............but what about storks bringing babies? Surely we should teach that the storks bring babies !!!! OK well at least teach the controversy that storks bring babies !!!
It's funny, but the first proponent to my knowledge of "teach the controversy" was Bertrand Russell: he propunded in one of his essays (I think it was in the "Why I am not a Christian" collection) that academic freedom was very important, beliefs or disbeliefs should be no impediment to capacity to teach and judges should not determine constitutes an appropriate academic subject (relevant to Scopes, no?). I don't remember the topic, but he said given the evidence, students decide.
In some areas there are different valid opinions on things. But when it comes to stuff like evolution, arguing against it simply isn't a valid opinion until the proponents of such a cause have proved, scientifically that is, otherwise.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Darwin's 'On the Origin of species' etc can be read free at Project Gutenberg org. For more on science & nature try books by top scientists Richard Dawkins, ' Unweaving the rainbow ' & ' The greatest show on earth ' & PZ Meyers , Victor Stenger, website Talkorigins, Try John C. Lennox V Peter Atikins debate on youtube. Also on Youtube BonoboBill, evidence of common ancestry: human chromosome 2. Also Ken Miller on Pariskillton. Also try reading about endogenous retrovirus & provirus.
I think we absolutely should teach the creationism vs evolution controversy. However since the controversy is political - there is no controversy among scientists except a lunatic fringe - it should be taught In social studies or maybe political science. There might be a place for it in psychology class. Anyplace but biology.
@lorditsnimr0dagain, what pure stupidity. remember douchey it was the academics who said the earth was flat, that leaches can cure sickness, that mercury is beneficial to health. LOL
Basically speaking, this graylin fella is dishonest.
he's doing a simple bureaucratic maneuver and "classifying" something as something else, therefore omitting it from discussion. Dishonest and cowardly, Oh Wait! I always say that "atheism was created to encourage stupidity, DISHONESTY, COWARDICE and sexual deviancy." OMG was I right or what?! LOL
@malithe00 "I always say that "atheism was created to encourage stupidity, DISHONESTY, COWARDICE and sexual deviancy."
Imagine that, using sexuality to demonize your opponent. That's so unlike your kind! Dishonesty? A stretch to say the least. Cowardice? He's part of the minority. But I think we should teach the controversy, then small brains will be marginalized. And for the record censorship when it comes to evidence could hardly be adjudicated by one that doesn't understand it.
@lorditsnimr0d, what's "totally obvious" dude, is that, like, dude...... ok, dude like what's obvious, no wait, "totally obvious", what's like "totally obvious" is that you "kids" don't seem to know the difference between "NOT teaching the Controversy" and censorship. sigh
It really pisses me off that he says "In the United States of America, and some other places in the world, too..." Excuse me? WE get named explicitly, but every other country with a significant percentage of evolution deniers get lumped into a fast footnote? There are MANY countries with large numbers of Creationists, so don't just bash the U.S. Typical Brit. Would call us self-important if we put ourselves first, but has no problem doing that for us when it's negative.
@Sheldonwh That's because the U.S is the largest and most prominent of nations in the 'western civilised world' to still hold quite strong suspicions and negative views at a governmental level of teaching evolution as fact in schools, being an American yourself, I'm sure I don't need to tell you that it's a fiercely debated topic in your country at the moment. He's giving an example, you can't expect him to list every country, why get so worked up over it? P.S 'Typical Brit' sounds ignorant...
@HarrisJamesBen Oh, so the fact that we're "the largest" makes us more important? Does that only apply when it's a negative comment, or are we allowed to carry that over into other areas? The next time someone complains that we get too much attention on the world stage, be sure and remind them that we're "the largest and most porminent of nations in the 'western civilized world." And by the way, saying "civilized world" sounds ignorant.
@Sheldonwh Haha, yes of course the fact that you're the largest is important! You're a huge country with a huge population of people, many of whom are still sceptical about theories such as evolution that are now considered fact amongst most people, don't get me wrong there are people with that belief in every country but it is still unusually high in the U.S,of course the fact you're the biggest is important?! Also, the term civilised world is not ignorant, it's a commonly used and fair term.
@Sheldonwh I'm sure the naming of the US had nothing to do with the failed attempt to get ID taught as an equally valid biological grounding for school children as evolutionary theory in a certain school in a certain state in a certain country... ;)
@BeatMyMeat, yes it is, now go away, I don't think it's right for me to talk with a young retarded boy without his mommy's permission. Does she know you're playing with her "box"? LOL (she knows when I'm playing with her box! Get it? I'm insinuating that your mom..... you don't get it do you? geez)
@BeatMyMeat, isn't "cunt" a big word for a retarded little man like you? Now, where's your mom? I need permission to talk to you and well, since she's gonna be here anyway, I figured a good, sloppy, blo........ Well here she is now! LOL
A.C. Grayling = Elitist twat. I have absolutely no respect for this guy over this whole 'New College of the Humanities' bullshit. Teach people who deserve education, not just those who can afford it. Absolutely disgusting.
So what will these money-grubbing academic divas do next, since we have all their shit already on youtube? Will they get their lectures pulled off the internet? That would make capitalist sense. Cos I don’t know what new stuff Dawkins, Grayling and Singer can come up with. We’ve heard it all – Dawkins: no gods, except Mammon, Grayling: pomos are killing philosophy but it’s alright when I plagiarise, Singer: all animals are equal but affluent animals are more equal than others!
They "teach" "demonic possession" in a medical school? Where? Vietnam? China? Alabama? Arkansas? Florida? In the enlightened, educated, evolving world, we use terms like "creationism" and "demonic possession" only in works of fiction or in horror movies, while in the USA, these terms are appearing in school and college textbooks ONLY because the "anti-intellectual" groups in the USA are the most vocal (and gun-carrying) and the educated groups have never been forgiven for being "educated".
@pacohshit1969, you sound like a "typical" atheist douchebag, which means you evolved from scumbag, so yeah there's something to darwinian imbecility. LOL
Thank you for so eloquently demonstrating MY point and may I congratulate you on the DEPTH of your arguments AND the colourful language you use to make them. I also congratulate you on your remarkable debating skills, combining "douchebag", "scumbag" and "imbecility" in one sentence, to demonstrate the evident prowess of your arguments. Your fourth grade teacher will be so proud when you show-and-tell her your resilient defence of creationism on Monday! Well done!
@pacohlies1969, Why do atheists pretend so much? The "scumbag" and "douchebag" in this particular post I authored are a play on words. you started out as a "scumbag" and you are now a "douchebag" suggesting that this is a form of "evolution". LOL douche
And the insertion of the word "shit" into my user-name was nothing less than masterful! Do you mind if I use your user-name in future arguments about the state of the US education system? (Just one point of information please: when your mom/dad tucks you in at night, what do you normally say? "Good night mom/dad" or "Good night sister/brother"? I'm just curious......Also, why does this sort of clap-trap argument only exist in the USA?
@pacohshit1969, your comments are douchey, delete them. HURRY! The American education system is controlled by marxists, that's why it's seems it's "turned on it's head". you're not very bright are you? Geez, I'm asking you....... LOL
@malithe00 May I ask why you have a YouTube "channel" (very entertaining as it is!)? Is the economic downturn/unemployment situation SO bad in the US? Or maybe it's part of your ex-con rehab? You see, I cannot quite decide whether you are unemployable, a fourth-grader or a product of a horrendous education system of the 1970's ("douchebag", "scumbag" - are you trying out for a part in "Grease"/"Westside Story"?)? But please continue; you are as entertaining as a performing sea-lion!
I love how people state that there is a controversy between evolution and creation. No, no there's not. There's just ignorant people sticking their fingers in their ears and covering their eyes whenever presented with evidence.
One has piles and piles and piles of evidence, the other has a book that contradicts itself repeatedly and has absolutely 0 contemporary sources to back it up as well as flies in the face of all evidence we have found.
@hdregmore It's easy to call names and resort to ad hominum attacks. It's harder to do what the man actually asks of you and to practice critical thinking.
@Pilaf1984 Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the meaning of "argumentum ad hominem". I suggest you educate yourself regarding it. Bandying it erroneously makes it ineffectual. It actually speaks volumes on your logic absorption.
@ricePilaf1984, I am NEVER tired of "atheist tactics". you know like pretending truths are lies and lies are truths. I really enjoy that "tactic" the most. LOL
@coolazice You'd lose that bet, and yes, I'm "welcome" to my facts, no quotes about it. Fact is fact, it is what we can demonstrate and support with evidence, and there is no Dawkins insult you can lob at me that changes the FACT that students have no need of astrology or demonology to move society forward.
Studying the history of science is a very different thing from promoting pseudoscience, and I don't think you understand the difference. Insulting me doesn't change that.
@DeadlyChinchilla Ok, I'm sorry I insulted you. Regarding our little bet, are you able to tell me what the Mars effect is and why it might not be effective (without looking it up on google/wiki, let's say)? In regards to 'moving society forward', I don't see that this is the point of education, or anything more than political spin talk. Progress, always progress, etc. Also, I don't believe I ever promoted pseudoscience anywhere on this thread, so I should think you might be insulting me.
@coolazice I would have to disagree with the assertion that we must test every single fact in existence on our own. This is the goal of science: to make it so that others may do the work of testing, and that the knowledge they take away from those tests can be passed on without others having to do all the work.
Understand that I am NOT saying I simply trust them at their word. I trust the scientific method, which includes massive peer reviews bombarding the idea. If it holds, it is good.
@coolazice He only said these so called alternate theories should not be taught as credible alternatives. He also said there may be a place for the topics as subjects other than science. Ie history.
@flight1100 Grayling says that alternate theories 'pollute' and 'interrupt' learning - I think that's absolute BS. The whole point of enquiry and education is to get students to think for themselves. I also object to the removal of science from historical viewpoints - I think the history of science should be taught precisely in science class, so students can understand the dynamic and mercurial nature of knowledge. Otherwise you end up with ahistorical scientism, stuck to the dominant paradigm.
@coolazice No objection to any of your'e points. Only to say that science classes are involved in the study of a methodology and its application. The mercurial nature of knowledge is covered under the heading of Philosophy. .
@foxmcloud555 You're not laughing yet. If you visit the US, be sure to find a "Creation Museaum" and get a good look at the lunacy. Trust me, totally worth the $10 to get in. I was entertained for MONTHS after my trip.
@foxmcloud555 it's very odd, me too actually - I never learned about creationism in lower school (such as highschool) only when I got into politics, and began studying law... and communications did it actually come up.
@malithe00 Implying those aren't typos. I'm sure of course in your particular area those are legitamate spelling mistakes though, so I guess I can't really blame you.
And if you're more worried about typos than not teaching your children they came from a mud man and rib woman, with a talking snake and 900 year old man who managed to collect every single species on the plannet and put them all on a big boat, then really I'm not shocked as to why you guys are the stereotypically stupid nation.
@dogmcloud555, LOL do you have a hatchet sticking out of your head? Go look in the mirror quick, I'll wait.......... Is there? Cause if there is, that would explain a LOT! LOL
@coolazice Why are you against creationism? Thats an odd stance! You could have left that out. Creation is exactly what it is, our creation. How can you be against your own existance. Who else could have made you? Do you believe you exist or is everything the matrix to you? Also, if I don't believe you exist, do you exist?
@truthtalker49 Um, I think you'll find the definition of creationism to be something other than 'belief in my and others' existence', so I don't really understand what you're talking about. Creationism is belief in a supernatural creator. I don't think the facts of the universe imply a theistic creator being, and certainly there is no scientific evidence for one. This is philosophy at best, and religious propaganda at worst.
@coolazice No scientific evidence??? I could bring you the world and all it's beautiful creation therein to your "scientific evidence" need. I know God created it because up untill now nobody has created anything like it and never will. Thats because it's only God who can. Also He has told us in the Bible how and when He did it. It really is not complicated. Have you made a human lately? I question anyone who says there is no evidence, just look in the mirror and open your eyes to the creation!
@truthtalker49 So when He created us,...omniscient as he was.. knowing all that has & ever will happen . long before anyone existed, and He of course knew most of us would question Him…resulting in our hell torment forever.
Yet, after watching this debacle a million lifetimes over & over & over, He became more angry at His creations, so He kept destroying & creating & destroying over and over .
Will He ever become sufficiently omniscient to realize His own inane, pointless stupidity ?
@truthtalker49 Well, that's what you say. I know Zeus creates thunder because up until now nobody has created anything like it and never will. That's because it's only Zeus who can. And he has told us in the Iliad how and when he did it. It really is not complicated.
@coolazice No, God created the world and the universe, Since God was there since the beginning. He is our creator and made all things including thunder and lightning. All things have purpose and God is ours. Greek mythology is exactly what it is, copycat rubbish. Same as egyptian Gods or any culture having more than one God. If there is more than one God neither can be God. It's one true God, thats the God, the only GOd who has the power to create. Nothing else can!
@truthtalker49 You might want to read a book sometime. As in, bookS and not The Book. You might then learn that the earliest sources for the Bible date to 950 BC, by which date Egypt had already gone through several dynasties and become a major empire. Likewise the naming of Mycenean gods also pre-dates the Jewish 'Yahweh'. You're both ignorant of history and unwilling (unable?) to consider criticism. All you can do is parrot what you've been told. Sorry if I don't care to listen anymore.
@coolazice No your wrong, All humanity started with Adam and Eve and God was their creator, how can you pre date that? God also created the world so I think that covers most histories. You are ignoring how humans got here in the first place, there is a massive gulf between us and anything on earth. With no species to prove me wrong in existance I think im safe to say we were created different and that begs the questions who and why? Our design proves a designer.
@truthtalker49 98% D.N.A. in common. Bone structure. Behavior. Tribal Culture. Diseases. opposable Thumb. Binocular vision. and much more. Your'e "gulf" is made of degrees. You only think your'e self unique because you are not smart enough to see how much like a Chimp you actually are.
@flight1100 Yet we are clearly different. 65%DNA of a fruit fly.. care to comment on that?? Do you have wings and measure a centremeter across?? Tribal culture, is that a joke? Vision, well about 98% of aniumals have that. Opposable thumds, gee where are you reading this stuff? Evolution for dummies? I get it, you just think your a chimp and compare everything that almost fits. What about the massive amout that does not?? Please read a science book and descover we are NOT chimps at all.
@truthtalker49 No. Tribal culture is not a joke. Compare a bunch of football hooligans on a rampage to excited chimps you will find little difference. The 65% of D.N.A you share with a fruit fly is involved with simply being an organism. Haha any book on "Creationism" is for dummies. Obviously you think you are something special the truth is you smell just like a chimp, shit and pick your'e nose like one. Get over it You are nothing special. Please read and discover your'e arrogance.
@flight1100 Thanks for telling me im nothing special, Hitler loves you. On the other hand my God tells me I'm fearfully and wonderfully made. I know what i'd rather believe. Besides what possible logic can you use to tell me i am wrong if we are but chemicals? I can do or say what i please, believe in what I want and it matters not to an evolutionist. Every serial killer has relief thanks to your thoughts. God will judge you along with them. I beg you turn away from sin and receive christ.
@truthtalker49 Quite alright we all need to be brought down to earth occasionally. You are all over the shop. I mean really, Hitler and serial killers? Kind of a long bow to draw from an exchange regarding evolution don't you think? Won't touch the what I'd rather believe. Of coarse you can do and believe as you choose I would never deny it. Ease up a little allow your'e self some healthy scepticism.
@flight1100 I am just showing where your thoughts lead others. No meaning means no punishment means do what you want. Kill, murder and rape. Evolution points towards a lawless society a evil that to the evolutionists does not even exist. Since there is no wrong or right. God tells us what is wrong from right. Jesus lived to show us how to live. If evolution removes that you have no moral grounds just like a monkey. Do you really believe a lion should go to prison for the murder or another lion?
@truthtalker49 Again you draw to long a bow.Evolution does not equate to Nihilism. I and I alone am responsible for my actions. I choose to be a contributing, positively orientated individual I care deeply for my friends/family and humanity in general and finally I choose to be so because I can.
Wrong and right are what we agree they are. Secular law has bought us progress and advanced the cause of equality and freedom every where it has taken hold.Strict adherence to religion not.
@truthtalker49 Last I checked our prisons were FILLED with murderers and rapists. You can't possibly ignore them, as if they can "do anything they want" and "get away with it." Clearly not true, and even as far as a LIE if you attempt to stick to it. Evolution says nothing about being "lawless," its ONLY biological descriptions. Every society creates its own social controls, IE: laws. Even chimps have social controls, and they stress out like crazy when they're "broken" by errant members.
@truthtalker49 Lions don't kill one another fruitlessly either. Only the males fight, and only to preserve the territory they own. They AVOID fighting until the last moment, because fighting = injury and death. When they do fight, they don't usually try to *kill* each other right off either. It isn't about morals, its about social structure and survival. Our "morals" come from our sociability, wherin a pack of lions wouldn't harm one another, but will oust errant members (IE: prison).
@DeadlyChinchilla So if its a matter of territory we can act like the animals without moral or care and kill or attack cause injury or suffering without offence? Let me take your wallet and we shall see if you realise wrong has been done to you? Everyone knows there right from wrong! The knowledge of both comes from genesis when Adam ate from the tree. Evolution would dictate that it does not exist and leads to evil acts not being punished. Would you want me in jail for stealing your wallet?
@truthtalker49 You clearly missed the point of PRISON. No, we can't "act like animals," because our social rules tell us not to or we'll go to PRISON. I put that in all-caps twice for your benefit. My lions description was just that, how you're wrong even with your own example.
There is no "knowledge" in genesis, and it isn't even unique. The apple-snake story was stolen from pagan lores far older.
Yes, society says stealing is wrong. How you don't get this is mind boggling.
Putting someone into prison (i.e. ousting an errant member) IS harming another.
One can minimize net harm, by harming some to protect others, as each of them has their own opinions on algorithms of what is optimal, but it is still localized harm, no matter what form it takes (fighting, injury, death, banishment, prison), in the hopes of a global minimum.
lol he believes that only 2 people populated the earth. Seriously think about how idiotic that is lol. The human race would of gone extinct long ago due to retardation as a result of massive incest and interbreeding lmao. And get this....Adam and Eve had 2 sons, which means they really where mother fuckers....LMAO. People actually believe this stuff lulz.
@1EpicLulz Actually Eve had many more then 2 sons.
Also a lot of our pre-hominid (and probably hominid) ancestors probably had no concept of taboo and were likely to have reproduced with "family" members.
@enAmaa, an atheist douchebag "roont" posted this comment to me, " obviuos troll is obvious." I wrote back, "@douche, you used the same word twice and actually misspelled it once. LOL seriously?"
Why you atheists think you're intelligent is puzzling to me. LOL
@1EpicLulz Even from the stand point of evolution the world would have been populated my a single male and a single female, being that they were the first of their kind.
The bible never states directly where his wife came from. However it does state that all humans came from Adam & Eve. In such a short generational period she would have to be non other than Cains sister and directly related to him which reverts back to my original comment. To say they are not related would mean the bible contradicts itself. The whole thing is preposterous and just down right absurd.
To try to claim this as historical fact is deserving of ridicule.
@1EpicLulz the book doesn't go into detail on excatly who Cain's wife is but it also doesn't take much to figure out that if you read a little more, more is revealed. the idea is only absurd now, the bible tells us the world started perfect, meaning marring your sister was safe. then over the generations the corruption of the world caused anomalous in the human body, God in which forbade the marring of relations, (it was not long after the flood thing)
@truthtalker49 That is some of the dumbest shit I have ever heard to be honest. So you look at a book written by men, and you can kiss my ass with the claims that it wasn't, thats just stupid if you apply a small amount of thought, and use that book as your authority for answers. and yes I have made 2 humans actually. Saying look at your flawed diseased skin through your corrective lenses into a man made object is hardly proof of anything at all. Grow up and open your eyes to reality!
No religion in the classroom fine, but no objections? Seriously? What a joke. Objections to social sciences, historical examinations, mathematical theory, psychology and, well... everything else are taught, but not biology? There is nothing wrong with objections LOL
There is only a problem when the objections cannot be answered.
what are u talking about?..scientists aren't against general objection, scrutiny and attempted falsification..the issue here is objecting evolution directly, via the biblical story of creation..
We absolutely should teach the controversy though! But only where actual controversy exists. There is no controversy between creationism and evolution, because creationism isn't a scientific theory, and cannot be tested using the scientific method. On the other hand, where *actual* controversy exists, it should be taught, so that students know there are still questions to be answered, there's still work to be done. There're still reasons to become a scientist.
@LeHerself That of course is the smart bit about this claim. Nobody could disagree with "teaching the controversy" where one exists. They steal that - correct - notion and abuse it for their own purposes.
Much like "multicultural" has today come to mean "accept my culture or else".
@AureliusIX Well said.I believed in the global warming "crisis" until history showed me that the people are always given a crisis...as an excuse for things like carbon taxes.
I would like to add an exception. When badly done science becomes a matter of governmental policy then it should be opposed and questioned at every instance until it the policy is changed. "Science" that has become government policy is not really science anymore, because any investigation into areas that disagree with said policy are effectively cut off from funding and therefore not given a voice. New data, especially if it casts doubt on current thinking needs to be listened to - not silenced.
@philosoful - Well, no, because by saying "don't teach the controversy", you would be unwittingly acknowledging that there IS one.
But by simply using the actual phrase that Creationists use and addressing that tautology objectively, you can impeach their assertion that their Bronze Age mythologies (plagiarized from even older Egyptian and African mythologies) is somehow equally as valid as Science without ennobling or giving credence to that farcical logic.
Excellent, I see. Thank you for explaining and if you are 'the' Richard Dawkins I'd like to express my utter gratitude for you voicing your facts on religion along with Mr Hitchens and Grayling, it's inspiring and inspiration yields action and change...
How about when we teach students about September 11th we teach them the nonsense that Alex Jones and other 9/11 conspiracy theorists say about it? I wonder how the republicans would feel about "teaching the controversy " then?
He didn't explain anything to me, other than tacitly asserting that ID is wrong. What is this 'evolution' that he contrasts it with anyway? Does he mean descent from common ancestry via random mutation and selection- a completely mechanistic, but also likely incorrect hypothesis, or does he just mean a completely mechanistic process of *some* unspecified kind? If the latter, he's making a philosophical assertion, not an empirically derived one.
Well Stuarts Newman, Kaufmann, and Jerry Fodor are 3 secular humanists I could name (I've forgotten the names of the others tbh) that I've read saying they don't believe that natural selection can create complex form- and I'm sure there's many more. The arguments I've heard *for* the proposition such as Dawkins' 'methinx it is like a weasel' analogy, don't add up when you think about them. I don't think it's 'understood' at all, just inferred.
It's an interpretation of the evidence. Masses attracting each other *is* gravity. Homologies, the vagus nerve and so on, clearly aren't random mutation and natural selection. I just said to someone else (wasting time making pointless comments, I know) that I wonder what atheistic fans of neo-darwinian theory will say when it falls into total disrepute. They'll doubtless say they were following the evidence, but if they're such freethinkers, why aren't they following it now?
The only valid interpretation of all observations is evolution by natural selection together with punctuated equilibria, which cause speciation to occur at much faster rates. The genetic makeup of living organisms today already very clearly point toward common descent as well. Creationists have no scientific model that fits the observations. "Goddidit" is not science, it's a cop-out
Yes well Stuart Newman, Stuart Kaufman, Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini and Dr Marc W Kirschner are biologists (and secular humanists) that don't agree with you. I don't think they have a scientific model that fits the observations as well as intelligent design does, 'self-organisation' sounds good, and it probably means more than 'punctuated equilibrium' does, but I doubt it explains much. Just asserting that the cause must be entirely physical isn't science, it's philosophy.
I have done some research. Mine isn't an 'argument from ignorance' it's an argument from disagreement, or just 'an argument'. I find it quite irksome when Dawkins says that any fool can see the truth of his arguments, and we should think about it, but apparently you can't disagree once having thought about it if you're not a scientist. I'm no information theorist, but anyone can see that the 'methinx it is like a weasel' analogy and its equivalents is drastically flawed.
I actually don't object to you defining science as the search for physical explanations. I see nothing incompatible between saying that a process is describable in physical terms and also that it's primary explanation may be agency. If anyone believes in freewill they'd say that, yes, they got out of a chair (for example) 'because' their neurons fired, the ATP cycle was going on and so on, but primarily because they *meant* to.
I thought it was obvious, I am very tired having stayed up all night, so I could be mistaken. Anyway, I'll have to get back to you on that. It would probably help if you said why you thought it was all irrelevant tho.
I think I might see what you're getting at. Well, I think it's possible to infer that a process is the result of agency, even if we say we can't call that science - it's just as legitimate to infer that it is the result of mindless forces- and it's right to infer that from darwin's theory of the mechanism for evolution. If one is not science, then neither is the other. Neither of them is incompatible with physically describing the process in ever greater detail.
I teach the controversy in an elective course in my HS. My purpose is to show how totally bogus this "controversy" is. When someone says that god could have directed evolution, I remind them that Horus was very good at it too.
Hi, If your an atheist as am I, please check out my channel, where I'll be assessing major issues our society is facing in terms of religion and basic ethics... As well as the occasional video game content as I am a bit of a gamer..
Hi, If your an inquisitive athiest as am I, please check out my channel, where I'll be assessing major issues our society is facing in terms of religion and basic ethics... As well as the occasional videogame content as I am a bit of a gamer..
Hi, If your an inquisitive athiest as am I, please check out my channel, where I'll be assessing major issues Australa is facing in terms of religion and basic ethics... As well as the occasional videogame content as I am a bit of a gamer..
Hi, If your an inquisitive athiest as am I, please check out my channel, where I'll be assessing major issues Australa is facing in terms of religion and basic ethics.
Bible creationists cannot seem to comprehend that nobody advocates keeping creationism out of the public schools, only out of the science classroom. Keep it where it belongs: world religions, Bible literature, or religious studies classes. Also there are different models of creationism such as the beliefs held by some Hindus and pagans, along with the new movement of reptilian conspiracy theories and the annunaki. There would be no time left to seriously discuss Darwin or natural selection.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Dude, Grayling me be the most brilliant philosopher alive for all I know, but I'm sorry I am NOT gonna listen to the thoughts of any brain that's lying under THAT haircut.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
i'm so sorry to say, some body get ride of this person. He going to make all of us a robot working unquestionably for the elite. If this person be the ruler then laws like kill the poor or kill the handicap he is suffering, or old is useless lets use resources this way or that way, or like put camera on every house so we can keep and eye, because once laws is not watching people would do all kind of dumb things according to him i mean. seriously all of you need help, we need God in our lives.
............but what about storks bringing babies? Surely we should teach that the storks bring babies !!!! OK well at least teach the controversy that storks bring babies !!!
daverigby23 1 week ago
We need to teach the controversy. I want to know were 29,029 feet of flood water went. How did the kangaroos hop to Australia?
Which one of Noah's pure noble family members had crabs, herpes, syphilis and Chlamydia ? WE NEED BETTER SCHOOLS.
gregrutz 1 month ago
It's funny, but the first proponent to my knowledge of "teach the controversy" was Bertrand Russell: he propunded in one of his essays (I think it was in the "Why I am not a Christian" collection) that academic freedom was very important, beliefs or disbeliefs should be no impediment to capacity to teach and judges should not determine constitutes an appropriate academic subject (relevant to Scopes, no?). I don't remember the topic, but he said given the evidence, students decide.
gamerunknown 2 months ago
In some areas there are different valid opinions on things. But when it comes to stuff like evolution, arguing against it simply isn't a valid opinion until the proponents of such a cause have proved, scientifically that is, otherwise.
GodOfUnbelief 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
Darwin's 'On the Origin of species' etc can be read free at Project Gutenberg org. For more on science & nature try books by top scientists Richard Dawkins, ' Unweaving the rainbow ' & ' The greatest show on earth ' & PZ Meyers , Victor Stenger, website Talkorigins, Try John C. Lennox V Peter Atikins debate on youtube. Also on Youtube BonoboBill, evidence of common ancestry: human chromosome 2. Also Ken Miller on Pariskillton. Also try reading about endogenous retrovirus & provirus.
zytigon 3 months ago 3
Would Christians oppose teaching kids that the forces of Yin & Yang created everything? You bet they would.
Why? Because Christians are fucking hypocrites.
gupsphoo 4 months ago 6
Uh oh, someone needs to tell the 99% of biologists that the 1% who can't provide anything should get equal time.
pat5168 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Dawkins has gone off the rails:
search for Richard Dawkins and male privilege on Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog.
Participating in flaming a woman because she dares to say 'don't objectify me at a conference'? Poorly done, Dawkins.
8yankee 4 months ago
@BayAreaAtheist You mean 'rationalism'.
07Aristotle 4 months ago
Take a look at my forum for philosophy students: papers.net76.net/
samuelkn2890 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 6 months ago
I think we absolutely should teach the creationism vs evolution controversy. However since the controversy is political - there is no controversy among scientists except a lunatic fringe - it should be taught In social studies or maybe political science. There might be a place for it in psychology class. Anyplace but biology.
Ansonidak 6 months ago
@Ansonidak Mythology or religion are the only classes it should be taught in.
MrKGatl 6 months ago
@lorditsnimr0dagain, what pure stupidity. remember douchey it was the academics who said the earth was flat, that leaches can cure sickness, that mercury is beneficial to health. LOL
malithe00 6 months ago
@malithe00 It was also the academics getting tortured by the church for their science.
MrKGatl 6 months ago
hes got such a bad hairdo. Its like a square
atheistrocker100 6 months ago
Stupid stupid anlagy.
glendaweil 6 months ago
Basically speaking, this graylin fella is dishonest.
he's doing a simple bureaucratic maneuver and "classifying" something as something else, therefore omitting it from discussion. Dishonest and cowardly, Oh Wait! I always say that "atheism was created to encourage stupidity, DISHONESTY, COWARDICE and sexual deviancy." OMG was I right or what?! LOL
malithe00 6 months ago
@malithe00 "I always say that "atheism was created to encourage stupidity, DISHONESTY, COWARDICE and sexual deviancy."
Imagine that, using sexuality to demonize your opponent. That's so unlike your kind! Dishonesty? A stretch to say the least. Cowardice? He's part of the minority. But I think we should teach the controversy, then small brains will be marginalized. And for the record censorship when it comes to evidence could hardly be adjudicated by one that doesn't understand it.
dwolfcoach 6 months ago
@malithe00 Basically speaking, you're a fucking idiot.
dieseldog00 3 months ago
@dildodog00,, go fuck yourself you scumbag of a dick-lickin' douche. LOL
malithe00 2 months ago
@lorditsnimr0d, what's "totally obvious" dude, is that, like, dude...... ok, dude like what's obvious, no wait, "totally obvious", what's like "totally obvious" is that you "kids" don't seem to know the difference between "NOT teaching the Controversy" and censorship. sigh
malithe00 6 months ago
@me, I should rephrase that to say, you "kids" don't seem to notice the SIMILARITY between "NOT teaching the Controversy" and censorship. sigh
malithe00 6 months ago
It really pisses me off that he says "In the United States of America, and some other places in the world, too..." Excuse me? WE get named explicitly, but every other country with a significant percentage of evolution deniers get lumped into a fast footnote? There are MANY countries with large numbers of Creationists, so don't just bash the U.S. Typical Brit. Would call us self-important if we put ourselves first, but has no problem doing that for us when it's negative.
Sheldonwh 7 months ago
@Sheldonwh That's because the U.S is the largest and most prominent of nations in the 'western civilised world' to still hold quite strong suspicions and negative views at a governmental level of teaching evolution as fact in schools, being an American yourself, I'm sure I don't need to tell you that it's a fiercely debated topic in your country at the moment. He's giving an example, you can't expect him to list every country, why get so worked up over it? P.S 'Typical Brit' sounds ignorant...
HarrisJamesBen 7 months ago
@HarrisJamesBen Oh, so the fact that we're "the largest" makes us more important? Does that only apply when it's a negative comment, or are we allowed to carry that over into other areas? The next time someone complains that we get too much attention on the world stage, be sure and remind them that we're "the largest and most porminent of nations in the 'western civilized world." And by the way, saying "civilized world" sounds ignorant.
Sheldonwh 7 months ago
@Sheldonwh Haha, yes of course the fact that you're the largest is important! You're a huge country with a huge population of people, many of whom are still sceptical about theories such as evolution that are now considered fact amongst most people, don't get me wrong there are people with that belief in every country but it is still unusually high in the U.S,of course the fact you're the biggest is important?! Also, the term civilised world is not ignorant, it's a commonly used and fair term.
HarrisJamesBen 7 months ago
@Sheldonwh I'm sure the naming of the US had nothing to do with the failed attempt to get ID taught as an equally valid biological grounding for school children as evolutionary theory in a certain school in a certain state in a certain country... ;)
ScrewballB 7 months ago
Based on the theistic definition of "teaching the controversy", would that mean that churches would have to give equal time to evolution as well?
MeBeMat 7 months ago
liberalism is satanism.
malithe00 7 months ago
@malithe00 Is it, dear? That's nice.
MeBeMat 7 months ago
@BeatMyMeat, yes it is, now go away, I don't think it's right for me to talk with a young retarded boy without his mommy's permission. Does she know you're playing with her "box"? LOL (she knows when I'm playing with her box! Get it? I'm insinuating that your mom..... you don't get it do you? geez)
malithe00 7 months ago
@malithe00 Wow, you're either a troll or a cunt...I'm going to go with the latter.
MeBeMat 7 months ago
@BeatMyMeat, isn't "cunt" a big word for a retarded little man like you? Now, where's your mom? I need permission to talk to you and well, since she's gonna be here anyway, I figured a good, sloppy, blo........ Well here she is now! LOL
malithe00 6 months ago
A.C. Grayling = Elitist twat. I have absolutely no respect for this guy over this whole 'New College of the Humanities' bullshit. Teach people who deserve education, not just those who can afford it. Absolutely disgusting.
TheBrautigans 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So what will these money-grubbing academic divas do next, since we have all their shit already on youtube? Will they get their lectures pulled off the internet? That would make capitalist sense. Cos I don’t know what new stuff Dawkins, Grayling and Singer can come up with. We’ve heard it all – Dawkins: no gods, except Mammon, Grayling: pomos are killing philosophy but it’s alright when I plagiarise, Singer: all animals are equal but affluent animals are more equal than others!
stephenblackman2003a 7 months ago
AC Grayling is such a badass.
somewhatd 7 months ago
Rather be safe than regret the mistake later. It's better to question to make sure anything being sold is correct.
heartlessvietboy 8 months ago
They "teach" "demonic possession" in a medical school? Where? Vietnam? China? Alabama? Arkansas? Florida? In the enlightened, educated, evolving world, we use terms like "creationism" and "demonic possession" only in works of fiction or in horror movies, while in the USA, these terms are appearing in school and college textbooks ONLY because the "anti-intellectual" groups in the USA are the most vocal (and gun-carrying) and the educated groups have never been forgiven for being "educated".
pacoh1969 8 months ago 40
@pacohshit1969, you sound like a "typical" atheist douchebag, which means you evolved from scumbag, so yeah there's something to darwinian imbecility. LOL
malithe00 8 months ago
Thank you for so eloquently demonstrating MY point and may I congratulate you on the DEPTH of your arguments AND the colourful language you use to make them. I also congratulate you on your remarkable debating skills, combining "douchebag", "scumbag" and "imbecility" in one sentence, to demonstrate the evident prowess of your arguments. Your fourth grade teacher will be so proud when you show-and-tell her your resilient defence of creationism on Monday! Well done!
pacoh1969 7 months ago
@pacohlies1969, Why do atheists pretend so much? The "scumbag" and "douchebag" in this particular post I authored are a play on words. you started out as a "scumbag" and you are now a "douchebag" suggesting that this is a form of "evolution". LOL douche
malithe00 7 months ago
And the insertion of the word "shit" into my user-name was nothing less than masterful! Do you mind if I use your user-name in future arguments about the state of the US education system? (Just one point of information please: when your mom/dad tucks you in at night, what do you normally say? "Good night mom/dad" or "Good night sister/brother"? I'm just curious......Also, why does this sort of clap-trap argument only exist in the USA?
pacoh1969 7 months ago
@pacohshit1969, your comments are douchey, delete them. HURRY! The American education system is controlled by marxists, that's why it's seems it's "turned on it's head". you're not very bright are you? Geez, I'm asking you....... LOL
malithe00 7 months ago
@malithe00 May I ask why you have a YouTube "channel" (very entertaining as it is!)? Is the economic downturn/unemployment situation SO bad in the US? Or maybe it's part of your ex-con rehab? You see, I cannot quite decide whether you are unemployable, a fourth-grader or a product of a horrendous education system of the 1970's ("douchebag", "scumbag" - are you trying out for a part in "Grease"/"Westside Story"?)? But please continue; you are as entertaining as a performing sea-lion!
pacoh1969 7 months ago
@pacohshit1969, I see you put your thesaurus widget on "erudite" setting, LOL go put your shoes on, you're stinking up the place. LOL
malithe00 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pacohturds1969, you are intentionally being stupid, how atheistic of you. I notice atheist types do this a lot.
"you sound like a "typical" atheist douchebag, which means you evolved from scumbag, so yeah there's something to darwinian imbecility. LOL"
This comment is self explanatory and quite enjoyable with a cup of tea, if you don't mind my saying LOL
malithe00 7 months ago
@pacohshit1969 you're a douche LOL
malithe00 2 months ago
They DO teach the "demonic possesion" theory in medical school. That's the little moment when the teacher makes the students laugh.
LesPaul2006 8 months ago
I love how people state that there is a controversy between evolution and creation. No, no there's not. There's just ignorant people sticking their fingers in their ears and covering their eyes whenever presented with evidence.
One has piles and piles and piles of evidence, the other has a book that contradicts itself repeatedly and has absolutely 0 contemporary sources to back it up as well as flies in the face of all evidence we have found.
DarkBunnyLord 8 months ago
Kansas ඉල්ලං කෑම :ඩී
vishva8kumara 9 months ago
More cliched atheistic rubbish.
hdregmore 9 months ago
@hdregmore
Is asking for evidence from religion rubbish? And which religion is to be believed? I guess you don't see the problem.
dudev 9 months ago
@hdregmore It's easy to call names and resort to ad hominum attacks. It's harder to do what the man actually asks of you and to practice critical thinking.
Pilaf1984 9 months ago
@Pilaf1984 Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the meaning of "argumentum ad hominem". I suggest you educate yourself regarding it. Bandying it erroneously makes it ineffectual. It actually speaks volumes on your logic absorption.
hdregmore 9 months ago
@hdregmore wisdom
GD086 8 months ago
@GD086 garbage.
hdregmore 8 months ago
DNA proves there was a Creator, dishonesty dictates the opposite.
malithe00 9 months ago
@malithe00 How did you come to that conclusion?
jessemaurais 9 months ago
@malithe00 How in the world is DNA an argument for anything other than the existence of DNA?
Pilaf1984 9 months ago
@ricePilaf1984, I am NEVER tired of "atheist tactics". you know like pretending truths are lies and lies are truths. I really enjoy that "tactic" the most. LOL
malithe00 8 months ago
Comment removed
coolazice 9 months ago
@coolazice You'd lose that bet, and yes, I'm "welcome" to my facts, no quotes about it. Fact is fact, it is what we can demonstrate and support with evidence, and there is no Dawkins insult you can lob at me that changes the FACT that students have no need of astrology or demonology to move society forward.
Studying the history of science is a very different thing from promoting pseudoscience, and I don't think you understand the difference. Insulting me doesn't change that.
DeadlyChinchilla 9 months ago
@DeadlyChinchilla Ok, I'm sorry I insulted you. Regarding our little bet, are you able to tell me what the Mars effect is and why it might not be effective (without looking it up on google/wiki, let's say)? In regards to 'moving society forward', I don't see that this is the point of education, or anything more than political spin talk. Progress, always progress, etc. Also, I don't believe I ever promoted pseudoscience anywhere on this thread, so I should think you might be insulting me.
coolazice 9 months ago
@coolazice I would have to disagree with the assertion that we must test every single fact in existence on our own. This is the goal of science: to make it so that others may do the work of testing, and that the knowledge they take away from those tests can be passed on without others having to do all the work.
Understand that I am NOT saying I simply trust them at their word. I trust the scientific method, which includes massive peer reviews bombarding the idea. If it holds, it is good.
CopyFox7 9 months ago
@coolazice He only said these so called alternate theories should not be taught as credible alternatives. He also said there may be a place for the topics as subjects other than science. Ie history.
flight1100 9 months ago
@flight1100 Grayling says that alternate theories 'pollute' and 'interrupt' learning - I think that's absolute BS. The whole point of enquiry and education is to get students to think for themselves. I also object to the removal of science from historical viewpoints - I think the history of science should be taught precisely in science class, so students can understand the dynamic and mercurial nature of knowledge. Otherwise you end up with ahistorical scientism, stuck to the dominant paradigm.
coolazice 9 months ago
@coolazice No objection to any of your'e points. Only to say that science classes are involved in the study of a methodology and its application. The mercurial nature of knowledge is covered under the heading of Philosophy. .
flight1100 9 months ago
I love this guy's mind.
GermanChocolateCake 9 months ago
If you give a creatard an inch they will want a mile. Religions are BS.
MrJohnnyrace 10 months ago
I'm so glad I live where I live, I hadn't even heard of creationism till about 3 years ago. I actually find it quite funny.
foxmcloud555 10 months ago 23
@foxmcloud555 You're not laughing yet. If you visit the US, be sure to find a "Creation Museaum" and get a good look at the lunacy. Trust me, totally worth the $10 to get in. I was entertained for MONTHS after my trip.
DeadlyChinchilla 9 months ago
@foxmcloud555 it's very odd, me too actually - I never learned about creationism in lower school (such as highschool) only when I got into politics, and began studying law... and communications did it actually come up.
BrokenPuzzle 9 months ago
@dogmcloud555, you live in inglang? Have they taught you about toothpaste yet? LOL
malithe00 8 months ago
@malithe00 You live in the U.S.? Have they told you being an idiot is lookd down upon in the rest of the wolrd yet? LOL indeed.
foxmcloud555 8 months ago
@dogmcloud555 where do I begin.... "lookd" "wolrd" seriously, seriously? your first grade thesaurus widget has seen better days LOL
malithe00 8 months ago
@malithe00 Implying those aren't typos. I'm sure of course in your particular area those are legitamate spelling mistakes though, so I guess I can't really blame you.
And if you're more worried about typos than not teaching your children they came from a mud man and rib woman, with a talking snake and 900 year old man who managed to collect every single species on the plannet and put them all on a big boat, then really I'm not shocked as to why you guys are the stereotypically stupid nation.
foxmcloud555 8 months ago
@dogmcloud555, LOL do you have a hatchet sticking out of your head? Go look in the mirror quick, I'll wait.......... Is there? Cause if there is, that would explain a LOT! LOL
malithe00 8 months ago
@malithe00 Wow, looks like I won that one faster than I thought I would.
foxmcloud555 8 months ago
@dogmcloud555, LOL just go to the inglish hospital, wait 6 weeks and someone will see you shortly. LOL
malithe00 8 months ago
Comment removed
coolazice 10 months ago
@coolazice Why are you against creationism? Thats an odd stance! You could have left that out. Creation is exactly what it is, our creation. How can you be against your own existance. Who else could have made you? Do you believe you exist or is everything the matrix to you? Also, if I don't believe you exist, do you exist?
truthtalker49 10 months ago
@truthtalker49 Um, I think you'll find the definition of creationism to be something other than 'belief in my and others' existence', so I don't really understand what you're talking about. Creationism is belief in a supernatural creator. I don't think the facts of the universe imply a theistic creator being, and certainly there is no scientific evidence for one. This is philosophy at best, and religious propaganda at worst.
coolazice 10 months ago
@coolazice No scientific evidence??? I could bring you the world and all it's beautiful creation therein to your "scientific evidence" need. I know God created it because up untill now nobody has created anything like it and never will. Thats because it's only God who can. Also He has told us in the Bible how and when He did it. It really is not complicated. Have you made a human lately? I question anyone who says there is no evidence, just look in the mirror and open your eyes to the creation!
truthtalker49 10 months ago
@truthtalker49 So when He created us,...omniscient as he was.. knowing all that has & ever will happen . long before anyone existed, and He of course knew most of us would question Him…resulting in our hell torment forever.
Yet, after watching this debacle a million lifetimes over & over & over, He became more angry at His creations, so He kept destroying & creating & destroying over and over .
Will He ever become sufficiently omniscient to realize His own inane, pointless stupidity ?
lostallmymirth 10 months ago
@truthtalker49 Well, that's what you say. I know Zeus creates thunder because up until now nobody has created anything like it and never will. That's because it's only Zeus who can. And he has told us in the Iliad how and when he did it. It really is not complicated.
Speaking of looking in mirrors....
coolazice 10 months ago
@coolazice No, God created the world and the universe, Since God was there since the beginning. He is our creator and made all things including thunder and lightning. All things have purpose and God is ours. Greek mythology is exactly what it is, copycat rubbish. Same as egyptian Gods or any culture having more than one God. If there is more than one God neither can be God. It's one true God, thats the God, the only GOd who has the power to create. Nothing else can!
truthtalker49 10 months ago
@truthtalker49 And how did this hypothetical god occupy the eternity before creating us ?
Acrimonator 10 months ago
@truthtalker49 You might want to read a book sometime. As in, bookS and not The Book. You might then learn that the earliest sources for the Bible date to 950 BC, by which date Egypt had already gone through several dynasties and become a major empire. Likewise the naming of Mycenean gods also pre-dates the Jewish 'Yahweh'. You're both ignorant of history and unwilling (unable?) to consider criticism. All you can do is parrot what you've been told. Sorry if I don't care to listen anymore.
coolazice 10 months ago
@coolazice No your wrong, All humanity started with Adam and Eve and God was their creator, how can you pre date that? God also created the world so I think that covers most histories. You are ignoring how humans got here in the first place, there is a massive gulf between us and anything on earth. With no species to prove me wrong in existance I think im safe to say we were created different and that begs the questions who and why? Our design proves a designer.
truthtalker49 10 months ago
@truthtalker49 bullshit. Massive gulf MY ASS.
IMMAATHIEST 9 months ago
@IMMAATHIEST Back that up if you can!
truthtalker49 9 months ago
@truthtalker49 98% D.N.A. in common. Bone structure. Behavior. Tribal Culture. Diseases. opposable Thumb. Binocular vision. and much more. Your'e "gulf" is made of degrees. You only think your'e self unique because you are not smart enough to see how much like a Chimp you actually are.
flight1100 9 months ago
@flight1100 Yet we are clearly different. 65%DNA of a fruit fly.. care to comment on that?? Do you have wings and measure a centremeter across?? Tribal culture, is that a joke? Vision, well about 98% of aniumals have that. Opposable thumds, gee where are you reading this stuff? Evolution for dummies? I get it, you just think your a chimp and compare everything that almost fits. What about the massive amout that does not?? Please read a science book and descover we are NOT chimps at all.
truthtalker49 9 months ago
@truthtalker49 No. Tribal culture is not a joke. Compare a bunch of football hooligans on a rampage to excited chimps you will find little difference. The 65% of D.N.A you share with a fruit fly is involved with simply being an organism. Haha any book on "Creationism" is for dummies. Obviously you think you are something special the truth is you smell just like a chimp, shit and pick your'e nose like one. Get over it You are nothing special. Please read and discover your'e arrogance.
flight1100 9 months ago
@flight1100 Thanks for telling me im nothing special, Hitler loves you. On the other hand my God tells me I'm fearfully and wonderfully made. I know what i'd rather believe. Besides what possible logic can you use to tell me i am wrong if we are but chemicals? I can do or say what i please, believe in what I want and it matters not to an evolutionist. Every serial killer has relief thanks to your thoughts. God will judge you along with them. I beg you turn away from sin and receive christ.
truthtalker49 9 months ago
@truthtalker49 Quite alright we all need to be brought down to earth occasionally. You are all over the shop. I mean really, Hitler and serial killers? Kind of a long bow to draw from an exchange regarding evolution don't you think? Won't touch the what I'd rather believe. Of coarse you can do and believe as you choose I would never deny it. Ease up a little allow your'e self some healthy scepticism.
flight1100 9 months ago
@flight1100 I am just showing where your thoughts lead others. No meaning means no punishment means do what you want. Kill, murder and rape. Evolution points towards a lawless society a evil that to the evolutionists does not even exist. Since there is no wrong or right. God tells us what is wrong from right. Jesus lived to show us how to live. If evolution removes that you have no moral grounds just like a monkey. Do you really believe a lion should go to prison for the murder or another lion?
truthtalker49 9 months ago
@truthtalker49 Again you draw to long a bow.Evolution does not equate to Nihilism. I and I alone am responsible for my actions. I choose to be a contributing, positively orientated individual I care deeply for my friends/family and humanity in general and finally I choose to be so because I can.
Wrong and right are what we agree they are. Secular law has bought us progress and advanced the cause of equality and freedom every where it has taken hold.Strict adherence to religion not.
flight1100 9 months ago
@truthtalker49 Last I checked our prisons were FILLED with murderers and rapists. You can't possibly ignore them, as if they can "do anything they want" and "get away with it." Clearly not true, and even as far as a LIE if you attempt to stick to it. Evolution says nothing about being "lawless," its ONLY biological descriptions. Every society creates its own social controls, IE: laws. Even chimps have social controls, and they stress out like crazy when they're "broken" by errant members.
DeadlyChinchilla 9 months ago
@truthtalker49 Lions don't kill one another fruitlessly either. Only the males fight, and only to preserve the territory they own. They AVOID fighting until the last moment, because fighting = injury and death. When they do fight, they don't usually try to *kill* each other right off either. It isn't about morals, its about social structure and survival. Our "morals" come from our sociability, wherin a pack of lions wouldn't harm one another, but will oust errant members (IE: prison).
DeadlyChinchilla 9 months ago
@DeadlyChinchilla So if its a matter of territory we can act like the animals without moral or care and kill or attack cause injury or suffering without offence? Let me take your wallet and we shall see if you realise wrong has been done to you? Everyone knows there right from wrong! The knowledge of both comes from genesis when Adam ate from the tree. Evolution would dictate that it does not exist and leads to evil acts not being punished. Would you want me in jail for stealing your wallet?
truthtalker49 9 months ago
@truthtalker49 You clearly missed the point of PRISON. No, we can't "act like animals," because our social rules tell us not to or we'll go to PRISON. I put that in all-caps twice for your benefit. My lions description was just that, how you're wrong even with your own example.
There is no "knowledge" in genesis, and it isn't even unique. The apple-snake story was stolen from pagan lores far older.
Yes, society says stealing is wrong. How you don't get this is mind boggling.
DeadlyChinchilla 9 months ago
@DeadlyChinchilla
Putting someone into prison (i.e. ousting an errant member) IS harming another.
One can minimize net harm, by harming some to protect others, as each of them has their own opinions on algorithms of what is optimal, but it is still localized harm, no matter what form it takes (fighting, injury, death, banishment, prison), in the hopes of a global minimum.
mphello 3 months ago
@coolazice
lol he believes that only 2 people populated the earth. Seriously think about how idiotic that is lol. The human race would of gone extinct long ago due to retardation as a result of massive incest and interbreeding lmao. And get this....Adam and Eve had 2 sons, which means they really where mother fuckers....LMAO. People actually believe this stuff lulz.
1EpicLulz 10 months ago 31
@1EpicLulz I cannot like that comment anymore lol. Only once :(
iliveon 10 months ago
@1EpicLulz That is arguably the best argument against creationists I've ever heard. logical and funny you really live up to your Username.
DevrorveD 9 months ago
@1EpicLulz Actually Eve had many more then 2 sons.
Also a lot of our pre-hominid (and probably hominid) ancestors probably had no concept of taboo and were likely to have reproduced with "family" members.
Which is nasty but probably true.
indyguy101 8 months ago
@1EpicSlutzKid, LOL especially if those 2 people are atheists like you and your boyfriend LOL
malithe00 8 months ago
@1EpicLulz retardation is normal for believers since the inteligence level of them is on the same ground
An1maa 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@enAmaa, an atheist douchebag "roont" posted this comment to me, " obviuos troll is obvious." I wrote back, "@douche, you used the same word twice and actually misspelled it once. LOL seriously?"
Why you atheists think you're intelligent is puzzling to me. LOL
malithe00 7 months ago
@1EpicLulz Even from the stand point of evolution the world would have been populated my a single male and a single female, being that they were the first of their kind.
DJWalton314 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Even from the stand point of evolution the world would have been populated my a single male and a single female"
Not really. The whole species evolves slowly over a long period of time in a gradual shift with cross breeding. Its not just a single pair.
1EpicLulz 5 months ago
The bible never states directly where his wife came from. However it does state that all humans came from Adam & Eve. In such a short generational period she would have to be non other than Cains sister and directly related to him which reverts back to my original comment. To say they are not related would mean the bible contradicts itself. The whole thing is preposterous and just down right absurd.
To try to claim this as historical fact is deserving of ridicule.
1EpicLulz 5 months ago
@1EpicLulz the book doesn't go into detail on excatly who Cain's wife is but it also doesn't take much to figure out that if you read a little more, more is revealed. the idea is only absurd now, the bible tells us the world started perfect, meaning marring your sister was safe. then over the generations the corruption of the world caused anomalous in the human body, God in which forbade the marring of relations, (it was not long after the flood thing)
DJWalton314 5 months ago
@DJWalton314
Thats only reinterpreting the bible in a feeble attempt to make it seem relevant.
Humans were not created from a pile of dirt, there was no mass flood or original sin. People need to just give up the ghost already.
1EpicLulz 5 months ago 19
@1EpicLulz you pedophile, you still trolling for young, white, teenage, boys? Get a job in the school like the rest of the pedophiles. LOL
malithe00 2 months ago
@1EpicLulz oh and on the subject of "mother fuckers" Cain's wife was not his mother. If you read further you would know where Cain's wife came from.
DJWalton314 5 months ago
@truthtalker49 "Also He has told us in the Bible how and when He did it." and how do you know this is more true than any other mythology ?
Acrimonator 10 months ago
@truthtalker49 That is some of the dumbest shit I have ever heard to be honest. So you look at a book written by men, and you can kiss my ass with the claims that it wasn't, thats just stupid if you apply a small amount of thought, and use that book as your authority for answers. and yes I have made 2 humans actually. Saying look at your flawed diseased skin through your corrective lenses into a man made object is hardly proof of anything at all. Grow up and open your eyes to reality!
Mekiwyn 10 months ago
Grayling is awesome.
LambdaQuarks 11 months ago
No religion in the classroom fine, but no objections? Seriously? What a joke. Objections to social sciences, historical examinations, mathematical theory, psychology and, well... everything else are taught, but not biology? There is nothing wrong with objections LOL
There is only a problem when the objections cannot be answered.
jonescomplete 11 months ago
@jonescomplete
what are u talking about?..scientists aren't against general objection, scrutiny and attempted falsification..the issue here is objecting evolution directly, via the biblical story of creation..
itzahazylife 11 months ago
Can they edit these videos to change "JOSH TIMONEN" into "EMBEZZLER DOUCHEBAG"?
DarwinsChihuahua 11 months ago
Medical schools are in fact in a race to teach CAM, i.e. magic like acupuncture and reiki.
HConstantine 11 months ago
@HConstantine
Do you know what they call alternative medicine that's been proven to work?
Medicine
ObserversEyes 11 months ago 4
@HConstantine Because both the students of medicine and the clinics they're going to work in are as interested in a big pay check as everybody else.
And no one has ever lost money when living of the gullibility of others.
TomFynn 10 months ago
i would love to find a way to get every human being on the earth to watch this video. although would it have much impact... i doubt it unfortunately.
YuTubeWeTube 11 months ago
We absolutely should teach the controversy though! But only where actual controversy exists. There is no controversy between creationism and evolution, because creationism isn't a scientific theory, and cannot be tested using the scientific method. On the other hand, where *actual* controversy exists, it should be taught, so that students know there are still questions to be answered, there's still work to be done. There're still reasons to become a scientist.
LeHerself 11 months ago
@LeHerself That of course is the smart bit about this claim. Nobody could disagree with "teaching the controversy" where one exists. They steal that - correct - notion and abuse it for their own purposes.
Much like "multicultural" has today come to mean "accept my culture or else".
Lightweaver123 11 months ago 3
@AureliusIX Well said.I believed in the global warming "crisis" until history showed me that the people are always given a crisis...as an excuse for things like carbon taxes.
Xenuism 1 year ago
I would like to add an exception. When badly done science becomes a matter of governmental policy then it should be opposed and questioned at every instance until it the policy is changed. "Science" that has become government policy is not really science anymore, because any investigation into areas that disagree with said policy are effectively cut off from funding and therefore not given a voice. New data, especially if it casts doubt on current thinking needs to be listened to - not silenced.
AureliusIX 1 year ago
Spledid! I believe this was the reason why academic disciplines were departmentalized in universities!.
iberiaazul 1 year ago
Shouldn't the title of this video be A.C. Grayling: "Don't teach the Controversy"?
philosoful 1 year ago
@philosoful - Well, no, because by saying "don't teach the controversy", you would be unwittingly acknowledging that there IS one.
But by simply using the actual phrase that Creationists use and addressing that tautology objectively, you can impeach their assertion that their Bronze Age mythologies (plagiarized from even older Egyptian and African mythologies) is somehow equally as valid as Science without ennobling or giving credence to that farcical logic.
morpheusxnyc 1 year ago
@morpheusxnyc
Excellent, I see. Thank you for explaining and if you are 'the' Richard Dawkins I'd like to express my utter gratitude for you voicing your facts on religion along with Mr Hitchens and Grayling, it's inspiring and inspiration yields action and change...
Thanks, danke schon, Спазиба!
philosoful 1 year ago
How about when we teach students about September 11th we teach them the nonsense that Alex Jones and other 9/11 conspiracy theorists say about it? I wonder how the republicans would feel about "teaching the controversy " then?
Remembermylai 1 year ago
He didn't explain anything to me, other than tacitly asserting that ID is wrong. What is this 'evolution' that he contrasts it with anyway? Does he mean descent from common ancestry via random mutation and selection- a completely mechanistic, but also likely incorrect hypothesis, or does he just mean a completely mechanistic process of *some* unspecified kind? If the latter, he's making a philosophical assertion, not an empirically derived one.
gerontodon 1 year ago
@gerontodon
"a completely mechanistic process of *some* unspecified kind"
Evolution by means of natural selection is very well understood, thus hardly unspecified.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Well Stuarts Newman, Kaufmann, and Jerry Fodor are 3 secular humanists I could name (I've forgotten the names of the others tbh) that I've read saying they don't believe that natural selection can create complex form- and I'm sure there's many more. The arguments I've heard *for* the proposition such as Dawkins' 'methinx it is like a weasel' analogy, don't add up when you think about them. I don't think it's 'understood' at all, just inferred.
gerontodon 1 year ago
@gerontodon
"I don't think it's 'understood' at all, just inferred."
Yes, they are inferred from the evidence. Just like we infer that gravity exists from the facts that masses attract each other.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
It's an interpretation of the evidence. Masses attracting each other *is* gravity. Homologies, the vagus nerve and so on, clearly aren't random mutation and natural selection. I just said to someone else (wasting time making pointless comments, I know) that I wonder what atheistic fans of neo-darwinian theory will say when it falls into total disrepute. They'll doubtless say they were following the evidence, but if they're such freethinkers, why aren't they following it now?
gerontodon 1 year ago
@gerontodon
"It's an interpretation of the evidence."
The only valid interpretation of all observations is evolution by natural selection together with punctuated equilibria, which cause speciation to occur at much faster rates. The genetic makeup of living organisms today already very clearly point toward common descent as well. Creationists have no scientific model that fits the observations. "Goddidit" is not science, it's a cop-out
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Yes well Stuart Newman, Stuart Kaufman, Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini and Dr Marc W Kirschner are biologists (and secular humanists) that don't agree with you. I don't think they have a scientific model that fits the observations as well as intelligent design does, 'self-organisation' sounds good, and it probably means more than 'punctuated equilibrium' does, but I doubt it explains much. Just asserting that the cause must be entirely physical isn't science, it's philosophy.
gerontodon 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Well actually, the mere assertion isn't even philosophy. The justifications for it are tho.
gerontodon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gerontodon
"the mere assertion isn't even philosophy"
I keep telling you it isn't a mere assumption. Do some research and then come back.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
I have done some research. Mine isn't an 'argument from ignorance' it's an argument from disagreement, or just 'an argument'. I find it quite irksome when Dawkins says that any fool can see the truth of his arguments, and we should think about it, but apparently you can't disagree once having thought about it if you're not a scientist. I'm no information theorist, but anyone can see that the 'methinx it is like a weasel' analogy and its equivalents is drastically flawed.
gerontodon 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
I actually don't object to you defining science as the search for physical explanations. I see nothing incompatible between saying that a process is describable in physical terms and also that it's primary explanation may be agency. If anyone believes in freewill they'd say that, yes, they got out of a chair (for example) 'because' their neurons fired, the ATP cycle was going on and so on, but primarily because they *meant* to.
gerontodon 1 year ago
@gerontodon
What does any of that have anything with the discussion we had so far.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
I thought it was obvious, I am very tired having stayed up all night, so I could be mistaken. Anyway, I'll have to get back to you on that. It would probably help if you said why you thought it was all irrelevant tho.
Thanks
gerontodon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gerontodon
"I thought it was obvious"
No, it wasn't. If you try to participate in a discussion, at least try to make some semblance of sense.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
I think I might see what you're getting at. Well, I think it's possible to infer that a process is the result of agency, even if we say we can't call that science - it's just as legitimate to infer that it is the result of mindless forces- and it's right to infer that from darwin's theory of the mechanism for evolution. If one is not science, then neither is the other. Neither of them is incompatible with physically describing the process in ever greater detail.
gerontodon 1 year ago
@gerontodon
gerontodon 1 year ago
@gerontodon So far Neo-Darwinian evolution seems to be going from strength to strength, possibly because all the alternative theories are silly.
gamesbok 8 months ago
@smooch0408
so true
shaneanthonypitts 1 year ago
Comment removed
PadawanDJ 1 year ago
why won't they teach science at sunday schools?
RzzRBladez 1 year ago
I teach the controversy in an elective course in my HS. My purpose is to show how totally bogus this "controversy" is. When someone says that god could have directed evolution, I remind them that Horus was very good at it too.
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi, If your an atheist as am I, please check out my channel, where I'll be assessing major issues our society is facing in terms of religion and basic ethics... As well as the occasional video game content as I am a bit of a gamer..
I hope you'll check it out. Cheers, Mitchel
TIME4LOGIC 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi, If your an inquisitive athiest as am I, please check out my channel, where I'll be assessing major issues our society is facing in terms of religion and basic ethics... As well as the occasional videogame content as I am a bit of a gamer..
I hope you'll check it out. Cheers, Mitchel
TIME4LOGIC 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi, If your an inquisitive athiest as am I, please check out my channel, where I'll be assessing major issues Australa is facing in terms of religion and basic ethics... As well as the occasional videogame content as I am a bit of a gamer..
I hope you'll check it out. Cheers, Mitchel
TIME4LOGIC 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi, If your an inquisitive athiest as am I, please check out my channel, where I'll be assessing major issues Australa is facing in terms of religion and basic ethics.
T4LTIME 1 year ago
Bible creationists cannot seem to comprehend that nobody advocates keeping creationism out of the public schools, only out of the science classroom. Keep it where it belongs: world religions, Bible literature, or religious studies classes. Also there are different models of creationism such as the beliefs held by some Hindus and pagans, along with the new movement of reptilian conspiracy theories and the annunaki. There would be no time left to seriously discuss Darwin or natural selection.
AloofPeregrine 1 year ago
so true
WillGo7 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dude, Grayling me be the most brilliant philosopher alive for all I know, but I'm sorry I am NOT gonna listen to the thoughts of any brain that's lying under THAT haircut.
Clicking off NOW.
CrateofStolenDirt 1 year ago
@CrateofStolenDirt And that is why you fail.
Krazed2Kraze 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i'm so sorry to say, some body get ride of this person. He going to make all of us a robot working unquestionably for the elite. If this person be the ruler then laws like kill the poor or kill the handicap he is suffering, or old is useless lets use resources this way or that way, or like put camera on every house so we can keep and eye, because once laws is not watching people would do all kind of dumb things according to him i mean. seriously all of you need help, we need God in our lives.
saadabdulaziz 1 year ago
Comment removed
DrawingYou 1 year ago