Today, I happen to watch Ken Ham's response to that video. Ken Ham is the CEO of the infamous Answers in Genesis, a web site that promotes literal truth of the bible, like how Noah's Ark could hold two of every species of the earth. Of course Ken Hams' response was hilarious, and anyone with some knowledge on evolution, creationism, and Christianity could dismiss his arguments.
At the end of the video, he said that his organisation had some doctors who studied biology, and they also made video responses, too. He told me to watch those videos, and so did I. In the video, some people with "Ph. D." on biology related field criticized evolution. Are they real?
"humming bird ... all of its parts somehow came together by random purposeless change combined with natural selection which is nothing more than differential reproduction."I could not believe he had Ph. D. in cell biology. Sure, mutations are purposeless, they are just errors while copying DNA. But natural selection is something like the "purpose". By natural selection, good mutations prosper and harmful mutations perish. Why did he have to depreciate it with a strange term "differential reproduction"? Did you really do not understand what natural selection is? If there are millions of randomly shaped stones in a mountain, and you only select beautiful ones then brought them home, surely those stones are not designed by purposes but aren't they beautiful?
Why do the creationist keep saying "purpose"? What do they exactly mean by "purpose"? Animals and plants just exist and basically all they are good at is to exist by reproduction. What's wrong about that? If, like an invisible germ on your hand should have a purpose? As a byproduct of those phenomenon, some animals came to have bigger brains and now they can enjoy being alive by running, playing with brothers, eating/drinking, and some even, thinking of the universe.
Secondly, Dr. Georgia Purdom who got Ph. D. on molecular genetics from Ohio state university said,
"the complete lack of genetic mechanism that allows organisms to gain genetic information to go from simple to complex over time. "This is probably a creationists' mantra, because I saw a fabricated "Richard Dawkins busted" video, where a creationist asked him if he could tell her any method that genes could get new information and Dr. Dawkins seemed to be unable to answer it. Later I found that Dr. Dawkins immediately figured out that the interview was a creationism propaganda when he heard that question. Then the creationist edited the video so that he would look dumb. This kind of reminded me of The Simpsons episode, when the interview of Homer was edited so that he would look like sexually attacking the interviewer.
I am not a biologist but a just a commoner, but as far as I know, it is mutation that makes new information. It was so obvious, that I suspected what she meant might be something different. Maybe she meant some detailed, step-by-step mechanisms of genetic mutation? I think biologists probably know the answer, but let's suppose that it is unknown to scientists. We do know that mutations occur, because we see them with our eyes. Even if scientists still do not know the details, it does not mean it can't occur. That is as if saying Einstein did not discover relativity, because we do not know the step-by-step details how he got that idea.
And even if evolution is wrong because it cannot explain it, what answer do the creationism have? Oh, I know, "magic". The almighty supernatural invisible God just put those information into genes, effortlessly with his magical power. How the universe was created? Magic. How stars were formed? Magic... In fact, why do they even do science? Everything was done by God's magical power.
It is just marvelous, how a ridiculous bronze age book and a 2000-year old book could have made some people with apparently high intelligence look so dumb. These people deny all mutually supporting thousands of thousands of result of experiments and studies on tens of fields, and resort to that two old books for all the answers of reality.
Majority of scientists agree on evolution and the universe being 13 billion years old and the earth being 4.5 billion years old. Those scientists are very smart people, and most of them surely heard of the Jesus story. But they decided that real evidences and experiments were more convincing than the two books. Even if some people with degrees on science claim creationism, that cannot be authoritative. And, we should only teach children about science in science classes.