Academic Freedom Day Video Entry

[loktkey]

Holy crap this movie is dumb. DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB

[TheHonestTheist]

woh, slow it down their egg head! Can you put that in layman's terms for me? It's far to intelligent and elequent for us simpltons to understand!

[UmbrellamanBand]

Many of you seem to have missed the point of this video. The point of this video was not to show now rejected ideas and present them as the current "evidence" for evolution. The point was to show that evolution has a LONG history of now rejected ideas, and ask how we can be so sure of the current "evidence."

[TheHonestTheist]

It's a crying shame that the arrogence of man has pursisted throughout all of history and pursits until today and will pursist into the future. It is part of our nature unfortunately, we like to think we know a lot more then we actually do. Only those with open minds truly learn. Like when Albert Einstein went against the mainstream and made time relative instead of absolute, the guy was a genious. Why? Because he wasn't so sure of what people claimed to know.

[thealchemist1111]

You have to concede that Einstein's Theory of Relativity did not have a movement to insert it into public schools at grades 9-12. Instead his ideas were distrubited throughout the schientific community and peer reviewed. Eddington observed light bending with his own eye, these photographic plates are on display.

Bypassing this method for ID Theory (never in the history of Science has this happened) appeals to your sense of freedom and fairness how?

[SatanicMurderer]

let's see here... arrogance*, persisted*, persists*, persist*, than*, genius*. You sir, speak like a hillbilly. please go back to school. Thank you.

[UmbrellamanBand]

It's a YouTube comment, not English class. Let's deal with the content. You don't capitalize all of the beginnings of your sentences. But, as I said, this is a YouTube comment. Thus, it doesn't matter.

[th3n3d99]

your an idiot UMBRELLAMANBAND

by cutting off mices tail's a couple times it does not prove your theory right evolution takes hundreds of thousands of years.

an entire history was not built around that tooth it simply was one example of where a scientist classified a tooth incorectly

Have you never confused one thing for another on accident?

This information is wrong

[UmbrellamanBand]

Thank you for your honest feedback, but I suggest you watch the video before you post such comments.

The experiment referenced in the video (where August Weismann cut off the tails of mice) did indeed invalidate the theory of Acquired Characteristics. Perhaps you should look up what the theory is, or read the description and example presented in the video.

A sort of history was indeed made around the tooth. Osborn classified it wrong, though not revealed until after it was promoted as evidence.

[th3n3d99]

your probably wondering why there is so much negative feedback to your video beleive me its not everyone else it's you, YOUR AN IDIOT

the experiment did not prove that the theory of acquired characteristics is not valid u would have experiment over 100's of years to positively prove it wrong

there may have been a slight history built around the tooth but everyone makes mistakes and this dose not outweigh the overwhelming evidence pro evolution

[UmbrellamanBand]

Actually there is so much negative feedback because of the very point this video is making. There is an intolerance to any idea other than evolution in much of the current academia.

I am a bit confused by your reaction to the acquired characteristics example. Are you aware it is not believed (even by evolutionists) anymore, in much the same way spontaneous generation is not believed anymore (though evolution requires a type of it to start life).

[UmbrellamanBand]

I don't think you understand what the idea of acquired characteristics is. Acquired characteristics predicts things such as: if a father works out and gains muscles, then his child will be born with muscles. Or If a mother is extremely tan, then the child will also be tan.

Things which are "acquired" over one's lifetime are passed onto the offspring. Weismann was the first to disprove this by showing that an acquired trait of the mice (absence of a tail) is not passed onto offspring.

[UmbrellamanBand]

Traits passed onto offspring and controlled by DNA, which does not change over an organism's lifetime due to any traits which are acquired or lost. If I had my arm cut off, my children would still be born with arms, as my DNA does not change.

[internetaccount122]

1:52 is Lamarckian evolution.

[UmbrellamanBand]

"why are you citing disproven hoaxes here? Do you cite the flat earth society to discredit a spherical earth too?"

Apparently you missed the entire point of the video. The point is that in the past there have been "tons of CLEAR" evidences for evolution which were later discarded.

In evolution, ideas stay for a wile, but are almost always thrown out after either being thouroughly disproven or after a better explanation comes along.

[TheHonestTheist]

I can't believe you only have two stars for this! The information is correct, that graphics/editing is good. What are people thumbing down exactly? The fact they don't like having their faith in evolution challenged?

[loktkey]

A you really this dumb or are you just pretending to be? You know as like a bad joke or something.

[TheHonestTheist]

"A you really this dumb"

you might want to type properly if you are going to call someone dumb and maybe say what you actually think is dumb, rather then just calling them dumb, unless YOU want to look dumb, which you do

[loktkey]

Haha jokes on you. A you must be dumb too. Get a life instead of surfing comments from two weeks ago and nitpicking. Then maybe you see why this movie is so stupid. Unless you have to keep picking your nose and you can't see past your finger. This movie is really dumb in a stupid and ignorant way. If I was going to take the time I would do a helluva better job than this drivel proved to be.

[jzuidema]

complete fail....again

-acquired characteristics is a long rejected idea about evolution, from before genetics were known. Why state obsolete ideas to support your position? We have better evidence, like fossils, DNA, ERV's, population distribution and such for evolution now.

-you completely misrepresent the Haeckel issue, completely...

-why are you citing disproven hoaxes here? Do you cite the flat earth society to discredit a spherical earth too? There is tons of evidence besides this, ie fail

[Scruffers2011]

This was a GREAT video....a FANTASTIC video! Good job! Make another one!

[UmbrellamanBand]

The point of this film and this competition is to take the message to the public that science needs to have a healthy debate.

I hope that at the least this film has been thought provoking

[NomadSoul76]

"I hope that at the least this film has been thought provoking "

I hope the fact that you boldly claimed you had a science book that still used Haeckel's drawings as "truth" in your hands but now appear to be eager to forget that claim has been thought provoking as well.

[NomadSoul76]

In your video you state "Haeckel's drawings are still regarded as truth in many textbooks".

I looked up those images you used in the video. But there's a problem. A number of them aren't even Haeckel's drawings.

Perhaps you could specify one book that uses an actual Haeckel illustration?

[Alternate2GOP]

Crap, didn't realize there were people to argue with aside from just those on Kaleigh's vid. My bad UmbrellamanBand.

[biologezwei]

Your argument seems to be: Scientists have been wrong in the past, so scientists are not to be trusted. But keep in mind: Both Haeckel's drawings and Osborne's tooth were exposed by SCIENTISTS. And Lamarck - I don't get why you included an over 200 year old theory as your example #1. Do you doubt germ theory because they once thought that "bad air" causes illness? "Evolutionists" are so sure that they have it right this time because the evidence is overwhelming. Get over it.

[UmbrellamanBand]

Haeckel's embryos are still shown in textbooks, though the real embryos look much different. In fact, I am holding an AP Biology book this moment that has the embryo drawings in it. (Both pictures of the drawings in modern biology books as well as pictures of the true embryos are in the videos).

[biologezwei]

If the book actually shows Haeckel's original drawings without commenting on its inaccuracies and/or pointing out how H. used them to support his falsified theory, then it's a bad book. Most biology textbooks today use either photos or correct drawings, tho. Vertebrate embryos, despite what you say, do look quite similar. E.g. all have a tail and pharyngeal pouches; the best explanation for these common features is a common ancestry.

[Alternate2GOP]

Damn, I need a new biology book then. Oh, and if you can find pictures which support that thesis then let me know. Everyone from Wells, to the late Stephen jay Gould has said that we need to let go of these drawings.

[biologezwei]

Playing dumb? Haeckel's original drawings, which were altered, shouldn't be used. Accurate drawings or photos of embryos show that they look similar "e. g. all have a tail and pharyngeal pouches". Go find some yourself. I'm not here to provide your education.

[UmbrellamanBand]

I stated that "there was some debate as to the tooth's true origin" though the public was convinced of it's accuracy, as shown by the newspaper drawings. Osborn saw Nebraska Man as evidence for the Scopes Trial, though the tooth was never shown due to dissension.

[biologezwei]

But of course. One newspaper published one drawing and the public was convinced. Sure.

"Some debate"? I'd say it was dismissed right away and Osborne's carreer was over after that. He's still a vivid example why you should never ever make your find public before you submitted it to peer-review. That would've saved him at least from the public humiliation.

[NomadSoul76]

"I stated that "there was some debate as to the tooth's true origin" though the public was convinced of it's accuracy"

Surely that argues against your point rather than for it. The public at large is often grossly ignorant of science. It bears repeating that it was SCIENCE that debunked the tooth.

However the current ID tactic is to say that science is wrong and that the public must know better, so let THEM dictate what is taught in schools if they disagree with current scientific positions.

[UmbrellamanBand]

On the contrary! The tooth story bears a striking resemblance to the current science climate:

There is debate in the science community as to evolution. It can be hard for evolutionists to grasp the fact that there are thousands of scientists around the world (and there have been for centuries) who deny Darwinism and it's atheistic backings.

Much of the public has also been lulled into the belief that evolution is completely right (both much like the story of the tooth).

[NomadSoul76]

"It can be hard for evolutionists to grasp the fact that there are thousands of scientists around the world"

Surely you're not referring to that list of people who doubt evolution? The statement that the list is for isn't actually anti evolution, and a vast majority of the people on the list aren't scientists at all.

[NomadSoul76]

"there are thousands of scientists around the world (and there have been for centuries) who deny Darwinism and it's atheistic backings."

I just realized you said centuries. Darwinism, as you insist on calling it, is less than 200 years old. How can it have been denied before it even existed? You're letting your unsupported, overly grandiose claims get the better of you.

[NomadSoul76]

As to atheist backings.. didn't you get the memo? The entire point of ID is to try to sneak creationism into science class because it's illegal to do so openly.

But to do so, you have to pretend that it's not about religion ALL THE TIME.

I'll leave the ethics of using deceit to promote your religion up to you.

[GOPpersona]

Got any proof that ID is religious?

[NomadSoul76]

"Got any proof that ID is religious?"

Oh let's see.. the fact that one of the first books that used it when it was first becoming a big buzzword has been demonstrated to have been edited to remove the word creationist and replace it with "design proponent", showign that the two terms are interchangable.. the fact that, as umbrella did just here, ID proponents just can't stop talking about atheism and god when they're supposed to be talking about science and design.. and the wedge document.

[UmbrellamanBand]

And I completely agree that the public can be wrong sometimes. Just look at the aformentioned example of the public reaction to the tooth.

There is no doubt that much of the public in Germany thought Hitler was the right leader when he came to power (an extreme example to be sure, but does suffice to defeat the idea that ID proponents think the public is always right)

[UmbrellamanBand]

But is it so wrong to want to EDUCATE the public on both sides? The public at large CAN be ignorant of science, and the blind teaching of only one side of a theory can certainly contribute to that.

If evolution is obviously right then let's take both theories into the open and have more public debates. If evolutionists are so sure they're right, then why can't we ask the fundamental questions without being ostracized?

P.S. I apologize for the lengthy response.

[NomadSoul76]

"But is it so wrong to want to EDUCATE the public on both sides?"

Once again, does that mean we should spend equal time teaching geocentrism? How about phlogistan?

You're trying to argue for equal time for a concept that does not merit it.

If a teacher were to accurately teach the picture of ID, you would not like it. They would have to mention how it's a clear case of creationism being disguised to slip by legal barriers. They'd have to mention that no research supports it.

[GOPpersona]

"Once again, does that mean we should spend equal time teaching geocentrism? How about phlogistan?"

Explain how these concepts are relevant to this discussion.

[NomadSoul76]

"Explain how these concepts are relevant to this discussion. "

There is about as much evidence in favor of geocentrism as there is intelligent design.

I'm sorry, but it's the truth. That is why ID is being pushed on students, because it's failed in the scientific community.

We went through the same thing with scientific creationism in the 80s, which left us with Edwards V Aguillard, and the current clear precedent forbidding the teaching of creationism in the science room.

[biologezwei]

#2 Haeckel's fraud was found out by scientists as was #3. Neither of these were proven to be wrong by question asking high school students. The paintings of Nebraska man were provided by a newspaper which reported about Osborne's find not a scientific journal. NM never was accepted by the scientific community, on the contrary. Haeckel's recapitulation theory was rejected, but the similarities in the embryonic development of distantly related species is undisputed and evidence for evolution.

[UmbrellamanBand]

Many of the comments for this video show first-hand the thesis of the video itself:

That there is an intolerance of any view other than that of evolution.

[Alternate2GOP]

No kidding! One need not make a video to confirm the very point you've made..... just let them do the talking.

[biologezwei]

Ideas and views that aren't backed by evidence don't have a place in science classes. That isn't intolerance that is just how it works. About 30 % of Americans believe in horoscopes according to a Gallup poll. Should astrology be taught in school because it'd be intolerant not to include it?

[Alternate2GOP]

"Ideas and views that aren't backed by evidence don't have a place in science classes."

At least we agree on something. ;)

"About 30 % of Americans believe in horoscopes according to a Gallup poll. Should astrology be taught in school because it'd be intolerant not to include it?"

I agree that if a million people believe in a dumb idea, it's still a dumb idea. But I can't help but wonder how the example you cite could possibly be relevant to ID. :?

[biologezwei]

"But I can't help but wonder how the example you cite could possibly be relevant to ID. :?"

Well, the level of "evidence" for astrology and ID is quite similar. Astrology: Look, there are stars, so horoscopes must be true. ID: Look, that is complicated! ID must be true.

[NomadSoul76]

"Well, the level of "evidence" for astrology and ID is quite similar. Astrology: Look, there are stars, so horoscopes must be true. ID: Look, that is complicated! ID must be true."

It's worth noting that Michael Behe, ID proponent, stated under oath that under the definition of science that he uses to declare ID science, astrology is science as well.

[AmosPressley]

The religion behind Evolutionism adds another step:

Look, that is complicated!

We cannot see the Designer, so ID cannot be true.

We put our faith in Time and Chance to produce all this on its own.

[NomadSoul76]

"The religion behind Evolutionism"

Do you really want to go there? You might want to read up on the history of the phrase "cdesign proponentsists" before you start that.

The problem for you is that time and chance, as you put it (a gross oversimplification, but I'll overlook that), have been shown to be capable of producing "all this". Yes, on its own. ID proponents wouldn't have to resort to trying to force ID on kids if they'd had any success in the labs demonstrating otherwise.

[NomadSoul76]

"Many of the comments for this video show first-hand the thesis of the video itself:

That there is an intolerance of any view other than that of evolution. "

Would you equally say that there is an intolerance for the view that the sun orbits the Earth?

[Alternate2GOP]

Of course not, that's kind of the whole point of these vids.

[NomadSoul76]

"Of course not, that's kind of the whole point of these vids. "

Really? There's no intolerance shown for people who think that the Sun orbits the Earth? So... teachers have the academic freedom to teach that the Sun orbits the Earth? Or bad air causing disease as an alternate explanation for germ theory?

[GOPpersona]

No, no, no, there is not an EQUAL intolerance shown for people who think the sun orbits the earth.

[NomadSoul76]

"No, no, no, there is not an EQUAL intolerance shown for people who think the sun orbits the earth."

So, since not wanting to teach ID in the classroom is the current definition of intolerance you are using (as this entire video is about teaching ID as science in the class room), I ask again. Is geocentrism taught in science class as an alternative theory?

[philhellenes]

ROFL. :)

[SaganAppreciationSoc]

Where you totally misunderstand things becomes clear at about 1:38. The real process is (per your example) that giraffes that happened to have had slightly longer necks will tend to have access to better nutrition, giving them a survival and *breeding* advantage, so that trait will be handed down to more surviving offspring than the shortnecks - who tended not to survive long enough to be equally prodigious, or they won't have as many offspring due to inadequate nutrition.

[philhellenes]

I assume there's a competition to make a video containing the most stupidity within 5 minutes? We have a contender, but he won't win, not while there are Hovind vids around.

Truly pathetic, so pathetic in fact, even Hovind would refuse parts of it. The giraffe thing PROVES they don't understand what DNA is OR the first thing about how evolution works. A response would easy and fun (I can think of some good lines already) but not worth it with so few viewings. It'd be like beating kids. ;)

[SaganAppreciationSoc]

As near as i can tell, there are 3 videos on their YT group, and this one.

One does wonder, if, one could properly explain to them (in this example) the natural selection for longer necks, if the uploader would then gain a new appreciation for evolutionary theory, and then find it more compelling than what comes out of an ancient text. The term "natural selection" is rather vague by today's common use of language. It wouldn't hurt for our camp to come up with a more descriptive term.

[SaganAppreciationSoc]

As for beating kids, well... I think we've seen what the past 50 years of permissive parenting have wrought. :-)