Evolution in Two Minutes

[achilles197474]

Even high school biology teachers are embarrassed by the theory of evolution. Based on data from the National Survey of High School Biology teachers, the authors estimate that only 28% of all biology teachers consistently teach evolutionary biology, while 13% explicitly advocate creationism or intelligent design. The remaining teachers they deem the cautious 60%. Only 28% even teach it. What a screwed up theory.

[boardthrulife]

The creation of a star has never been witness, however novas and supernovas are witnessed around once every 30 years. Therefore via MATH star creation is presently negative.

[papimcfee]

David Wilcock puts a real spin on the theory of evolution. Check him out!!!!

[Zachdudeio2]

Evolution doesn't contradict the idea of god. Creationism is dumb, really awesome video

[infamos]

'Incontrovertable', you're having a laugh. 

[conart001]

Isaiah 45:7 (New International Version) 7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

[Vehementi]

Nice video. It's good to know that there are Christians out there that aren't so blind as to refuse to accept scientific fact.

[ilovereeceandomally1]

type "Southpark Theory Of Evolution Video" and click on the first video you come across.... to see what evolutionists believe.... wait, im sorry, they keep changing their minds. first it was apes, now fish!! well, heres what they believe as of now. sorry atheists and evolutionists or whatever, im sure youre really nice people.... you just believe only what you see and theorize. Its sad, in my opinion.

[Vehementi]

@ilovereeceandomally1 And you think a 5 minute clip from Southpark is an accurate depiction of what the theory of evolution states?

Dumbass.

[ilovereeceandomally1]

Oh, and.... HOW do you evolutionists etc., explain how the one celled fish things that we came from came to exist. How did they enter this world? GOD = THE ONLY EXPLANATION.

[mattisos]

@ilovereeceandomally1 Are you writing these things just to get people mad and start writing to you? Becuase you cant possibly be Serious... can you? Look at what you have been writing... I dont know if I should Laugh or cry :) sorry my english is so bad .

[ilovereeceandomally1]

Check out to see what evolutionists believe. They make evolution sound all scientific but its the exact opposite!! Atheists etc., only believe what they see and know for a fact, and yet.. claim religious people are afraid of death.

[Vehementi]

@ilovereeceandomally1 Haha. "Evolutionists", why not "Gravityists" or "General relativityists"?

[XxShadowlingxX]

Yeah...no. There is no actually solid and presentable evidence of Evolution, just a bunch of propaganda created to keep this dead RELIGION thriving. In fact, the only reason people still believe in this is, despite the various disproofs, and lack of actual proof, is because the only thing left is that there is a real god, of course you dont wont to give in to christianity.

Besides, what has evolution done for the world, aside from leading all those people to hell?

[0ThouArtThat0]

Evolution and Creation need not contradict one another, so long as one does not mistake the Bible for a study of natural history. Just because you refuse to accept the vast amounts of scientific evidence that proves the age of our planet and our common genetic origin doesn't mean it isn't there. Christians do nothing for their religion by denying scientific facts. Consider how science and religion enhance one another. Are you familiar with Teilhard de Chardin?

[dustingrey]

Do some research...

[rybekki]

If you are thinking is there no solid proof for evolution then you are just not educated enoght. 93* % of scientist that are members of National Academy of Science reject concept of GOD, creationism and other nosenses. You can observ evolution, test it by dna comperision. And what you will tell me more ? That earth is 20000 years old or what ? Stop this bulshit and go to library for some books.

[ColtRider]

You should go to the library as well...if the earth is billions of years old, and macroevolution has taken place during that time, then why haven't we found any GOOD and REAL transitional forms? There has never been any observation of macroevolution and if you honestly think we came from something so simple to something so complex, it doesn't work logically. It makes more sense to go from complexity to simplicity, not the other way around...

[patrickledford420]

@rybekki lol no they think more like 6000 years old and there living trees that are 8000 years old ohhh wait i forgot dating is always wrong so are scientists lol creationist

[FiverBeyond]

@XxShadowlingxX

Wow. What about...

- ERVs?

- Mitochondrial DNA?

- The nested taxonomical heirarchy?

- Atavisms?

- Vestigial organs?

- The 2nd chromosome?

- The fossil record?

Etc.?

[ColtRider]

"- The fossil record?"

The fossil record contains fully developed specimens. These evolutionists find bone fragments miles apart from each other and construct a highly imaginative "transitional form." The funniest one is when they constructed a transitional form from a single tooth! These people will do anything to back their claims since they are so anti-religion (creationism).

[FiverBeyond]

Ah, your referring to the Nebraska-man story (which is only half-true) and the claims of either Lucy's knee or Java man's construction (both Creationist stories about these bone fragments being 'miles away' are false).

And of course the fossil record contains fully developed specimens... what else would it have? It has dinosaurs, bird-like dinosaurs, half-bird-half-dinosaurs, dinosaur-like-birds, and birds, all 'fully formed' according to this definition.

[ColtRider]

My point is that we should be finding millions upon millions of transitional forms if macroevolution took place within a period of 4 billion years. It annoys me (not you) that many steadily hold their beliefs without looking at the other side of the coin. It also annoys me that Evolutionists and Darwinists only offer evidence but not the problems, which causes people to put their faith in something they think is 100% correct.

[FiverBeyond]

That's because the only 'problems' are ones that are half-truths, distortions, or flat-out lies told by Creationists.

As for the 'we should be finding 'millions upon millions'... where on earth do you get this number from? Of course... we HAVE found an incredible number of transitions in the sense of "half-way points between an ancestor and a descendant". Fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to dinosaur, dinosaur to bird, reptile to mammal... it's all there!

[patrickledford420]

@ColtRider yes there always fully formed u obviously dont know what a transitional form is its not going to be a half reptile and half bird go look up donexodus2 or aronra

[EPR89]

@FiverBeyond You could as well try to argue with a stone. I recently had a llenghty discussion (at least I thought it would become one) about evolution and creationism. So I wrote something in the line of your comment.

It turned out to become a "This is a misinterpretation. What about this (starts completely new point I had not adressed in the first place)? That is not truly proven if you think about it for a second"-thing. Let's hope that natural selection will take care of it.

[FiverBeyond]

@EPR89

I know your right... I guess I just want other readers to be a little more informed on the issue.

[patrickledford420]

@XxShadowlingxX what its not a religion and u mean the thousands of fossils, dna, genetics, homolgy, atavisms, and well nothing EVER going against it

[Vehementi]

@XxShadowlingxX Yeah, except for atavisms, chromosomal fusion, MtDNA, ERV markers that match up in human and chimp genomes, the fact that it unifies all other fields of biology, the entire fossil record, the fact it's been used to make accurate predictions, the list goes on.

It's not a religion, anymore than gravity or germ theory, or the theory of general relativity is a religion. But if you hold religion in such low regard, why do you follow one?

[mydogdaisy1212]

@XxShadowlingxX Right, the evidence for Christianity? A book written in the Bronze Age by Nomadic herders? Gospels written by people who probably weren't even present when Jesus was alive? Or perhaps miracles that we have never found proof of? And then what about evolution. You know, genetics, vestigial structures, and verifiable proof from species that have visibly split from each other. Yea, the choice is clear.

[aSquirrel5]

it's not 'science vs religon' because evolution is a religon, you have to 'believe' in it. Besides, creation has more scientific and historic evidence than evolution has evidence... if it had any.

The sad part about it is, it's a joke

[0ThouArtThat0]

What sort of evidence is there for creationism? There'd have to be an awful lot, because the scientific idea of common descent is supported by a 150 year research project that has produced mountains of indisputable evidence.

[mattbudnick]

aSquirrel, you don't have to "believe" in evolution. It isn't a religion, no matter what you claim. A person either agrees with or rejects the evidence supporting evolution. If you reject the evidence for evolution I would be interested in what exactly you use to support whatever theory you agree with.

Don't just ignore the evidence for evolution and then claim it doesn't exist. The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins gives a good basic explanation of how evolution works, if you actually care.

[0ThouArtThat0]

mattbudnick, I really don't think Dawkins is the best way to win over creationists!

aSquirrel, try "The Tree of Knowledge: Biological Roots of Human Understanding" by Maturana and Varela.

[barry0728]

william shatnerism

[breezyspreezy]

amen...

[otonanoC]

What the he.... have you been reading Dan Dennett?

[fakingbits]

Abiogenesis - in the beggining there was nothing, nothing,nothing..for some reason that nothing become everything and accidentaly created the universe and designed all things..Evolution was made up to brainwash people that we all came from a dick lemur because if not..there is a designer

[Joe22c]

The evolution of a single cell organism to the diverse array of species seen today is indeed cool.

But what I find even more profound would be how non-living organic matter managed to ultimately become living organic matter.

There are several theories as to how this may have happened, (see wiki for a brief summary of some of the popular ones posited), but the transformation from what one would distinctly define as non-lving to ultimately what one would define as living is truly amazing.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I agree, it tells us something significant about matter that it can come to life.

[Curtishasone2]

Yawn

[dashpoet]

Mind tingling stuff!

[AlaskanSky]

Even though I personally agree with you, I probably would have omitted this line: "The tired conflict between science and religion must come to an end..."

It sounds too subjective.

[mattyabsley]

AlaskanSky - "The tired conflict between science and religion must come to an end..." Doesn't sound subjective to me. I am sick of it, from both perspectives.

[AlaskanSky]

The fungus kingdom is one of the oldest on earth. Fungi are the ultimate survivors and can adapt to metabolize anything, including some of the deadliest toxins known to man (when no other food source is available).

[isismelting]

ten stars, obviously.

everyone, call discover magazine and make it clear to them that this video is supported, and, as far as we know, should be selected as winner.

the number is 8OO-829-9I32.

know that these calls REALLY make a difference! do not put it off, call now.

[AlaskanSky]

Really nice work, Matthew. Well done!

Did you know that humans share 50% of their DNA with an earthworm?

[AlaskanSky]

My comment was pretty straightforward -- not implying anything. I was simply trying to illustrate a different viewpoint. There are hundreds of millions of Buddhists in the world and they don't believe in a soul (i.e. a fixed, permanent entity that resides in the body).

The reason I bring it up is because Buddhism and Science are very harmonious.

v=qj_i7YqDwJA

[laserfalcon]

nice voice, no evidence for your crap, but you have a nice voice

[TodaysThought]

life comes from life. Are you saying there is no evidence for this?

[1PostPoMoMaN1]

No evidence for autopoiesis?

[sdrs85]

great video.... 5 stars.

[m60yaface]

LOL you sound like FOX MOLDER doing the intro to the X FILES ! lol

once again great video ! good job sir

[browntuka]

Praise GOD, you give him so much Glory with the power he has! You think that it took Earth several billions years to "evolve" yet it only took him 6 DAYS TO CREATE!!!! You should be a POPE cause he too believes in evolution!!! Thats funny for a self proclaimed Holy Man to believe in that... Did he not read Genisis 1:1-2? I take it you were born a monkey??? your first words werent googoo gaagaa, BUT oooooh oooooh ahhhh ahhhh... Whats your surname? KONG???

[GodsReligionChannel]

To browntuka: it is amazing how many stupid immature people there are like you on YouTube! Go read your bible honey and let thinking adults discuss philosophical questions without having to suffer your stupid silliness.

[modemusicman]

Are you entering this contest? This debate exposes itself by the very concept of contest. Someone according to the rules will win, whether its right or wrong cause in this area of competition no one knows for sure but yet someone will become the victor, maybe this is why we never understand our purpose. Could it not be said that the universe is really only as old as than the one experiencing it? Good Luck if you choose to enter the contest.

[JasonOnEarth]

You're description in the right column... one word:

BEAUTIFUL

[theDracoIX]

Evolution fails so hard. I don't know what evidence yer talking about - but I would love to debate any of you on this subject.

[0ThouArtThat0]

The evidence of common decent is too vast to list here. Darwin's theory of variation under natural selection could be false (which it has so far proven not to be and is among the most well established theories in science), but it would still have no bearing on the fact that all life shares a common origin. A common origin is easy to see in fossil and genetic evidence. I would also love to debate it.

[blackemerald]

I recommend 'Creation or Evolution' by D. Alexander (might not be available outside the UK - I don't know). Fantastic book by a Christian Evolutionist which looks at the biblical passages, the development of the theory of evolution and issues of compatibility. Doesn't answer all questions but certainly explains that Christianity and Evolution are not incompatible.

[ZOMGitsCriss]

I wish I had the time to do one myself :/

[fettkatt87]

When i look at the creation around me, i know that there is a creator. The HOLY BIBLE is 100% true.

[blackemerald]

I'm Christian and believe that God made the universe but that does not tell me how he did it, nor does it reconcile the two different tales of creation in Genesis.

I believe that Evolution is the method and process for the development of life and the variety we see in nature. The evidence supports it.

It also means that Genesis creation is false, but that does not devalue our faith, it simply means that 6000 years ago the ancient Jews did not know of evolution and had to create a creation myth.

[0ThouArtThat0]

blackemerald, you got it.

[theDracoIX]

Black, yer wrong - evolution doesn't produce a soul - so if you think you have a soul and you believe in evolution - think again.

[1PostPoMoMaN1]

The way you 'understand' evolution and the way you think of a soul...

[blackemerald]

I don't know what you're comment is supposed to imply but as I said to theDracoIX i never mentioned the word 'soul' so I neither offered an opinion on what a soul is nor what it's origin is, so any criticisms of me reconciling soul and evolution are void unless a seperate discussion is begun, which i don't happen to be interested in anyway because whatever a soul happens to be it is not a physically evolved entity.

[1PostPoMoMaN1]

It was addressed towards a christian fundamentalist. Youtube can screw the situation up. Now I've got 4 minuses for that comment. Oh well. :)

[blackemerald]

Ah well never mind. This is the problem with youtube, the debate has become polarised into uber-atheists and creationists.

[AlaskanSky]

Buddhists don't believe in a soul.

[blackemerald]

I never said I believed that evolution produced a soul.

I believe evolution produced our forms and to a certain extent our psyches and consciences (i.e. all primates smile which appeals to altruism and therefore parental protection) - however environment and society also impact these immensely.

What *I* term as a soul I believe comes from somewhere else, but I don't know why you bring that up cos I didn't mention it in my post. You anticipate my beliefs without proof or discussion.

[Akatam0t0ma]

"The HOLY BIBLE is 100% true. "

Actually, it is the Egyptian Book of the Dead, The Iliad, the Eddas&the Vedas that are 100% true. Your holey buy-bull is just a cheap imitation.

[CivilHuman]

Good job 10 stars.

[modemusicman]

Just wondering, do you have a creation of your own i.e. children? In a strange sort of way you remind me of the movie Powder. If you push yourself that far how do you know your still grounded? How do you ground yourself to the concepts of this so called life experience and what is the purpose in your opinion of even staying grounded if the idea is to push yourself past that?

[0ThouArtThat0]

no, no kids yet.

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking... how do I stay grounded? Gravity helps... I'm very cognizant of scientific facts, but I'm also aware that these facts require interpretation. The purpose of staying grounded is to assure that ideas are not just fantasy, but are based in fact.

[jtmoneyky]

sounds like something Carl Sagan would say.... well done.

[DynaCatlovesme]

Off topic.

[HaleyMary]

Awesome video. Very thought provoking.Thanks for posting.  :)

[atomarane]

Hear - hear, Matt! Well stated.

[mynameisghostkid]

if you still need help with the music i can help

[Cashify]

I'm in this! I'm that little speck on the left when the earth is viewed from space.

Seriously, perspective is everything.

[Svankmajer]

Loved the video. Subscribed.

[TheMorbidAtheist]

5 stars for admitting evolution is true

1 star for glorifying nature and the crude forces of evolution

[ColoradoTick]

Evolution and life is simply an aberration in a universal context. If it were anything else we would see it in abundance. Its a result of a coming together of numerous factors being just right to support it, fantastically rare. Not too far from the Sun, not too close, right atmosphere, right water content, etc etc etc, a one in countless billion chance event. Oh and yeah 'glow in the dark Monkeys!'

[0ThouArtThat0]

We have no way of predicting how abundant life is in our universe because of the vast distances between solar systems. It is my bet, though, that ours is a universe teeming with life.

[matrixcmitech]

watching this makes me think about the temp. range of water from freezing to boiling; the earth's distance from the sun; and mankinds audacity of waging death on such a planet perfectly suited for life; and then i think of all the machines we build to bring it all to an end faster & faster; something in this system is going to break... and i don't think it will be the earth or the sun.

[RabidApe]

actually, it's the life that's suited to the planet...

[connecthedot]

biotic and abiotic processes seem inextricbly linked. according to the gaia hypothesis earths pleasnt temperature, breathable air, and nonacidic waters are regulated by the growth and metabolism of life. this seems mutual?

[connecthedot]

the planet has preceded life, of course, but isnt the story of adaption also a story of cultivation?

[AlaskanSky]

The only planet suited for life. A precious gem in all the universe. You would think people would want to preserve it because it's the only one...

[connecthedot]

beautiful.

i wonder how it will compare to the others in content. since the term evolution is usually confined to simply mean the transmutation of species, in the darwinian sense.

[0ThouArtThat0]

yeah, i'm sure the magazine was looking for entries only about biological evolution. But I think it is somewhat misleading, or at least short sighted, to see it outside of its cosmological context.

[connecthedot]

completley agree. i think you'll open some eye's. you've certainly opened mine.

[StevenErnest]

Your words are wonderful, Matt.

But I would have to nit-pick over your use of the word create: "creative emergence," and "...moment of unimaginable creativity known as the 'big bang.' ..." I know (or think) you are not referring to a Creator God, but many others will not. I would suggest words like, novelty and originality. I like how you push the envelope of science and spirituality, but words have their connotative meaning, and attendant baggage.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I don't see anything wrong with referring to nature as creative. There is a big difference between Creator and creative. I'm not personifying the creative process...

[StevenErnest]

I didn't say it was "wrong," but that you are inevitably going to be accused of implying a creator. I checked a couple dictionaries, and there is always a connotation of intention, expression or causation, behind the word create, creative, etc. That is related to your view via de Chardin, which I am sympathetic to, but Discovery magazine will logically assume you are personifying.

There are exceptions, as, "Millions of years of erosion created the Grand Canyon" but it's a different context.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Point taken, but I'd rather express my true opinion than hold back in an attempt to win a contest.

[StevenErnest]

Yes, I admire and respect you expressing your true opinion.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I'm posting a video about this issue right now.

[TheNakedAtheist]

"But I would have to nit-pick over your use of the word create"

Yeah that made me cringe a bit myself. Also in a sense the video as a whole feeds into the latest creationist tactic of equating the big bang, abiogenesis, and the evolution of life as being part of the theory of evolution when it actually ONLY describes the processes involved AFTER the origin of life.

[0ThouArtThat0]

"Evolution" is a word that Darwin seldom used (only once in the 6th edition of 'Origin'). I think his theory of variation under natural selection is quite significant, but evolution itself is a far larger process than just this. It extends beyond biology to cosmology. Life is just one example of creative emergence in a universe full of such creativity.

[TheNakedAtheist]

"..I think his theory of variation under natural selection is quite significant, but evolution itself is a far larger process than just this.."

True, BUT the description of the contest is as follows:

"Can you communicate the most important idea in biology, and one of the most controversial ideas in our society, in a mere 120 seconds? Think you can convince even the most hard-headed creationist that Darwin was right? If so, show us--and that creationist--how it's done."

[0ThouArtThat0]

Yeah, I realize what the magazine was looking for. Consider this entry a protest, as I think it is misleading to view biological evolution outside of its larger context. Also, when we grasp the cosmic extent of evolution, its spiritual significance becomes clearer. Creationists are obviously dead wrong about their scientific claims; but that doesn't mean we can't understand the universe as a meaningful and creative expression whose mystery is more than the human mind can currently fathom.

[0ThouArtThat0]

My perspective is that science and religion do not need to conflict, so long as each recognizes its proper role. Science gives us the facts, religion helps us interpret them.

[TheNakedAtheist]

"Consider this entry a protest"

Protesting what? The fact that discovery magazine is having a video contest with the goal of proving to creationists that Darwin's theory of evolution is true? I don't get it. lol

[0ThouArtThat0]

I think there is something the Creationists have right, which is that the universe is meaningful. Sometimes, atheists go overboard by denying such a possibility. Darwin's theory is obviously true, but it is not an explanation for life or a complete explanation for the diversity of species. His is a theory offering one mechanism playing a role in the process of speciation. I wish Creationists would admit this, but I think what they are denying is the claim that mechanism accounts for everything.

[0ThouArtThat0]

No doubt Creationists seem to fervently believe in a literal Genesis story, but I think what really drives them is a desire to see life and the universe as purposeful. Science in no way denies this possibility, but it is often distorted by those who react to Creationists in too extreme a manner by turning Darwinism into metaphysics.

[StevenErnest]

Scientists do talk about the evolution of the universe, regarding its physical origins, development of stars and planets, expansion, etc.. It seems like here Matt is paralleling the origin of the universe and its evolving, and the origin of life and its evolution. To me, that's valid.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Yeah, I think it is silly to make an artificial division between biological and cosmic evolution. They are part of the same universal process of ongoing genesis.

[TheNakedAtheist]

"Yeah, I think it is silly to make an artificial division between biological and cosmic evolution. They are part of the same universal process of ongoing genesis."

I imagine the people at Discovery would agree, but the "artificial division" as you call it has in part has to do with the fact that evolution through natural selection is a fact whereas abiogenesis, and the big bang aren't.

(cont)

[TheNakedAtheist]

(cont)

You, and I of course may agree that abiogenesis , and the big bang are facts as well, or at least that a "God" wasn't involved, but only biological evolution can be argued with certainty.

[TheNakedAtheist]

Creationists want to lump abiogenesis, and the big bang in with biological evolution because the 3 things as a whole CAN'T be supported with the same overwhelming evidence as biological evolution.

I enjoyed the video, and have no problem with it other than in the sense that it gives aid, and comfort to the enemy so to speak. :p

[0ThouArtThat0]

I appreciate your comments, really. But I don't think it is beneficial in any way to turn this into friend vs. foe sort of situation. I realize that some Creationists are unreasonable, but Reason demands of us that we not stoop to their level. Instead, we have to stand back and look at what is at stake here. Human beings are a myth-making species. Always will be. Even science tells stories to make sense of its facts. So our task as a species is to arrive at a common story supported by facts.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Abiogenesis isn't a fact? Where did life come from? We don't know exactly how life emerged from inorganic matter, but it obviously has done so! And while the specifics of the big bang theory (personally, I hate the name) are open to debate, it seems pretty well established based on numerous empirical measures that our universe originated in some sort of singularity approximately 13.7 billion years ago.

[TheNakedAtheist]

"Abiogenesis isn't a fact? Where did life come from? We don't know exactly how life emerged from inorganic matter, but it obviously has done so!"

I agree completely, but from a creationist's (even many lay person's) viewpoint UNTIL we can say HOW it happened it doesn't have the same credibility as evolution. I know many Christians who accept evolution through natural selection, but believe God seeded life on the planet.

[MenoftheInfinite]

Abiogenesis *is* a fact, unless you want to argue that life is eternal. Abiogenesis on Earth is a hypothesis.

[TheNakedAtheist]

"Abiogenesis *is* a fact, unless you want to argue that life is eternal. Abiogenesis on Earth is a hypothesis."

True, even YEC's believe that living organisms (man for example) came from nonliving matter (dirt) which is the dictionary definition of the term.

[MenoftheInfinite]

Indeed. It's sort of ironic when they argue that life can only come from life when they in fact believe the opposite to be true. I guess there are some things that only God can do :)

[gratex]

winnar

[armando3210]

A watery planet no? I think it's there is an issue with comingling the words "creation" and "evolution"

[0ThouArtThat0]

I think both materialist/deterministic scientism and literalist/Biblical creationism must compromise based on the facts. Evolution, though it does not require a Creator, is creative.

[prhughes0]

A universal paradigm uplifting to the human spirit(s) while accepting our best understanding of reality is devoutly to be desired. Mentality, however, has escaped the convoluted mammalian jelly, and is in the process, if you will, of beginning a new kingdom of earth life, and human civilization is the midwife/mother of its birth (creation). Its future capabilities (freed from jelly) are not within the range of human imagination. Humanity is, in any event, a transient phenomenon.

LOVELY WORK!

p

[wholethinker]

prhughes0:

"Humanity is, in any event, a transient phenomenon."

I would even say: the humanity has the beginning and the end as everything.

People agree there is the death for men (it's obvious) but don't think about the end of humanity as a natural process.

[wholethinker]

The opposite of the previous post (to test what people like more):

The humanity does not have the beginning and the end.

Everyone and the humanity in whole are immortal.

Nobody thinks about the end of humanity.

_____

Good test to find optimists/pessimists ratio.

[armando3210]

When we are observing a natural process im not sure "compromise" fits. Should we compromise the scientific method with religious or spiritual methods to "compromise"? I think to say evolution is 'creative" implies a Grand artist...a creator., and applies more so than usual additional subjectivity. Is science the observation of natural processes and the devlopment of knowledge of them or is science 'spirtiaully" motivated practice and observation?

[0ThouArtThat0]

I would argue that science is indeed spiritually motivated. The scientific enterprise began within the Church for theological reasons (to know the mind of God, etc). This has changed for much of modern science, of course, but its origins are clear.

The scientific method is one thing, scientism is another. The former is an way of gaining knowledge, while the latter is a metaphysical worldview no better founded in facts than Creationism.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I don't think it is that difficult to differentiate the concept 'creativity' from its personification as a 'Creator.' As I see it, nature does not need a transcendent designer only because it is intrinsically creative.

[armando3210]

Im not sure what you mean in terms of the history or where the starting points is...in modern era if you mean the Church with respect to people like Lemaitre then yes. But if you mean "ancient" history with respect to human civiliation i woudl say no. Aristotle alone predates "The Church"

If you believe in the devleopment of knowledge over time (whichi think is demonstrable) and that people have not always thought the way they can now ( also demonstrable)

[armando3210]

than i m not not sure 'looking back" is where we want go to determine what is and what is not science or what should or should not be the moticvation for authentic scientific discovery.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I was referring to the period approx. between Aquinas and Newton. Aristotle was somewhat scientific in his approach, but he was also Theistic.

Science is, to my mind, an expression of a conscious, rational being striving for understanding. This sort of scientific enterprise isn't found in any other species on this planet, so while it doesn't contradict nature, I lean toward calling it spiritual to distinguish it. Science fundamentally alters what the human animal is capable of.

[begily]

creative? creativity?

[0ThouArtThat0]

"This is the greatest discovery of the scientific enterprise: You take hydrogen gas, and you leave it alone for 13 billion years, and it turns into rosebushes, giraffes, and humans." -cosmologist Brian Swimme

I call this creativity, yes.

[begily]

brilliant quote.

[JJJPaxton]

This is Great GREAT... I think they won't like the word Creation, I sympathize with its - your context though.

[alovelytime]

you're a winner Matt!

[LimpLoser]

Matt i noticed an error--u said Solar Systems. wouldnt Star Systems be better?

[0ThouArtThat0]

why so?

[LimpLoser]

cuz the name of our star is Sol hence Solar system . no other Star system is called a Solar system, just ours is.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Ah, well, I've heard it used both ways, to describe our own and other systems. Star system doesn't sound as neat!

[mrkurt13]

No, if that were a hard rule, other stars wouldn't have Solar Winds. Its like saying other planets wouldn't have earth to walk on because we call our planet earth.

I think you're a little confused about it being a word based on a name(or it might be a name based on the word).

Here is one definition(inline with how matt used it): solar system:

the Sun or any star and the planets which move round it.

[LimpLoser]

mrkurt13: other Stars have Stellar winds not Solar. Our nearest star Alpha Proxima u could call the Proxima System and say Proxima winds.

[mrkurt13]

I really dont think anyone ever says proxima winds, do they? You may have a technical point with stellar being 'correct', but the common usage and even dictionary definitions allow the use of solar system in the same sense as star system.

[LimpLoser]

mrkurt13: i know people say it. and their wrong. its completely unimportant to me what you call other star systems but an Astronomer in a pedantic mood might mention your error. should u ever speak to one .

[LimpLoser]

Good vid Matt. hope you win.

.......and not a single mention of Mutation Variation or Natural Selection.

Fantastic.

[0ThouArtThat0]

thanks. I think Darwin's theory of variation and natural selection is important, but Darwin himself did not come up with the basic idea underlying evolution (or change in species over time). If I had to name the person that really made the idea of evolution philosophically feasible, I'd say Lamarck. (Though Descartes and Kant both mentioned the possibility).

[0ThouArtThat0]

So in other words, Darwin came up with one mechanism involved in evolutionary change. He doesn't have a monopoly on the idea, though.