What Will the Creationists Do Next?
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 04. 2009
- Eugenie C. Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, Inc. explores how the failure of Intelligent Design to survive a legal test of its constitutionality led it to evolve new strategies which call for teaching the "strengths and weaknesses of evolution" or the "critical analysis of evolution" which are creationism in disguise. [4/2009] [Show ID: 16073]
Explore More Science & Technology on UCTV
(www.uctv.tv/science)
Science and technology continue to change our lives. University of California scientists are tackling the important questions like climate change, evolution, oceanography, neuroscience and the potential of stem cells.
UCTV is the broadcast and online media platform of the University of California, featuring programming from its ten campuses, three national labs and affiliated research institutions. UCTV explores a broad spectrum of subjects for a general audience, including science, health and medicine, public affairs, humanities, arts and music, business, education, and agriculture. Launched in January 2000, UCTV embraces the core missions of the University of California -- teaching, research, and public service - by providing quality, in-depth television far beyond the campus borders to inquisitive viewers around the world.
(www.uctv.tv)
If the religious want to have creationism taught in the science class to give "balance" to the information given to students then it should be ok for a Scientist to go to Church on Sunday and teach Evolution in the Sunday School Classes
Yogi Brown Oh, well then... you'll be required by law to be in attendance at Sunday School. WAIT... or read about it at home, then pass a test on it. :)
+terrypussypower I like Ken. I understand why you don't, but he gets my respect.
John Shaw
Oh, I understand perfectly well why he gets your "respect"!
+John Shaw Well, they do it outside of teh USA, constantly, Evolutionist even lead the most powerful church there is... the Catholics, they even have their own country, beat that if you can ;)
+Enric Martinez Good point. I'm not Catholic, and disagree with 90% of Catholicism, but your point is sadly well noted.
For me, not being an US-citizen, the fact that evolution vs creation is even worth a discussion is surreal.
In my country (and most of the world for that matter) no serious person would even as much as consider challenging evolution theory. Creationism is a joke and is treated as such in most modern societies. Even most religious people say that the bible, including the book Genesis, should be considered symbolic. It transmits a message but evidently is not to be taken literally. How on earth are religious extremists (read nutcases) powerful enough in the USA to keep this discussion on the table?!
If I am informed correctly there are states where creationism is taught in schools as one of the possibilities or 'the' option. It's ridiculous. No wonder the general opinion of the average American is that they are ignorant. Luckily there are people like Ms. Scott to balance out that image.
Ok, I posted it. Now I'm waiting for the tidal wave of reactions.
Luckily there's an ocean between me and these bible-fanatics or I might be burnt at the stakes for being a witch. ;-)
You're not a witch ... just a mystified person from a more enlightened culture.
Creationism and other Paleolithic superstitions are BIG business in the US. Religious entities do not pay any taxes, and donations to them are deductible on our income tax. There are massive financial benefits in American religion and there are many who exploit this however they can.
Virtually all of the creationist nutjobs here are conservative Republicans, who are generally bigoted idiots. They enjoy forcefully imparting their narrow-minded views on all of us via their money and its ability to purchase political connections. As you are probably aware, science and rational thought often play a distant second to big bucks. Too bad the electorate is too damn stupid to see through it all.
Thank you. That explication sadly makes sense. Especially the last sentence. "The electorate is too damn stupid to see through it all" I guess that's one of the reasons. It's convenient for politicians to convince a blind herd that what they are doing is a good idea. So they gain by keeping the public ignorant and religion is a way to achieve that.
Els Verwilgen Yes. Sadly too many Americans are so indoctrinated they go with the magical spook in the sky dunnit a few thousand years ago hypothesis and totally reject all the hard evidence suggesting otherwise.
Els Verwilgen Yet, there is zero evidence that random mutations and natural selection can produce the evolution of functional proteins, therefore you believe it based on blind faith. Lmfao ;)
Science: can and will do. religion: cannot and will never do.
+James Jordan Are you saying religion is do do?
***** Religion is no-no, wrapped in do do.
James Jordan It took you a year to think that one up?
***** Come on, I don't visit this site every day; besides your comment is not notable even to comment on. Try again, or better yet, don't.
Science explains how things work not why things work in the first place.
When in an hotel put a sticker on the Gideon
"This is just a belief it isn't a fact"
Americans take note: this debate could never take place in Europe. It would be seen as utterly preposterous and silly.
We have freedom of speech here, creationists groups are highly funded by right wing conservative donors. You will see the free access to information and the internet stamp out young earth creationism here in the USA.
Not true! It is ALREADY taking place in Europe, namely in schools with a high percentage of pupils with a muslim background. In fact, many teachers practice self-censorship and gloss over evolution for fear of "offending" the pupils' "culture"
As a 3rd generation atheist of Arab/Persian descent this INFURIATES me.
Lots of respect for Eugenie Scott.
Where do they get the science part of Creation Science?
@moonlightbateman Okay. I apologize for misquoting/misunderstanding your response. I DO try not to misrepresent other people when possible. Now, can you answer the question?
Thank you once again, Eugenie, for combining extended common sense (science) with an obvious love for the world (necessary for civilization to exist and prosper).
cheers from snowy Vienna, Scott
Flabbergasting for Eugenie to explain or she got a brain through unintelligent design. Darwinism is a form of atheistic creationism attributing nature with some miraculous creative power.
@@piertinence Evolution is a creative power. Not miraculous; just the power of trying out different things and saving the ones that work, over billions of years and gazillions of organisms.
Tell me this: how did God get intelligence, without being intelligently designed?
@@therealzilch As a a child I was told that if a planet would develop an environment propitious to life, life would then appear on it in its simplest form, and just as it did on earth, it would follow a never ending evolutionary journey that would culminate with the evolutionary creation of all kinds of new creatures. I used to not question the validity of such a belief system but later on, I came to realize that such a materialistic and naturalistic concept would have less than zero feasibility.
@@therealzilch Our mortality does that we could not conceive the nature of an eternal and omniscient creator being. You could not answer as to how obviously intelligently designed creatures could have been created through an unintelligently supported process. Atheist Dawkins came with the absurd idea that everything in the creation only came the illusion of design. A while ago, the Darwinist priest even coined the word designoid, which has not made its way to any recognized dictionary because there could be no definition for the wacky concept.
@@piertinence In other words, your personal incredulity about the effectiveness of evolution trumps science, and you admit that you simply accept the existence of a god as a given, not subject to investigation.
Tell me: how much have you researched the science? Have you ever found a fossil? How many hours have you spent in the classroom, the lab, the field, studying evolution? I'm guessing no and zero.
Thanks, UC Berkeley, for hosting the magnificent and dedicated Genie Scott for your Darwin Day lectures, and for making this video available to the public!
As many as 47% of all the people in the USA consider themselves to be "Evangelical born again Christians". There is no other country on Earth that has a significant, or even a countable, percentage of the population that subscribes to that worldview philosophy of life. The Evangelical movement began in the 1830's in the Southern United states in the "tent revival meetings" that became popular at that time. In many ways the Evangelical movement was a response to the Trancendentalism movement in the early 1800's that was championed by Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau. The movement was revitalized in the 1970's with the advent of the concept of being "born again." The term "born again Christian" did not exist before 1970.
@moonlightbateman Could you send me a link to the source for your prison claim? The only stats I could find on the subject are over a decade old and they say that atheists make up only 1% of the prison population in Great Britain. They DID, however, say that ~30% were "non-religious". Did you lump them in with atheists to bloat the number? Or do you have a more recent study? Non-religious doesn't mean atheist. It just means they don't follow any particular religion.
I think they'll create more imaginary deities to submit to.
The controversy between science and creationism would not be necessary if everyone could choose their way of seeing the world without indoctrination.
But children can't ! So this controversy is being argued for the kids and for people who can't choose freely.
It is not a problem of different thoughts only, it is the difference of peoples attitudes.
One are seeking the truth, others think they know the truth already.
@moonlightbateman : yes i read that you meant Atheist regimes. But do you have some examples for me (both old and recent). Because i don't really know which regimes you mean by atheist regimes. Some particular countries maybe ?
And do you think religious regimes are always so peaceful ?
Wow, what a good channel. Subscribed.
Euginie is a good woman! keep up the great work Mrs Scott
Oh come on people creationism is just the musings of the lazy mind. In order for creationism to be even considerable it must first have some basis in some fact and the ONLY 'fact' it has that might be construed a evidence of its reality is the fact that some believe it.
So let's can start the process of destroying this myth by simply asking the question of WHO did the creation? The answer is; It depends on who you deem to be YOUR creator.
At BEST, the answer is: They did.
Now start there and let's work this out to the ultimate of infinitive confusion or as I and a host of others like to call it, the Argument from Ignorance.
@moonlightbateman So.. No links to those statestics? Just a copy paste of something you wrote earlier? Im waiting here... :P
@FinallyTheNight Where was it you studied at?
What Will the Creationists Do Next? - Place an exhibit in the creationist museum showing a wax dummy of Donald Trump and saying it is proof that evolution does not exist.
You....You....devil! :)
You....You....doorknob!
Robert lmfao! :)
+Robert A dummy of a dummy.
Creationists like to point out facts. That would include on Trump. Like that in less than a year - with the vicious lying meanstream press, and most of the deep state Congress, coming after him day and night - we now have factories coming back in droves which is part of the reason we now have 2 million new jobs and counting. The astronomical Wall St. highs mean more security for people's retirement and pension plans. Black and Hispanic unemployment are at record lows. Black ownership is at record highs. Unemployment is the lowest in 17 years. We have energy independence like never before, so much that we are actually now exporting oil to others. You will probably get a tax cut, some have gotten bonuses already. Etc. etc.
The horrific Obama care program which fined you if you didn't buy it, and which raised insurance rates astronomically, was brilliantly and slickly virtually eliminated last month through ending its Individual Mandate. Now why didn't Obama do that for the American people instead of getting us into the worst debt ever, and the most UNaffordable health care ever, while letting Muslim immigrants and other illegal aliens flow in like crazy to be a drain on our economic system and take our citizens' jobs? And does anyone reeeealy think Clinton would have done any of the things Trump has accomplished?
And oh yeal,, find the smallest Post It you can. Then write one bit of legislation Dems have passed this year that has benefitted you in any way. Learn to tell your friends from your enemies.
As for more examples of fake news from the "elite"....
Let's look at what some scientists, who have worked in the realm of secular science, have had to say that disagrees with evolutionism.
We are told that beneficial mutations are an essential mechanism for evolution to occur, but H. J. Muller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on mutations, said....
.
"It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing -- good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad." H.J. Mueller, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11:331.
.
Now I hasten to add, that the next words in this quote from Muller are "Nevertheless it can be inferred...." He then goes on to to say that even though the actual experiments and evidence don't show mutations creating "evolution", still he believes it anyway! This is the totally typical approach in evolutionism. If you data doesn't match the theory - and it never does - you simply ignore it or replace it with a theory, with conjectures, with "inferences."
.
Ya gotta give a nod to evolution to get ahead in the politically correct, viciously self protective world where Neo Darwinism reigns.
.
Anyway, mutations are isolated, random, events that do not build on one another like Legos, and certainly have no ability to create totally new DNA as, for ex., would be needed to turn a leg into a wing.
.
As for natural selection, it does not lead to evolution, either. What does NS select from? What is already in the genome. It shuffles pre existing information or may cause a loss of information, not the new info you would need to turn a fin into, say, a foot. That is why no matter what it selects from in a fish or bird or lizard or bacteria or monkey or tree or flower you will still have a fish, bird, lizard, bacteria, etc.
.
But, if you can, give data - not just theories presented as facts in the conveniently invisible past - that a Life Form A turned into Life Form B as the result of NS. In other words show that a species in any genus went to the next level in the Animal Kingdom (ditto for plants) to become a new Family. There are trillions of life forms on this planet. We're told it happened in the unverifiable past, over and over and over.
.
Why don't we see any species in any genus transitioning to become a member of a new animal or plant family today?
.
If there is no evidence that any life form's descendants transitioned to become a different family than its ancestors, then there is no evidence for evolution. It's just that simple. But feel free to cite data revealing any such evidence if you can.
.
Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
"We cannot identify ancestors or 'missing links,' and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions."
.
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Nobel Prize winner Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100)
.
"The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do." (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)
.
"Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."
(Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)
.
On this webpage you can see Nobel Prize winning scientists, other secular scientists - including some world famous evolutionists - admitting there is no evidence for evolution. You can see them calling evolution a kind of religion, something that leads to "anti knowledge", etc. Notice how many of these secular scientists acknowledge evidence for a Creator.
freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1435562/posts
.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed shows the politics of Neo Darwinism which harasses and expels those in academia and the media who even hint that there MIGHT be evidence for a Creator.
czcams.com/video/4HErmp5Pzqw/video.html
.
As a former atheist and evolution believer, I once had no idea what was outside the box of what I had been told over and over since grade school
.
Anyone reading this: You are not an ape update. You were created in the very image and likeness of the Creator. He is your Father and loves you and wants you to know Him, and love Him too. Why trade in those fantastic truths for a bunch of mumbo jumbo pseudo science that even secular scientists can't get consensus on? Rhetorical Q.
Honestly, I think next we'll see something far more intricate than ID. With the ID movement, they were so sloppy that they literally just took the definition of Creationism and replaced the word "Creationism" with "Intelligent Design." They got burned for that pretty badly. They even pasted the word "design proponents" into "creationists" resulting in "cdesign proponentsists." Some refer to this as "the missing link between Intelligent Design and Creationism."
After all of these failings, I would expect them to distance themselves even more from Creationism and ID as well, so far as to not even claiming a deity even in the name - ID seems to indicate a designer. I see them as being even more ambiguous. Something more relating to some of their terms such as "irreducible complexity"
I found that their current strategy is to simply critique Science and in particular Evolution which is fine, but will they rely on false analogies, straw mans, dishonesty, false equivocation, reliance on ignorance, appeal to emotions and sometimes target those who can be easily impressed.
/watch?v=9D8AeiAamjY
I often find when I want a Creation "Science's" explanation on some obvious things like Dinosaurs not being alive today like modern species even though Noah collected them on to the Ark, I get non answers or silence which is evident to how hollow Creation "Science" is.
simple things I ask for those who believe in Creationism like why do men have belly buttons and nipples?. I then leave it for them to wonder about it.
Here, read what 'peter peterson' is doing: plus.google.com/_/notifications/emlink?emr=14313776771853578857&emid=CKjo5vryncACFc_yjAodYRsAiw&path=%2F113193177034674718206%2Fposts%2FQueJTjTPLy7&dt=1408402175055&ub=4
OrionEd can you summarize what Peter Peterson is saying. It's all pretty lengthy you tube comments
Duane Locsin
I know, right? Bottom line, as I can follow it, is that Evolution doesn't really fully explain how a species can be made from the environment. I think it's intentional misinformation with an agenda, but I'm not sure.
The crux is the fur color of some mice. Dark fur on the rock dwellers, light fur on the sand dwellers. He's contending that there would never have been way for the dark fur to survive long enough to start living on the rock.
He's denying that he is ID, but he's made a few statements about "chance" and "natural forces" being something that had to know what they were doing.
OrionEd so in other words he doesn't provide Creationist Science's explanation of species , but just looks for holes instead in Evolution.
If Creation Science is to be taken seriously at all, it will need to start proposing testable hypothesis, explanations and models of it's own and of course let it be peer reviewed by qualified relevant experts. instead of using political process, subverting public school Science classes and submitting their thesis on you tube.
@moonlightbateman I was talking to someone at work about our conversation and realized that maybe I should have worded the question differently. The question I was trying to ask was this: What about murder makes it immoral. We both agree that it's wrong but I'm wondering what makes it an immoral act in your eyes? Hopefully I rephrased the question correctly this time.
@moonlightbateman Sources please. Links to them preferably.
What do you believe, science facts or superstitious nonsense?
I believe in the cleansing Glory or the Great Poseidon! All praise be to Poseidon!
Chris Wirth
The great and only true God Poseidon thanks you for watery praise and blesses you with copious amounts of blessed seaweed..
Let all your puddles be small ones.
+Poseidon63 Pfft, these guys. . . I am the great lord Poseidon, and they know nothing of my work.
Mark Contini
Poseidon blesses you with for your watery wisdom and may you recieve the water wings of hope.
Oh, wait, I didn't see your name @ first. You devious damp deity you.
Greatest trick religion ever pulled, was convincing the world its a belief. Crazyalec
@Itchyback What does a "news" channel have to do with anything?
12 years later... creationists have become internet trolls. :-)
I was taught evolution in Catholic school! If only other religions could find a modus vivendi with science as the Catholics have. That's actually rather ironic looking at the long, sordid history of the Catholic Church. These days, however, they look remarkably progressive compared to many others in this regard. I guess the other religions have come out the other end of 1000 years of relentless erosion at the hands of scientific, social, and moral progress.
Teach the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
The Roman Catholic Church have been a curse to society for many centuries... from the Dark Ages, when it was hiding the light of God's Word from the commoners and persecuting Christians, and while being on the wrong side of God's Word when it comes to evolution. It's no wonder, the False Prophet will be the Roman Catholic pope.
Catholicism is not the beacon of light u think it is. I hope there r Catholics in heaven I really do but I just don't know I just don't know.
@moonlightbateman : what regimes are you talking about exactly ?
And what about the number of murders caused by religious regimes ?
@moonlightbateman : Ok, thanks, that is some concrete information. I will dig into it. But two things: The "If god is not, all is permissable", is that your own conclusion or is it a quote ? It sounds as if people who do not believe in god (as described by a religion) have no limits, values and so on. Is that what you meant to say with it ? Second: how do you see the USA in this picture ? Is that an atheist regime or a religious regime according to you ?
@moonlightbateman I still don't think you understand the question. I'm not asking where or when or how you became aware that murder is wrong; I'm asking what makes it wrong to you. Other than it being one of the Ten Commandments, what makes murder an immoral act. I really don't know how else to word the question.
@Agnostatic
But surely these models do not take into account things like how proteins fold and their biochemical properties and all that, do they?
@moonlightbateman Since you seem to agree with Penrose, do you agree also with the twist theory and the fact that in its further development it shows that there is no place for a god in the creation of the universe? (Stephen Hawkings)
@moonlightbateman I disagree with the statistical distributions used to do that calculation, since you claim that understand and agree on that, please explain what distributions were made, and if they can be applied to the rest of the physics.
You're doing great work Eugenie.
You shouldn't get hung up on the 'Rules of Language'. In fact, there are no hard and fast rules. Languages, like biological entities, evolve. 'Impact' is now commonly used as a transitive verb. Go with the flow. We'll understand what you mean.
@1011myname I am a retired G.I.- 20 years in the U.S.. Air Force- Iraq, Kuwait, England (Cold War) did you serve?
@stoicsquirrel I did answer you. You simply did not understand the answer, go back and read it again. Hope that helps...
@gupsphoo I really don't see how proving evolution could disprove creationism. Please explain your premise,
@moonlightbateman I really don't see how disproving Evolution could somehow prove Creationism. Please explain.
@moonlightbateman I asked why you feel murder is wrong. You said something about a "lawgiver" giving us the laws. Is God NOT the lawgiver you were talking about? I WAS paraphrasing, that is why I didn't use any quotes.
:D If the "strengths and weaknesses of evolution." and "critical analysis of evolution" are creationism in disguise, what does that say about the theory of evolution?
@moonlightbateman So you're saying that murder is wrong because a "lawgiver" gave us a law that says not to murder?
@dragonking700: I am REALLY interested to know what you think science is. Do tell.
@Agnostatic
I'm still not clear on what you're saying. It sounds like what you're saying is that stochastic algorithms that resemble evolutionary processes have been used in areas outside of biology and that's positive evidence for the truth of evolutionary theory. I think that's true, but it's only very weak evidence, because computers are not biological systems. There may be algorithms that model things purely in the abstract that might also provide positive evidence, but it's different.
@moonlightbateman ... so you can quote... any meaning of that?
I am not from US, and I was very surprised that creationism is tout in US schools. In our country evolution is tout in biology and creationism in religion lesson. Is this only happening in US?
@Agnostatic
The modeling that they can do of evolutionary processes doesn't describe the emergence of new features of organisms in a realistic way and the genetic algorithms are just an analogy to evolution - they don't describe actual biological evolution. The constant/Higgs field gap is not something that's directly related to high school instruction as far as I know.
Some specific things I'd like you to consider:
1. Many of these myths do not reference a global Flood, but only a flood that filled a village or a valley.
2. Many of these myths do not involve all life being wiped out. The Australian myth, for instance, has many creatures of all species surviving.
3. If all of these myths had a common source, we would expect to see an outward radiation, with the myths becoming more dissimilar as they moved away from the sourcepoint. We don't see that.
Agreed............creationism in the science classroom is a social/political strategy not a pursuit of scientific accuracy.
This video would have been better with better / louder sound.
@MarciahL Feel free to google search anything I posted, you will find it is all accurate and correct.
@moonlightbateman Wouldn't go both ways? If someone comes onto a video comment's page and starts bashing them about their lack of belief in a god; calling them amoral and misrepresenting what they believe or don't believe. Wouldn't that be the same thing? Or are you bashing others out of love?
@moonlightbateman Okay. 32 indicates Asburger syndrome. Your "source" doesn't say that they scored a 32 or higher.
@moonlightbateman You're deflecting. You aren't addressing the question I asked: Where do you get YOUR morals? The Bible?
@moonlightbateman Wait a minute. Are you saying it was "fringe BELIEVERS and monks(also believers)" or are you saying it was atheists? There not quite the same thing.
@MarciahL According to a recent study published in The American Journal of Psychiatry religious affiliation is associated with significantly lower levels of suicide compared to religiously unaffiliated people, atheists and agnostics. Source: Kanita Dervic, Maria A. Oquendo, Michael F. Grunebaum, Steve Ellis, Ainsley K. Burke, and J. John Mann. "Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt" (161:2303-2308, December 2004)
@moonlightbateman By the way. For your information, i'm not an atheist but agnostic Just thought you should know. Don't know what your opinion is about agnostic people ? Like to hear that as well.
@stoicsquirrel It could, depends on the context.
@moonlightbateman So which one are you talking about? Atheists or non-religious? At first you said atheist. Now you're switching it to include all non-religious. You need to pick one or the other.
@Mr88playmaker I happen to know how a CAD program works. Your comparison holds up to this point: complexity. DNA is complex, it does govern a cell, but how does it prove someone designed it?
I mean, a rock's composition and shape make it unique, but you won't say the river "designed" the sand it eroded from a mountain. And minerals in a single rock can be astonishingly complex by their arrangement (much more so than DNA, which basically has 4 base acids)
@MarciahL From "The Atheist Blogger" -March 2000 in English and Welsh prisons, 32% of inmates answered “no religion”. A year later in April the national census was answered by 92% of the UK population, and found that only 15.5% of people had “no religion”. The question about religion was optional and was answered by 92.7% of those asked, so if the remaining 7.3% were atheists who simply didn’t put a religion down, we can estimate that the number of atheists in the UK at the time was 15.5%
@Agnostatic
The genetic algorithms are more of an analogy to biological evolution. They may help researchers come up with ideas about how evolution works, but it's not same thing as actually explaining how something would evolve, like how the kidneys or the liver would evolve.
The first paper is from a philosopher in a philosophy journal, and basically amounts to the watchmaker argument. The second paper simply states that we don't know how it works, and until we do it will seem amazing. The third paper talks about how RNA wouldn't have been formed first, and that there had to be something before it. It then goes on and talks about how it could have happened. The last paper is just opinion. If you look at the citations, there are many papers attempting to rebut it.
The vast majority of Origins researchers have come to the conclusion that abiogenesis (the starting point of evolution) could not have come about by "mere chance" anymore. I think they used to teach that "chance" was the primary cause, but since chance is ruled out, and they are looking for an unknown factor to explain non-life to life, will a teacher be arrested for saying that intelligent design might have been a factor due to the extreme complexity required for life to spontaneously arise?
@moonlightbateman Do you think that "no-religion" equals no belief in a god?
all this trouble because certain people want to keep a fuzzy feeling in their heads...
@moonlightbateman PPS: I do not consider "Do as I say or I'll hurt you." a Moral. I consider a Moral what I think is right or wrong, based on how I would like to be treated.
My observations are that the movement is "Sciencing Up" in an attempt to proffer scientific validation to Biblical assertions. There is also a reframing of creationist/secular divides in terms of "World Views". This embrace of post-modern terminology is particularly interesting. There's a large buy in factor. Believers spend on media and conferences. Elements of the movement are becoming highly commercialized and profitable. YT's censorship of "Religiously Offensive" material is one result.
What "evidence" do the creationist offer? If it's the bible, then they have to also offer the Egyption Book of the Dead and any other theist document or myth, as being as valid as the bible.
@stoicsquirrel I didnt compile the stats I just reported them. My guess is that the statisticians did not see a need to differentiate in the definition of no religion. Nothing dishonest about that...
Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Biology, Harvard Medical School, "In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." Dr Skell wrote, "It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential."
@Lisztman88 Which ones?
@moonlightbateman The OCD thing was a joke. That aside, what does believing in something have to do with whether it exists or not?
@Agnostatic
The difference between what you're talking about and actuall biological evolution, is that actual biological evolution involves real genes and proteins and biological features whereas the "encode strings" that you're talking about don't. On the Higgs field thing, I think they should tell that students that it's not a very well worked-out sort of thing.
@alvinromanu actualy Steven hawking proved that it is theoretically possible to have something come out existence spontaneously. Read his final book. But your point is still valid!!!
@moonlightbateman Credible source.
"Theodore Beale is an American computer game designer, technology entrepreneur, and writer."
He is by no means qualified to make any statement about this.
@moonlightbateman You'll have to define "evil". Where you would say evil, I might say "harmful"' I don't need a collection of books to tell me what is harmful to us. Do you?
@moonlightbateman no problem, best of luck with your english language studies. You're obviously a bright lad, if you apply yourself your comprehension will improve in leaps and bounds.
43:47 that is no longer the case. The current address is ncse.com
Thanks for teaching me about the existence of the "immoral women" alternate theory to plate tectonics! I have always really enjoyed it when my teachers in school enlightened us with some historical perspective like that! :D 👍👍
Did you watch the whole video ? Have you attempted to understand how evolution works? I don't mean Kent Hovinds expanation. I mean really picking up a book and trying to understand what it's telling you. The concept is not that difficult. If you scroll down a bit, you will see I was even able to fit the basic premise in 500 characters.
@moonlightbateman It's the first chapter, "The Pride of Atheists", "sub" chapter "The High Church Atheists", seventh paragraph. I have a PDF copy so the page number may differ from yours but it's page 17. Here's the quote: "there were only 122 atheists, two-tenths of one percent of the 65,256 prison population, being held in English and Welsh jails in 2000".
Like I said, he tries to lump together "non-religious" with atheists to get his skewed numbers and hopes that nobody notices what he did.
Continued You are welcome to have them. We are happy to be rid of that rubbish
You know what I believe? I believe that the people who produced this video do not know how to properly set up a microphone!
I want to listen to what she has to say. But it sounds like she's talking from the bottom of a deep well, and I just give up.
Let me ask you this: what is the earliest documented record you can locate of the story of Fu Xi in which he survives the Flood with his three sons and daughters in a boat? If you can find one that dates back to before the 20th century, I will honestly be very surprised. The real myth is quite different.
StoneFredFlint:
Teaching strengths and weaknesses is not in and of itself a rationalization for messing with the concept of "theory". That's a different issue. Certainly one reason why creationists want to teach strengths and weaknesses is to get students to think about other explanations that are supernatural. But that doesn't mean it's wrong to teach weaknesses if the weaknesses are real weaknesses. That's just being honest. They should teach both the strengths and the weaknesses.
@mbevks
why
This is fascinating!! I'm really not sure if this is a wind-up or, if this is serious!?!
@moonlightbateman : Ok, so it's the numbers that really count here. Religious regimes with body counts less than 250 million are alright ? Where did you get this 250 million in the first place ? Can you give me a link to a reliable source. And do you also have proof for me that religious regimes have body counts less than 250 million, and if so, does this mean to you that the regime with the lowest body count is the best ?
@mbevks I guess you've never heard the term "historical science" then?
As a matter of fact, yes. In detail. From the time I was a very small child. My parents are cultural anthropologists; I, too, have a degree in cultural anthropology, with a focus on comparative mythology. As I said, I prefer not to speak with authority on topics I don't know well; this is a topic I know quite well.
@moonlightbateman as tangential as it might be, its funny you keep mentioning dentistry, it's actually my dad's profession. I've been fortunate enough to enjoy free dental care throughout my life and as a result my gnashers are in reasonably good nick. Thanks for your concern. Keep on trying with the comprehension thing, when you can define simple words like 'atheist' accurately you'll find there is much less conflict in your life.
@moonlightbateman Are you claiming that Atheists are more likely to suffer from Neurological disorders? I hardly think you have the grounds to suggest that. Not all Athiests are 'quarrelsome, socially challenged people with unpleasant personalities' and the articles you linked to we're hardly persuading when I first read them.
So I must disagree.
The school classroom is not the place to challenge an established theory. Established means there has been much corroborating, and cross checking evidence to support it, and no noteworthy examples of challenges from the people whose field it is. In universities challenging is important, but it must be informed.
@moonlightbateman In the context of our conversation.
The motivation for teaching strenghts and weaknesses may be creationism in disguise, but teaching strengths and weaknesses in and of itself is not creationism.
@moonlightbateman False dichotomy. Why do you think those are the only two choices. No, I'm not saying that I'm infallible. I'm saying that the Bible is NOT. If it was written by God, shouldn't it be infallible?
The proviso here is that the ideas must be competing. They must both be equally valid in the same context.
My comment should be read in in the context of "Creationism vs Evolution" for which there is no debate except in the minds of those who reject (or are willing to ignore) evidence as a basis for reasonable inquiry.
I'm not criticizing him, he's just not a biologist. He's a philosopher. I'm not questioning his work in those areas, but he can't comment on how abiogenesis is impossible (and in fact he doesn't) from the point of view of biology or chemistry. The requirements for a philosophy doctorate are significantly different from a biology or chemistry doctorate; and if it's a philosopher against a biologist on biology, it seems logical to side with the biologist.