Creationists and Academic Freedom

[bookwormsrcool]

My fellow atheists, you are not alone. And if we are going to Hell, I'll bring cookies. :)

[benthemiester]

Neo Darwinist always complain that intelligent design advocates publishes no peer review articles so its not science. This is not true, but what is said. When someone does publish a piece on the subject they get the persona no grata treatment.While the proposition of little green men from outer space possibly seeding life called the theory of Pan Spermia gets a free pass. Searching for the elusive Martians through SETI is science, but believing in intelligent design is supposed to be impossible.

[gregrutz]

@benthemiester Science is what scientists do, they don't do intelligent design.

ID is an argument for god, not a theory, not science.

[benthemiester]

@gregrutz So another words scientist dont do Intelligent design, they do Darwinism?

As I have said before you have a great sense of humor.

[gregrutz]

@benthemiester Wrong again, they do Biology and research how the fact of evolution happened, the theory of evolution.

[benthemiester]

@gregrutz cont..... in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations...By this definition I agree, however it says nothing of origin of the specifies, or the molecule to man paradigm which is not empirical. The Quarterly Review of Biology, December 2010, vol. 85, no. 4 just published Behe's latest study critiquing the the modern synthesis. Are you saying the Quarterly Review of Biology is not a science journal?

[benthemiester]

@gregrutz This is from evolution friendly wiki.....The statement "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is often seen in biological literature. Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense of the term "theory"; it is an established scientific model that explains observations and makes predictions through mechanisms such as natural selection

When scientists say "evolution is a fact", they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact"...........

[gregrutz]

@benthemiester The process of evolution is a fact, it happened. There is a theory of evolution to explain how it happens.

[benthemiester]

@gregrutz correction .....I agree, however it says nothing of origin of the species,.....not specifics,...... spell check corrected it incorrectly.

[gregrutz]

@benthemiester Sorry if I can't spell and have Parkinson's disease and can't type.

[errskin]

creationists have academic freedom, they are as free to study their religious beliefs as anyone else. but this does not mean that science has to accept religious ideas as scientific.

[Zentz29]

good stuff!

[jgoemat]

I disagree about the holocaust, although I don't think evolution or atheism played a part. The ethics of biology is a fair subject to touch on, is it not?

[eenger]

in a philosophy class its a fine subject

[RationalConclusion]

Evolution is a fact whether you like is or not. You cannot change what is true just because it disproves your religion.

There is no evidence for the existence of a god. It is therefore illogical to believe that one exists.

[SAUNDERSacts2618]

prove God does'nt exist

[RationalConclusion]

What for?

How?

[Cnidarious]

prove it does.

[loqutor]

I find it deplorable that there are so many scientists who censor ID arguments. They're turning evolution into a religion, which goes against Darwin's words: A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.

[ProcInc]

"I find it deplorable that there are so many scientists who censor ID arguments."

they aren't censored, they're rebutted. There's a difference.

"A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."

That happens, and after ID refuses to accept it was demonstrably in error it has overstayed its welcome by all scientific standards

[loqutor]

Actually, they are censored. They're rejected outright without anybody exploring the weaknesses of evolution. Richard Dawkins claims that anybody who doesn't believe in evolution "is ignorant, stupid, or insane."

[ProcInc]

"Actually, they are censored"

This is simply wrong, has already been stated and has been rebutted. This is exactly what I'm talking about

"They're rejected outright without anybody exploring the weaknesses"

Weaknesses in evolution are explored and addressed. Most 'weaknesses' of evolution are not even actual weaknesses but merely the use of strawmen

Evolutionary biology seeks out and corrects is own theory and publishes such changes. ID does no research so there is nothing to censor

[sockpuppetsfromhell]

Richard Dawkins claims that anybody who doesn't believe in evolution "is ignorant, stupid, or insane."

And he is correct.

[5tonyvvvv]

Homochirality is the stake through the heart for evolution..life by time and chance impossible..biochemical chemistry has reached a dead end paradox!!!..and if u think simple chemicals could some how form life, u dont know real chemistry..u would rather believe in some unknown chemistry than an intelligence..this is why Miller failed to make life in a test tube and no building blocks were ever made or assembled..right and left handed amino acids together are toxic to life..

[ProcInc]

"Richard Dawkins claims that anybody who doesn't believe in evolution "is ignorant, stupid, or insane."

Aside from this being an ad hominem, considering the evidence for evolution it is clear that it does take a level of stupidity and or insanity to deny the observable facts of evolution.

Of course even if Richard Dawkins was fundamentally wrong, he exercises no 'power' over academic freedom of others.

[WitnessmyPerfectio]

LOL Projection.

[Cnidarious]

"weaknesses of evolution"

There are none.

Its a a solid well grounded theory with the scientific consensus on its side. Even if creationist materials were not rejected for not being science they would still fail.

Peer review would Eviscerate any apologetic materials instantly.

To survive in the scientific community you need be capable of having people scrutinize your ideas, often to the point of destruction.

The apologetic position of creationism demands you don`t scrutinize it. = FAIL

[loqutor]

While I haven't the energy to explain the many weaknesses of evolution to someone as narrow-minded as you, I will tell you this: The truth is not determined by the number of people subscribing to it.

[Cnidarious]

"While I haven't the energy to explain the many weaknesses of evolution"

That`s too bad, because until you do no one will take you seriously.

And even if you do, you will be scrutinized.

[Cnidarious]

loqutor the phrase "weaknesses of evolution"

Have little to no meaning.

Even if there were weaknesses in the theory, there can be no such weaknesses in the phenomena which the theory explains. "The truth is not determined by the number of people subscribing to it. "

Thats right, it can however be determined through critical thinking, non-apologetic research, peer review and methodological naturalism itself.

[Cnidarious]

"someone as narrow-minded as you"

-------Ad hominem-------- =

-------- PHAILURE --------

One might also declare you have committed

psychological projection, as being "narrow minded" is the Antithesis of methodological naturalism.

however such a description fits rather nicely

around Creationism and Religious apologetic pseudo science.

[Cnidarious]

"I find it deplorable that there are so many scientists who censor ID arguments."

Do you know why they are Ignored?

i will give you a hint.

I has to do with the scientific method itself.

[loqutor]

The scientific method isn't employed in neo-Darwinism, either, so I still have no idea what you mean.

[Cnidarious]

"The scientific method isn't employed in neo-Darwinism, either, so I still have no idea what you mean. "

I am afraid it is.

Sorry you don`t like that.

But Evolution is the unified theory of biology.

as i has said before, GO READ some peer reviewed papers on it.

saying the scientific method is not used is silly, do you even know what that is?

[loqutor]

Evolution is not the unified theory of biology. A vast majority of the sub-fields within biology predate Darwin. Agriculture and medicine owe absolutely nothing to his work. Gregor Mendel, the father of Genetics, developed most of his theories before "Origin of Species" was published.

[Cnidarious]

again, you are ignoring the scientific consensus.

It is often referred to as the unified theory of biology because it explains and ties in a number of different biological disciplines. And agriculture does in fact utilize concepts explained in evolutionary theory.

Don`t make baseless statements.

[loqutor]

First of all, the truth is not determined by the number of people subscribing to it. The scientific consensus once held that the sun orbits the earth.

"And agriculture does in fact utilize concepts explained in evolutionary theory." Such as?

[Cnidarious]

selective breeding.

a controlled version of natural selection.

ever wondered why bananas are the shape they are?

I will give you a hint, Its not because of god.

[loqutor]

That's not evolution. That's genetics. Gregor Mendel was doing the same sort of thing with green and yellow peas, and I might add, he was doing it ante the publication of Origin of Species.

[Cnidarious]

Yes of course its evolution.

Evolution functions through natural selection.

Selective breeding is merely the same apparatus which is responsible for evolution in a controlled environment.

[loqutor]

Yes, a controlled environment.  ID is basically evolution combined with creationism.

[Cnidarious]

There is only one kind of science.

The kind that does not ascribe to

Religious views of any type.

Science is unbiased, which is what gives it its ability to fall into conflict with mythology in the first place.

[loqutor]

Science may be unbiased, but scientists are not. While there may not be a need for any creation myths, there is certainly a need for faith in people's lives. Don't get me wrong, empiricists do have their place, but not in helping people determine their purpose in life. Science, as much as it has helped humankind, can't do everything for us.

[Cnidarious]

Sorry loqutor but

Scientists are demanded to be unbiased in there review by methological naturalism.

This is not about purpose its about uncovering that which are empirically factual.

[Cnidarious]

"Science, as much as it has helped humankind, can't do everything for us. " Yeah i guess your right. can`t do everything, Besides advancing infrastructure, cure diseases, enable flight, electricity, Clean water, Ample food, enable telecommunication, computing, heating. Yup we sure don`t need those alright. Dark ages here we come.

[Cnidarious]

And genetics supports evolution.

Phylogenetics....

[Cnidarious]

"First of all, the truth is not determined by the number of people subscribing to it. The scientific consensus once held that the sun orbits the earth."

And creationists think a global flood is viable,

that organisms are static in nature and that universe is 6000 years old.

all of these things are feeble minded bronze age notions long since abandoned by reason.

[loqutor]

A global flood is viable. Ever heard of the polar ice caps? And only a very very small minority of creationists believe that the universe is 6000 years old.

[Cnidarious]

"A global flood is viable. Ever heard of the polar ice caps? And only a very very small minority of creationists believe that the universe is 6000 years old."

No it is not viable.

There is not a sufficient amount of water on this planet to cover the entire surface, not even close.

And if you were to do so, you would eradicate all muticelluar life, No amount of wood and mortar could protect you.

the entire ecosystem would collapse, both terrestrial and marine.

[Cnidarious]

does the discovery institute, answers in genesis and the lions share of fundies count as a minority?

[Cnidarious]

"A global flood is viable" No a global flood is not viable. There is insufficient water on the earths surface to do this, even with the Icecaps melting.

Whats more, If you did manage to do it you would NEVER see land ever again. And no Boat could ever save you from the resulting vapor that would permanently saturate the atmosphere. That`s not even the tip of the ice berg "pardon the pun" Of how many fatal errors there are in the Global flood concept.

[loqutor]

It took you two months to come up with that? Wow, you're so brilliant.

[Cnidarious]

"personal attack" Very nice. But Ultimately typical of creationists. Actually i forgot about this thread, i just found it again.

[loqutor]

Not really typical of creationists.

Christian: I love the Lord Jesus Christ!

Atheisit: FUCK YOU, YOU'RE A BRAINWASHED CUNT FOR BELIEVING THAT BULLSHIT!

Christian: That was rude. You're a jerk, you know that?

Atheist: OH, INTOLERANCE HUH? I GUESS I SHOULD HAVE SEEN THAT COMING FROM AN ILLOGICAL FAGGOT LIKE YOU!

I honestly don't give a shit what you believe, but I'm sick of your people maligning me because I believe that the Universe actually has a purpose. Good day, sir.

[Cnidarious]

I don`t have a problem wit theists believe it or not.

I just have a problem with Anti Science. Creationists aren`t real Christians anyway.

[loqutor]

And that's where you're completely misreading me. I'm not anti-science. I'm just saying that science can't give people artistic or spiritual fulfillment. And my questioning of one theory in one field doesn't mean I have disowned the very idea of science, or even that particular field.  Was Abraham Maslow being anti-science or anti-psychology by saying that most of Freud's theories were wrong? No.

[Cnidarious]

I think i have an idea what your trying to say. However, Questioning a theory is not the problem as that is part of the scientific Process, and ultimately played in integral part in the development of the Modern Theory of biological evolution itself. The problem is why it is questioned. Questioning weather a theory is ligament on religious grounds is not sound logic. I hear countless Strawmen, Red herrings and logical fallacies from creationists whenever

evolution is a topic.

[IgnosticView101]

There are many facets in life that can give a person spiritual fulfillment.

The sheer vastness of the Universe and my realization that it is far greater than we can possibly understand gives me a far greater feeling of spirituality than the psychological placebo effects of religion or theology.

I do not think that our lives are drab and meaningless unless we stop persuing that one thing that gives us inner peace... whatever it may be.

[ZigZaggityWW]

ID is absolutely non-scientific, and has no business being taught in a science class - end of argument.

[ProudToBLoud]

sternberg was persecuted

[Impaler1815]

That's all you have to say? I make a video explaining exactly why all the injustices against Sternberg were either false or deserved and all you have to say is "is too!"? Doesn't make a very convincing arguement.

[saxmanchiro]

As a Biology teacher, please understand that if ID is forced on me by admin to be taught in my class, I will walk out and will make it very public and ugly(my state has not tried yet). ID/Creationism does not warrant discussion in my classroom. I will refuse to discuss it, mention it or even allow any students to bring up their bible crap. Science doesn't allow opinion, just proper methodology applied to hypotheses.

[BlackNPink93]

I have so much respect for you. Every teacher should have the same view. Luckily creationism is far away from my school and my science teacher is not a religious person. Religion should be kept in the church.

[saxmanchiro]

BlackNPinck93

Thanks for the kind words. My children(3) have been raised to trust science and two are involved with science.

I feel I'm not alone on my stance and look forward to the next battleground(school board or district) that surfaces. The more they try to slide this pseudocience into the classroom, the more we will show them and the public exactly where ID stands.

I feel I am in the trenchs of a war against truth. It is very important that we bring the truth to our children.

[dscglfr00]

ok. transitional fossils for the flowering plant.... go!!

Hmm... nope none. Didnt evolve thats why, and why would a non-flowering A-sexual plant ever have the need for bees and other insects to help spread its seed???? yup, thats those random genetic mutations again for ya...

like i said again evolution/creationism isnt the arguement, its why people can't research something that isnt the norm?

[Impaler1815]

Gotta love the way creationists narrow down their acceptable evidence. "Oh sure, you might have a perfect line of transitional fossils for the evolution fish to amphibians, but what use is that without a perfect line of flower fossils?" Now I don't care much for botany in general, but you can clearly see that the earliest flowers were far simpler and less profound than modern flowers.

If a plant gets polinated it increases genetic diversity, giving a higher chance of fitter offspring.

[Impaler1815]

That's quite clearly a reason for flowering plants to be selected for. The benifits of sexual reproduction are well understood.

Evolution has far more than just fossil evidence. What about the nested heirarchy, vestigial features, ERVs and observed mutations that are benificial, increase complexity and create new features and function?

[dscglfr00]

sir. i am not creationist. CATASTROPHISM is my position. if you ever do take a look at any positions that arent maintream, look me up i will be happy and willing to help out.

[twothlesswonder]

"sir. i am not creationist."

You claim catastrophism and evolutionary deceit... If it quacks like a duck and has feathers, I'm gonna call it a duck.

Holographic universe: single experiment from 1982 on the relationships between electrons is hardly evidence for a holographic universe.

Good luck with your pseudo-science...

[Impaler1815]

Way to avoid everything else I said. Come back when you want an actual debate.

[dscglfr00]

im avoiding that debate because it leads nowhere like i've stated.

[dscglfr00]

just like darwin was pre-mature in writing "origin of species" especially unbeknownst to him 100 years later we would be dipping into microbiology and figuring out DNA sequencing and that some parts of our body are so irreversibly complex.

i hope you come to realize that using this narrow scope of one field that most scholars seem naturally possessed with these days, you will never find the greater truth.

[twothlesswonder]

"just like darwin was pre-mature in writing "origin of species""

Heh, actually, he was right on time. Mendel was establishing his theory of inheritence at the same time as Darwin. Unfortunately, they never met. So

[twothlesswonder]

cont...

So, yeah, Darwin was right on time. His voyage on the Beagle was not only biological in nature, Darwin also set some very important observations in geology.

[twothlesswonder]

"irreversibly complex."

Hmmm. Are you also touting intelligent design?

Shit, thats 3 nebuous faith based beliefs if indeed you are.

*If this be the case*

You are now exhuding the impression of one who is grasping at all this pseudo-scientific babble to discredit the notion that when you die, you cease to exist.

So, are you touting intelligent design's battle cry of irreversible complexity?

[busymartian]

Don't forget Alfred Wallace.

[twothlesswonder]

I WILL give a nod to Bohm's work in neuroscience and his ideas that consciousness can be explained as similar to the way a hologram works. BUT, this is not to say that it IS a hologram. The same goes with the holo-universe. Just because a vague aspect of quantum mechanics can be expressed verbally through the analogy of a hologram, DOES NOT FOLLOW that the universe is a hologram.

[busymartian]

Wow! you just turned evolutionary theory on its ear. That's about as airtight as an argument can be. Make that statement on flowering plants in the form of a research paper and I guarantee you'll win a Nobel Prize.

[dscglfr00]

ok, now explain how our "primitive hunter gatherer" ancestry was able to erect massive stone and basalt megalithic blocks upwards to 150 tons, and with skill and presicion that would rival modern day architecture with a profound knowledge of geometry.

This is found all over the world and authors like Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval have put many internationally best selling books on this subject.

Hancocks book "Underworld" shows evidence of ruins off major coastal areas worldwide.

[Impaler1815]

What's that supposed to prove? That we knew maths and architecture 5,000 years ago? The possibility of building ancient structures is well understood by historians.

More importantly, what does this have to do with creationism, evolution or the subject of this video?

[dscglfr00]

im not talking about being dated 5,000 yrs ago im talking 12,000.... the sphinx has been weathered down and documented to have only have sufferered that kind of weathering from floods. thousands of years of floods.

the whole world inundated. catastrophism is my position.

[twothlesswonder]

"thousands of years of floods... the whole world inundated. catastrophism is my position."

I'm sorry to hear that. Now, would you care to explain why none of the tombs discovered in Egypt show any flood damage? The mummies would have surely rot if "inundated" with water. Same goes for mummies found WORLDWIDE. A global flood would have destroyed ALL mummified remains.

Hmmmmmm....

[dscglfr00]

well there are mass graves all around the world that have been found to have been caused by mass flooding and im sure if the egyptians knew that you needed to preserve certain parts of the body those caskets could have been air tight.

but either way... we have only found 5% of the egyptian empire to this date. So there is many chances to fullfill your watery grave dilemma.

[twothlesswonder]

"im sure if the egyptians knew that you needed to preserve certain parts of the body those caskets could have been air tight."

How "sure" are you?

None of the egyptian tombs we've opened have ANY flood damage. Remember, a fully inundated Earth would surely have allowed the planets most pervasive substance (water) to seep into the tombs as well as the actual "caskets". Especially in light of the astronomical pressures that would have surely FORCED the water in.

No cigar for you...

[dscglfr00]

hmm.. energy makes up this world therefore it is most permeable.

oh and almost every culture on this planet has ancient texts telling of a time where the world was flooded. Either way Im not here to quarrel over small issues such as these.

i merely come to offer a different viewpoint(something quite refreshing sometimes). If you would merely spend sometime doing alternative research many mysteries suddenly become accounted for and you might be thirsty for more. Be the Galileo of this era.

[Impaler1815]

There are no complex structures that are 12,000 years old. The only structures back then were simple hovels. The sphinx has eroded the same way everything erodes, wind, rain, and more recently acid rain.

[dscglfr00]

you are misssing the bigger picture. When someone gives you an arguement and 2 choices, always look for a third. craetionism and evolutionism will having you running like a chicken with its head off because there is no missing links/visible creator. i found through detailed research that there is a disturbingly very large case for "pre-historic intelligent global civilizations.

[Impaler1815]

No transitional fossils? There are plenty. Just look at the videos on the subject by DonExodus2, and then my video on the subject to refute whatever reason you had for dismissing them.

There is no evidence for civilisation beyond 5-7,000 years ago. It looks like you've been reading too much Conan the Barbarian.

[twothlesswonder]

Changing your position?

Of course! your a creationist holographer!

Hahahahahhaha!

[dscglfr00]

it is not the time for you to learn and i am accepting of that although i hope one day....... lets say like sometime in the nxt 2 yrs when certain earth-shattering discoveries are being made and people are doubting current scientific beliefs.

take care till then.

[dscglfr00]

inside an atom.... there are protons, neutrons and electrons.

now those electrons are rotating at a rate of 3/4 the speed of light. Thats enough torsion to produce a bevy of energy.

now if everybody in the world also has a readable electromagnetic field via a molecular energy scanner(MES), in addition to the electromagnetic invisible light spectrum, thats plenty of unseen energy.

QUANTUM PHYSICS is the offering so many reasonable theories that help us understand this world better.

[twothlesswonder]

"inside an atom...."

All this talk of quantum mechanics is besides the point. The point on the table is that you are professing to be true 2 pseudo-scientific proposals which are highly nebulous and unsubstantiated. It's science fiction.

1- It's been 25 years since Aspects observation and nobody has provided a lick of evidence for a holo-universe.

2- A global flood? C'mon... our many COMPLETE records of Earth's geologic column cry out an astounding NO!

Your ideas are faith based...

[twothlesswonder]

ID and Creationist leaders and proponents don't actually think they'll get their "veiws" taught in science class. They know it's a lost cause. BUT (and I stress this) THEY ONLY WANT THE MEDIA COVERAGE to instill/reinforce doubt in their flocks. It's a ploy, a ruse an advertisement and nothing more.

As long as they can get the coverage, they've already acheived their goal...

[threewiseman1]

You've probably got a point there, twothless. I'm not so certain that creationists think they won't get their views taught, but you're dead on the money with the media coverage point. What astounds me is that their lies work in spite of the bad publicity and reaction from critics. Their arguments are always entirely shut down, yet people are still willing to believe them, and pay money to see that poxy, freak-show 'museum'. Some people are beyond help.

[twothlesswonder]

"I'm not so certain that creationists think they won't get their views taught"

I totally agree. That's ever so painfully obvious. I was really only referring to the leaders (the initiators). These high profile initiators of movements are who deploy the intellectually dishonest ruse. THEY know damn well they're not peddling science...

[threewiseman1]

So true. I was given a book once, by a Christian friend of mine, written by Ken Ham. He outright lied on every single page, and referenced nothing. So I set to task detailing every lie and falsehood on footnotes, gave it back to my friend, told them to read it, and then flush it down the toilet. Normally I hate the thought of destroying books, but that disgusting farce called The Lie: Evolution can hardly be considered a book.

[ThatOneQuestion]

Creationists, especially those that brand themselves ID'ers, are exceptional liars and should have special awards in deceit.

Its so blatant that their main arguments are intellectually dishonest, but when digging deeper one can almost always discover the entire foundation of all of their arguments are based on nothing but lies.

Great vid!

[PanamaJackson]

Correct me if I'm wrong but iirc, Stephen C. Meyer of the DI does NOT have any bioloical background correct? So if that is the case his paper had no business being published in a Biological Journal which would make this case that much more ridiculous! I'm so tired of Creationists thinking that they are experts on everything!

[Impaler1815]

Sternberg does have a PhD in molecular evolution. However the Meyer paper was about punctuated equilibrium and the Cambrian explosion, far more suited to someone with a background in palaeontology. There were apparently several other staff of the journal who's background were more stuited to the article's subject matter.

[DaveGrossmanSoloBass]

ID proponents are not trying to get their brand of creationism taught in public schools because kids are not hearing both sides of the story. There is nothing stopping them from teaching these ideas at home or in Sunday School. No doubt, they are taught these things outside of public school.

What ID proponents want is to undermine evolution to help keep kids from learning that what they have been taught at home and Sunday School is bullshit. They don't want to lose more of their flock.

[Inqoinf]

If Creationists are ever allowed to teach so called "criticisms" in public school then we should also teach "criticisms" of the Bible in school! Anywho Great video *5

[andrewrberkshire]

Damn, you've "impaled" all their claims once again! Great video dude!

[Relyt22]

From a creationist's point of view, you could say that "God works in mysterious ways". What I never understood is, why can't evolution be just another one of God's mysteries, that's now coming to light? There's plenty of contradictions in religious text, why not one more?

[Avatra1]

Well because it interferes with their religious text in a way that´s kinda hard to ignore due to the fact that it totally proves the texture wrong. Well that´s my thoughts about why they are so "stubborn". )IE, If they would accept evolution as a starter point for a god. they would have to replace some or maybe all of their old faith for a more universally new faith where they don´t really know where they would stand. (pecking order) They would loose the "thing" that makes them feel special.

[Avatra1]

And I just have to nitpick, God´s mysteries = putting another hole into another hole. IE we don´t know why the hole (or what it means) is there so lets just assume a god made it. (wishful thinking?)

[jebus6kryst]

Great work. That makes you wonder where all of the Discovery Institutes money is going too.

[digitised]

Very well produced, you deserve more views.

[FaithIsImaginary]

Great video. I like the more direct approach to the "let the children decide" argument though.

We would truly be failing our children if we required them to be the judges of which parts of the curriculum were reasonable models of reality and which were blatant superstitious lies. Evolution/creation represent those extremes - at most one can be correct.

Children can have opinions - but the science education is there to give them basic introductions to current science - not to evaluate theory.

[FaithIsImaginary]

It's easy to see how silly the "teach the controversy" argument is. I mean every theory has its crackpot opposing views that aren't represented in classrooms. Flat earthers, Free energy buffs, people claiming antigravity exists - people claiming we can manipulate the environment through supernatural powers.

We don't waste our kids' time with that. For good reason - none of it has a leg to stand on under scientific scrutiny. Creationism/ID are in the exact same category.

[Facecageworshipper]

Should we teach children that the earth is hollow, that gravity is a lie, that the earth is flat, teach history from a scientologist point of view? No, and this is no different.

[RomanPhilosopher]

intelligent design is not science but belief

[Danmill23]

Dam. Great vid.

[busymartian]

But Sternberg doesn't like the card key.

[stuffisgd]

how about some REanimated dinosaurs?

that would shut up some of those progress hating twats!

5 stars

[docwarwick]

Well contructed argumnet with evidence based, completely unlike the dishonest tactics of many of the dogmatic ID advocates! Now I would like to see honest and intelligent responses from creationists dealing with those points. Can't see that there's much chaance of that tho'!

[bwhahrhr]

Fuck research. Animated Dinosaurs rule.

and thats why I am a creationist!!!! ;)