Huh.. We should be fair to scientists & the perceived 'gap' in their communication skills.
2 essential parts to communicating a new idea: i) having the idea (something worth saying), and ii) communicating that idea to the intended audience.
Plenty of people (particularly 'celebrities') are great communicators, but have nothing to say (at least nothing worth listening to); whilst Scientists' complex ideas may require a lot of prior reading, way beyond the comprehension of the 'average Joe'
Mr. Krauss provides a helpful ballast to Dawkins' anti-theism. This gives those who love gods something to hope for in the application of science to religion. Neither of these individuals go far enough. They continue to restrict science to their specialized fields of interest (biology, cosmology), rather than to encourage scientific exploration of god-related experiences, religious processes and practices, and the complete meshing of religion with science (as is done by the Church of Reality.
@TrollTowelhead This is not the goal of either of these men. Generations of scientists and philosophers, all much smarter than you or I have spent a great deal of time applying the rigors of their respective methodologies to the analysis of the concept of a deity, and yet still there is no ration reason for the belief in a God. Science therefore, with its dependence on evidence, is intrinsically incompatible with the faith driven theology.
@IDidactI - Please note that all of the analysis of the concept of a deity in the world will not serve to begin examining or observing what the experience of gods holds for human beings. Belief is over-rated. It is almost entirely unimportant why it may be that someone believes something respective of science's investigations (ok, one might examine sociology and the biology of belief, no doubt), but the psychology of consciousness, anthropology, and sociology of religion are bound to be helpful.
I had a long conversation with my father last night about Atheism and he basically agreed with me that evolution is fact. This is something he's denied many times in the past.
I think what the problem is for most people is simply that Religion is simple, Christianity is just a few stories and commandments that basically everyone has learnt. Whereas if you turn to Atheism, INSTANTLY you are subjected to a loss of knowledge, you immediately know very little about how we came to be alive.
Big fan of this format. I dislike the debate format like Richard does. I honestly don't care what the non-science material is. I'm not interested in listening to religious people that are called "intellectuals" pull random analogies out of their asses to try and bring philosophy to a fact fight. People that understand the material and can discuss it among themselves is much more rewarding, and satisfying than watching tired religious beatdowns. I wnat to actually learn something, not get pissed.
I'm not a scientist but I'm not sure forcing communication skills in to a science course is a good idea, things like that would put me off even trying and I think i can say the same thing about alot of people. If they lost grades on a science course because they weren't very good at communication they'd be very annoyed. When I was at university I so dreaded presentations I would pick my modules based on whether they had a presentation.
@happyhappy85 The idea of it is sound but in practice it's certainly not for everyone. Any field you go into depends greatly on communication to advance. Science and engineering are no different. In fact you will find communicators getting a head even if they aren't as brilliant as another professional simply because they know how to network better. They are able to get more funding, grants, etc. I think if communication were taught to them as sort of a science they would understand it better.
They mentioned in the previous videos that children became disinterested in science as they grew older. This maybe because as this happens they discover things beyond science that interests them; music, film, literature, poetry etc... I know I did. I think we need to introduce books and films by the likes Sagan and Dawkins which are provocative and would capture the imagination of the teenage mind, not the usual boring science texts books, something with a bit of soul.
I really wish they would reevaluate the biology taught in the high school system. I remember one of my first classes, we were given a list of about 30 animals, and told to list then by their kingdom, family, genus, phylum, etc. Next, we spent a few weeks designing food webs with some arbitrary animals; spiders, flies, snakes, etc. I dropped biology in the next year because of this. Thanks to inspiring university lecturers, however, ive loved every part of my science degree, and love biology.
trying to communicate science to the general public is like trying to teach monkeys philosophy(which we are,apes at least). . .unless you have a minimal basic understanding then how can you communicate it. . . . for me quantum mechanics, i feel like a monkey trying to understand the teaching of Aristotles teachings. . . but it seems to work and i go with it on "faith", cos it works
Seth Macfarlane, Neil Degrasse Tyson and some others have planned an updated version of Sagan's Cosmos, to air in...2012 or 13, I forget. Anyway, it's on Macfarlane's Wikipedia page. If you haven't seen Neil Degrasse Tyson yet go check him out, he has great material on youtube and on television.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
Anyone notice that as the parts progressed the number of views declined by approximately 20K viewers? I just watched all of them except part 6 which kept giving me an error, but non the less i was very enlightened.
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Why can't they give the speakers in the audience the same microphones that the speakers on stage are using? If the audience can hear the speakers on stage, surely they will hear the speaker in the audience.
Also, if Lawrence Krauss could finish a single sentence, it would be amazing. I only know what he is saying because I know what he is saying, not because he finished saying it. Anyone who doesn't know what he is saying would hear it as gibberish
The discussion in this clip thoroughly describes why I'm not matriculating into biology PhD programs, because academia generally does not value whole human beings who are integrated into their communities or who communicate well with a general public, they value intellectual tools to produce intellectual property and institutional prestige for a low salary. I commend public intellectuals like Dawkins, Harris, Krauss, Cornell West, and others for finding success inside and out of the system.
@acherrybalm that's the point, man... if the people you're speaking to don't understand what you're saying, then you're not communicating it well. let me qualify that by saying that you're not communicating it well with respect to their ability to understand. it means nothing if YOU understand what you're trying to communicate. that's not the point of communication. get it to the other person's level of understanding. in the end the onus is on the communicator to convey the idea.
we are lucky in quebec religions teaching is let to parents here our education is laic ( none coffessional)so teacher feel free to talk about evolution,science is teached as young as the 2 grader.biology zoology.ecology.chimestry.physic,geography/geology, astronomy
we teach critical thinking and scientific analysis,we produce a lot of big scientist of grand renom but saddly they all goes to usa first cause the can pay them more and usais losing the battle against religion so less of scientis
@SubtleChaotic... ;). I'm glad u found my comment amusing!! I would never offend ppl in a conversation, unless they start telling me "the earth is less than 10,000 years old" :P
Actually, what scientists should do is come off their high horse and start communicating with other people in normal terms and language. In german you cannot read scientific papers, at least not in socioligy, because if you write it understandable, you get burned for being an popularity writer. There is a massive problem ob scientists feeling better than the rest and trying to exclude themselvs from critics by difficult language.
@AxeHomeless You talk about the social sciences which aren't real science IMO. But the technical level of an article should reflect its intended audience. If you write an article for the general public, i would agree it should be simple and with little or none jargon terms or equations. But if you read a popular science paper who's meant for hobbyists it shouldn't be to simplistic and the author should write in depth.
Fascinating discussion. A great Naturalist and a great Physicist and both being atheists. The topics of conversation make for interesting deep pondering thought. They both articulated their views and opinions on the existence (or lack of) god compellingly. Darwinism, Cosmology, Evolution, Creationism, Education, Schooling, Philosophy and other topics discussed are what makes humans great, the ability to think and ponder over everything and anything. True objectiveness and science is the key.
most people who are good at engineering maths or science usually tend to have some autism in them. Therefore they will not be good communicators. Autistic people are naturally good at these things and usually out compete the majority of neurotypicals. Thus you can't change scientists been bad communicators.
@daveforfun22 Can you provide any non-anecdotal support for the assertion that most people who are good at math and science are to some degree autistic?
@daveforfun22 The problem is not individual scientists, the issue is the work they do. To communicate an issue without baffling the laymen you need to change your terminology. For example for Krauss to clearly and fully express his work you need to be able to understand the math he is capable of. Beyond that it is his job to express these complicated ideas in basic language. Ignorance is the major cause of the problem. We need things explained in basic terms to help people understand.
I'm always amazed at how awe inspiring these lecture's and forum's are. I'm not ashamed to say that I've finally opened up to my own islamic family that I'm an athiest due for the most part of Richard Dawkins insightful speech's. Not that I already wasn't a closet athiest for many years, I've long affirmed my own belief, rather I've just been too scared to bring it out to attention.
@Derwind That's a serious comment! Atheism is easy for me. I've never been pushed towards faith. For you, I imagine it's very different. I wish you the best & remember logic, reason & evidence are what make a claim valid. Atheism is not faith or emotion. This is evaluating what is true. If emotion plays a part in your position, I assure you, there are plenty of shoulders for support. Remember that, if things get tough.
Scientists are bad communicators by default. They think about what is coming out of their mouth and lack the raw charisma and fervor the dumb are so very capable of. Our brains are hardwired to respect strength and science is about questioning everything. Often scientists allow this constancy of doubting and second guessing to carry over into their speaking and it communicates to many people as a weakness, or lack of strength. The sad truth is, scientists have more solid ground than anyone else.
I also think that strict scientific communication is not as broad and conclusive as most people would like. This past week, the popular media has announced an "Arsenic-based life form." Any communication from the scientists who discovered the bacteria would have been far more accurate and descriptive regarding the actual nature of the discovery, which was not of an "Arsenic-based life form." Unfortunately, it appears that the public likes to hear that type of headline.
In regards to communication I agree almost completely with what Dr. Krauss says. I would like to add, however, that scientists are taught (conditioned?) to be selective communicators. They communicate very effectively to the scientific community, but to laypeople their discussions are incomprehensible.
This is, perhaps, why the two people on screen are so 'famous' (at least for scientists), because of their ability to communicate with the general public.
@SimplyGebus Yes, this occurred to me as well... scientists ARE good scientific communicators. It's both a blessing and a curse that the science community needs the justify itself in some sense beyond the tangible products it provides. It sharpens the focus and produces better results because they are goal-oriented VS strictly abstract pursuits.
After watching the whole video and countless others, and then peering over to the suggestions column; i now i see why the title 'bill O'Reilly SCARED by Richard Dawkins' is so appropriate.
I think the teaching of things like physics in school should almost be a process of back engineering. Instead of giving kids basic books on Newtonian law for example, they should be given high res Hubble pictures and books of space travel. Something that will encourage them to learn the basics that much faster.
Personally I hated physics, working out how long it takes to heat an aluminum block to 400 degrees with a Bunsen burner just completely bored the shit out of me from the very beginning.
As someone who just graduated with a degree in civil engineering i cant tell you how true the statement Dr. Krauss made at the 3:33 mark is. I was required to take a technical writing course that was taught by an english teacher and the first day of class she said "i know most of you are engineers so your smarter than me but regardless i will try and teach you how to write in a professional manner." So from the first day she lost the respect of the entire class.
The audience asked a really good question. Most of my science professors, with the exception of a rare individual here and there, were very poor communicators, and with mathematic professors, their ability to communicate is even worse. I think academic programs that produce professors in math and science must have intensive courses in speech and teaching so as to produce good communicators. Having good communicators is the best route to gaining public interest in your subject.
Science and reasoning are key, no doubt. Both of which underpin 'the attempted murder of God' - A critical book at a critical time, it reveals the secrets of science that comprehensively demolish the theory of Evolution and provides scientific proof for God - a scientific certainty kept hidden from the world that in this critical time in history can now be revealed.
I think society does a great disservice to us by not requiring people to know enough to understand what the hell we are saying! When you try to communicate with people about facts, they throw some bullshit, philosophical retort at you, and then you are forced to give them a refresher course in high school science just so they can understand you a little. It is to damn exhausting for me to talk to non science majors, half the time.
luckyly in canada to teach science you need to have studied in science
how ever even then we are not specific enough i remember in high school my firsth time trying my physic class i was asking question the poor guys couldn't answer he frankly hated me and i hated him to but the poor guy studied in chimistry and i was adrealy passioned by cosmology and i ended up leavin the class just because the guys was not teaching something he knew about
and if i were you i would be pissed at my self for not knowing that out side of your little buble there are countries where we don't learn english in school
@Jimpsterr Since it's at Stanford University I'm guessing the audience is made up mostly of students and the rest are probably science professionals who follow the two speakers.
Didn't Socrates commit suicide? There was once a time when the Greeks and Egyptians were great. Then the worst thing happened....The Greeks were brainwashed by Christianity and the Egyptians by Islam.
Anyway we can consider ourselves lucky. Out of the 5 000 000 species on earth we were born human and if super lucky born in a country where we have opportunities to learn about science and say whatever we want about religion without being killed. religionfactreport(dotcom)
What's truly "inhumanly" stupid is the outlook of society that science is a subject that is associated with the frowned upon and uncool cliques of "geeks" and "nerds", which in of themselves is a sociological phenomena that has a scientific explanation itself. If "cool" denotes something that entails chugging contests and get trashed every weekend, how many chicks/dudes you can hook up or whatever exclusive typical gender epithet hardwired for a prerequisite social life then I'm a proud reject!
Most Christians understand the Athiest arguments for why they don't believe in God but they can never accept that position because it would mean denying the personal connection with God that they've experienced.
Christians explain that intellectual investigation isn't how you make that connection but Atheists prefer to do what they know doesn't work, so that they can continue to tell Christians the reasons why there is no God!
Watch the new "Atheist Girl vs Christian Girl" video on my channel.
It is a fact that outspoken scientists get flak from their peers. The Norwegian astronomer Knut Jørgen Røed Ødegaard got criticized by the scientific community for being too prominent in the media, allthough he attempts to popularize his favourite subject...
Inhumanly stupid? I'm not seeing the correlation between using 'inhuman' as an adjective for how stupid you think someone's comment is. You may want to pick up a dictionary or thesaurus, or maybe just a book of insults in order to properly bash someone in the future.
In case you didn't understand his comment, he is saying that he thinks science would reach a broader audience if it was viewed as 'cool' instead of a subject only a geek would love.
"I view science as something only a geek would love. If I didn't, then I would like it"
It's still a pretty stupid statement, though indicative of the mind-state of many in a society where showing intelligence and asking questions can be quite strongly frowned upon.
If being 'cool' is all someone's worried about in life, then I'm not sure how much of a contribution they could make to science anyway.
@josetogan Or people should realise that reason and a scientific search for awnsers is actually liberating instead of something to fear. I understand it is hard to admit for a lot of people to take a very heavy question as in "what happens when I die" and then admit that they do not have a concrete awnser.
I takes a lot of courage to say "I don't know" and it takes a lot of ignorance to hide behind an imaginary friend.
I agree, it's a lovely format. Although they're clearly following similar lines, it feels less defensive and perhaps there's more freedom to throw an idea out there without worrying about losing points.
After watching lots of documentaries on this subject and listening to the banalities of religious 'thought', I find this programme so uplifting. Just enjoying the sound of a reasonable tone of voice engaged in intelligent debate puts it all in perspective
Wonderful series. Listening to Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss discuss science is on par to that of enjoying a fine wine or cigar. The world truly needs more outspoken science advocates such as these fine gentlemen.
The visible marks of extraordinary wisdom and power appear so plainly in all the works of the creation that a rational creature, who will but seriously reflect on them, cannot miss the discovery of a Deity. --- John Locke
Criticism of ideas and hypothesis, is what makes science great and unattractive to most people. Criticism scares most ordinary people. If you don't think critiscism scares you; ask yourself if you like giving speeches, having someone read your writing, what people think about your nationality, and do you care what people think about how you dress? If criticism doesn't scare you in one way or another, your in denial. I only recently realized what my hidden fear of criticism was.
Great video, thanks to the poster. Well worth the time to watch. I personally still think that Creationism doesn't have enough evidence to be taught along side evolution. I do think that Creationism can and or/should be taught in social science or humanities.
Creationism in social sciences? That sounds like an AWFUL idea to me... as a part of Religious Education is the only place for Creationism. The heart of the debate lies in whether we should teach Religion in schools at all. I believe we should, but so long as it's treated as a seperate suject called Religious Studies or Religious Education, so as not to confuse it with fact.
cowdragon agreed. My dad is a practicing christian and he never had god preached to him while he was in school. He went to church and made up his own mind and while I disagree with his conclusion I respect it and understand why he came to it even if I think it's dead wrong.
Krauss has a very good point here that students would be better served if more of their "column B" requirements were taught by the faculty involved with their major, although in some cases that could open up for the classes being softened rather than "kept important." Still the issue he is pointing out is important and I'm not sure what the solution would be.
This is the 2nd time I have seen these videos and I plan on more. It is uplifting to hear these two speak. We need more public discussions on this order. The people who need to hear this are not hearing it. This posting is a start. Thanks.
pure logic and reason will win out every time,richard dawkins is trying to spread some of that,i was brought catholic has taking me this long,soon as i heard him speak,i got it ,thank you
Richard Dawkins is so brilliant that most of the religious zealots dont even realize how stupid he makes them look in these public debates. I agree with the Professor that all Christians and Muslims should be exterminated and the world would be a much better place for it...a world full of logic, reason and scientific thought free from the poisonous influence of religion on cultures and minds.
A belief in intelligent design ultimately leads one to ask the question, "Who designed the designer?" There can be no escape from this required leap of logic, if logic indeed leads one down the ID path. To the contrary, accepting evolution as fact requires no special contortion of logic. There is no stopping point of irreducibility, and no need to look for one. Evolution is fact, devoid of conjecture. ID is conjecture devoid of fact.
"There is no stopping point of irreducibility..." - actually this isn't true... I leave it as an exercise to the reader to discover this for themselves.
Good discussion !
justjulie37 3 days ago
Thanks.
andthereisntone 3 days ago
Huh.. We should be fair to scientists & the perceived 'gap' in their communication skills.
2 essential parts to communicating a new idea: i) having the idea (something worth saying), and ii) communicating that idea to the intended audience.
Plenty of people (particularly 'celebrities') are great communicators, but have nothing to say (at least nothing worth listening to); whilst Scientists' complex ideas may require a lot of prior reading, way beyond the comprehension of the 'average Joe'
Tj930 4 weeks ago in playlist Lawrence Krauss Discussion - Richard Dawkins
Mr. Krauss provides a helpful ballast to Dawkins' anti-theism. This gives those who love gods something to hope for in the application of science to religion. Neither of these individuals go far enough. They continue to restrict science to their specialized fields of interest (biology, cosmology), rather than to encourage scientific exploration of god-related experiences, religious processes and practices, and the complete meshing of religion with science (as is done by the Church of Reality.
TrollTowelhead 2 months ago
@TrollTowelhead This is not the goal of either of these men. Generations of scientists and philosophers, all much smarter than you or I have spent a great deal of time applying the rigors of their respective methodologies to the analysis of the concept of a deity, and yet still there is no ration reason for the belief in a God. Science therefore, with its dependence on evidence, is intrinsically incompatible with the faith driven theology.
IDidactI 1 month ago in playlist Lawrence Krauss Discussion - Richard Dawkins
@IDidactI - Please note that all of the analysis of the concept of a deity in the world will not serve to begin examining or observing what the experience of gods holds for human beings. Belief is over-rated. It is almost entirely unimportant why it may be that someone believes something respective of science's investigations (ok, one might examine sociology and the biology of belief, no doubt), but the psychology of consciousness, anthropology, and sociology of religion are bound to be helpful.
TrollTowelhead 1 month ago
I had a long conversation with my father last night about Atheism and he basically agreed with me that evolution is fact. This is something he's denied many times in the past.
I think what the problem is for most people is simply that Religion is simple, Christianity is just a few stories and commandments that basically everyone has learnt. Whereas if you turn to Atheism, INSTANTLY you are subjected to a loss of knowledge, you immediately know very little about how we came to be alive.
TweekDash 2 months ago in playlist Lawrence Krauss Discussion - Richard Dawkins
Big fan of this format. I dislike the debate format like Richard does. I honestly don't care what the non-science material is. I'm not interested in listening to religious people that are called "intellectuals" pull random analogies out of their asses to try and bring philosophy to a fact fight. People that understand the material and can discuss it among themselves is much more rewarding, and satisfying than watching tired religious beatdowns. I wnat to actually learn something, not get pissed.
Reip187 2 months ago in playlist Richard Dawkins Debates/Lectures 2
@Reip187 Well said! Couldn't agree more...
slados1 2 months ago
I'm not a scientist but I'm not sure forcing communication skills in to a science course is a good idea, things like that would put me off even trying and I think i can say the same thing about alot of people. If they lost grades on a science course because they weren't very good at communication they'd be very annoyed. When I was at university I so dreaded presentations I would pick my modules based on whether they had a presentation.
happyhappy85 2 months ago
@happyhappy85 The idea of it is sound but in practice it's certainly not for everyone. Any field you go into depends greatly on communication to advance. Science and engineering are no different. In fact you will find communicators getting a head even if they aren't as brilliant as another professional simply because they know how to network better. They are able to get more funding, grants, etc. I think if communication were taught to them as sort of a science they would understand it better.
Reip187 2 months ago in playlist Richard Dawkins Debates/Lectures
@Reip187 Sure, teach them but I don't think any marking system should be based on it.
happyhappy85 2 months ago
They mentioned in the previous videos that children became disinterested in science as they grew older. This maybe because as this happens they discover things beyond science that interests them; music, film, literature, poetry etc... I know I did. I think we need to introduce books and films by the likes Sagan and Dawkins which are provocative and would capture the imagination of the teenage mind, not the usual boring science texts books, something with a bit of soul.
happyhappy85 2 months ago
I really wish they would reevaluate the biology taught in the high school system. I remember one of my first classes, we were given a list of about 30 animals, and told to list then by their kingdom, family, genus, phylum, etc. Next, we spent a few weeks designing food webs with some arbitrary animals; spiders, flies, snakes, etc. I dropped biology in the next year because of this. Thanks to inspiring university lecturers, however, ive loved every part of my science degree, and love biology.
MrWiseburger 2 months ago
Boo-yah, made it through all 12 videos! 200,000+ views on video 1, only 50,000ish on this last one. We rock.
BradODonnell 3 months ago in playlist Lawrence Krauss Discussion - Richard Dawkins
trying to communicate science to the general public is like trying to teach monkeys philosophy(which we are,apes at least). . .unless you have a minimal basic understanding then how can you communicate it. . . . for me quantum mechanics, i feel like a monkey trying to understand the teaching of Aristotles teachings. . . but it seems to work and i go with it on "faith", cos it works
braunblender 3 months ago in playlist Lawrence Krauss Discussion - Richard Dawkins
Seth Macfarlane, Neil Degrasse Tyson and some others have planned an updated version of Sagan's Cosmos, to air in...2012 or 13, I forget. Anyway, it's on Macfarlane's Wikipedia page. If you haven't seen Neil Degrasse Tyson yet go check him out, he has great material on youtube and on television.
Jotto999 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
I ran out of Dawkins material a long time ago - repeats for me.
daemonowner 3 months ago
Anyone notice that as the parts progressed the number of views declined by approximately 20K viewers? I just watched all of them except part 6 which kept giving me an error, but non the less i was very enlightened.
johnyjoe2k 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
Why can't they give the speakers in the audience the same microphones that the speakers on stage are using? If the audience can hear the speakers on stage, surely they will hear the speaker in the audience.
Also, if Lawrence Krauss could finish a single sentence, it would be amazing. I only know what he is saying because I know what he is saying, not because he finished saying it. Anyone who doesn't know what he is saying would hear it as gibberish
ElijahBailey2000 6 months ago
The discussion in this clip thoroughly describes why I'm not matriculating into biology PhD programs, because academia generally does not value whole human beings who are integrated into their communities or who communicate well with a general public, they value intellectual tools to produce intellectual property and institutional prestige for a low salary. I commend public intellectuals like Dawkins, Harris, Krauss, Cornell West, and others for finding success inside and out of the system.
scientrophic 6 months ago
It's not that scientists are bad communicators - it's just that people are scientifically illiterate and don't understand what is being said.
acherrybalm 8 months ago 3
@acherrybalm that's the point, man... if the people you're speaking to don't understand what you're saying, then you're not communicating it well. let me qualify that by saying that you're not communicating it well with respect to their ability to understand. it means nothing if YOU understand what you're trying to communicate. that's not the point of communication. get it to the other person's level of understanding. in the end the onus is on the communicator to convey the idea.
brakzorak86 7 months ago 2
we are lucky in quebec religions teaching is let to parents here our education is laic ( none coffessional)so teacher feel free to talk about evolution,science is teached as young as the 2 grader.biology zoology.ecology.chimestry.physic,geography/geology, astronomy
we teach critical thinking and scientific analysis,we produce a lot of big scientist of grand renom but saddly they all goes to usa first cause the can pay them more and usais losing the battle against religion so less of scientis
mystisme 8 months ago
@Ematched
As far as my experiance goes. My hypothese would be that there is some truth to this statement.
In mathematical reason there are no hypocrisies and no vagueness, this makes it is simpel.
But cummunication is incomplete, variable and complex.
As far as the probalility that ur mind can interface in the both, is very unlikely.
The mind evolves to a surtain structure. It depence on priority. I would like to see a studie on the neuro network of mathematicians.
VellianoRosso 8 months ago
to dwell on association some more..
..a mental connection of ideas
maybe we should associate atheism with ice cream?
just a thought lol..
8Zeitgeist 8 months ago
I am a great communicator, but NOT a great rytor..
freedomland11 9 months ago
@freedomland11
Good at expressing a complex idea, or good at not offending people in a conversation..? :P
SubtleChaotic 8 months ago
@SubtleChaotic... ;). I'm glad u found my comment amusing!! I would never offend ppl in a conversation, unless they start telling me "the earth is less than 10,000 years old" :P
freedomland11 8 months ago
Actually, what scientists should do is come off their high horse and start communicating with other people in normal terms and language. In german you cannot read scientific papers, at least not in socioligy, because if you write it understandable, you get burned for being an popularity writer. There is a massive problem ob scientists feeling better than the rest and trying to exclude themselvs from critics by difficult language.
AxeHomeless 9 months ago
@AxeHomeless You talk about the social sciences which aren't real science IMO. But the technical level of an article should reflect its intended audience. If you write an article for the general public, i would agree it should be simple and with little or none jargon terms or equations. But if you read a popular science paper who's meant for hobbyists it shouldn't be to simplistic and the author should write in depth.
agetahon 8 months ago
Fascinating discussion. A great Naturalist and a great Physicist and both being atheists. The topics of conversation make for interesting deep pondering thought. They both articulated their views and opinions on the existence (or lack of) god compellingly. Darwinism, Cosmology, Evolution, Creationism, Education, Schooling, Philosophy and other topics discussed are what makes humans great, the ability to think and ponder over everything and anything. True objectiveness and science is the key.
Hariboification 10 months ago 2
I got my money's worth form my monthly internet payment by this excellent video.
henryporter101 10 months ago 4
Professor Richard Dawkins M.A., D. Phil., Dr. Sc., FRS, FRSL
nordhorny 10 months ago
I'm running out of Richard Dawkins material on youtube
iliveon 10 months ago 131
@iliveon I've run out of Hitchens... now I'm starting on Dawkins. :D
styot 5 months ago
@styot it turns out there is a lot more on dawkins. woo. they are hidden around youtube in special places.
iliveon 5 months ago 2
@iliveon I'd recommend some Sam Harris.
stratazar1111 3 months ago
@iliveon lol
TweekDash 2 months ago in playlist Lawrence Krauss Discussion - Richard Dawkins
most people who are good at engineering maths or science usually tend to have some autism in them. Therefore they will not be good communicators. Autistic people are naturally good at these things and usually out compete the majority of neurotypicals. Thus you can't change scientists been bad communicators.
daveforfun22 11 months ago
@daveforfun22 Can you provide any non-anecdotal support for the assertion that most people who are good at math and science are to some degree autistic?
Rigamortus76 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rigamortus76 @daveforfun22 No, he can't provide any non-anecdotal evidence for saying mathematicians and scientists "have some autism in them."
It sounds like he has watched a couple videos, maybe Rain Man, and decided to make a blanket assertion.
If there is a study on the point of neuro-makeup of mathematicians/scientists, we'd like to see it.
Ematched 9 months ago
@daveforfun22 lol is there any research data on this?
adceph 10 months ago
@daveforfun22 The problem is not individual scientists, the issue is the work they do. To communicate an issue without baffling the laymen you need to change your terminology. For example for Krauss to clearly and fully express his work you need to be able to understand the math he is capable of. Beyond that it is his job to express these complicated ideas in basic language. Ignorance is the major cause of the problem. We need things explained in basic terms to help people understand.
Mekiwyn 9 months ago
These lecture should be considered a drug.
guzmancho 1 year ago
Things finally make sense!
Five7weezy 1 year ago
I'm always amazed at how awe inspiring these lecture's and forum's are. I'm not ashamed to say that I've finally opened up to my own islamic family that I'm an athiest due for the most part of Richard Dawkins insightful speech's. Not that I already wasn't a closet athiest for many years, I've long affirmed my own belief, rather I've just been too scared to bring it out to attention.
Derwind 1 year ago 82
@Derwind Good luck to you my friend.The freedom of thought without the shackles of a religion will open up endless opportunities.
Welcome to the world of what you see is what you get.
Morality is as innate as mankind is old.
Reality IS,religion IS`NT !
naybobdenod 3 months ago
@Derwind That's a serious comment! Atheism is easy for me. I've never been pushed towards faith. For you, I imagine it's very different. I wish you the best & remember logic, reason & evidence are what make a claim valid. Atheism is not faith or emotion. This is evaluating what is true. If emotion plays a part in your position, I assure you, there are plenty of shoulders for support. Remember that, if things get tough.
MrLittletomdj 2 months ago
Two brilliant men giving hope to those of us who deal with ignorance everyday!
blackestjake 1 year ago
Science is rad.
MRfullon 1 year ago
Scientists are bad communicators by default. They think about what is coming out of their mouth and lack the raw charisma and fervor the dumb are so very capable of. Our brains are hardwired to respect strength and science is about questioning everything. Often scientists allow this constancy of doubting and second guessing to carry over into their speaking and it communicates to many people as a weakness, or lack of strength. The sad truth is, scientists have more solid ground than anyone else.
1010011010is29a 1 year ago 2
I also think that strict scientific communication is not as broad and conclusive as most people would like. This past week, the popular media has announced an "Arsenic-based life form." Any communication from the scientists who discovered the bacteria would have been far more accurate and descriptive regarding the actual nature of the discovery, which was not of an "Arsenic-based life form." Unfortunately, it appears that the public likes to hear that type of headline.
thermos26 1 year ago
In regards to communication I agree almost completely with what Dr. Krauss says. I would like to add, however, that scientists are taught (conditioned?) to be selective communicators. They communicate very effectively to the scientific community, but to laypeople their discussions are incomprehensible.
This is, perhaps, why the two people on screen are so 'famous' (at least for scientists), because of their ability to communicate with the general public.
SimplyGebus 1 year ago
@SimplyGebus Yes, this occurred to me as well... scientists ARE good scientific communicators. It's both a blessing and a curse that the science community needs the justify itself in some sense beyond the tangible products it provides. It sharpens the focus and produces better results because they are goal-oriented VS strictly abstract pursuits.
TimothyStuartRiches 1 year ago
these guys learned everything they know from me. seriously
british123able 1 year ago
I would love to meet and talk with both these men! Dawkins is an absolute legend though! I want to shake his hand, he is very smart.
drunkalfuzzyness 1 year ago
Finished! Great stuff,
torontoBluejays87 1 year ago
After watching the whole video and countless others, and then peering over to the suggestions column; i now i see why the title 'bill O'Reilly SCARED by Richard Dawkins' is so appropriate.
theu2ba 1 year ago
Excellent vids ,gold star.
ScienceRks 1 year ago 3
EVERYONE PAUSE IT AT 3:03. YOU'LL SEE IT HAHAHA
nthomas87 1 year ago 4
@nthomas87 Haaaaalooooooo......
Kan2209 1 year ago
@nthomas87. Praise be to the Dawkins.
FreindlyRanger 1 year ago
@nthomas87 AMAZING!!! PORTRAIT OF A GENIUS
guiato 1 year ago
@nthomas87 Haha! When you see it you'll shit bricks! XD
bebeLUVnardo 1 year ago
I think the teaching of things like physics in school should almost be a process of back engineering. Instead of giving kids basic books on Newtonian law for example, they should be given high res Hubble pictures and books of space travel. Something that will encourage them to learn the basics that much faster.
Personally I hated physics, working out how long it takes to heat an aluminum block to 400 degrees with a Bunsen burner just completely bored the shit out of me from the very beginning.
123backinyerface 1 year ago 2
A lot of talk and no action. The American population seriously needs to get its shit together.
FeelOfFriction 1 year ago
@FeelOfFriction What sort of 'action' did you expect to see?
Saerain 1 year ago
im making a shirt about that avian flu comment that Krauss made LOL pretty funny.
ps.
thank the big bang for these men :P
dreadedhalo 1 year ago
These guys rock
SvendsenAtheist 1 year ago
Great upload mate .. Thank you :)
supertuber97 1 year ago 2
It is good to see that there are people who have been waken up by science or always have been!
szmako 1 year ago 2
Very refreshing. :-)
EllenRebecca3 1 year ago 2
As someone who just graduated with a degree in civil engineering i cant tell you how true the statement Dr. Krauss made at the 3:33 mark is. I was required to take a technical writing course that was taught by an english teacher and the first day of class she said "i know most of you are engineers so your smarter than me but regardless i will try and teach you how to write in a professional manner." So from the first day she lost the respect of the entire class.
morto65 1 year ago
The audience asked a really good question. Most of my science professors, with the exception of a rare individual here and there, were very poor communicators, and with mathematic professors, their ability to communicate is even worse. I think academic programs that produce professors in math and science must have intensive courses in speech and teaching so as to produce good communicators. Having good communicators is the best route to gaining public interest in your subject.
alphacause 1 year ago 3
I absolutely LOVE the perfect framing of Dawkins' head from 3:02-3:09. "...the way, the truth, and the light."
ButtPoopWiggle 1 year ago 8
@ButtPoopWiggle haha dawkins' brain is gleaming
datronz 1 year ago
I wish youd fix the audio-video sync, there appears to be some lag
doutonight 1 year ago
Agreed, i find this very settling like there is still hope for us!
Rozy02 1 year ago
At 3:03 Richard Dawkins looks kinda holy with a crown of spikes
Just fun !!!
Radicalindifference 1 year ago 5
@Radicalindifference
Haha, nice catch!
Draxelzs 1 year ago
@Radicalindifference haha :) true
solconnection2 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
dawkins is turning evolution into a religion.
darkfur35 1 year ago
You obviously do not understand this. Please, do not talk :)
gunblade64 1 year ago 2
If the earth was 6000 years old we'd be jamming tree trunks and crustaceans into our gas tanks, not fossil fuels.
Some teenagers' shorts are 6000 years old!
We need to laugh and laugh hard at this absurdity ... to make fun of the notion ... and refuse to give it credence whatsoever.
Cheers.
bando8000 1 year ago 9
granyte, You are an embarrassment to this country. WOW!
MsJeffreynolds 1 year ago
This was the healthiest discussion I´ve ever had the opportunity to watch.
ThePhilosorpheus 1 year ago 8
agreed, I wonder what that dense troll O'Reilly would make of this.
4ThomasAllan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I'm an atheist with respect to the Judeo-Christian God, because there is not a shred of EVIDENCE in favor of the Judeo-Christian God."
~ Richard Dawkins
...Dawkins, that's because you have not visited my channel.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Science and reasoning are key, no doubt. Both of which underpin 'the attempted murder of God' - A critical book at a critical time, it reveals the secrets of science that comprehensively demolish the theory of Evolution and provides scientific proof for God - a scientific certainty kept hidden from the world that in this critical time in history can now be revealed.
byScrooby 2 years ago
I think society does a great disservice to us by not requiring people to know enough to understand what the hell we are saying! When you try to communicate with people about facts, they throw some bullshit, philosophical retort at you, and then you are forced to give them a refresher course in high school science just so they can understand you a little. It is to damn exhausting for me to talk to non science majors, half the time.
sfmike20 2 years ago 6
luckyly in canada to teach science you need to have studied in science
how ever even then we are not specific enough i remember in high school my firsth time trying my physic class i was asking question the poor guys couldn't answer he frankly hated me and i hated him to but the poor guy studied in chimistry and i was adrealy passioned by cosmology and i ended up leavin the class just because the guys was not teaching something he knew about
granyte 2 years ago
@granyte If I were you I'd be pretty pissed with my primary school English teacher too!
ryko26 2 years ago 3
and if i were you i would be pissed at my self for not knowing that out side of your little buble there are countries where we don't learn english in school
granyte 2 years ago
"myself" and "outside" are single words. "Bubble" has two bs.
ryko26 2 years ago
lol
granyte 2 years ago
Actually, "bubble" has 3 repetitions of the letter "b."
DietBroccoli 1 year ago
no it doesn't you twat. It has one repitition. If it had three it would be BBUBBBBLE.
So fuck off
ryko26 1 year ago
You don't lean English in Canada?
AtheistBrit 1 year ago
@sfmike20
Well put.
damaxman 2 years ago
Did the members of the audience take an I.Q. test before they were let in?
Good questions, overall.
Jimpsterr 2 years ago 3
@Jimpsterr Since it's at Stanford University I'm guessing the audience is made up mostly of students and the rest are probably science professionals who follow the two speakers.
pstlwhppd 2 years ago 2
great conversation. i could have listed for a lot longer too.
morse3388 2 years ago 9
Everyone's Modo of life should be what Socrates so simply put: "the unconsidered life is not worth living"
The best way to consider your life is through reason and logic which is what science is based on.
TheLuckySaGe 2 years ago
Didn't Socrates commit suicide? There was once a time when the Greeks and Egyptians were great. Then the worst thing happened....The Greeks were brainwashed by Christianity and the Egyptians by Islam.
Anyway we can consider ourselves lucky. Out of the 5 000 000 species on earth we were born human and if super lucky born in a country where we have opportunities to learn about science and say whatever we want about religion without being killed. religionfactreport(dotcom)
kansaimagic 2 years ago 5
socrates was sentenced to commit suicide (i.e. he was executed)
xUDGEx 2 years ago
fuck yeah i got through em all
theewaywardson 2 years ago
good vid!!!!
alejandronoe 2 years ago 2
Excellent.
Scanini 2 years ago 2
Despite the sound lag, great videos. Thank you very much for putting them up! :]
xjxdxsx 2 years ago
Yeah Excellent observation; all creationist do is quote Stone Age ideas, and answer every question with god did.
It is utter nonsense; you can't have an intelligent conversation with someone who does that.
pranays 2 years ago 3
What's truly "inhumanly" stupid is the outlook of society that science is a subject that is associated with the frowned upon and uncool cliques of "geeks" and "nerds", which in of themselves is a sociological phenomena that has a scientific explanation itself. If "cool" denotes something that entails chugging contests and get trashed every weekend, how many chicks/dudes you can hook up or whatever exclusive typical gender epithet hardwired for a prerequisite social life then I'm a proud reject!
crzer07 2 years ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
Most Christians understand the Athiest arguments for why they don't believe in God but they can never accept that position because it would mean denying the personal connection with God that they've experienced.
Christians explain that intellectual investigation isn't how you make that connection but Atheists prefer to do what they know doesn't work, so that they can continue to tell Christians the reasons why there is no God!
Watch the new "Atheist Girl vs Christian Girl" video on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
this was very educational
Danelleya 2 years ago 26
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Dawkins should watch this!
watch?v=BKmdIdQg3Ks
:D
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The God Debate" is on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
It is a fact that outspoken scientists get flak from their peers. The Norwegian astronomer Knut Jørgen Røed Ødegaard got criticized by the scientific community for being too prominent in the media, allthough he attempts to popularize his favourite subject...
OppirompaMiDotCom 2 years ago
yup, yup. 3 days non-stop of richard dawkins on youtube and i noticed exactly the same thing.
420bongweed 2 years ago
Science needs to shake the 'geek' tag IMO.
josetogan 2 years ago 83
What an inhumanly stupid comment.
ancientworlds 2 years ago
Inhumanly stupid? I'm not seeing the correlation between using 'inhuman' as an adjective for how stupid you think someone's comment is. You may want to pick up a dictionary or thesaurus, or maybe just a book of insults in order to properly bash someone in the future.
In case you didn't understand his comment, he is saying that he thinks science would reach a broader audience if it was viewed as 'cool' instead of a subject only a geek would love.
Sstellethyss 2 years ago 4
"I view science as something only a geek would love. If I didn't, then I would like it"
It's still a pretty stupid statement, though indicative of the mind-state of many in a society where showing intelligence and asking questions can be quite strongly frowned upon.
If being 'cool' is all someone's worried about in life, then I'm not sure how much of a contribution they could make to science anyway.
Skindoggiedog 2 years ago 22
@josetogan Or people should realise that reason and a scientific search for awnsers is actually liberating instead of something to fear. I understand it is hard to admit for a lot of people to take a very heavy question as in "what happens when I die" and then admit that they do not have a concrete awnser.
I takes a lot of courage to say "I don't know" and it takes a lot of ignorance to hide behind an imaginary friend.
Serashii 1 year ago 2
@Serashii couldn't agree more.
mightyafrowhitey 1 year ago
@josetogan the associations tied to the geek tag are not that which majority would like to have added to their persona
8Zeitgeist 8 months ago
At 3:02 .. with the poster in the background it looks like Dawkins has got a halo...
PanzerSchlumpf 2 years ago 8
that must have worked as a subliminal message cos' I now admire him even more!
dbuezas 2 years ago 2
Giggles
chefpasta 2 years ago
Or a decent impression of the Statue of Liberty.
LtStarkiller 2 years ago
Excellent videos.
Gavanyon 2 years ago 3
That was lovely - a discussion between adults beats a debate between an adult point of view and that of a scared, rather sadistic child. Go science!
littleoutrage 2 years ago 13
I agree, it's a lovely format. Although they're clearly following similar lines, it feels less defensive and perhaps there's more freedom to throw an idea out there without worrying about losing points.
scepticalpreacher 2 years ago 2
More! More!
happyinnanaimo 2 years ago 3
what can I say,just brilliant :)
naybobdenod 2 years ago 6
I'm sorry I have to express this in such a crude way, but this video gave me such a big hard on!
mdiem 2 years ago 4
After watching lots of documentaries on this subject and listening to the banalities of religious 'thought', I find this programme so uplifting. Just enjoying the sound of a reasonable tone of voice engaged in intelligent debate puts it all in perspective
pastyteabag11 2 years ago 121
@pastyteabag11 I agree with you 100%. Theres no attacking and defending what you see in normal debates. Its just rational conversation.
enkeksinickia 1 year ago
@pastyteabag11 agreed
SvendsenAtheist 1 year ago
Wonderful series. Listening to Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss discuss science is on par to that of enjoying a fine wine or cigar. The world truly needs more outspoken science advocates such as these fine gentlemen.
KrigUdyr 2 years ago 14
why not do both? *hick* :)
omegavalerius 2 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
The visible marks of extraordinary wisdom and power appear so plainly in all the works of the creation that a rational creature, who will but seriously reflect on them, cannot miss the discovery of a Deity. --- John Locke
markpianoman 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@}-,-`-
Click on my name for the U R L to see how I **WON** the Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge
@}-,-`-
felixmabus99 3 years ago
Very interesting discussion.
ryu1024 3 years ago 11
This was an amazing series! :)
harshm2u 3 years ago 14
Dawkins is the man!
GOD Delusion and The Selfish Gene are works of a genius.
itouchyourpod 3 years ago 15
Darwin is the man!
If it wasnt for him, Dawkins would probably not be the Dawkins as he is today.
Devilsnightforlife 3 years ago 3
no he would be darwin lol
mervicus 2 years ago
Criticism of ideas and hypothesis, is what makes science great and unattractive to most people. Criticism scares most ordinary people. If you don't think critiscism scares you; ask yourself if you like giving speeches, having someone read your writing, what people think about your nationality, and do you care what people think about how you dress? If criticism doesn't scare you in one way or another, your in denial. I only recently realized what my hidden fear of criticism was.
itouchyourpod 3 years ago 3
Great video, thanks to the poster. Well worth the time to watch. I personally still think that Creationism doesn't have enough evidence to be taught along side evolution. I do think that Creationism can and or/should be taught in social science or humanities.
ImmortalEni 3 years ago
Creationism in social sciences? That sounds like an AWFUL idea to me... as a part of Religious Education is the only place for Creationism. The heart of the debate lies in whether we should teach Religion in schools at all. I believe we should, but so long as it's treated as a seperate suject called Religious Studies or Religious Education, so as not to confuse it with fact.
zimmyis 3 years ago 3
let the churches teach their own myths. Leave the classrooms out of it. Science should be taught ONLY in that setting.
cowdragon 3 years ago 6
cowdragon agreed. My dad is a practicing christian and he never had god preached to him while he was in school. He went to church and made up his own mind and while I disagree with his conclusion I respect it and understand why he came to it even if I think it's dead wrong.
Luigi84289 3 years ago 2
Krauss has a very good point here that students would be better served if more of their "column B" requirements were taught by the faculty involved with their major, although in some cases that could open up for the classes being softened rather than "kept important." Still the issue he is pointing out is important and I'm not sure what the solution would be.
klalkity 3 years ago 2
I could listen to these two converse for days.
aleceth 3 years ago 15
same here.. and then I'd complain that it was over too soon ^^
megamarsvin 3 years ago 6
The civility of their discussion is quite refreshing, I find it can be taxing to listen to the same arguments, perpetuated by the ignorant.
ndeverteuil 3 years ago 5
2.59 lol @ Richard
ArchieAA 3 years ago 10
hahahaha BEHOLD! Divine Richard!
roji56 3 years ago 6
This is the 2nd time I have seen these videos and I plan on more. It is uplifting to hear these two speak. We need more public discussions on this order. The people who need to hear this are not hearing it. This posting is a start. Thanks.
RhondaH 3 years ago 16
RhondaH,
I couldn't agree more! Uplifting and enlightening.
It saddens me to see only 10,526 views on this video.
DistinctiveBlend 3 years ago 9
I will show the video to all my love interests, ^_^ if the chick is too hot she can be anti-evolution, lol
kubikmaster 3 years ago
we are on this planet ,no one knows why ,have a nice live
iainlonuk 3 years ago
pure logic and reason will win out every time,richard dawkins is trying to spread some of that,i was brought catholic has taking me this long,soon as i heard him speak,i got it ,thank you
iainlonuk 3 years ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Dawkins is so brilliant that most of the religious zealots dont even realize how stupid he makes them look in these public debates. I agree with the Professor that all Christians and Muslims should be exterminated and the world would be a much better place for it...a world full of logic, reason and scientific thought free from the poisonous influence of religion on cultures and minds.
Hunkola 3 years ago
Spam, spam, spam, spam Hunkola. Cretin
Slabbers 3 years ago
Extremely intresting vids'. Very fun to listen to. I'm in love with Dawkins' (ideas, logic or other brilliant abillity of his). :)
Bangtssen 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
kraus is so fucking annoying!
CezRhys 3 years ago
A belief in intelligent design ultimately leads one to ask the question, "Who designed the designer?" There can be no escape from this required leap of logic, if logic indeed leads one down the ID path. To the contrary, accepting evolution as fact requires no special contortion of logic. There is no stopping point of irreducibility, and no need to look for one. Evolution is fact, devoid of conjecture. ID is conjecture devoid of fact.
jjb1310 3 years ago 8
"There is no stopping point of irreducibility..." - actually this isn't true... I leave it as an exercise to the reader to discover this for themselves.
jordan567890 3 years ago