In the Beginning: Explanations from Science and Religion

[2gointruth]

Out of Truth is all created.

Science is the research and discovery of what is Truth already.

[fdasherv]

Hmm, I notice there are no creationist comments here. But, the video's almost an hour long. How is a creationist expected to pay attention to anything that runs on longer than a bumper sticker? Sure, ask them about thermodynamics but don't wait around for an answer.

[Poleschs]

Evolution is a physical process and religion is metaphysical, how on earth are physical and metaphysical concepts compatible? Give me a break!

[anetchi]

@Poleschs Word! I totally agree with you.

[GowanBray]

47.31 "Parasites can only live by killing their hosts" I nearly spilt coffee on my keyboard. This guy is simply wrong. Well adapted parasites do not kill their hosts. This would be counter their own survival. Sure they may reduce overall fitness, impact on reproductive output etc, but parasitism is NOT an always lethal way of life. It is simply part of the mind fog which religion introduces to see parasitism as "evil". It is just (the most popular) way of life, with consequences, not intent.

[ananiasacts]

@GowanBray, I had the same reaction. Francisco had me going and coming. He's hard not to like, but I sure get the feeling that nothing in his mind actually adds up to the total he accepts as a result. I wish all of the theists would have explained why they believe in god, what exactly their "brains" are for if they aren't needed to make themselves conscious entities in the afterlife. I get the feeling that none of these folks believe any of the miracles that are claimed by the bible.

[GowanBray]

about 22.56 this is where she needs to say in response to the preceeding waffle, that when religion makes scientific claims about how life, and the universe were "created" they need to put up some scientific evidence for peer review or stop representing to their students that it is anything other than a human invented creation myth. She leaves students thinking that saying one thing about scientific matters in lectures and another in church is somehow an intellectually valid position. It isn't.

[THEHARMONIKZ]

Genie is too accommodating.But I still appreciate her.

[xxSilverPhinxx]

God would not have created robots? How would we know if we aren't robots?

[CB563]

While I am a strong atheist, a number six by Dawkins's standard, if more of the religious believers gave the same level of thought and recognition of complexity about life that Ayala and Lamoureux have, I would not have any problem and a greater appreciation of the religious viewpoints. Further, they show something that I do not get from a lot of the laypeople who follow fundamentalist and conservative Christianity and Islam do not - intellectual honesty.

[Ibis333]

Lamoureux is annoying. But he does deserve some credit for being open-minded enough to change his mind about YEC. Ayala was good until he started talking theology. Blech.

[altfish2]

Genie is brilliant

[jereksgospel]

So... Let me get this straight, Denis Lamoureux was a Christian literalist. He studied evolutionary biology and his literalism started falling apart... So he chose to "see" more to Genesis than is there and is still a self described "evangelical". How convenient... and kind of retarded. I could see how he might still chose to believe in some kind of "God" creator, but to be an evangelical still? dumb.

[OccamsView]

Denis Lamoureux is an idiot. Period. (I'm pointing my finger at him).

[maddtappin]

lolol that whole period and pointing, sooooo annoying. Someone with no point, no pun intended.

[mattghtpa]

One, who relies the scientific method and is an atheist, can only reasonable say that there is a lack of evidence for a creator.

To state unequivocally there is no creator would be just another subjective metaphysical opinion and untestable.

I'm satisfied with the idea that I do not know and live my life as such

[krustofskie]

@mattghtpa This is true to a point. Where it is right to say that there is only lack of evidence for a god/creator and it can not be truly known as you can not prove or disprove a negative. However, when you get to religion, each religion has a specific concept of a god. It is these individual concepts of gods that can be dis-proven. Some people use evolution as evidence against the existence of a god and shouldn't, but it can be used as evidence against organised religions concepts of god.

[mattghtpa]

Humanity seems to suffer from selective and myopic memory. Each human era starting from known writings has shown an arrogant propensity to claim authority over what is known.

The fact is, I feel, for all our advances we still haven't clue. We've barely left our ball of dust, besides a couple jaunts on the moon, and few machines spat into space.

I agree, organized religion, in its currant form, is absurd and dangerous, but not all philosophies are the same and some deserve respect.

[krustofskie]

@mattghtpa I think were on the same page, if not at least the same book. Got to agree with you that there are philosophies that are taught by religious texts that should be learned, but where as the teachings may be good I don't credit the religions with them but man. The good teachings can stand on their own without religion so any respect would be given to the philosophy itself and not the religions grasping at them to gain some credibility and claims or morality.

[krustofskie]

@krustofskie *of morality* not *or morality*

[mattghtpa]

@NazzDX AH HA HA HA HA....cough.

[NazzDX]

@mattghtpa

Sorry I was tired and my brain was jelly: I'd been watching Creationist videos for a few hours. Normally my jokes, if they can be called so (probably not) are a bit less lame and pointless and they are also actual jokes.

[mattghtpa]

@NazzDX It was, I was kidding. Unlike some spelling Nazi's.

[patricknelson]

Not even 5 minutes into this and Lamoureux completely misrepresented Dawkins from the start. They don't create a false dichotomy with gnostic theology vs. evolution and Dawkins, many times, has said that you can certainly believe in a god of some sort while still believing in evolution. You simply can't prove god either way (something he agrees with, since he's technically agnostic, leaning gnostic atheist, as I am).

[MrAmmo]

Great discussion. Scott is an amazing person.

[harveyts3]

This was not a debate. It was a discussion between professionals on the topics of religion, science, and how they effect education. You don't need to have someone there just to completely disagree. You can be better served listing to people who come to similar well informed conclusions from different vantage points.

[stupidb8888]

In the beginning, creationist got butt-hurt.

[aco12231964]

do we really need that type of rubbish

[nutty01]

NO NEED.

[SamNoble89]

Erm.... Why isn't there a creationist on this panel?

[Eshto]

@SamNoble89 Because they have nothing credible to contribute. But don't worry, Ayala and Lamoureux together were about as illogical as one creationist.

[patricknelson]

@Eshto Actually, I found all of them very credible and logical with a vast majority of what they said in this video. I'm not sure where the "illogical" statement really takes its basis. My only complaint, which was earlier, that 5 minutes into the conversation, Lamoureux misrepresented Dawkin's position (mistake maybe?), but that is all. I mean... I'm not trying to bust your balls, what you said is funny, but to be honest, I just don't think it's true.

[Flyborg]

@SamNoble89 As much fun as it would have been to see a creationist get pwned, this wasn't a debate; it's more a discussion about science and religion, and since creationists represent neither science nor religion, it would have been out of place. They have 2 religous and 1 non-religous person discussing science, and there's no more need for a creationist than a geocentrist or flat-Earther. :p