The Devil in Dover and elsewhere: the personal side of the Creationism controversy
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 12. 2008
- Series: Year of Darwin
Richard Katskee is an attorney for Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Lauri Lebo is a journalist who covered the Dover, PA intelligent design trial. Sponsored by the Department of Religious Studies.
It's telling that those creationists wouldn't testify under oath because they knew they would have to lie.
+Poseidon63 it surprises me that they took the oath seriously enough to refuse to lie.
@Hollis Evon Ramsey It’s been a few years but I felt the need to answer this for anyone who looks at the comments.
It’s because they knew that they were going to lie and that the defense would be able to pick apart their lies. That would not only destroy their arguments in a court of law but would discredit them to the public and they would lose their jobs.
You realize how bad and pathetically dishonest the evangelical is by contrasting how they preach between intellectuals, your average first world person and when they preach as missionaries in Africa. To intellectuals, they postulate logical inferences and abuse logical fallacies to define the intellectual into a philosophical corner where the only choices are accepting their god or admitting to being an evil person. In the first world, they have to put up intellectual sounding arguments to the scientifically illiterate and emotionally vulnerable and wear a mask of tolerance and kindness in order to protect themselves from a secular government. When in Africa, most of the people never heard their arguments before due to a lack of infrastructure and lack of higher education. Once there, they remove the masks they must wear in first world countries to reveal what they truly are: Theocrats. Full on, dyed-in-the-wool, Theocrats as intolerant and vindictive and power hungry as their Islamic Wahhabist cousins. They outright lie to people and push their personal beliefs at a level they can’t do in the First World. And then they have native people pass laws against homosexuality and basic sexual education to gain power in those countries, turning them into the theocracies they wish they could create in the First World.
That’s why they won’t have an honest discussion or testify in a court of law. They believe their god and his commandments are of higher authority than any earthly government and anything they do in the service of it is not something bad. If it’s in the service of god, it’s worth it. If they testified, their plan would be revealed and the public would know about their plan even though that’s just what happened anyway. :P
So you're saying, they know intelligent design does not work and they say otherwise regardless?
Also what makes lying wrong, for anyone to lie, if God does not exist?
@@davidross5593 Society and we the people has deemed lying is wrong , not some imaginary god.
People who say life is too complex to have started without intelligent creation, are simply not intelligent enough to ever understand why they are wrong.
Well, to be fair, NOBODY really understands how life started. Biologists are getting closer, but it is a very knotty problem indeed. So while saying it couldn't have started without intelligent direction strikes me as fundamentally wrong, it's true that I couldn't PROVE it wrong.
@@NuisanceMan I understand how life probably started. Creationists like you assume that NOBODY is smarter than you are. You may be exactly who I was referring to in my post. If you were capable of understanding the chemistry of life, you might see what I do, and that would change everything you believe. The most ridiculous idea I have ever heard is the magician in the sky creating the universe.
@@timhallas4275 Absolutely. Millions of scientists who work with these things every day are tooootally wrong… I mean come on, the light from other stars disproves young earth creationism already. Just give it up xD
@@dryfox11 I think you responded to someone else, not me.
The kids ALWAYS had the OPTION to read "Of Pandas and People" along with plenty other fictional literature. Just doesn't need to be TAUGHT by our teacher to our children and passed off as a "possible" truth.
I actually recommend that science classes teach evolution and refer to *OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE* to demonstrate the critical thinking skills, observation, and analysis via the theory development and subsequent rigorous testing required by Science as opposed to the absence of those scientific procedures in favor of a baseless tale woven from desperation, fear, and hope known as *FAITH.* What better to educate students than by contrasting the opposing concepts?
IMO if they just changed it to 'stupid design' it would make a lot more sense. Excruciating childbirth, back problems, appendicitis, cancer, birth defects, propensity to tribalistic behavior, etc.
Try to catch up on the latest science on the complexity of the cell and then tell me it was an accident
@@phbaynes4237
False Dichotomy Fallacy.
@@phbaynes4237 Of course it wasn't an accident. Evolution needed approx. 3 billion years to get it done and to move on to multicellular life. ;-)
@@phbaynes4237 just because you think it's complex doesn't mean it was created by a person. Also why are you so hateful and biased against the concept of chance or "accidents"? It doesn't make sense to your ape brain so it's fake?
The idea that something being an accident and not having some kind of human centric meaning is a thing that humans do, it's not an objective thing. It makes you feel uncomfortable right? That everything is merely an accident and life has no higher meaning or purpose. What's the point of rabbits? Are they here to follow their rabbit messiah? What's the point of living if there is no higher purpose for rabbits to carry on. These rabbits need hope.
Thankyou, Katskee and Lebo are a hope for the future.
Why did the school district even allow Coach Borden to return after he'd already legally tendered his resignation ?
Why entertain his _'Oops sorry I didn't mean it',_ gambit when it was so obviously a transparent PR / legal maneuver ?
Why not just say _'Sorry, it's already been accepted, goodbye. [and please do not use us as a reference].'_
What a strange idea, asking god to rig a football game.
Reference?
Oh Lord, we beseech thee, do not like the other team, for they are pussies.
As a Brit, I an staggered that this is even necessary, but just hope that common sense prevails
J you would rather have Obama with his 1.8% GDP growth vs 3.2% Trump’s growth. Who is the asshole now.
Jack bassman thank God we don’t live in Britain and we got rid of them in 1802
CALOUST HAGOPIAN Obama inherited a trainwreck of an economy and rescued America from ruin, if you examine the actual statistics you will see that trump inherited an economy that was growing at a faster rate than it has under trump. Trump brags that he has turned the economy round are completely bogus, in fact he lies so much that nothing he says can be believed - NOTHING.
Jack bassman actually that’s not true because no matter who the president was the economy would have improved. The question was who would improve it at a faster pace; an incompetent charlatan who had never created a single job in his life or a competent business person who had. The result speaks for itself. Obama couldn’t go above 1.8% GDP when he had 8 years to do it, because liberals always demonize businesses who create jobs and enable people with no ambitions to thrive.
@@calousthagopian9662 if you're thinking that trump was a successful businessman just look at his multiple bankruptcies, bailed out by his rich father, his frauds ie trump university, trump steals, his pandering to the xtian right wing, pretending to be a devout xtian claiming he prays, claiming he reads the bible but when asked what his favourite part is, claims that's private and personal because he has no f%cling clue what it says. The slimy lard ball is a huge fraud.
Pity we can't hear the questions being asked in the Q&A part of the video.
I'm looking for God here, but I can't see her or him. Oh that's right, he only reveals himself to bronze age peasants either on lonely mountains or deserts, and it's always to one person; or he sends his son to be torchered. Oh and is it a coincidence that the commandments match what a typical Arab would think like at that time? What I mean is there is no commandment to say, "No incest," "No rape," "No Pedophilia," "No Genocide,(Malakites.) and "No Slavery." Oh come on, if there was a god do you not think he'd come up with a few of these? The testaments even encourage slavery and beating your wife.
Inspiring testemonies and people, thank you. 👏👏👏
If you want to beleive that your favorite deities are ultimately behind evolution then go ahead, but you can't deny the common ancestry of living things. You can also believe that other natural processes such as lightning, volcanism or the motions of the planets are part of some mysterious Divine Plan, but that doesn't mean you can deny what we know. How things work is what science is all about-- belief in divinities and spirits is a purely a personal matter. Science is not trying to put down your religion, and you are not defending your religion by attacking evolution.
"The person that has to stand up is you, thank you." Great stuff Katskee. Great video.
Important to remember that Intelligent design has convinced creationists that they can violate god's commandments and lie in God's name.
Michael Coslo Funny how they remind many of the Taliban et al in so many ways.
Michael Coslo As Martin Luther put it: "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossmuthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. 1.
No, not particularly, but.... what made you think I was "perfectly fine with religion based on lies"? Do you often totally deny what a person is saying? If you were to say, "Sorry - I read it wrong", that I understand, but you doubledown without explaining. Just amazing.
they use gods name in vain. what a pain.
this is a terrific story, just waiting for a creator to translate to film (video?). it would be a great humanist-themed adventure on several levels -- journalistic, legal, judicial, constitutional, educational, civil ...
only in religion is active, acquiescent ignorance sought, praised, rewarded, preached.
Well spoken Hollis.
Don't believe as new knowledge emerges which will disprove the current accepted 2005 yr Judgment when no coherent Intelligent Design Theory was available. Now the Courts will have a complete practical and theory- opposite of science. That is how I found Creator and that is why I can successfully challenge the learned Courts in light of new discoveries and evidence...
And it’s only preached like that to continue to indoctrinate children. Religion beats the test of time by forcing actual parents to think it’s a good idea to tell their 4 year old they’ll be going to hell if they don’t shut up and fit in. Everyone on that community must be so open minded *eyeroll*
@@dryfox11 I call it Early-Onset Indoctrination. Everything is based on hate, threats, and fear.
Now we can’t tell the difference between a woman and a man and girls are getting raped by boys with skirts on in the woman’s bathroom, and fentanyl is killing more young people every year than died in the entire Vietnam war. But that’s progress and sorry it took so long for everybody to get on the same page. The moral of the story is a story shouldn’t be told it needs morals.
I thought clammering and mutual reassurance is what religious people do in their little meetings. Why do you think religion relies on scripture, dogma, articles of faith, tradition, authority, discipline, hierarchy, rites, social pressure and proclaimed unity? Because if people were left to themselves in trying to find the answers to "spiritual" questions, people would each come up with different answers, and the influence and the power structure of a religious movement would collapse.
(continued) However, over time a natural process was found that explains this very well there are cells within the peddles and the stem that have a permaeable cell wall to moister in a way that when at night the moisture fills the cell walls and contract the cells thus closing the peddles and twisting the stem downward.
and when a heat source (sun in the morning) hit the plant it dries out the walls and they expand opening the peddles
(continued)
How come nobody ever has the debate on whether they should teach alchemy next to chemistry? There is just as much evidence for alchemy being scientifically viable as is creationism. And astrology should be taught right next to astronomy. If it was good enough for the Reagan's it should be good enough for their kids.
And they talk about protecting religious freedom, isn't that what churches are for?
Should not schools be protected from religion? Church is for religion class not school.
"cdesignproponentists".
Nothing more needs to be said. : )
BOB OVER Lying for Jesus sake has always been acceptable to them. It works so well that they just started lying about everything else. : )
Alan W As Martin Luther put it: "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossmuthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. 1.
puncheex2 Why not? It all B.S. anyway.
Sorry, but for me, and all who think that truth has intrinsic value, "for the sake of the good and Christian church" just doesn't cut it. Call it a whim.
+puncheex2 It bugs me too, Consider if Luther spoke with rigorous honesty:
"What harm would a white lie do, to protect the ones I love, if I lied boldly for their genuine well being? Such COULD leave me with a clear conscience."
Luther might have passed muster had he not endowed his principle with divine sanction. in THIS or similar forms of words, it has its own intrinsic value.
ie. 'White lies' are a universally accepted principle - the kind our species finds acceptable - but, ironically, instead of making it a universal to Man (and other species) Luther makes it parochial - to his God, and to his followers - who take it as license to discount those outside their club.
Theism is not just logically mangled, it's an Intellectual Property Thief, in essence.
If anyone in this room had never heard the details of the Dover case by this time, I would be shocked. How many came here to hear about the Devil in Dover?
That's the god of the gaps : since there is no explanation for something, then god did it. Good luck with that.
Does the separation of church and state also exclude religion being brought up in a negative sense?
What happens if the students raise intelligent design it in the classroom?
What about blasphemy in schools, shouldn't it be excluded from educational civic buildings on grounds that its introducing religion into education system?
+DonswatchingtheTube I don't think you understand religion & separation or were you just drunk? Religion can be taught in history class, or world culture class or English, Just not science, math, geology, or biology. As for blasphemy, it's a religious thing. It has nothing whatsoever to do with reality.
Marilyn Newman You didn't answer my questions.
Are you an authority on the truth?
A negative sense? That's a jaw-dropping understatement! Some Christian faiths (JW, SDA) want our government and their faith's to be one and the same.
When public speaking, dress for success. Wise words from an atheist. I d and creationism is a terrible embarrassment.
the foundation of science can be summed up in one statement, "Question authority"
How would that make a theists position of a biblical god scientific and the position of an atheist pseudo scientific?
jacopman wrote, "the foundation of science can be summed up in one statement, "Question authority."
The great physicist Richard Feynman agreed:
*_"Learn from science that you must doubt the experts._*_ As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: _*_Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts._*_ When someone says science teaches such and such, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach it; experience teaches it. If they say to you science has shown such and such, you might ask, "How does science show it-how did the scientists find out-how, what, where?"* [Richard P. Feynman, "The Pleasure Of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works Of Richard Feynman." Perseus Publishing, 1999, p.187]_
Galileo learned the hard way that if you question the pet ideology (e.g., the "consensus") of the science establishment there can be severe consequences. Nothing has changed. If you question Darwinism you will be mocked, black-listed, and even lose your career (many have.) You can also be hauled in front of a federal judge (who knows nothing about science) and be charged with the bogus "separation of church and state" doctrine (which replaced the "free exercise of religion" clause that was usurped from the people by the SCOTUS about 75 years ago.) Then you are at the mercy of an ignorant judge and slick lawyers, with your only hope being your lawyers are slicker than your accusers' lawyers and the judge is not a prima donna, like Jones, who was more interested in gaining celebrity status than justice.
jacopman wrote, "How would that make a theists position of a biblical god scientific and the position of an atheist pseudo scientific?"
Science is science. For example, until the early 20th century non-theistic (and some theistic) scientists believed the universe was static (i.e., no beginning and no end.) On the other hand, Bible-believing scientists believed the universe had a beginning based on what was written about 3400 years ago:
_"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." -- Gen 1:1 KJV_
Then scientists discovered the observable data pointed to our universe having a beginning. Devout atheists were puzzled, dismayed, and even angry at the theistic implications.
Devout atheist and brilliant physicist Fred Hoyle mocked the new discovery as "The Big Bang," a name which stuck. Later, after some of his own research, Hoyle threw in the towel and embraced theism:
_"Dare I suggest cosmic biology? I don't know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognise that _*_the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the Earth._*_ Astronomers will have a little difficulty at understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. _*_The "others" are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles._*_ They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles, (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). _*_This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles. ..."_*
_"[I]magine 10^50 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. _*_The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order."_*
[Hoyle, Fred, "The Big Bang of Astronomy." New Scientist, Vol.92, No.1280, Nov 19, 1981, pp.526-527]
I really liked the last sentence, which ended, "nonsense of a high order." LOL!
Dan
@@BibleResearchTools “Man finding god is like a blind person in an empty box, searching for a cat that isn’t there, and they manage to find it.”
Nonesense of the highest order.
@ironbridge3689 wrote, @BibleResearchTools “Man finding god is like a blind person in an empty box, searching for a cat that isn’t there, and they manage to find it.” Nonesense of the highest order."
How do you suppose the universe came into existence, or the universe was finely-tuned for life on earth, or the mind-boggling complexity of life itself came into existence? Magic? Dumb luck?
If God is interested in you, you will not have to find him. He will find you:
_"I am found of them that sought me not:" -- Isa 65:1 KJV_
Dan
"At no point was the Dover School Board trying to eliminate the teaching of evolution."
Actually, one of the reasons they fell flat on their faces was because the prosecution was able to present substantial evidence that Bill Buckingham was pushing for exactly that--or, at the least, for equal time for Creationism.
@vechorik Freedom of speech does not factor into science curricullums. Science classes should teach the most accurate theories in their respective fields, as well as discuss current research and up-coming projects.
But I agree, churches should have to pay taxes just like everyone else. If they do charity, they can do deductions just like any other charity organization has to do
Interestingly, the five point star on US aircraft is identical to the Wiccan five-point star- except one is coloured in, one is outline.
They're both five-point stars though.
What's your point, if have one?
Assuming a Creator is an a priori fallacy.
'Primary deductions' is an a priori fallacy.
When you start by assuming first, there is God, of course you find God wherever there is a gap in your knowledge.
Theists are simply too afraid to say "I don't have an answer."
The MUST have one, so they make one up, and say its true without any need for evidence or explanation...
But your God of the Gap is doomed to eternal dwelling in darkness, in a shrinking circle not covered by the firelight.
Looking at the date of this, roughly 10 years ago. The problems of today where we watch the hearings of Jan 6, 2022 began back there. The aim is for some is always power, not belief. Misunderstanding the Bible begins with misunderstanding metaphor and symbolism.
Not even, but you have to read Genesis a couple of times to figure out what it really is. ;-)
I had no idea when I started watching this how interesting it would be. Church-state separation is important. I get the impression that Americans often undervalue it.
I live in a country where the head of the state is the head of the church. We have a LOT of religious privilege in favour of one religion, even to the point where UNELECTED MEN of the state religion are allowed to interfere in the legislative process. And that in a modern Western democracy.
There is truth in that statement, some Americans don't value it, or they don't really even consider it much. On the other hand we have a small vocal fundamentalist population that is always working to remove that separation and move toward a theocracy.
This last round came about as creation scientists were able to do a lot of good PR for the intelligent design concept and got a lot of churches behind it. Now that it has been so thoroughly rejected as having nothing to do with science it'll die down until the next round a few years from now. There could still be a few more good court cases coming from this ID round of creationism, but its pretty much run its course now.
Do like America should do, outlaw it and put politicians in jail where they belong for taking bribes from religious cult leaders. Indeed, they really should be buttfucked by inmates in prison for such crimes and in our case treason. Good luck.
The constitution does not make exceptions for unpopular religions. If Wiccans truly did wicked things, the law is sufficient.
Agreed. Can there be *any* doubt Patrick's heart was in the right place, wherever it chose to reside? The Golden Rule, and that famous verse: No greater love can a person have than to lay down his / her life for another. (Ironically, from the Christian Bible.)
It is interesting that the Discovery Institute decided, in the middle of the defense case, to pull out their four main witnesses, leaving Behe and Minnock to hold the bag. There was a "difference of opinion as to how to conduct the case" between the DI and the law firm. It was an echo of the earlier supreme court case, McClean vs Arkansas, in which the ICR, leading the creationists, decided to pull out their two primary witnesses, Dean H. Kenyon and a computer programmer from Los Angeles, sending them home before they could be deposed by the court.
+puncheex2 Very interesting. I wonder if DI wanted to lie, (lie more than they did) and the lawyers told them they would not not go along and would quit.
I think it more likely was that the Moore Institute was trying to protect their clients, and the DI was willing to throw them to the dogs if it improved ID's appeal to the public.
That isn't what happened.
1:19:52 and those sentiments eventually drove to the situation we're now
Darwin hinted at intelligent design in his book. However, I don't think what you said indicates intelligent design.
I wonder if the team won that night without the coach
No, because God was against them. He leadeth them not unto the end zone, for they are sinners.
amazing
We will all have to stand before "the God of Christianity" one day and it is not going to be a pretty sight. I am far from perfect but even I can see that this is not about separation of Church and State, it is about attacking the Truth.
Prove it?
+Paul Barthmaier "Why so quick with the adverb? How is it obvious? You realize that the 'Present Day' the author of your quote was referring to was the post-WWII era. Having said that, I figured you'd be well aware of the meanings, but what I'm saying is that by playing your game, you lose credibility. For example, in a sentence where you want to characterize the 'true atheist,' it seems fair to assume you haven't a clue about what a true atheist is, if you think they are religious. My advice is ..."
My point is that even the anti-religious have religious beliefs that help guide their life.
School should be promoting HIGHER education. Instead they promote ignorance by upholding the view that fairies exist and said fairies intervene in human affairs.
A fish with feet is a fairy tale, therefore it is a perfect symbol for evolutionism. There is a glut of billions of fossils on the planet, billions of just one species of nautilus alone in the Grand Canyon alone. The great majority of them are marine. There are no fish with feet in the rocks or in the present world. (No, mudskippers and walking catfish are 100% fish with 100% fins used in an unusual way, just as flying fish use their fins in an unusual way - and are not turning into birds.) All we ever see are 100% fish and 100% tetrapods/four legged animals.
The only "transition" held up for being between fish and tetrapods is Tiktaalik. We are told it was found in just the right place to be a transition. Buuuuuut....it's an extinct lobe finned fiiiiish. Check it out on Wiki. It's a fish. A fish cannot be a transition to something else except another fish. We see the usual logical fallacies evolutionism is based on. We are told Tik has "characteristics" of tetrapods. Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy. Saying you know what happened to it's invisible descendants for 100 million Darwin years? Presuming Omniscience, magic crystal ball, logical fallacy. The "similar homology" characteristics are minimal, to say the least. Go to YT and see a Coelacanth swimming around. It is a lobe finned fish. Does it look like it is sprouting legs or learning to breath air? And btw peer reviews once hailed Coelacanth a transition to tetrapods, too. They used the same logical fallacies. Then some live ones were found. Again, does it look like it is transitioning into anything at all?
Yes, your symbol is perfect for evolutionism because in pseudo science we are not just told to believe in the theoretical as if it is gawd's truth fact, we are told to do so when the evidence absolutely shows it is NOT true.
But if you can find a fish fossil that is sprouting feet, or even a toe, do include a link. Real science uses real data.
Maybe it's not true that you ain't much, just a fish update. Maybe you have a Heavenly Father Who loves you and wants you to know and love Him, too.
Agreed. I did not mean to make the idea seem like the Bible is the only source, and for that I apologize. I just find it ironic.
The bible is full of shit 😂😂
Benjamin Franklin "Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." I understand the fear of opposing violent religious fanatics and other thugs, but the penalty of giving way is not the lesser of two evils.
"that would be silly"
Actually, if you look into Quantum Physics, you'll find that things can in fact spontaneously come into existence. In essence, "coming from nothing".
It goes against everything we (as average citizens) think we know about the world around us, but it happens. Just another nail in the creationist coffin, I suppose.
Just a no evidence claim
That’s absurd to the extreme. As a Masters in Biological Science I can fully attest you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Life Can only come from life. Your science fiction is hilarious.
But beyond tragically sad for you.
And what’s really interesting..you’re clueless as to why.
This evil group wants their religion taught and no other.
Fake Science to persecute anyone who disagrees with them.
@@billbrasky12
Shame on you for calling yourself a scientist.
Quantum foam doesn't have much to do with abiogenesis.
No argument there. She totally pegs the needle on the baberometer.
Get the video Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial". You can actually watch it on CZcams or Hulu for free. Mr Katskee at the beginning misrepresent the case. At no point was the Dover School Board trying to eliminate the teaching of evolution. They simply want a short statement mentioned at the start of the 9th grade sicence class about Intelligent Design and the OPTION of reading Of Pandas and People. It was not required reading.
Watch the video "Judgement Day" to see the real story.
Getting that statement, mandatorially presented, WHEN CREATIONISM WAS ALREADY DEEMED NOT ALLOWED to be taught.....and ID was proven to be just replacing "creationism/creation/creator....with Intelligent design/design/designer
So.... UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The courts, having been presented with the evidence from both sides, and having examined witnesses at length, disagree with your personal opinion.
In essence - supplanting one religion for another. Good for you.
Incorrect.
There is no religion in the science of evolution.
There is a persistent lie perpetrated by the liar communities of ID and YEC on this subject.
But it remains utter untruth.
> SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE couldn't sustain itself eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system).
SO what? Who is saying the Universe is infinitely old? And Entropy (by way of the second law) only applies to CLOSED systems.
Until God decides to reveal to masses rather than a very few select people. We have only to work within the natural universe. Besides, why would any divine entity demand that we do not use our senses?
That's not very logical. God has already made his existence know, just look around.
***** What did you gain by that insult?
No that was an ad hominem bro. You didn't attack the argument you attacked the person. I don't know what it is with you atheist. You guys get so ANGRY when someone doesn't hold the same view as you do. Why must everyone be an atheist? Religious people have reasons to lovingly want people to convert but atheist don't have a reason.
The funny thing is that you guys believed nothing caused everything to exist.
beasty108
utter nonsense. fox news and religion have destroyed your brain.
Phil Gray I don't watch Fox News and I am not brainwashed by what my beliefs. I think before I accept anything as correct. I will say though, MANY Christians do not do this.
"I'm now supposed to be teaching what is on this other side here [meaning Creationism]" (1:11:48)
Balderdash! The Dover school board statement made no such requirement. All it did was to say that a book on an alternate explanation of origins was available in the library for those interested (and that free of charge).
I wish science teachers (if he actually said this) and attorneys for the ACLU would quit making stuff up.
Regardless, teach religion in church and science in public schools. Think of it as separation of church and public schools.
For those interested...
The source of the money, for the books, was lied about....as was how the money got to the publishers
It's you who are making stuff up. And the courts agreed. Shame on you.
@@starfishsystems I and my conclusions are not a matter of court testimony.
Of course, prayer is a necessary part of football!!! You've never heard of the "Hail Mary" pass? ; )
electrons dont decree any laws afaik
So, what created this god you talk of?
Coach Borden (sp?) reveals that once again Xians often have the minds of children.
Lebo: "setting aside our bias to get to the truth" (57:36) In what way did Lauri Lebo set aside her bias to get to the truth?
Brendon Mize So, while she was listening to the testimony at the trial and reporting on it, her dad was whispering things in her ear that she had to ignore? Come on. She reports with an agenda--no better than Fox News or Bill O'Reilly.
Brendon Mize OK, that explains why she is so opinionated. What I mean is: in what way has she approached the subject of ID, laying her own opinion and bias aside?
Brendon Mize You are saying that when she covered the trial her bent was toward Creationism and the trial changed her mind?
Brendon Mize "Not exactly." So you are saying that her bias was NOT toward Creationism.
"... go against the status quo and her father in particular" The status quo in general is pro-evolution--unless you mean the "status quo" in her church or in her family. My question is: When she went to the meetings, what were her own leanings? If she already biased against Creationism, then her leanings were toward the status quo of science, and her reporting and highly opinionated presentation in this video reveal her bias, which she did NOT lay aside.
Could you send me a link to the Nova documentary.
Brendon Mize I listened to the Nova interview with Lauri Lebo, and it seems that she had already made up her mind about evolution before the trial and was already in conflict with her fundamentalist Christian father. She was just hoping that she MIGHT hear something at the trial that would validate Intelligent Design from a scientific standpoint. But what she heard first at the trial were days of the same kind of "evidence" that had convinced her in the first place. Then, when it came time to question Behe, the prosecution put the poor guy on the defensive. The trial most certainly did not give him a forum for articulating the evidence for Intelligent Design from a scientific standpoint. What she remembered and what people like to reference is the tangential statement he made about astrology. How much of his testimony had to do with that? How accurate and legitimate is it to boil his testimony down to that single point?
I read through the transcript on the day that Behe first testified, and discovered that the judge accepted as evidence, regarding what the school board had voted, the newspaper commentaries and letters to the editor about what it meant. If such hearsay evidence isn't politicizing the board's decision, I don't know what is. The specific nature of their decision is a matter of public record. That Judge Jones thought that what others said about the vote mattered telegraphs that his decision was a political one.
Lebo says: "a victory for religious freedom" (43:25). What religious viewpoint gained a victory at Dover?
Religious freedom includes freedom from religion: ffrf.org/.
Paul Barthmaier "Religious freedom includes freedom from religion: ffrf.org/."
Religious freedom, by definition, requires SOME kind of religion. It is hard to find a person without some form of religion unless he or she lives in some institution in a vegetative state. Even atheists have their own form of religion. Those I debate day after day here on CZcams have an undying belief in the magic of philosophical naturalism. They are closet pantheists.
MorganMarvinson No that's incorrect. Not being religious by definition can not be religious.
Science has one presumption, that the universe obeys a set of rules and that we can work out these rules by observation. It is based on the evidence presented to it.
Here is why science is not faith based as any evidence showing that is is incorrect causes the model to be changed. It is evidence based. Religion tries to be evidence based until it is contradicted by the evidence and then it becomes faith based.
Tony Byers "Religious" in the expression "religious freedom" is an adjective modifying freedom. It does not mean "freedom FROM religion" any more than "freedom of speech" would mean freedom from speaking. Those who aren't speaking aren't exercising their freedom of speech.
What you are apparently unwilling to admit is that you DO have a religious framework. You do not operate in a vacuum. It may not be the religious viewpoint of any organized group (although I would wager that it likely overlaps with one or more organized groups), but it IS a religious/philosophical viewpoint.
Moreover, if you believe in evolution, that is a faith-based stance. No one can see it; it has its authoritarian advocates; it is believed because of assumptions/inferences and not because of demonstration. It is indeed faith based.
MorganMarvinson You are playing fast and loose with definitions here. It's like saying that if I don't like sport then I am still a sports fan.
I've given you my definition of religion (and science), can you give me yours?
Can you see a neutron? Do you believe it exists? If you said yes then by what you have written it's existence must be religious. Evolution have been demonstrated just as the existence of a neutron has.
The department of religious studies and the sitting chair of Jewish studies are involved in some year long Darwin celebratory event. Wow. Case Western, this is one "university" not associate one's name!
I particularly like how NephilimFree post comments and does not allow direct replies to his ignorant assertions. I get it that living in your girlfriends basement has limited your ability to interact with the outside world, but distorting the history of scientific ideas and the development of the theory of evolution is not an argument. I am sure that pretending that your illogical beliefs are somehow more reasonable that demonstrable science helps you sleep at night, but in the real world sometimes you have to give way to evidence. Or at least not addressing the fact that deep time, common descent, and a lack of sea water on the moon all point to the fact that your religious interpretations are not supported by the evidence. Its ok, just say "Well, God can work is mysterious ways, so maybe I don't have to admit that I was wrong!"
Just stand in the corner and get out of the way of the people who actually care if there beliefs are true or accurate. Reality is just outside the pages of that book you are so found of, and it is not going anywhere. Take your time and join us whenever you are ready...
she's not his girlfriend. even a skank like her wouldn't give it up to neffie. neffie really needs to get a job and be somebody.
It could be used as a great example of invalid Science. It can be used to demonstrate why something is not a Scientific Theory, how something does not use the Scientific Method, and so on.
Another example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
"Random genetic mutations, caused by radiation, are destructive.". Nope, not always. Check out Radiotrophic fungus. Also, there are a over 400 genetic mutations that have been identified in humans and they are under study.
Hmmmm...a lot to unpack here. First off about Mr.Freshwater and his branding antics. A teacher loved by his students and a two time teacher of the year award winner castigated as a religious nut and then promptly fired. A teacher who was fired/sued more about having a Bible on his desk than about his practical scientific approach to the use of a tesla coil...which btw, the demonstration of which was used by teachers everywhere in the U.S. . I say "used" because once this trial became public teachers all over stopped doing it. Never let the facts get in the way of a good ol' fashioned journalism smear I always say. "Burned religious emblems into a student's flesh" .
Well done Ms.Journalist.
Second: You described your profession as a "craft".I'm sure you meant it as a flattering assessment but I doubt you knew that the true definition includes "Skill in evasion or deception; guile." - Good news, you used it correctly.
Third: The boy's parents filed suit "anonymously" fearing retribution". That's right...whenever I want to remain anonymous because of personal safety I file a lawsuit against publicly funded educational boards, because as anyone knows, names of complainants are always sealed. *Heavy Sarcasm*
Third: You say you hugged the bronze plaque because you were so moved by the inscription. Yeah, it definitely was the wine. Any crime detective will tell you they follow the evidence where it takes them not where you want it to go, you on the other hand had an obvious bias which totally contradicts your profession in my opinion and which is ok if you're an opinion writer but not in this case sadly. If you want to shape policy...run for office.
There is certainly more I could point out but I'm being charitable.
What's abhorrent is Christians wilfully lying. You would think, with their belief in god and the commandments of that god, they would at least be honest in what they say. It seems, though, that they must get special dispensation, from god, to tell lies when they deem it necessary. At least they seem to have no fear of hell for telling lies.
It would give Katskee greater credibility if he would tell the Dover Story fully. The book "Of Pandas and People" was not slated to be the textbook for biology class, but was made available FREE OF CHARGE to the school system through the school library for students who chose to read it. In the end, litigation against the school board COST the educational system of Dover nearly a million dollars.
I invite readers to check into the high costs of dumbing down the American educational system by those who seek to maintain a lock on the minds of American youth.
What did the school board require? The originally statement is posted at www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/national/text-dover.html?_r=0
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.
The challenge to this free offer of a resource to students cost "over $1,000,000". (NCSE Resource. February 24, 2006. Retrieved 2007-08-12). It is dishonest to say that Intelligent Design was the reason for this expense.
Dumbing down the American educational system by those who seek to maintain a lock on the minds of American youth has a high price. And the cost is not merely in a dollar amount.
ironic and hilarious. a complete idiot talking about "dumbing down." intelligent design is religion, not science, a blatant attempt to "maintain a lock" on american minds. pathetic. try reading a book, any book, that isn't the bible
Phil Gray You haven't impressed anyone with your ability to think, to write, or to express yourself. Try a course in English and then write a book or two or three. I have.
right. as usual with you idiots, you decided to ignore the subject and divert attention. impressing people is of no concern to me. idiots interested in teaching lies and deception to impressionable minds is. evil lying idiot. the fact that the materials were "FREE OF CHARGE" (the ALL CAPS syndrome is pathetic and desperate) is indicative of the corrupt tactics employed by religious zealots. you're fooling no one
How fo schools teach unintelligent design and inanimate objects can make themselves? If the rulers do not have enough intelligent to know how complicated the world of earth is, should he or she be allowed to have authority over a people of a any nation? Psalm 10:13.Why has the wicked one disrespected God? He says in his heart: “You will not hold me accountable.”Psalm 14:1The foolish one says in his heart: “There is no Jehovah.” Their actions are corrupt, and their dealings are detestable; No one is doing good.
Don't criticize what you won't even try to understand. You just look like an imbecile that way. Learn what it actually is, from those who have worked on it their entire lives. That way, you might at least come up with legitimate criticism, instead of strawman fallacy and ad hominems.
Oh, but they do know how complicated the world and everything is. But instead of being lazy and arrogant and saying "My god did it all", they try to figure out how all of it works and then back it up with evidence. Science teaches what human understanding and evidence has revealed about nature. It is imperfect and it is always subject to revision and correction, however, that is light years better than religion, that claims to be the word of god(s), claims to be perfect, and is never subject to revision. Religion is the definition of arrogance and ignorance. It is the enemy of progress and true knowledge.
Thanks for your totally useless sermon.
What???
People who want ID taught as science in schools are predominately christian, not muslim or other faiths. ID/creationism does not belong in the public school system. My son goes to a public school along with many kids who belong to different faiths. I am an atheist, but I can imagine that Muslim parents would strongly object to Christian creation being taught to their children in school. Religious teaching belongs in the home and the churches, not public schools.
religion and any faith based world view at its very core is tribal by nature....
.........it was used by ancient tribes as a formulation and control of the in group........
........as our society learns to accept increasingly larger groups of humans into the fold.....tribalism becomes more irrelevant................
But Intelligent Design isn't science. It provides no explainations, doesn't have any predictive power, and doesn't present a falsifiable hypothesis.
My presentation is ready...need at least half a day to share my new Intelligent Design knowledge
You're a pompous as swi[pe.
No one cares.
Write a paper, present it for peer review or stfu.
The Discovery Institute are UNAMERICAN!
+terrypussypower
The Discovery Institute
Seattle
Washington.
Well, it doesn't sound as if it's in England, either.
Jack Sainthill
The Discovery Institute is Un-American because one of its main aims is to subvert the US Constitution by sneaking religion into the parts of the public school system where it doesn't belong, and is barred by the 1st Amendment in the Bill Of Rights.
What made you think I thought it was in England is anyone's guess.
terrypussypower
I don't disagree with you.
The DI is not in England, but I am.
Mine was not a serious remark.
Jack Sainthill
Oh, ok, cool.
+Jack Sainthill
The Centre for Intelligent Design
The Wheatsheaf
Speirs Wharf
Glasgow
G4 9TJ
Next door in this case.
Atheist delusion? I chuckled at your following logic. Tell me, in your attempt at using science in the discussion, how do you suppose there was a "cause"? Can you name a cause and/or effect that doesn't require time? Prior to the big bang time did not exist (nor space). Therefore, how could there be a cause for the universe when there was no time for a cause to exist in? Now one of two things are going to happen: you'll either ignore me or you'll ditch science and switch to theistic philosophy.
I wanted to watch this but I'm not sitting through that guy's whole speech
.....so skip ahead.....
well ... it returns to the same .. you claim EVERYTHING must have a beginning ... THEN you demand an exception for your own prefered deity. Think about it now ... If your god doesn't need a beginning, then your argument that EVERYTHING MUST have a beginning is pretty much redundant the second you mention it ...
Intelligent design, which should not be confused with creationism, is not difficult to comprehend and is a slam dunk. A protein cannot form without instructions. Not ever. Not by an undirected process or by chemical bonding. Information must always come first. There is no escape from this simple fact. That is science. Macroevolution is a religion. We are surrounded by a spectacular variety of complex, mind-boggling designs that do amazing things. But we are told its all just an illusion. It only appears that way. .. that it all comes from the repetitive crapshoot of natural selection acting on random copying errors. The biggest scam in history. Always follow the money.
Simply not true. Information in the classical sense isn’t required.
Reading through the comments here, I notice the smart "scientific" ones seem to be unaware of the decades of experiments on water that prove water reads our thoughts, senses our emotions and intelligently responds - the intelligent "scientific" ones also appear to be unaware of the decades of research into plants which also demonstrates that plants read our thoughts, sense our emotions and intelligently respond ...
The "scientific" group of the "intelligent" people apparently believe that "science" is all about theories which they enjoy imagining are the basis of reality - they are convinced that the ice ages are part of our Earth's history as billions of seashells and fossils of sea creatures are found on the surface of our Earth and even up in the mountains as if that two mile high sheet of ice had melted and left all those seashells and fossils of sea creatures just laying there - since the group of "intelligent" ones are also convinced that pangaea, continental drift and continental collision are also part of our Earth's history - because they believe this was the force that broke and subducted the tectonic plates "millions of years ago", since they also believe giant creatures roamed our Earth and swam in our oceans "millions of years ago" while the giant bones are found on the surface of our Earth ...
Since the "smart" sophisticated ones believe the stratified layers of the Grand Canyon are the result of "millions of years" of something or other, and since they believe the Siberian Traps were formed in the primordial ancient prehistoric past, along with the catastrophic evidence known as Nuuanu and Eltanin, and the catastrophic formation of the Yucatan Peninsula, and the "extinction level event" that wiped out the "dinosaurs" "millions of years ago" when the timeline - and the forces responsible - for all of this is documented by our ancestors in historic records, written in over a dozen languages from all across our world - but since the "smart" ones have never cared about the truth enough to study the hundreds and hundreds of old records that documented when and how our tectonic plates were broken and subducted, when and how our ocean trenches and archipelago islands were formed, when and how the stratified layers were formed, when and how the Eltanin and Nuuanu cataclysms occurred, when and how our mountains were formed, when and how our continents and oceans were formed, when and why dozens of supervolcanoes erupted in one night as thousands of volcanoes erupted across five continents...
Since they haven't seen the date for that horror documented in different languages by people more than 16,000 km apart and then corroborated in Russian, French, Spanish, etc., by those who observed the on-going destruction which continued for decades, since they never bothered to study the evidence, they remain so detached from reality as to be rendered insane.
To believe "science" is about adolescent guessing games, wild imaginings, and speculation is to be insane - science is NOT about "theories" - real science is about evidence which is found in hundreds and hundreds of documented observations which are then corroborated by thousands of other independent sources - guessing games are unnecessary - a passion for compiling the evidence is definitely needed - but since the smart "scientific" ones are far more invested in their juvenile ego than in the truth, we end up with billions of the insane ones - which includes the "creationists" and those who live by "faith" that believe "God created Earth nearly 6,000 years ago when the bible NEVER says that - since the bible has over 100 documented contradictions, to accept claims in the bible while being too apathetic to study the evidence is an indicator of severe detachment from reality - just like the group of smart "scientific" ones.
@@WhirledPublishing lol.. what a moron...
I'll just take one of your examples, to show how stupid you actually are...
Seashells on mountaintops
Tectonics, is how they got up there..
Since you can check that..and see how stupid you were, before replying, why not research other BS you believe
@@leeshackelford7517 Children learn to compose a sentence and upload videos onto their channel - two things you haven't yet learned to do. You're blocked and banned - so don't expect any replies from me.
@@WhirledPublishing Starlight, the one starting this thread, us a moron, too
Did you watch the video? Or read the court transcripts?
The idiots who wrote Pandas.....originally used Creationism....creation and creator.....
But after the Courts decided that teaching "Creationism " was unconstitutional..........they went through the book....and changed creationism with intelligent design...creation with design and creator...with designer
So yes, CREATIONISM = INTELLIGENT DESIGN
E-PLURIBUS-UNUM
;~)
Why do you feel the need to resort to childish insults?
Can't your points stand on their own merits?
Then again, seeing as you are demonstrably wrong, I suppose that is about all that you do have.
And I say demonstrably wrong because the fact that you are aware of atheists in the public arena shows that we are willing to speak in the open.
Guess you can fool some of the people all of the time. Behee lost for good reason and if you really wish to live where separation of Church and state
I think intelligent design should be taught in school....and appropriately ridiculed
Why waste time. There's already too much to needs to be learned for real.
ever heard from Bill Maher, Neil de Grasse Tyson or Richard Dawkins ? use your brain ,get educated and stop HATING !!!
I should be more precise - Evangelicals. Not all Christians are this way.
True, but SDA'S are worthy of mention. They sponsor young earth creation and encourage young earth creation scientists. Two of their pamphlets were left on my doorstep!
Creationism in science? Only in dumb America?
Sadly not only in 🇺🇸. Here in 🇬🇧 a couple of _faith schools_ teach _creationism_ in science classes. That is, unfortunately, the result of allowing such schools to set their own curricula. Science becomes subordinated to religion.
@@philaypeephilippotter6532
Can you give me more information, because that's definitely against UK Government rules, and I for one will happily write to my MP.
humanism.org.uk/2014/06/18/victory-government-bans-existing-future-academies-free-schools-teaching-creationism-science/
@@davidkeenan5642
If you watch the *Richard Dawkins: Faith School Menace?* here on YT this was current in 2010. Things may have changed since, indeed I hope they have.
@@philaypeephilippotter6532
I've watched that programme more than once, and already had it loaded to watch again.
The rules changed in 2014.
This is just an unfair description of the dover process and the discovery institute. I'm not chriastian, neither theist, it's science and evidence that talk, these guys are not the young earth lunatics. Moreover, creation is not a religious belif, it's humanity's bequeathal, reinterpreted by all sort of religions and cultures.
I don't lie, you may say i'm convinced of the supid things I say, but to call me liar and dishonest is really improper since you don't know me.Beside that, i don't think the things I sad are stupid, as you may think. I researched a lot on the intelligent design-evolutionism dabate. I also wrote a lot about it in my language. I am convinced by the evidence, not by faith.
ID is not creationism. Not in the sense you guys in usa mean. It is a scientific theory wich requires to reject naturalistic methodology in reguards to the CAUSE of life and not in its MECHANISM. There are indeed scientific papers about ID, you should check the papers by stephen mayer peer reviewed by smithsosian, the concept of irriducible complexity by Behe, and the theory of conservation of information by Dembski. Those are indeed scientific claims.
Evolution is a late 19th century forensic theory that has been incorporeted with new knoledge in the 20th century. It is a theory with lots of flaws. For instance:
the entropy problem
the God of Chance
Cambrian explosion and fossil record in general
Lack of experimental proofs (those done prove just antibiotic resistance)
Inconsistency of the new evolutionism theorys such neutral evolution by Kimura or puntual evolution by Gould, the new evolutionism theorys infact deny the natural selection. Check the reluctant evolutionist Dr. Shapiro
I don't lie, i'm informed and therefore convinced. I'm not a beliver.
stop calling me dishonest. I'm informed and I have an opinion. I'm not a scientist, but I studied philosophy of science. You should research better the dover process. Discovery institute have laboratories, I tried to explain to you that the problem reguarding ID is the methodologiacal naturalism. But it is science, it is based on the method of uniformitarism, or inference to the best explenation. If you cannot accept that because you're an atheist, that's ok. But you should be aware of your bias, a don't call who thinks differently dishonest.
+Etienne De La Boétie No, it is not science, it is speculation and an attempt to keep gods in the equation. It is a part of religious requirement, and creation/id are both attempts to explain the things which are not yet fully understood. All part of the "god of the gaps" situation that religious people find themselves in.
you don't know anything about ID, information theory, DNA, irriducible complexity, omology and analogy, evolution, but most of all you don't know nothing about the scientific method of ID, namely uniformitarism. You are probably more incline to accept quantum phisic and the existence of a universe in a place with no space and in an age with no time, than the existence of god. For me it's just the same.
dude, you obviously dont know who they are! they actully do debates with theologians. Why are you so agrassive, did i insult you in any way?
Condensed history of evolutionism:
1. The theory of evolution came from the Hindu Brahmins
2. pantheistic evolution was passed down by Pythagoras to the Greeks
3. Thales and his Ionic School branched out from Pantheistic Evolution to Naturalistic Evolution
4. Anaximander (610 BCE-546 BCE), who was the first to suggest that physical forces, rather than supernatural forces, create order in the universe
5. Plato and Aristotle's evolutionary ideas were dispersed through the Alexandrian School in Egypt
6. The ideas were followed through the Middle Ages (Aquinas), Renaissance and into Freemasonry, where they were preserved
7. Freemasonry and the Enlightenment had a re-birth of the philosophy of evolution
8. Lord Monboddo and Erasmus Darwin carried the philosophy forward
9. Charles Darwin, coaxed by Charles Lyell to write about the idea after the voyage on the Beagle, developed the idea into a pseudoscientific theory
sorry, but i dont understand a single word of this
Real knowledgable people know that the theory of evolution involves faith in atheism, which is a religion. Teaching evolution is imposing a religion.
Oh jeeze, really? You know there was a study of the relationship between believers, non believers and IQ. Lets just say if I need to finish this statement, I can tell you're a believer. Wah ha ha ha ha ha ha.
We all know where you finished David and we don't need to know if your a believer or not. You're still a moron. I'm sorry, I should be more respectful toward you under the ADA.
You've been freebasing jebus haven't you?
(continued) You choose to NOT follw the evidence
Lauri Lebo is HOT!!!!!!!!!!
Go ahead and hate your neighbor, go ahead and cheat a friend. Do it in the name of Heaven and you can justify it in the end. There won't be any trumpets blowing,, come the judgment day. And the bloody morning after, One Tin Soldier rides away.
I will 👌
This guy, who may well be gay.. is attacking separation between church and state.
THE Christians position was and will be always to ensure the separation of church and state remains separate!!
I am not hearing a defense of this i am hearing propaganda instead FOR special interest and privatized preference.
He also waving the idea of them getting threats around like a flag hes proud of.. playing the victim card to propagate your agenda is low.
I know people love to argue that evolutionism is a religion unto itself, but this is a goofy argument that only makes sense if you're using a pointlessly broad definition of the word "religion". im reminded of Michael Behe's testimony that astrology qualifies as a viable alternative theory worthy of class time in the science room. the idea doesn't make sense.when.you play it out. creation science is an infraction of the seperation of church and state, US courts have found this a half dozen times, and that's all there is to it.
nonsense.. creationism has nothing to do with church or belief or anything like that, why are the evolutionist crowd redefining terms and words and then debating against THEIR own redefinition.. when man uses creation is not a religion ?? whos changing the goal posts now.. and YES evolution IS a religion because it meets the criteria of what is religious.
+Frank James Creationism has everything to do with religion. Evolution is testable. You can make predictions based on evidence and more than likely it will be true. Also what words, and terms are you talking about? The only one I have seen do this have been creationist.
Frank James Frank, you say evolution meets the criteria of a religion. What criteria is that?
not just ONE.. a number of them... it has a deity.. it has political and ideological ramifications, it has a consensus based following and a peer based system.. to name few.
Learned Judge Jones did not have the scientific theory or my evidence in front of him. Now he will deliver a different Judgment...to be fair, his judgment was correct, as opponents did not have a complete theory or knowledge. NOW, it is different.
Your "evidence" should be written up and presented for review by a credi le scientific journal. Then subjected to testing and challenges. If not, then your opinion is not evidence.
@@ozowen5961 wrong. When Einstein got a Nobel prize for his work it was not tested or proven, it was an observation. If you do not accept it does not matter. But, I stand solid with my scientific discoveries and am revealing them as there is so much resistance to change, just like the film matrix. People will defend even if it is wrong. Science is also similar. When Einstein had written his papers, he had no reference? All pioneering work gets castigated first before getting recognition in the world...My scientific discoveries will change American science education and thinking...
@@dr.mukeshc.chauhanconsciou3144
Utter rubbish. You are a self aggrandising creationist buffoon.
The very fact you feel the need to tell us of your supposed achievements, minus any actual argument tells us all about you, your lies and your gross inadequacies
@@dr.mukeshc.chauhanconsciou3144 "My scientific discoveries " Fuc king liar
Wait a minute.....How is evolution not religion? I can't think of a religion that requires more faith than evolution. This whole "evolution is science" thing has got to stop. Evolution is the furthest thing from science I can think of and it requires more faith than any religion I can think of as well.
+OnSafari247 How evolution is a science - atheism(DOT)about(DOT)com/od/evolutionexplained/tp/EvolutionScienceCriteria.htm
+Dave Smith it's one of the FAQs of the sheeple. Rick Warren may have birthed this fairy tale -- i recall that he said it in at least one of his books. they're not interested in a real answer. they're just trying to bring Evolution down to their level of understanding and then redefine it.
+Hollis Evon Ramsey ....Oh ok, so we can observe and test macro-evolution occurring? Please tell me where and when it's observed, thanks.
+OnSafari247 Every day in the labs. Something you wouldn't know about. It's why vaccines work. Otherwise you would have to go back to leaches.
Marilyn Newman Oh really, so everyday in the labs scientists witness one kind of something changing into a different kind of something?
First off refrain from using caps that much. Secondly you need to learn something about entropy before you claim that biologists have been under a wrong and did not consider one of the basic laws of physics. The real question you should pose to yourself is this: if such a basic law seems to contradict evolution, why is it that professional scientists do not see this contradiction? *MAYBE* it's because they actually understand the science a little better than you. Go read about entropy.
@vechorik Your logic is fundamentally flawed.
well, no, it really isn't. And that is pretty much the reason that ID has never won a Nobel prize. No religious fanatic of ANY religion EVER believed in, throughout human history, has ever produced 1 single piece of evidence for his/her specific deity-myth. Never, not ever, as in never never never. Will I need to revisit this comment to show you once again how wrong you are?
I thought the Devil was in miss Jones!!!
She lives in Dover, doncha know.
My Uncle’s prayer opened a memory recalling the elders in Sunday school. They were teaching us how to live without becoming part of the world. First there is a better place waiting if one signs up. I had a dream that night I did, and they wore only a piece of cloth. I considered this a metaphor of what they meant to return to a life, forsaking all things to only exist to serve God. I hand over my soul and inherit several new rights. One of them is I can say this is God’s country. I can accept the illogical excuse a people, race or religion is the enemy of my God. I will enjoy the pleasure of owning weapons and killing for sport because I have His blessings of dominion over all life on Earth. The idea to kill what you are afraid of, destroy and plunder what you crave for, then preach about burning the whole thing down came right from under Satan’s nose when he wasn’t looking.
I ran circles around these elders and finally frustrated enough by my precociousness, I am exactly who Satan uses against God’s people. He cited a passage in the Bible where God humbles Job. He said to him where was he when He laid the foundations of the Earth? Declare He said how He did this. My reply was simple. His challenge was not an admission of knowing this Himself. This is child’s play when one says prove it and the other guy says, no you prove it I was here first, and neither knows the answer.
God had no idea where the origins of humans began and both cannot be true. He was unable to predict our future progress in math, science, the arts and philosophy, but he wrote a marvelous futuristic war with a full script and the weapons used over his 3rd grader Genesis attempt and even now 3rd graders are learning about the Heliosphere in how this protects us from the Sun. He never uttered a single word about what we might achieve. The discovery of Earth’s precession, the spin which cycles the ice ages, he never mentioned the nearest one. The solar cycle and the oceanic warming phenomenon, clueless. The upheaval of biodiversity on earth to our solar system bobbing along the galactic plane every billion or so years. That continents move and create mountains and erosion and seasonal scouring from wind and rain reduces them to grains of sand in less than six thousand years. No knowledge men will one day visit the Moon, and robots will film other worlds. The Earth is round with an iron core, has magnetic poles, and the other, invisible, subatomic and magical world he didn’t mention. This God knew none of this, nor the name of the Ruler who reigned when Moses lived in the palace grounds of the Pharaoh. He demanded from him to let his people go. Which Pharaoh? Those stories written in obscura, prevaricate and frustrate scholars who struggle to place the stories in context with known human history but are unable to. He intended this necessary, for a mystery works best when legitimacy is added to prevent the discovery of a fraud. Today, they are the Catholic and Protestant faiths.
This has brought a massive weight on the shoulders of the children. There is a massive leap of faith in Darwinism. No matter they have to trust the teaching institutions. That has faded drastically
There is no such fading, and nor is it a leap of faith
@@ozowen5961 oh ok
@@mekkawilliams2557
Evidence tales away all of that.
Please look into it, and not filtered by creationist framing. It is not accurate, nor correct
@@ozowen5961 ok
Intelligent Design offers the only scientific explanation for our existence.
What scientific explanation are you referring to? The magic dude said "let there be light..." therefore we have light... is that the extend of your scientific explanation? I suppose magical sky daddy saying "Let us create man in our image..." is your next "scientific" explanation".... while you are at it, why don't you tell us the "science" behind how Adam/Eve/Kane/Able populated the Earth through incest....
@@stormcloud2661 You are a dolt. I would livevto hear your scientific explanation for our existence.
That's certainly a claim. But without evidence, it's an empty one.
@@starfishsystems You are the empty one. You couldn't assess the evidence if your life depended on it.
@@starfishsystems You will note somebodysdufus responded with an insult? That is his thing. He will also at some time, were you to continue with him, demonstrate a vast ignorance of science, meanwhile announcing how confident he is that he can out-argue you on these topics.
His failures are spectacular, nearly as glowing as his self adulation, and nearly as complete as his ignorance.