out of context quotes plus another 15 minutes of misrepresented, incorrect, outdated, or poor science. The idea that evolutionists are somehow purposely misleading the public (while still holding beliefs contrary to what they say) is ridiculous. I have never seen such twisting of words from great scientific minds like Dawkins, Crick, and Gould.
The science that was present was very old. The most recent experiment covered was 1980. Just plain sad. For those who are non-science people reading this, rarely does a scientist use material from almost 3 decades ago unless there is no other alternative and if they do use that information, it is backed up by more recent publications. [Normal scientists often have a cut off of 5 years old, serious scientists in vigorous fields have a cut off of approximately 2 years.] When questioned on his lack of recent research and blatant oversight of advances in genetics with the discovery of Hox genes, transposons, gene inversion, genetic transfer between chromosomes, and all of the other intro-level biology concepts....he had nothing to do but dance around.
The speaker had a PhD in Education, but was speaking as an authority on science as a geologist. If you are going to speak as an authority on a topic, it is vital that you have some sort of proper credentials. A doctorate in education is not the same as a doctorate in the sciences. The rigor is not the same as that found in science. True he did have memberships in several geological organizations, but it is completely valid to have membership in something and still not be accepted in the field.
The final nail in the coffin was that the science presented was completely false, and has been proven false as it has been used over and over by creationists yet they have not adapted their scientific arguments. The same faulty arguments on the bacterial flagellum, the peppered moth, and the lack of transitional forms was the only 'science' that the speaker could muster. When questioned on it, and proven incorrect with not only basic logic but also scientific studies....he merely skirted the topic as 'science mantra.' Sad, just sad. If you are going to claim proof of your position by scientific means, then use sound science.
There is far too many points that need to be covered here, so when I get a little more time to update this, I will add it on here. Time to go read a new science paper. :-)
