This is directed to you Mr. Dawkins: ( Psalm 111:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom). This means, when you learn to fear the lord, then you will begin to have wisdom. You cannot possibly be wise, no matter how you try and pretend while believing an an absurd, fabricated fairy tail for adults. The dictum ‘All life from preexisting life’ became the dogma of modern biology, from which no reasonable man could be expected to dissent”. The experiments that formed the ultimate basis of this law were first carried out by such men as Francesco Redi (1688) and Lazarro Spallanzani (1799) in Italy, Louis Pasteur (1860) in France, and Rudolph Virchow (1858) in Germany. It was Virchow who documented that cells do not arise from amorphous matter, but instead come only from preexisting cells. The Encyclopaedia Britannica states concerning Virchow that “His aphorism ‘omnis cellula e cellula’ (every cell arises from a preexisting cell) ranks with Pasteur’s ‘omne vivum e vivo’ (every living thing arises from a preexisting living thing) among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology”. Down through the years, countless thousands of scientists in various disciplines have established the law of biogenesis as just that-a scientific law stating that life comes only from preexisting life and that of its kind. Interestingly, the law of biogenesis was firmly established in science long before the contrivance of modern evolutionary theories. Why, then, are we suddenly being told that, in regard to biogenesis, the word “law” no longer applies? It did in the nineteenth century. Has it been disproven? On the contrary, every piece of scientific evidence still supports the basic concept that life arises only from preexisting life.
Dawkins is actually amazingly patient. I've seen him go through some conversations with people who are just so stunningly deluded that you feel like bashing your head against something. Yet he remains polite generally.
He’s a really amazing educator he has helped me understand aspects of evolution that I never really understood before hearing him distill those ideas into a digestible summary. And you know what, even in the times when he’s not “English“ and polite (as you put it) usually has a damn good fucking reason to be impolite. I like the example of him talking to Brandon flowers where he absolutely massacres Mormonism, deeply offending him, but then turns around and is very warm and polite to him afterwards.
Dawkins is amazingly dishonest to say the least, he is like a volcano ready to go off, very vitriolic towards God and the loving words of Jesus, not a nice man
@John Digsby Darwinian evolution is not a fraud, it is the unifying theory of Biology and an excellent theory for applied science. Creationism should not be taught to any child if we want intelligent kids.
@John Digsby Please abandon all medicine then... It is all based on biology, which is entirely based on evolution. You almost certainly owe your existence to the advances it brought.
@@jonneexplorer Yes indeed. Creationism is fraudulent and if it were true then none of the teachings of Biology would yield results. Yet they keep on providing.
Exactly. If they want to require the teaching of intelligent design in biology class, let them require the teaching of evolution in Sunday school. Teach the controversy about Biblical inerrancy and all the other bronze age bullshit in it.
Honestly, I can never get enough of watching these prof's give there lectures. Whether is Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins or Eugenie Scott, its such a delight listening to what these brilliant minds have to say. 8)
the religious don't understand what a scientific theory is, they see it as a hypothesis. I propose we just begin referring to it as The Law of Evolution. Let it be shown that denying evolution is just as silly as denying the Theory of Gravity.
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264 there are literal mountains of evidence for evolution... DNA alone supports common descent beyond all reasonable doubt. You have no clue.
this is a reading from 13 years ago and when this trend of anti-scientism has continued since 2009 one wonders how much time it will take before there is an American again who cannot count beyond 10 or cannot do more complicated maths then 2 + 2. It is not unique in history that a triving scientific culture collapsed due to religion, in the early Middle Ages the science flourished in the Abbasid Caliphate, but after a few hunderd years it was all gone and never came back in the Arabic world
I have no problem with including creationism in religion classes, so long as all religions are taught. I'm not religious but it's good to know and understand what others believe since they influence society.
I think Creationism should be more examined by psychology (neurology). Roughly said this irrational belief denies obvious facts so desperately, that I think it is the consequence of a brain wash since childhood.
@@robinwarren6924 Not really, creationism requires an extraordinary level of denial of science and contradictory beliefs just to get by daily. The level of adherence to conspiracy theories is at a high level. Studies into this have been done. Dunning Kruger effect plays into this. As does research on conspiracy theorists (lowered IQ, rampant paranoia and distrust)
What a great lady and a great talk! I'm so happy to have people like her assuring that actual, real science is taught in science classrooms. She rocks!
@sothis48 Not only has it not moved us forward as a species, it actually made us go back. We had more knowledge in the Roman Empire than in the Christian Middle Age.
Creationists begin with Genesis, a book written by multiple anonymous authors who were clearly not witnesses to any of the events recounted. After accepting the content of Genesis as historical, they then examine the physical world looking for evidence that can confirm the content of Genesis. When they find evidence that is ambiguous, they announce that Genesis has been confirmed. When they find non-corroborating evidence, they ignore it and move on.
I am so glad that I grew up and live in a progressive state (Hawaii) where they teach real science and there has never been any of the creationist bullshit like in the idiotic bible belt states. We have plenty of religious people here, but we believe in and keep our government and schools separate from religion as the constitution mandates.
« This is why » No, Gould proposed his model to explain why we find many transitions at the genus level and above, but very few at the species level. This has to do with the fossil record, not with the observation of nested hierarchies.
+spicecrop "Evolution is the story for idiots that like to be lied to." 23 separate scientific disciplines all provide irrefutable evidence of evolution. It is carries more substantive proof than there is for gravity.... literally. Your religion has one chronically flawed "infallible" book, with more errors, contradictions and lies than it has pages. A little taste: 1. God is satisfied with his works Gen 1:31 God is dissatisfied with his works. Gen 6:6 2. God dwells in chosen temples 2 Chron 7:12,16 God dwells not in temples Acts 7:48 3. God dwells in light Tim 6:16 God dwells in darkness 1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2 4. God is seen and heard Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/ Ex 24:9-11 God is invisible and cannot be heard John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16 5. God is tired and rests Ex 31:17 God is never tired and never rests Is 40:28 6. God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21 God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all things Gen 11:5/ Gen 18:20,21/ Gen 3:8 7. God knows the hearts of men Acts 1:24/ Ps 139:2,3 God tries men to find out what is in their heart Deut 13:3/ Deut 8:2/ Gen 22:12 8. God is all powerful Jer 32:27/ Matt 19:26 God is not all powerful Judg 1:19 9. God is unchangeable James 1:17/ Mal 3:6/ Ezek 24:14/ Num 23:19 God is changeable Gen 6:6/ Jonah 3:10/ 1 Sam 2:30,31/ 2 Kings 20:1,4,5,6/ Ex 33:1,3,17,14 10. God is just and impartial Ps 92:15/ Gen 18:25/ Deut 32:4/ Rom 2:11/ Ezek 18:25 God is unjust and partial Gen 9:25/ Ex 20:5/ Rom 9:11-13/ Matt 13:12 11. God is the author of evil Lam 3:38/ Jer 18:11/ Is 45:7/ Amos 3:6/ Ezek 20:25 God is not the author of evil 1 Cor 14:33/ Deut 32:4/ James 1:13 12. God gives freely to those who ask James 1:5/ Luke 11:10 God withholds his blessings and prevents men from receiving them John 12:40/ Josh 11:20/ Is 63:17 13. God is to be found by those who seek him Matt 7:8/ Prov 8:17 God is not to be found by those who seek him Prov 1:28 14. God is warlike Ex 15:3/ Is 51:15 God is peaceful Rom 15:33/ 1 Cor 14:33 15. God is cruel, unmerciful, destructive, and ferocious Jer 13:14/ Deut 7:16/ 1 Sam 15:2,3/ 1 Sam 6:19 God is kind, merciful, and good James 5:11/ Lam 3:33/ 1 Chron 16:34/ Ezek 18:32/ Ps 145:9/ 1 Tim 2:4/ 1 John 4:16/ Ps 25:8 16. God's anger is fierce and endures long Num 32:13/ Num 25:4/ Jer 17:4 God's anger is slow and endures but for a minute Ps 103:8/ Ps 30:5 17. God commands, approves of, and delights in burnt offerings, sacrifices ,and holy days Ex 29:36/ Lev 23:27/ Ex 29:18/ Lev 1:9 God disapproves of and has no pleasure in burnt offerings, sacrifices, and holy days. Jer 7:22/ Jer 6:20/ Ps 50:13,4/ Is 1:13,11,12 18. God accepts human sacrifices 2 Sam 21:8,9,14/ Gen 22:2/ Judg 11:30-32,34,38,39 God forbids human sacrifice Deut 12:30,31 19. God tempts men Gen 22:1/ 2 Sam 24:1/ Jer 20:7/ Matt 6:13 God tempts no man James 1:13 20. God cannot lie Heb 6:18 God lies by proxy; he sends forth lying spirits to deceive 2 Thes 2:11/ 1 Kings 22:23/ Ezek 14:9 21. Because of man's wickedness God destroys him Gen 6:5,7 Because of man's wickedness God will not destroy him Gen 8:21 22. God's attributes are revealed in his works. Rom 1:20 God's attributes cannot be discovered Job 11:7/ Is 40:28 23. There is but one God Deut 6:4 There is a plurality of gods Gen 1:26/ Gen 3:22/ Gen 18:1-3/ 1 John 5:7 Oh don't worry there is much, much more www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/religion/50-000-Errors-and-Biblical-contradictions-190303
First of all a mutation is any combination of chromosomes. Given the trillions of mutations that occur on this planet at any given moment, the chances that a beneficial combination of chromosomes will occur within a given species is profound. Take into account that negative combinations are discarded through natural selection and neutral combinations have no effect, it seems inevitable that beneficial combinations will remain and lead to drastic changes provided the environment requires them.
« Nested hierachies are not observed » They are observed. It is not imagination that life can be classified consistently only according to one scheme, and that any other scheme produces contradictions.
Young Earth Creationism, based on a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis as historical fact rather than as an allegorical fable, is nothing more than an offshoot of religious fundamentalism. The fundamentalist beliefs of YEC include the following: Planet Earth is approximately 6,000 to 10,000 years old, God created life, the universe, and everything in six days, God created Adam from dust and Eve from one of Adam’s ribs, Dinosaurs were vegetarian and lived side by side with men and women, The global flood depicted in the Book of Genesis occurred. Noah and his family constructed an enormous floating ark to house two opposite sexes of every lifeform on Earth, The Bible is the literal word of God, infallible, and a historically accurate account Creation science is a contradiction in terms because Young Earth Creationists set out with a fixed and unwavering belief of how the universe and life was created. And no matter how overwhelming and universally accepted the counter-scientific evidence may be, YECs will not change their fundamentalist beliefs. This alone makes YEC nothing more than religious fundamentalism. And religious fundamentalism is based entirely on unwavering faith in a literal interpretation of theological texts. Mainstream science, on the other hand, is willing to be proven wrong and willing to change scientific theories if new compelling evidence comes to light that challenges an accepted scientific theory. (In science, the term “theory” is used to refer to an established scientific fact, which is supported by an overwhelming body of evidence and is universally accepted by the scientific community.) When mainstream science demonstrates that the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis is flawed, YECs fall back on the “God created a miracle” argument. This is particularly relevant in relation to Noah’s Ark. It is widely considered impossible for eight primitive people to build one of the largest ships in history, using primitive tools and in such a short space of time. It is also impossible for eight primitive people to be able to feed and water so many animal, reptile, amphibian, avian, and insect species. It is also considered impossible for them to be able to acquire every species, especially animals considered native to particular countries and continents (based on the natural history record). Noah’s ark, based on the size depicted in the Book of Genesis, is widely considered to be impossible to sail and would buckle and bend. When faced with such facts (which Ken Ham will if his Ark project becomes a reality), YECs fall back on the “…One of God’s miracles” argument. The Holy Bible itself has been changed and edited throughout the centuries. Indeed, some ancient scriptures (such as the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, and the Book of Giants/Nephilim) no longer appear in the old testament, despite their direct relevance to the Book of Genesis. And the original drafts of many of the books of the bible were written down over two thousand or more years ago by primitive Hebrew scholars, in an era before modern science. Perhaps the only field of science that has any relevance to YEC is psychology. When one considers the overwhelming body of scientific evidence that opposes YEC, one has to ask oneself why there are still YECs in the 21st century. What is the psychology and motive of a YEC?
Poseidon63 I seriously believe that they are religious fundamentalists, first and foremost (and not just in it for the money like some claim). So maybe what I really should be asking is, what is the psychology of a religious fundamentalist who believes in a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis despite the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary!?
+Gertrude Perkins I agree I consider the issue of religiosity, if I can call it that, most interesting. In truth usually when I engage with somebody concerning their religious beliefs, their actual beliefs are to some extent incidental in themselves, what I am really seeking to do is gain some insight into the person themselves and their psychological makeup. For me it is more of an anthropological exercise where the person I am talking to is essentially my subject. Obviously this is not something I ordinarily make them aware of as this would tend to defeat the purpose as it may cause them to react somewhat differently. In conclusion, I find the ways in which some people are able to sustain beliefs which appear to be extraordinarily contrary to normalcy, incoherent and indeed frequently self contradictory, fascinating. Also I note people frequently say they believe one thing but their actual actions do not appear to concur with their purported beliefs.
+Gertrude Perkins Catholics accept evolution, and the old age of earth. Of course, they're the oldest Christian sect. They've been through their crazy period. All these new crazy cults are in their crazy period. Does this answer your question?
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264 That is not what evolution states, you lying bastard. Stop spreading lies to discredit a science your phony god is too impotent to give you brains enough to understand.
+dane smart That is because there are no good gains from believing in god. They claim morals can only come from god. That is invalid, every animal that raises its young displays compassion and empathy. Wildlife photographers have footage of animals risking their own safety to rescue another, sometimes even from a different species. Man as an animal is slow, weak, defenseless and tasty. Survival depended upon cooperation and good fellowship (just as we display today) LONG before any religion took hold. Before language developed even. Secular society has banned slavery, and punishes the rapist. We then twice as moral as the Yahweh.
I remember the TASS/TAKS exams I took in grade school. These exams were based on the TEKS curriculum, the problem is that the bar is set so low so Texas schools look like they're doing a good job of educating their students, but in actuality we get a watered down version of what we should be learning. Despite making the curriculum easier for students, my school had a dropout rate of over 50%. I lucked out because I was able to get into GT/AP classes so I managed to get an alright education.
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264 Liar. Court case after court case has proven that evolution is science and creationism is religion. When you pull your head out of your fundament you might not get it backwards.
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264 Horseshit. Scientists determine what science is, and scientists declare evolution science and creationism pseudo-science. Check out some science. And I don't mean what you get from those right-wing Bible-thumping propaganda mills that attack evolution, big bang, and climate change.
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264 Liar. There is no evidence that the world began 6000 years ago or that all was made in a mere 6 days. There is no evidence for a man from dust. There is no evidence for a woman from a man's rib. And there certainly is no evidence for a talking snake. Pull your head out of your fundament and realize what a bunch of bullshit the Bible really is.
Yeah and the mathematical impossibility that the universe and the Earth and all the complexity of it just happened all by itself is perfectly rational.
+spicecrop "Yeah and the mathematical impossibility that the universe and the Earth and all the complexity of it just happened all by itself is perfectly rational" Shakespeare quotes can be generated by a random selection in less than an hour. All it take is not to go all genocidal, like god does, and throw the correct bits away each time. But do what Evolution does and keep what works.
+spicecrop "the mathematical impossibility (of) the universe and the Earth" The Universe may well have had an infinite number of iterations before this one. All life on this planet, evolved on this planet, to fit this planet. As climate and ground conditions changed, those with an evolutionary advantage survived and thrived. The others died (99.9% of all species are extinct) If earth had been vastly different, life here would have been different. If life was impossible, earth would have been another dead planet Like the many other dead planets in the Trillions of galaxies in our vast universe On this speck of dust, 13% of earth's surface is habitable to humans.
@luftigus The Peppered moth sitting with wings open is a survival advantage, they are more camouflaged with wings spread and flat to the tree or rock than they would be wings folded and sitting proud. Trees are a natural resting place for Peppered moth, especially on Lichen; I am not sure why I am having to repeat myself here.
+Jon Zamudio Sort of, there is a movement to flood the world with $25 doctorates from creationist institutes. Kent Hovind has one, his "thesis" reads like it was written by a 12 year old working on hunches and Sunday Sermons. Swamping real science with paid puppets who have nothing to do but fabricate faux results and post them everywhere. So their movement is an anti science science movement
It's an extremely interesting discussion on evolution vs creationism on schools =) There are two sides to it though; evolution will be taught during biology classes, and probably not untill the children grow older. Now I do not know about schools in the USA, but in Dutch Christian schools bible study is already performed in preschool - ages 4 and up. There they are taught God created the world and it's inhabitants. So, when they are -finally- told of evolution, the immediate question that rises in them will be probably "But what about God?". That is a major clash of insights, especially if the teacher involved is religious him/herself. How to answer that question? So I think I can understand why creationists get so upset about teaching evolution - it poses a question they do not wish to answer. And from their point of view (It's either black or white.) thinking about God in terms of playing a role in something they see as one of the fundaments of their religion (God the creator) would mean they would have to breach the main value of religion; to believe without question. So I do not think creationism is crazy, I think it is desperate...
Well, I did google, and found out that abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are not the same thing. Spontaneous generation is part of Aristotelian philosophy, and includes statements like "meat spawns maggots". This is what Pascal disproved, with his experiment. Ironically, if you'd read about the history of religion, you'd find that the old church put Aristotle on a very high pedestal, so there was a time when all priests and philosophers would say "yes, meat spawns maggots".
Here's "creation" for you: The routine activity for organisms is “tearing others apart with teeth of all types --- biting, grinding flesh, plant stalks, bones between molars, pushing the pulp greedily down the gullet with delight, incorporating its essence into one's own organization, and then excreting with foul stench and gasses, the residue." But god loves you! It's quite obvious that the recipe for the above is EVOLUTION, not a god!
Columbus knew the world was round because pretty much every civilization had figured it out since, at least, the time of ancient Greece. Those Greeks also figured out, pretty accurately, how large the world was. Columbus was trying to prove the world was a lot smaller than everyone else thought it was, and he was monumentally wrong.
+Poseidon63 Science. Reading the bible made me see the light. There is no fucking god. I still haven't had an answer to my 9 year old question. After Cain killed Abel, who was this woman of NOD he had sex with?
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264 how so? What part of evolution is not scientific? Please be specific, and if i find your argument valuable I will help you get it published in peer review. If it stands up, you will get a Nobel. Of course you won't, because you don't know what science even is, nor evolution...
this woman is a very good promoter for natural science... love it. she was on Penn&Teller:Bullshit and gave some of the best discussion for the entire episode
Scientists should not be wasting their time debating this shit, it just gives credence to the opposing 'argument' The speaker and all attendees are wasting their time.
I'm starting to become rather disenchanted with some of the USA's populous. Even though this is a few years old. It's doubtful a lot has changed since.
@ShrodingerFu Yeah, evolution is now at a point where to deny the evidence is unreasonable under any standards of evidence. And yes, I agree with you that the designer would indeed have to be one seriously screwed up entity. And unfortunately, as you mentioned, religions just don't even care about evidence. They only see what they want. And so, they can toss out evolution AND say that their god isn't a sadistic bastard, all in one breath. It's really an amazing feat of human reasoning and logic.
The two-model approach explains why creationists are so desperate to disprove evolution. Just for giggles, in a lengthy talk with a creationist I eventually decided to play along and said "yeah I don't think evolution is a good theory. Can you suggest a better theory?". I got no response. He was done.
@Bornagain271 There are tens of thousands of species of plants that do not require pollination to reproduce. As it happens, pollination is a very successful reproduction method and so it is not surprising that it evolved. But it is not a pre-requisite for having plant life. Bacteria, it turns out, have been observed to evolve with a great deal of precision. Dr. Richard Lenski's experiments have documented the dramatic evolution of e. coli over 40,000 generations
Even my Senior year when I took AP Biology. there were quite a few students who denied evolution, including my friend Keith (whom I considered to be the brightest out of any of us). Our Biology teacher even said she was a Creationist. I didn't really know that much about evolution back then, but I still thought that everybody had turned mad. It's really sad what the Texas school system and religion has done to a lot of us.
I went to a Vatican catholic private primary school were I was taught how Pasteur disproved creationism from nothing, I was taught about Darwin, and the primordial soup as the best theory for the first unicellular organisms. Then I did my bachelors in the USA were I had to take anthropology. During the lecture on hominids the professor said he was forced to teach creationism. To this day I am stunned by the level of stupidity. A secular trier I university in the USA teaches creationism. My catholic nun teacher on 6th grade told me that the Church accepted creationism was complete nonsense centuries ago.
actually mutations can add new genes - it can happen during DNA replication and is called (surprisingly enough) Gene Duplication - couple this with a frameshift mutation and you can have an entirely different protein resulting from the process This is exactly what happened in the cause of the evolution of nylonase
if you teach alternatives to evolution, then id write a textbook about the theory that aliens came to earth 3.5 billion years ago and planted biological seeds, that eventualy over time became the origin for life on earth and have on occasion returned to earth to modify the dna to ensure the rise of humans, thus the dna changes between apes and humans etc. and let the creationists know if their text books can get in so can this one, pointing out why creationism books should not, and in psychology, write a book about crystals, mind reading, tarot cards etc, to be taught in psychology etc, write a flat earth book, and on and on fill the proceedings with so many alternative ideas that even the fundies see its not viable. my view, fight fire with fire.
To add to that Revelation 6:13 "and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind." The smallest star ever observed is 1000 times the size of earth, stars cannot fall to earth, the writers thought stars were tiny light placed in the firmament, a dome over a flat earth, resting on "its foundations" (translation from "rest on its pillars") "the pillars of the earth were shaken" etc.
@AntigoneRisen Well....its not exactly random quotes, i considered the passage i mentioned before putting it down, although it doesnt have much to do with the presentation.
Mathew 4:8 - the devil takes Jesus to a high mountain top and shows him all the kingdoms of the earth. The viewpoint of the writer is obviously not of a spherical earth, but of a flat one. You have to do a really contrived dance to make sense of why they go to a mountain top to see the whole earth, if they know the earth is a ball.
SOCIETIES of metazoa emerged when individual members developed the ability to communicate & share resources with their neighbors. This process echos and is analogous to the process of development of the metazoic life-form from communities of cells. The integration of separate entities into a community creates a new entity. The entities we call societies or tribes are a kind of meta-organism. Human society suffers because we have not fully applied natural law of social interaction: moral precepts
On the contrary, I'm supremely interested in listening to and learning from the world's greatest thinkers and scientists. Alas, creationists aren't in that club - far from it!
@DSCW33 You'd have to understand *and agree* with what it says. I do understand the bible, I just also understand that it's the folklore of ancient nomads, and is not to be taken seriously.
@dannywizz "they are related to each other by sequence and by logical cause and effect chain." Again, you're statement is correct but insubstantial. The same could be said of the Big Bang and baseball. So evolution, baseball, PB&J sandwiches etc all have a "common ancestor" in Big Bang. They are dependent on it! The only reason to specifically link evo with the BB is due to the mixing of the creation of life & of the universe in most myths. It has nothing to do with the actual science.
Starting in the 70s many biologists began questioning Darwinism's adequacy in explaining evolution.Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or a fish into an amphibian.Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest.As Goodwin (1995)points out "the origin of species-Darwins problem-remains unsolved"
After all these years Young Earth Creationism only became an issue recently . Most Christians Scholars Commentators Translators Did not hold to that view.
We can handle "crazy'. We can't handle "evil intent". We should stop referring to these people as 'crazy'. They, no doubt, quite enjoy being the victim, the underdog - it suits their christian creed and they thrive. We should refer to them as "evil". Creationists are not crazy and nor are they stupid, they're evil. I am reminded of the Nazis: they were not crazy; far from it they were brilliantly clever in the execution of their evil philosophy. History has the evidence.
It's great when creatards get into a hissy fit about evolution not explaining abiogenesis. This means they have gone from having not having the intelligence to understand the evidence for evolution, to not having the imagination to guess how a single celled organism might have started.
I have spent my time arguing with religious, it is a waste of time, they can be excellent people, but when it arrives in the field of science the conversation reveals the true state of their brain, who believes in creationism should not even be taken seriously, after all science is not a question of believing, it is a matter of trust and certainty in scientific data, creationists do not deserve the respect, in my company I am no longer hiring religious fanatics, so every day every profession tends to be more linked to science in all amibitos and they are naturally against science. they can not deal with science as a normal person. Fairies are religious and creationists.
They give it attention because the creationists themselves keep bringing it up, with the Kitzmiller v. Dover being one of the peaks of the issue. That may continue but I think the creationist crowd will run out of avenues eventually. Until then, scientists are right to confront them and call it out for not being science. There's a good documentary on the issue, the BBCs "War on Science": I think YT isn't letting me post the link, so google it and you should find it on google video.
39:08 It is almost like there is selective pressure on what kind of bills they make. And if one represented to them a modern version of one, it would seem to them that it has irreduciable complexity. :'D
If there a move to eTextBooks, there will be less need for every state to have the exact same wording. They can add or subtract text with a few clicks.
Just a point on this. Sternberg was an unpaid Research Associate not an employee at the Smithsonian. So could not have been fired. He did resign from an unpaid position as editor of a journal though.
I don't understand. Public schools should only teach the natural world and natural theory's explaining the world and the universe. Supernatural explanations can be taught, just in churches and religious schools. In my opinion public schools should only deal with naturalistic explanations, if you doubt those naturalistic means then you can go to church were it's taught.
+Max Dennis god people live in a magic land, with god. That is why there are no religious criminals. Oh wait, they make up 99.8% of the convicted. Damn facts, god should ban them with his Magic Wand of Genocide
"they cannot use the term Theory but should use the term Hypothesis, am I correct?" Nope. A hypothesis has to be testable and the tests, repeatable. Yea, so no, creationism doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis.
@luftigus Yes the dark an light are the same species, but like many species there are variants (forms), for instance, in Small Copper Butterfly (Lycaena phlaeas)you have a form called four blue spot, where there are a line of blue spots on both upper wings. And Comma (Polygonia c-album) you always find that the first brood emergence are dark where the second are always lighter, and in a late long summer sometimes a third emergence will produce a variety.
Random mutations are exactly that, as you point out. What is not random is whether that mutation is passed on. If the mutation is beneficial, it will probably be handed down to offspring. If the mutation is detrimental, it will probably not be handed down. That's statistics, it's not random.
I think you should see creationism taught in schools.... as soon as church and Sunday school cover Darwinism without "lol" or "this is wrong" being involved. Teach evolution in church, and we can teach creationism in school.
@Bornagain271 just google "list of transitional fossils". lol. Click on the Wikipedia link if you want. There will be gaps because it requires a lot of conditions to form a fossil. The fossil record will never be perfect, but it doesn't mean that it's false.
Between _Process Skills_ and _Content Skills_ the former should be the primary focus, teaching students to understand SCIENTIFIC METHOD, particularly the word THEORY in its scientific (vs colloquial) application. Once that is solidly understood, _Content_ presentation can be punctuated with, "Like ALL scientific Theories, THIS was established via the same demand for objectively observable, consistently demonstrable, potentially falsifiable evidence and testing, such as..." The problem with today's Science Education is that it focuses primarily on _Content_ rather than _Process,_ and it often comes off like, "In this year, this person, discovered/published/invented this," with little focus on HOW. As for Evolution vs. Creation...which in scientific terms is Theory vs. Conjecture...False Dichotomy is a textbook Logical Fallacy. Even if Evolution and Natural Selection were...by some _miracle..._ proved false tomorrow, Creationism (in all its forms) would _still_ only be true if it could be evidently and logically supported on its own merits. "Scopes" was decided in 1925, _for God's sake!_ How are we still fighting the _same_ fight?!?!?! Regarding the statement that, even in college, Evolution is not taught well enough, it's genuinely sickening to realize how many people are _teaching_ Evolution without ever actually _reading_ Darwin's book(s) or presenting his work in class. Just imagine a high school (let alone college) English teacher, who teaches _ABOUT_ Shakespeare...without ever reading any of it, and without requiring students to do so. In both cases, students may become familiar with generalized bullet points, but they miss out on all the magnificent poetry!
i find it both extremely disturbing and hilarious that this controversy is considered legitimate and is such a huge deal in america. if you brought it up at a school board here in germany, people would laugh their asses off. only in america... geez
What do you mean by animate? Do you mean living? In that case define "life". N.B. Nothing supernatural involved in something "being alive". If you mean by animate "moving about" then all matter is constantly moving about.
Also keep in mind that you can never ever disprove that blue-nosed widgets don't exist (we can calculate probability though, and it's higher in probability than a deity in that my fictitious creation isn't very complex as he isn't omnipotent, while a deity would HAVE to be if it was to see and know everything at once), and that if I had wrote about my fictitious creation a few thousand years ago, we'd have people today saying "but you have no proof there is a blue-nosed widget and I believe!"
@mellamosean The building in Tanzania had a huge hole in it on the second floor. And I cant see how a truck bomb manages to do that from below. But I can be wrong, cause this was several weeks later and they had already begun clean up and restoration of the building. Lets just say like this. There is very few sources and evidence that supports that it was an outside job. To me, it looks like these Al Qaida dudes out in the desert were better strategists than both Napoleon or Alexander The Great
@TAz69x "Why is it that people so CLEARLY ignorant [...] are making laws of ANY KIND on educational and scientific matters?!" Good question! In England we have boards for individual schools elected from among parents, etc., but they cannot dictate content. It's a *national* curriculum. Private schools can deviate fairly freely but ALL high school kids have identical (per subject) national general education (diploma) exams & teachers are not involved in grading them.
Eugenie Scott explain why still, after all these years, creationism is still crazy!
#science #reason
It's not crazy at all!
Attempting to keep people in a medieval-style obscurantism isn't crazy, it's simply and utterly _criminal_!
René Bartholemy And profitable. I've never met a bible basher without feeling his hand trying to get at my wallet.
David Wild Hear hear!
This is directed to you Mr. Dawkins: ( Psalm 111:10
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom).
This means, when you learn to fear the lord, then you will begin to have wisdom. You cannot possibly be wise, no matter how you try and pretend while believing an an absurd, fabricated fairy tail for adults.
The dictum ‘All life from preexisting life’ became the dogma of modern biology, from which no reasonable man could be expected to dissent”. The experiments that formed the ultimate basis of this law were first carried out by such men as Francesco Redi (1688) and Lazarro Spallanzani (1799) in Italy, Louis Pasteur (1860) in France, and Rudolph Virchow (1858) in Germany. It was Virchow who documented that cells do not arise from amorphous matter, but instead come only from preexisting cells. The Encyclopaedia Britannica states concerning Virchow that “His aphorism ‘omnis cellula e cellula’ (every cell arises from a preexisting cell) ranks with Pasteur’s ‘omne vivum e vivo’ (every living thing arises from a preexisting living thing) among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology”.
Down through the years, countless thousands of scientists in various disciplines have established the law of biogenesis as just that-a scientific law stating that life comes only from preexisting life and that of its kind. Interestingly, the law of biogenesis was firmly established in science long before the contrivance of modern evolutionary theories.
Why, then, are we suddenly being told that, in regard to biogenesis, the word “law” no longer applies? It did in the nineteenth century. Has it been disproven? On the contrary, every piece of scientific evidence still supports the basic concept that life arises only from preexisting life.
David Wild A childish reply from a fool. No surprise there.
Dawkins is actually amazingly patient. I've seen him go through some conversations with people who are just so stunningly deluded that you feel like bashing your head against something. Yet he remains polite generally.
He’s a really amazing educator he has helped me understand aspects of evolution that I never really understood before hearing him distill those ideas into a digestible summary. And you know what, even in the times when he’s not “English“ and polite (as you put it) usually has a damn good fucking reason to be impolite. I like the example of him talking to Brandon flowers where he absolutely massacres Mormonism, deeply offending him, but then turns around and is very warm and polite to him afterwards.
Dawkins is amazingly dishonest to say the least, he is like a volcano ready to go off, very vitriolic towards God and the loving words of Jesus, not a nice man
This is great, we need a 2019 update.
H
U j u u uuuu u uuu
2022
Supernatural explanations should be taught in mythology classes, as electives.
@John Digsby
Darwinian evolution is not a fraud, it is the unifying theory of Biology and an excellent theory for applied science.
Creationism should not be taught to any child if we want intelligent kids.
@John Digsby Please abandon all medicine then... It is all based on biology, which is entirely based on evolution. You almost certainly owe your existence to the advances it brought.
@@jonneexplorer
Yes indeed.
Creationism is fraudulent and if it were true then none of the teachings of Biology would yield results. Yet they keep on providing.
Exactly. If they want to require the teaching of intelligent design in biology class, let them require the teaching of evolution in Sunday school. Teach the controversy about Biblical inerrancy and all the other bronze age bullshit in it.
@@thomasaskew1985 Amen!
Honestly, I can never get enough of watching these prof's give there lectures. Whether is Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins or Eugenie Scott, its such a delight listening to what these brilliant minds have to say.
8)
This is the first time I've seen a talk by his delightful, engaging, intelligent woman. Now I know what videos I will binge on this weekend.
An great lecture. Very good information and very nice delivery and argument. Love this woman and her organization.
the religious don't understand what a scientific theory is, they see it as a hypothesis. I propose we just begin referring to it as The Law of Evolution. Let it be shown that denying evolution is just as silly as denying the Theory of Gravity.
+Benjamin Lloyd There is More evidence for Evolution than there is for gravity
Nev Anderson there is no evidence for evolution
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264 there are literal mountains of evidence for evolution... DNA alone supports common descent beyond all reasonable doubt. You have no clue.
this is a reading from 13 years ago and when this trend of anti-scientism has continued since 2009 one wonders how much time it will take before there is an American again who cannot count beyond 10 or cannot do more complicated maths then 2 + 2.
It is not unique in history that a triving scientific culture collapsed due to religion, in the early Middle Ages the science flourished in the Abbasid Caliphate, but after a few hunderd years it was all gone and never came back in the Arabic world
I have no problem with including creationism in religion classes, so long as all religions are taught. I'm not religious but it's good to know and understand what others believe since they influence society.
I think Creationism should be more examined by psychology (neurology). Roughly said this irrational belief denies obvious facts so desperately, that I think it is the consequence of a brain wash since childhood.
How can you compare a system of beliefs to a disease?, that's very ignorant and stupid tbh
@@robinwarren6924 Not really, creationism requires an extraordinary level of denial of science and contradictory beliefs just to get by daily. The level of adherence to conspiracy theories is at a high level.
Studies into this have been done.
Dunning Kruger effect plays into this. As does research on conspiracy theorists (lowered IQ, rampant paranoia and distrust)
@@ozowen5961 believing in something is not mental disease
@@robinwarren6924
The means of maintaining a belief however can be very unhealthy.
eg: The Dunning Kruger effect.
@@ozowen5961 thank you
What a great lady and a great talk!
I'm so happy to have people like her assuring that actual, real science is taught in science classrooms. She rocks!
Great lecture!
@sothis48 Not only has it not moved us forward as a species, it actually made us go back. We had more knowledge in the Roman Empire than in the Christian Middle Age.
Creationists begin with Genesis, a book written by multiple anonymous authors who were clearly not witnesses to any of the events recounted. After accepting the content of Genesis as historical, they then examine the physical world looking for evidence that can confirm the content of Genesis. When they find evidence that is ambiguous, they announce that Genesis has been confirmed. When they find non-corroborating evidence, they ignore it and move on.
Harsh! Accurate, but harsh.
Creation "science"
Now THERE'S a contradiction in terms if ever I saw one
I am so glad that I grew up and live in a progressive state (Hawaii) where they teach real science and there has never been any of the creationist bullshit like in the idiotic bible belt states. We have plenty of religious people here, but we believe in and keep our government and schools separate from religion as the constitution mandates.
Creationists have lied continuously to push their ignorance.
I support Eugenie Scott's efforts by paying the thirty five dollar annual membership fee to NCSE.
« This is why »
No, Gould proposed his model to explain why we find many transitions at the genus level and above, but very few at the species level. This has to do with the fossil record, not with the observation of nested hierarchies.
Creation is a story for people who also have mental illness
Evolution is the story for idiots that like to be lied to.
***** That's actually the Bible.
+spicecrop "Evolution is the story for idiots that like to be lied to." 23 separate scientific disciplines all provide irrefutable evidence of evolution. It is carries more substantive proof than there is for gravity.... literally.
Your religion has one chronically flawed "infallible" book, with more errors, contradictions and lies than it has pages. A little taste:
1. God is satisfied with his works
Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6
2. God dwells in chosen temples
2 Chron 7:12,16
God dwells not in temples
Acts 7:48
3. God dwells in light
Tim 6:16
God dwells in darkness
1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2
4. God is seen and heard
Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/
Ex 24:9-11
God is invisible and cannot be heard
John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16
5. God is tired and rests
Ex 31:17
God is never tired and never rests
Is 40:28
6. God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things
Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21
God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all things
Gen 11:5/ Gen 18:20,21/ Gen 3:8
7. God knows the hearts of men
Acts 1:24/ Ps 139:2,3
God tries men to find out what is in their heart
Deut 13:3/ Deut 8:2/ Gen 22:12
8. God is all powerful
Jer 32:27/ Matt 19:26
God is not all powerful
Judg 1:19
9. God is unchangeable
James 1:17/ Mal 3:6/ Ezek 24:14/ Num 23:19
God is changeable
Gen 6:6/ Jonah 3:10/ 1 Sam 2:30,31/ 2 Kings 20:1,4,5,6/
Ex 33:1,3,17,14
10. God is just and impartial
Ps 92:15/ Gen 18:25/ Deut 32:4/ Rom 2:11/ Ezek 18:25
God is unjust and partial
Gen 9:25/ Ex 20:5/ Rom 9:11-13/ Matt 13:12
11. God is the author of evil
Lam 3:38/ Jer 18:11/ Is 45:7/ Amos 3:6/ Ezek 20:25
God is not the author of evil
1 Cor 14:33/ Deut 32:4/ James 1:13
12. God gives freely to those who ask
James 1:5/ Luke 11:10
God withholds his blessings and prevents men from receiving them
John 12:40/ Josh 11:20/ Is 63:17
13. God is to be found by those who seek him
Matt 7:8/ Prov 8:17
God is not to be found by those who seek him
Prov 1:28
14. God is warlike
Ex 15:3/ Is 51:15
God is peaceful
Rom 15:33/ 1 Cor 14:33
15. God is cruel, unmerciful, destructive, and ferocious
Jer 13:14/ Deut 7:16/ 1 Sam 15:2,3/ 1 Sam 6:19
God is kind, merciful, and good
James 5:11/ Lam 3:33/ 1 Chron 16:34/ Ezek 18:32/ Ps 145:9/
1 Tim 2:4/ 1 John 4:16/ Ps 25:8
16. God's anger is fierce and endures long
Num 32:13/ Num 25:4/ Jer 17:4
God's anger is slow and endures but for a minute
Ps 103:8/ Ps 30:5
17. God commands, approves of, and delights in burnt offerings, sacrifices ,and holy days
Ex 29:36/ Lev 23:27/ Ex 29:18/ Lev 1:9
God disapproves of and has no pleasure in burnt offerings, sacrifices, and holy days.
Jer 7:22/ Jer 6:20/ Ps 50:13,4/ Is 1:13,11,12
18. God accepts human sacrifices
2 Sam 21:8,9,14/ Gen 22:2/ Judg 11:30-32,34,38,39
God forbids human sacrifice
Deut 12:30,31
19. God tempts men
Gen 22:1/ 2 Sam 24:1/ Jer 20:7/ Matt 6:13
God tempts no man
James 1:13
20. God cannot lie
Heb 6:18
God lies by proxy; he sends forth lying spirits to deceive
2 Thes 2:11/ 1 Kings 22:23/ Ezek 14:9
21. Because of man's wickedness God destroys him
Gen 6:5,7
Because of man's wickedness God will not destroy him
Gen 8:21
22. God's attributes are revealed in his works.
Rom 1:20
God's attributes cannot be discovered
Job 11:7/ Is 40:28
23. There is but one God
Deut 6:4
There is a plurality of gods
Gen 1:26/ Gen 3:22/ Gen 18:1-3/ 1 John 5:7
Oh don't worry there is much, much more
www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/religion/50-000-Errors-and-Biblical-contradictions-190303
@@spicecrop Belief in God slows down scientific progress. In fact it reverses scientific progress. Don't believe me. Ask the Dark Ages.
Most Brilliant women I have ever had the pleasure of learning from..
So, what did you learn?
Absolutely love her. What an amazing speaker. So sharp.
First of all a mutation is any combination of chromosomes. Given the trillions of mutations that occur on this planet at any given moment, the chances that a beneficial combination of chromosomes will occur within a given species is profound. Take into account that negative combinations are discarded through natural selection and neutral combinations have no effect, it seems inevitable that beneficial combinations will remain and lead to drastic changes provided the environment requires them.
« Nested hierachies are not observed »
They are observed. It is not imagination that life can be classified consistently only according to one scheme, and that any other scheme produces contradictions.
Young Earth Creationism, based on a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis as historical fact rather than as an allegorical fable, is nothing more than an offshoot of religious fundamentalism.
The fundamentalist beliefs of YEC include the following:
Planet Earth is approximately 6,000 to 10,000 years old,
God created life, the universe, and everything in six days,
God created Adam from dust and Eve from one of Adam’s ribs,
Dinosaurs were vegetarian and lived side by side with men and women,
The global flood depicted in the Book of Genesis occurred.
Noah and his family constructed an enormous floating ark to house two opposite sexes of every lifeform on Earth,
The Bible is the literal word of God, infallible, and a historically accurate account
Creation science is a contradiction in terms because Young Earth Creationists set out with a fixed and unwavering belief of how the universe and life was created. And no matter how overwhelming and universally accepted the counter-scientific evidence may be, YECs will not change their fundamentalist beliefs. This alone makes YEC nothing more than religious fundamentalism. And religious fundamentalism is based entirely on unwavering faith in a literal interpretation of theological texts.
Mainstream science, on the other hand, is willing to be proven wrong and willing to change scientific theories if new compelling evidence comes to light that challenges an accepted scientific theory.
(In science, the term “theory” is used to refer to an established scientific fact, which is supported by an overwhelming body of evidence and is universally accepted by the scientific community.)
When mainstream science demonstrates that the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis is flawed, YECs fall back on the “God created a miracle” argument. This is particularly relevant in relation to Noah’s Ark.
It is widely considered impossible for eight primitive people to build one of the largest ships in history, using primitive tools and in such a short space of time. It is also impossible for eight primitive people to be able to feed and water so many animal, reptile, amphibian, avian, and insect species. It is also considered impossible for them to be able to acquire every species, especially animals considered native to particular countries and continents (based on the natural history record). Noah’s ark, based on the size depicted in the Book of Genesis, is widely considered to be impossible to sail and would buckle and bend. When faced with such facts (which Ken Ham will if his Ark project becomes a reality), YECs fall back on the “…One of God’s miracles” argument.
The Holy Bible itself has been changed and edited throughout the centuries. Indeed, some ancient scriptures (such as the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, and the Book of Giants/Nephilim) no longer appear in the old testament, despite their direct relevance to the Book of Genesis. And the original drafts of many of the books of the bible were written down over two thousand or more years ago by primitive Hebrew scholars, in an era before modern science.
Perhaps the only field of science that has any relevance to YEC is psychology. When one considers the overwhelming body of scientific evidence that opposes YEC, one has to ask oneself why there are still YECs in the 21st century. What is the psychology and motive of a YEC?
Gertrude Perkins Motive is that evolution destroys their fairy book.
Poseidon63 I seriously believe that they are religious fundamentalists, first and foremost (and not just in it for the money like some claim). So maybe what I really should be asking is, what is the psychology of a religious fundamentalist who believes in a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis despite the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary!?
+Gertrude Perkins I agree I consider the issue of religiosity, if I can call it that, most interesting. In truth usually when I engage with somebody concerning their religious beliefs, their actual beliefs are to some extent incidental in themselves, what I am really seeking to do is gain some insight into the person themselves and their psychological makeup. For me it is more of an anthropological exercise where the person I am talking to is essentially my subject. Obviously this is not something I ordinarily make them aware of as this would tend to defeat the purpose as it may cause them to react somewhat differently. In conclusion, I find the ways in which some people are able to sustain beliefs which appear to be extraordinarily contrary to normalcy, incoherent and indeed frequently self contradictory, fascinating. Also I note people frequently say they believe one thing but their actual actions do not appear to concur with their purported beliefs.
+Gertrude Perkins Catholics accept evolution, and the old age of earth. Of course, they're the oldest Christian sect. They've been through their crazy period. All these new crazy cults are in their crazy period. Does this answer your question?
Any cosmogony that includes a talking snake is mythology, not science.
People who believes they spontaneously came from a rock ( the evolution mythology in other words), needs help
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264 That is not what evolution states, you lying bastard. Stop spreading lies to discredit a science your phony god is too impotent to give you brains enough to understand.
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264 please tell me what part of the theory of evolution through natural selection discusses this. Go right ahead.
The missing links sinks the fairy theory of the evolution revolution ? ? ? 😁😅😉😁
All the good positive gains you get when believing in God can come without believing in any God.
+dane smart That is because there are no good gains from believing in god.
They claim morals can only come from god.
That is invalid, every animal that raises its young displays compassion and empathy. Wildlife photographers have footage of animals risking their own safety to rescue another, sometimes even from a different species.
Man as an animal is slow, weak, defenseless and tasty. Survival depended upon cooperation and good fellowship (just as we display today) LONG before any religion took hold. Before language developed even.
Secular society has banned slavery, and punishes the rapist. We then twice as moral as the Yahweh.
Hello Dane. I am a Dane too!
Your right! Creation arguments make sense to creationist only. I guess that explains the passage "My sheep hear my voice and they follow me."
I remember the TASS/TAKS exams I took in grade school. These exams were based on the TEKS curriculum, the problem is that the bar is set so low so Texas schools look like they're doing a good job of educating their students, but in actuality we get a watered down version of what we should be learning.
Despite making the curriculum easier for students, my school had a dropout rate of over 50%. I lucked out because I was able to get into GT/AP classes so I managed to get an alright education.
Very interesting.
Thank you for this lecture.
Teachers should be encouraged to teach real science, evolution, not pseudo-science, creationism.
You need it the other way around :
Evolution:pseudo science
Creation: a scientific theory
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264 Liar. Court case after court case has proven that evolution is science and creationism is religion. When you pull your head out of your fundament you might not get it backwards.
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264 Horseshit. Scientists determine what science is, and scientists declare evolution science and creationism pseudo-science. Check out some science. And I don't mean what you get from those right-wing Bible-thumping propaganda mills that attack evolution, big bang, and climate change.
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264 You have it backwards. Invest in some KY jelly and a crowbar. Maybe then you can pry your head out of your fundament.
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264 Liar. There is no evidence that the world began 6000 years ago or that all was made in a mere 6 days. There is no evidence for a man from dust. There is no evidence for a woman from a man's rib. And there certainly is no evidence for a talking snake. Pull your head out of your fundament and realize what a bunch of bullshit the Bible really is.
Creationism IS actually a crazy idea!
Yeah and the mathematical impossibility that the universe and the Earth and all the complexity of it just happened all by itself is perfectly rational.
+spicecrop "Yeah and the mathematical impossibility that the universe and the Earth and all the complexity of it just happened all by itself is perfectly rational" Shakespeare quotes can be generated by a random selection in less than an hour. All it take is not to go all genocidal, like god does, and throw the correct bits away each time. But do what Evolution does and keep what works.
+spicecrop "the mathematical impossibility (of) the universe and the Earth"
The Universe may well have had an infinite number of iterations before this one.
All life on this planet, evolved on this planet, to fit this planet.
As climate and ground conditions changed, those with an evolutionary advantage survived and thrived. The others died (99.9% of all species are extinct)
If earth had been vastly different, life here would have been different.
If life was impossible, earth would have been another dead planet
Like the many other dead planets in the Trillions of galaxies in our vast universe
On this speck of dust, 13% of earth's surface is habitable to humans.
Yes evolution is a crazy idea
Ryan Welke
Compared to what ? Talking snakes , donkeys and bushes ? Yeah right.
@luftigus
The Peppered moth sitting with wings open is a survival advantage, they are more camouflaged with wings spread and flat to the tree or rock than they would be wings folded and sitting proud.
Trees are a natural resting place for Peppered moth, especially on Lichen; I am not sure why I am having to repeat myself here.
Whatever you do don't ask them to define "kind"!
Creation science movement that seems like a huge contradiction in words.
+Jon Zamudio Sort of, there is a movement to flood the world with $25 doctorates from creationist institutes. Kent Hovind has one, his "thesis" reads like it was written by a 12 year old working on hunches and Sunday Sermons. Swamping real science with paid puppets who have nothing to do but fabricate faux results and post them everywhere.
So their movement is an anti science science movement
It is
If they teach Creation in Biology Class, then I want to teach Alchemy in Chemistry Class!
It's an extremely interesting discussion on evolution vs creationism on schools =) There are two sides to it though; evolution will be taught during biology classes, and probably not untill the children grow older. Now I do not know about schools in the USA, but in Dutch Christian schools bible study is already performed in preschool - ages 4 and up. There they are taught God created the world and it's inhabitants. So, when they are -finally- told of evolution, the immediate question that rises in them will be probably "But what about God?". That is a major clash of insights, especially if the teacher involved is religious him/herself. How to answer that question? So I think I can understand why creationists get so upset about teaching evolution - it poses a question they do not wish to answer. And from their point of view (It's either black or white.) thinking about God in terms of playing a role in something they see as one of the fundaments of their religion (God the creator) would mean they would have to breach the main value of religion; to believe without question. So I do not think creationism is crazy, I think it is desperate...
***** Creationism is both desperate and batshit crazy.
Well, I did google, and found out that abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are not the same thing. Spontaneous generation is part of Aristotelian philosophy, and includes statements like "meat spawns maggots". This is what Pascal disproved, with his experiment.
Ironically, if you'd read about the history of religion, you'd find that the old church put Aristotle on a very high pedestal, so there was a time when all priests and philosophers would say "yes, meat spawns maggots".
great lecture, many thanks
+mickydripping "micky dripping" is a term I have not heard since I was a kid
Here's "creation" for you: The routine activity for organisms is “tearing others apart with teeth of all types --- biting, grinding flesh, plant stalks, bones between molars, pushing the pulp greedily down the gullet with delight, incorporating its essence into one's own organization, and then excreting with foul stench and gasses, the residue." But god loves you!
It's quite obvious that the recipe for the above is EVOLUTION, not a god!
+Ray Rothermel Yeah, some of us have a lot of indigestion. If there was a god, I would hunt him down & beat the living shit out of him.
Marilyn Newman Me too!
Marilyn Newman As a vegan I concur wholeheartedly! BEANS!!! What the hell was he thinking THERE!? Must have been Friday afternoon....
Shady Shadpus you eat raw beans???
Don't eat any sort of beans.
Your slides need a bit of intelligent design, though :)
She is a scientist. She has a PhD in physical anthropology and has also taught at a university level in the past.
Columbus knew the world was round because pretty much every civilization had figured it out since, at least, the time of ancient Greece. Those Greeks also figured out, pretty accurately, how large the world was.
Columbus was trying to prove the world was a lot smaller than everyone else thought it was, and he was monumentally wrong.
What do you believe, science facts or superstitious nonsense?
LordKellthe1st
Agreed
+Poseidon63 Science. Reading the bible made me see the light. There is no fucking god. I still haven't had an answer to my 9 year old question. After Cain killed Abel, who was this woman of NOD he had sex with?
Creation Science = an oxymoron.
Evolution science =an oxymoron
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264 how so? What part of evolution is not scientific? Please be specific, and if i find your argument valuable I will help you get it published in peer review. If it stands up, you will get a Nobel. Of course you won't, because you don't know what science even is, nor evolution...
Teeks sounds like a slur for Hawaiians.
this woman is a very good promoter for natural science... love it. she was on Penn&Teller:Bullshit and gave some of the best discussion for the entire episode
As well as mutation, there's sexual reproduction (mate selection and DNA recombination) and that allows occasional hybridisation.
Scientists should not be wasting their time debating this shit, it just gives credence to the opposing 'argument' The speaker and all attendees are wasting their time.
+Sean Mernagh NO NO NO!!!! Debating your corner leads you to understand both your opposition, and their beliefs, tactics.
I'm starting to become rather disenchanted with some of the USA's populous. Even though this is a few years old. It's doubtful a lot has changed since.
If this claim is correct then why in 1996 did the pope and church apologize for denying Galilea's findings?
@ShrodingerFu Yeah, evolution is now at a point where to deny the evidence is unreasonable under any standards of evidence. And yes, I agree with you that the designer would indeed have to be one seriously screwed up entity. And unfortunately, as you mentioned, religions just don't even care about evidence. They only see what they want. And so, they can toss out evolution AND say that their god isn't a sadistic bastard, all in one breath. It's really an amazing feat of human reasoning and logic.
The two-model approach explains why creationists are so desperate to disprove evolution. Just for giggles, in a lengthy talk with a creationist I eventually decided to play along and said "yeah I don't think evolution is a good theory. Can you suggest a better theory?". I got no response. He was done.
@Bornagain271 There are tens of thousands of species of plants that do not require pollination to reproduce. As it happens, pollination is a very successful reproduction method and so it is not surprising that it evolved. But it is not a pre-requisite for having plant life.
Bacteria, it turns out, have been observed to evolve with a great deal of precision. Dr. Richard Lenski's experiments have documented the dramatic evolution of e. coli over 40,000 generations
Even my Senior year when I took AP Biology. there were quite a few students who denied evolution, including my friend Keith (whom I considered to be the brightest out of any of us). Our Biology teacher even said she was a Creationist.
I didn't really know that much about evolution back then, but I still thought that everybody had turned mad. It's really sad what the Texas school system and religion has done to a lot of us.
Where there'er all unawere
I went to a Vatican catholic private primary school were I was taught how Pasteur disproved creationism from nothing, I was taught about Darwin, and the primordial soup as the best theory for the first unicellular organisms. Then I did my bachelors in the USA were I had to take anthropology. During the lecture on hominids the professor said he was forced to teach creationism.
To this day I am stunned by the level of stupidity. A secular trier I university in the USA teaches creationism. My catholic nun teacher on 6th grade told me that the Church accepted creationism was complete nonsense centuries ago.
actually mutations can add new genes - it can happen during DNA replication and is called (surprisingly enough) Gene Duplication - couple this with a frameshift mutation and you can have an entirely different protein resulting from the process
This is exactly what happened in the cause of the evolution of nylonase
Acually the creation took until i finished day as 6 dayslept before all known
if you teach alternatives to evolution, then id write a textbook about the theory that aliens came to earth 3.5 billion years ago and planted biological seeds, that eventualy over time became the origin for life on earth and have on occasion returned to earth to modify the dna to ensure the rise of humans, thus the dna changes between apes and humans etc. and let the creationists know if their text books can get in so can this one, pointing out why creationism books should not, and in psychology, write a book about crystals, mind reading, tarot cards etc, to be taught in psychology etc, write a flat earth book, and on and on fill the proceedings with so many alternative ideas that even the fundies see its not viable. my view, fight fire with fire.
To add to that Revelation 6:13 "and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind." The smallest star ever observed is 1000 times the size of earth, stars cannot fall to earth, the writers thought stars were tiny light placed in the firmament, a dome over a flat earth, resting on "its foundations" (translation from "rest on its pillars") "the pillars of the earth were shaken" etc.
@AntigoneRisen Well....its not exactly random quotes, i considered the passage i mentioned before putting it down, although it doesnt have much to do with the presentation.
Mathew 4:8 - the devil takes Jesus to a high mountain top and shows him all the kingdoms of the earth. The viewpoint of the writer is obviously not of a spherical earth, but of a flat one. You have to do a really contrived dance to make sense of why they go to a mountain top to see the whole earth, if they know the earth is a ball.
SOCIETIES of metazoa emerged when individual members developed the ability to communicate & share resources with their neighbors. This process echos and is analogous to the process of development of the metazoic life-form from communities of cells. The integration of separate entities into a community creates a new entity. The entities we call societies or tribes are a kind of meta-organism. Human society suffers because we have not fully applied natural law of social interaction: moral precepts
+John Champagne Thanks John, a line of thought that I had not heard or considered.
On the contrary, I'm supremely interested in listening to and learning from the world's greatest thinkers and scientists. Alas, creationists aren't in that club - far from it!
So a creationist chemist or brain surgeon you would not trust?
The “complicated” flagellum is just like the evolution of the eye. It starts with a simple hinge then specializes after millions of years.
@DSCW33 You'd have to understand *and agree* with what it says. I do understand the bible, I just also understand that it's the folklore of ancient nomads, and is not to be taken seriously.
@dannywizz
"they are related to each other by sequence and by logical cause and effect chain."
Again, you're statement is correct but insubstantial.
The same could be said of the Big Bang and baseball.
So evolution, baseball, PB&J sandwiches etc all have a "common ancestor" in Big Bang. They are dependent on it!
The only reason to specifically link evo with the BB is due to the mixing of the creation of life & of the universe in most myths. It has nothing to do with the actual science.
Starting in the 70s many biologists began questioning Darwinism's adequacy in explaining evolution.Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or a fish into an amphibian.Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest.As Goodwin (1995)points out "the origin of species-Darwins problem-remains unsolved"
After all these years Young Earth Creationism only became an issue recently . Most Christians Scholars Commentators Translators Did not hold to that view.
We can handle "crazy'. We can't handle "evil intent". We should stop referring to these people as 'crazy'. They, no doubt, quite enjoy being the victim, the underdog - it suits their christian creed and they thrive. We should refer to them as "evil". Creationists are not crazy and nor are they stupid, they're evil. I am reminded of the Nazis: they were not crazy; far from it they were brilliantly clever in the execution of their evil philosophy. History has the evidence.
It's great when creatards get into a hissy fit about evolution not explaining abiogenesis.
This means they have gone from having not having the intelligence to understand the evidence for evolution, to not having the imagination to guess how a single celled organism might have started.
Errors do not always lead to problems.
I have spent my time arguing with religious, it is a waste of time, they can be excellent people, but when it arrives in the field of science the conversation reveals the true state of their brain, who believes in creationism should not even be taken seriously, after all science is not a question of believing, it is a matter of trust and certainty in scientific data,
creationists do not deserve the respect, in my company I am no longer hiring religious fanatics, so every day every profession tends to be more linked to science in all amibitos and they are naturally against science. they can not deal with science as a normal person.
Fairies are religious and creationists.
They give it attention because the creationists themselves keep bringing it up, with the Kitzmiller v. Dover being one of the peaks of the issue. That may continue but I think the creationist crowd will run out of avenues eventually. Until then, scientists are right to confront them and call it out for not being science.
There's a good documentary on the issue, the BBCs "War on Science": I think YT isn't letting me post the link, so google it and you should find it on google video.
"what can be asserted without evidence can be
just as easily dismissed without evidence."
christopher hitchens
p.s.
hay guys....cite your quotes!
39:08 It is almost like there is selective pressure on what kind of bills they make. And if one represented to them a modern version of one, it would seem to them that it has irreduciable complexity. :'D
If there a move to eTextBooks, there will be less need for every state to have the exact same wording. They can add or subtract text with a few clicks.
+Roedy Green No. There is a clear need to repress truth, and to keep the flock sheepish
Just a point on this. Sternberg was an unpaid Research Associate not an employee at the Smithsonian. So could not have been fired. He did resign from an unpaid position as editor of a journal though.
Creation and science are two words that just don't fit together.
I don't understand. Public schools should only teach the natural world and natural theory's explaining the world and the universe. Supernatural explanations can be taught, just in churches and religious schools. In my opinion public schools should only deal with naturalistic explanations, if you doubt those naturalistic means then you can go to church were it's taught.
+Max Dennis god people live in a magic land, with god. That is why there are no religious criminals.
Oh wait, they make up 99.8% of the convicted.
Damn facts, god should ban them with his Magic Wand of Genocide
"they cannot use the term Theory but should use the term Hypothesis, am I correct?"
Nope. A hypothesis has to be testable and the tests, repeatable. Yea, so no, creationism doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis.
Could you point to the paper where Goodwin says that please?
If Eve was created by God from Adam's rib, was Eve DNA the same as Adam DNA?
Yep....... Incestis big in the bible, and in some parts of christian communities.
@luftigus
Yes the dark an light are the same species, but like many species there are variants (forms), for instance, in Small Copper Butterfly (Lycaena phlaeas)you have a form called four blue spot, where there are a line of blue spots on both upper wings. And Comma (Polygonia c-album) you always find that the first brood emergence are dark where the second are always lighter, and in a late long summer sometimes a third emergence will produce a variety.
Random mutations are exactly that, as you point out. What is not random is whether that mutation is passed on. If the mutation is beneficial, it will probably be handed down to offspring. If the mutation is detrimental, it will probably not be handed down. That's statistics, it's not random.
Fantastic & after listening I can c how the atheist Nations r leaving us in the dust in the most important societal ways -
I think you should see creationism taught in schools....
as soon as church and Sunday school cover Darwinism without "lol" or "this is wrong" being involved. Teach evolution in church, and we can teach creationism in school.
@Bornagain271
just google "list of transitional fossils". lol. Click on the Wikipedia link if you want. There will be gaps because it requires a lot of conditions to form a fossil. The fossil record will never be perfect, but it doesn't mean that it's false.
Between _Process Skills_ and _Content Skills_ the former should be the primary focus, teaching students to understand SCIENTIFIC METHOD, particularly the word THEORY in its scientific (vs colloquial) application. Once that is solidly understood, _Content_ presentation can be punctuated with, "Like ALL scientific Theories, THIS was established via the same demand for objectively observable, consistently demonstrable, potentially falsifiable evidence and testing, such as..." The problem with today's Science Education is that it focuses primarily on _Content_ rather than _Process,_ and it often comes off like, "In this year, this person, discovered/published/invented this," with little focus on HOW.
As for Evolution vs. Creation...which in scientific terms is Theory vs. Conjecture...False Dichotomy is a textbook Logical Fallacy. Even if Evolution and Natural Selection were...by some _miracle..._ proved false tomorrow, Creationism (in all its forms) would _still_ only be true if it could be evidently and logically supported on its own merits. "Scopes" was decided in 1925, _for God's sake!_ How are we still fighting the _same_ fight?!?!?!
Regarding the statement that, even in college, Evolution is not taught well enough, it's genuinely sickening to realize how many people are _teaching_ Evolution without ever actually _reading_ Darwin's book(s) or presenting his work in class. Just imagine a high school (let alone college) English teacher, who teaches _ABOUT_ Shakespeare...without ever reading any of it, and without requiring students to do so. In both cases, students may become familiar with generalized bullet points, but they miss out on all the magnificent poetry!
If they try and put Creationism in Science text book (which makes no sense) then they'll have to put other religous fairy tails also.
i find it both extremely disturbing and hilarious that this controversy is considered legitimate and is such a huge deal in america. if you brought it up at a school board here in germany, people would laugh their asses off. only in america... geez
What do you mean by animate? Do you mean living? In that case define "life". N.B. Nothing supernatural involved in something "being alive".
If you mean by animate "moving about" then all matter is constantly moving about.
Also keep in mind that you can never ever disprove that blue-nosed widgets don't exist (we can calculate probability though, and it's higher in probability than a deity in that my fictitious creation isn't very complex as he isn't omnipotent, while a deity would HAVE to be if it was to see and know everything at once), and that if I had wrote about my fictitious creation a few thousand years ago, we'd have people today saying "but you have no proof there is a blue-nosed widget and I believe!"
Well done Dr. Scott, VERY well done!
I can't use Vedic cosmology to heat my coffee. Science works.
@mellamosean The building in Tanzania had a huge hole in it on the second floor. And I cant see how a truck bomb manages to do that from below. But I can be wrong, cause this was several weeks later and they had already begun clean up and restoration of the building.
Lets just say like this. There is very few sources and evidence that supports that it was an outside job.
To me, it looks like these Al Qaida dudes out in the desert were better strategists than both Napoleon or Alexander The Great
the creationist societies reminds me of children searching for a missing father.
@TAz69x
"Why is it that people so CLEARLY ignorant [...] are making laws of ANY KIND on educational and scientific matters?!" Good question! In England we have boards for individual schools elected from among parents, etc., but they cannot dictate content. It's a *national* curriculum. Private schools can deviate fairly freely but ALL high school kids have identical (per subject) national general education (diploma) exams & teachers are not involved in grading them.