@tnafguy "i dont have a lot listed,but many scientists can be found by searching on here about evidence for creation. in my Favorite videos are some things that might helps u think in other ways maybe" I'm sorry, what? Creation? As in Genesis, the bible? And I actually thought you had an observable, testable, repeatable theory here! I've seen these creationists at work. If they're so certain, why do each of them rely on lies and misrepresentations and slander as a matter of course?
@tnafguy Hi again, thanks for the reply. So I went to your channel but only found negative arguments against evolution. Where are the positive arguments for a more modern theory of diversification? It would help if you actually named them, so I can look them up on my own. Thanks again! ; )
@tnafguy You're so right. I want to get my head out of the 1800's and the ancient science of evolution. Would you start me on my way by showing me the more modern theories of the diversity of life? Thanks in advance! ; )
@tnafguy Nephilimfree hasn't even provided proof of any basic education. And he has been unapologetically false in many of what he says, using a shotgun tactic of barraging the opposition with fallacies. A man who thinks himself to be more infallible than God himself and yet has not published a single peer-reviewed scientific paper, surely is the person to believe on ANY subject pertaining to science. Orrr, we could go with reality and see him for the false prophet of who he is.
Over the past few millennia evolution has gone from a rough idea of various philosophers in among others ancient Greece, through a set of hypotheses all the way to being a large theory involving several hypotheses, laws and smaller theories, used in various sciences and in biology as its framework.
Creationism on the other hand has gone from God did it to God did it.
Oh and by the way I've never been vaccinated and neither were my kids. We are all healthy and I would never trust vaccines. All vaccination has done is bring on Aids in humans.
I don't know why anyone would waste their time making videos on bashing religion. Do the same amount of research into science and you will find allot of excepted science is just as waked. Science is flawed because it doesn't allow for non-physical influence. When you have the structure of the universe balancing on a Higgs particle in physics, and dark matter explaining gravity both of which have never been seen you have to start asking some serious questions. Both science and religion are flawe
It's the extremes of both religion and science that stop proper evolution of the human race. I could make videos of bogus science covering up massive findings that change history or scientists ignoring experiments that go beyond the laws of physics, but I have much better things to do with my time. If you think science is unflawed and non corrupt I feel very sad for you because you are disillusioned. Quantum physics are suggesting backing for allot of religious theories.
I got half way through and thought "I don't even care. Religion and science both have massive flaws and both can't definitively prove crap all. Why am I bothering to listen to this shit" they should teach all theories in school. I'm not even religious. Just recently Steven Hawkings said "it is a FACT that nothing happens when you die" A massive blow for his credibility and that of science. No one can tell facts about after we die.
What is with Christians that think evolution is de facto anti-christian? Evolution says nothing about God. It can't. Evolution is a scientific theory and scientific theories have nothing to say about the supernatural.
If DI were a scientific organization, it would adjust it's Christian theory to fit the evidence rather than the other way around.
Creationism has no testable evidence, it's not science.
Also , Discovery Institute's goal isn't one based on religion anyway or mainly scientific.
If you had actually gone on to their website , you would see that their goals are mostly to establish peace between Russia and America , debate politics , make clear their ethics for biotechnology and biology , and to help our scientific understanding of the world much better.
@alexross8 If they aren't publishing papers that have passed peer review in credible science journals, they aren't contributing towards humanity's scientific understanding of the world. As far as I've heard, the "discovery institute" hasn't discovered anything that is recognized by any credible skeptical body at all. Perhaps they should appropriately rename themselves the Supposition Institute, because all they do is "suppose" things happened; they can't prove shit.
@alexross8 They (discovery institute) aren't science at all. Unless your research is getting peer reviewed by a credible science journal, it is NOT SCIENCE. Please go and educate yourself about what science is if you won't take my word for it.
The Intelligent Design creationists have started their own journal, called BIOComplexity. As I understand, it has only published one issue, and only two papers. The editorial board is almost entirely DI Fellows.
There has never been a paper to make a positive argument for intelligent design on experimental laboratory data. Behe published two papers arguing that evolution is too slow, and Meyer wrote an opinion piece that Sternberg published.
@alexross8 I've nearly got three science degrees, working on a PhD in electrical engineering.Hell, I've taught science for a couple of years. I'm educated enough about science, and I'm telling you that the Discovery Institute does NOT DO SCIENCE. You must do active research that passes peer review in credible science journals to have your work classified as legit science. Didn't they teach you this in gradeschool??? Go google it now.
@alexross8 How is science unethical, unreasonable, or immoral? Please keep in mind that what political leaders and corporations DO with scientific knowledge is NOT THE FAULT OF SCIENCE ITSELF, so don't list the actions by politicians and corporations as the actions of real scientific researchers.
I didn't say science is unethical or unreasonable.
Bioethics keep humans or pets from being used as test subjects.
Being peer reviewed doesn't mean it's true. When something is discovered It can be explainable in a way. it's like a calf that has it's head stuck in a cow's rear. There are two ways to explain it. Either the calf was being born , or the calf ran into a cow's rear.
Even if something was explainable , doesn't mean the explanation is true , and needs more than peer review.
@alexross8 Being peer reviewed by a credible science journal is as true as we humans know. Nowhere else can you submit an argument that is grounded in logic an backed up by physical evidence to many life-long, seasoned, and extremely well-educated experts in that field to be double, triple, quadruple, and quintuple checked for accuracy. The scientific peer review process is the highest form of truth checking we humans have. I challenge you to find me another process more rigorous.I challenge you
@alexross8 Your interpretation of science and peer review is patently false and paper thin. It's not just a description of the immediate observations (calf half in) it's the creation of a theory which explains the causes, the current state and makes accurate predictions. Evolution, big bang, gravity, cell, and germ theories all fulfill that criteria and got there through peer review.
WHAT? they lie, they are litigious as hell. They publish no dissenting views and they basically publish ANYTHING that agrees with them EVEN if it's not supported by the evidence. That's the definition of bias and the antithesis of science.
what does that have to do with the evidence we know NOW that has been tested for (in same cases HUNDREDS) of years? we know evolution happens, we know mostly HOW it happens, we have genetic evidence (which counts as legal proof of it in a court of law) we use it daily (use a computer made in the last 4 years? it's transistor layout was decided with a genetic algorithm) which counts as computational evidence. use medicine? evolution again. etc etc.
@alexross8 Good grief, you ARE gullible! You use the DI's own claims as proof of what their real goals are!!!
And why do you keep ignoring people who explain to you that ID has been exposed, legally and definitively, as fraud - as religious creationism in disguise?
@alexross8 "there were a lot of scientists in the past that were Christian" Yes, when you couldn't get educated, get a job or get published if you said you weren't christian! Church had a stranglehold on all institutes of learning & everyone was so indoctrinated that it never occurred to most people to even question it.
"..don't judge them on their beliefs" Why not? Your beliefs inform your actions, in this case deliberate deception and trying to sabotage education.
@alexross8 "I really think it is ingorant of everyone to say that those people are liars." And I think it's ignorant of anyone to say that they're not.
ID has been legally proven to be just creationism in disguise, a deliberate attempt to deceptively hide the religious agenda behind it. The only reason these people have not gone into caves to hide away in shame is there are still enough gullible fools who believe in them.
@alexross8 "Intelligent design is certainly not Creation." It's creationISM. I see others have already pointed out that you're wrong. ID *IS* Creationism, deliberate deception. Now that you understand, you can take back your "ignorance" accusations & view ID proponents with the appropriate suspicion.
You said everyone has beliefs they hold more important than family (the bible actually demands that), now you talk about people killing themSELVES for beliefs. That's different.
Please go educate yourself. I seriously think you need to do that , before you make a fool out of yourself.
Creation is intelligent design , but intelligent design is not Creation.
Creationists adhere to the Creation myth of their religion.
Intelligent design , a completely unrelated philosophy , is believed by all creationists and some non-Creationists who don't believe the Earth to be 6,000 years old But billions of years old. It's more of a philosophy than science or religion.
Everyone has a cherished belief that they would put before their family , friends , and even the authorities. People do horrible things to protect their beliefs. Lying is one of those horrible things.
Scientists are no exceptions.
I personally think all scientists lie , whether they be Christian or not.
@alexross8 "prove it [that they defend beliefs with lies]" Just look around YT; hundreds of vids about that very subject. AronRa has a great one about 'how can creationism not be dishonest?'
"Everyone has a cherished belief that they would put before their family , friends .." No, everyone does not, just *religious* people.
"People do horrible things to protect their beliefs" Here again, you mean RELIGIOUS people. Weinberg: "..to make good people do bad things it takes religion"
Often times , scientists follow more philosophies than religious people do.
I'm not just talking about religion. People have starved themselves to boycott certain foods. National socialists shot themselves because they would rather die a Nazi than be taken captive by communists. Some believe that it is more moral to save a child and die than to save yourself. There are millions of more beliefs than religious ones, that people will risk their lives for .
There is an excellent paper available online in .pdf format:
"UNDERSTANDING THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONIST MOVEMENT: ITS TRUE NATURE AND GOALS A POSITION PAPER FROM THE CENTER FOR INQUIRY OFFICE OF PUBLIC POLICY AUTHOR: BARBARA FORREST, Ph.D." It's available on the Center for Inquiry website.
So what if Christians support the discovery institute?
IT WOULDN'T MATTER ANYWAYS!!!!
Just like any intelligent person that is a scientist , you can have beliefs and still be a scientist. Part of being a scientist is about learning new things , and letting go of the old things. Philosophy and ethics play greater roles.
If you , in your right mind , are saying that scientists will lie for their beliefs , then I will not believe science.
Scientists WILL lie for their beliefs. If a scientist tries to sell you a bridge, don't buy it. What we rely on is the PROCESS of science. The evidence, not the scientists' opinions, are the basis for knowledge. In modern science, that's directly related to peer review and science journals.
The thesis of the video is that the Discovery Institute is NOT a secular research organization, by virtue of their personnel, funding, and activities. It's a Christian apologist think tank.
Secular thinking and science is without religious thinking or dogma.
A Christian (Or a Creationist for that matter) could be a scientist , yet still could be considered part of secular research if their research isn't necessarily based upon their personal beliefs , but by their need for learning. Being a secular organization isn't going by the people's standards , but by what the organization stands for altogether , truth.
I don't know what they teach children in school these days. The activities of an organization, not its staffing or funding, determines whether an organization is secular or religious. DI engages in scientific discourse and education, therefore it is a secular organization.
@alexross8 "Intelligent design" was ruled to be religion by a Kansas court. ID books cited as evidence were nothing more than creationist books that replaced the word "creationism" with "intelligent design". They also ruled that ID was NOT science. I don't know how much more clear it can be.
Please read the definitions of both Creation and Intelligent design.
Intelligent , while not a science , is a scientific pursuit for some , just as the hover-car is a scientific pursuit for others. While it may not be possible for a hover-car to actually work , it may still be a profitable and sane endeavor , just like the pursuit for Absolute truth.
Intelligent design isn't a religion , it is a philosophical belief , just like the belief that the universe wasn't created by a designer.
Is there someone on this planet who honestly thinks DI is what it claims to be?
i.e. Who even needs videos like this? I mean, it's a good clip, but .. why is it necessary? Does anyone know people who buy DI's bullshit story? Who are these people(if they exist)? Where are they? How do they function in everyday society? How do they feed themselves?
DI's a joke. As far as I'm aware, there isn't ANYONE who doesn't know it...
According to this logic only atheist are allowed to contribute to non profit groups. I would urge the poster to take those same insightful observations & focus them on the NCSE. Find out who donates to that organization and apply the same standards of logic. Make a video & tell us what you find. Then look at the signers of the Third Humanist Manifesto and tell us if you see a connection of just how unbiased this group really is. These are the people who write lesson plans for US school children.
I wonder of Mr. Luskin honestly believes what he's saying. If he knows anything about his own organization, he KNOWS that it isn't a secular thinktank. Something tells me that if one were to count the number of non-religious individuals in the Discovery Institute, it would be less than 5%.
Regardless, you would also have to ignore the fact that the DI (and scientists who work for the DI), have done NO SCIENCE since entering the institute. And this is supposed to be an intellectual juggernaut.
READ THE BOOK "MONKEY GIRL", its all about the 2004 dover case in which intelignent design was put in to scools and the school board was taken to court. It is very unbiased book.
What kind of research does the Discovery Institute do when they have mainly unscientific right wing hacks like Medved on their board & staff? It's a propaganda mill pure and simple.
No it's because neocon and theocons often call themselves libertarians to appear hip or are out of power, then revert to conservatism once they get a little power.
@FaganRoberts No I don't have any hard core research but a lot of cons play the libertarian game when they are out power, but switch to more traditional hard line when they get some. Case 1, Glenn Beck claims to be a libertarian yet he said that the separation clause only applied to federal level so his pals can have homogeneous religious communities. When Bush was around, Beck was total neocon. BTW do you have any proof of your premise?
@jakefree24 Beck is predominately an establishment neocon Zionist. He can call himself whatever he wants, but his verbiage as one trumps any subsequent libertarian pronouncements. It's a mutually exclusive dichotomy. But he's an entertainer and a paid Israel first Zionist TV hack, in my view. Your opinion can vary.
I wouldn't take him too seriously as you can read into him almost anything you wish. But a libertarian he is not!
Thanks, so Beck's a Zionist too, maybe a Freemason. I have had some experience with the Libertarian movement and there is a strong fundamentalist strata to that movement. Many Libertarians downplay that to keep up a respectable front but never the less, there is a lot of overlap between the two movements since the fundamentalist want to get rid of secular schools, etc. & all sorts of government they consider un-godly. Calling that observation "secular progressive" propaganda is dishonest.
@jakefree24 I've never met a Libertarian who wanted to establish a state religion or downgrade secular schools or humanist principles. Nary a one! I've never read it in their platform, either. Sorry - I call BS! Trust me progressive socialism will not make you freer nor recognize your pre existing natural rights. It merely grants you privileges at the expense of others and can be taken away from you at authority's will.
@FaganRoberts many libertarians don't believe in any government schools period, which would also make some theocons happy. Since libertarianism and theo-conservatism are large vague movements full of people who have different takes on it. there is no litmus test you can apply to either group. But you talk like a typical stupid right winger, who goes around labeling everyone you disagree with as some sort of leftist. You don't know anything about my politics so stuff your talk radio comments.
@jakefree24 You seem to be a vitriolic little man, but I did seem to strike a nerve with you. Which is a good thing, because I can only better you for it.
I tell you what? You convey to me in one sentence what self described political pursuasion you are and I will be sure to take the opposing view. Too complicated for you? (And....I'll be sure to bring it up on my next talk radio show)
This has nothing to do with my political views. Most people don't walk around with some stamped card that explicitly defines their whole political, social & personal outlook on life to the smallest detail. But LIKE A LOT OF RIGHT WINGERS OF LIMITED INTELLECT, you seem to label any news or POVS you disagree with as left wing propaganda, That is what I find so contemptible about you, I never said libertarianism & theocons are the same, just that there is SOME over lap. That is a valid POV, so STFU
@jakefree24 Thank you for making me worthy. This I am. So we now have it that you're not on the right. We're narrowing it down a bit. Still a large margin left. With just a bit more work I think we'll get to the bottom of this. Me thinks you've got more thinking to do and I know you can pull this off. I have faith - LOL.
Thank you so much for posting this. These people are dangerous fanatics, disguised as scientists. Fortunately the mask has been mainly torn off them, at least among thinking circles, but they are still out there pushing their deceptive agenda.
It means "Juris Doctor". It's a professional degree for American laywers. Goes to show you that even an ass-hat like Luskin can achieve doctoral level...
Atheist morons need to learn basic chemistry and Homochirality if the they life could happen by chance and time,first life by chance would be its own Paradox..and could never happen..science has reached a dead end..only stubborn morons like u think it can happen purely by time and chance,even evolution scientists know simple chemicals cant make life
Fuck Casey Luskin, he had his boys file false DMCAs against some guys on youtube then denied it and dismissed it as "bad information" when confronted directly. Check qdragon's phone call to the SOB, and you'll see what I'm talking about. I hate that sneaky, conniving little shit-sniffer...
I was reading Behe's response to Ken MIller (2005) and apparently in that document Behe uses the familar icons of evolution to bash it. Saying that haekcel's embryos count as a strike against natural selection(his words)
Strangely also, he calls into question natural selection
B. Anti-science lobby group representing primarily christians, comprised of nothing but a PR and legal firm. No science, no research, nothing to do with actual science.
They share their views on bio-ethical issues , the same thing that keeps cats and dogs from being cut up in a laboratory.
They do not work with research. Their biologists mainly look at the methods that other biologists use , and they release papers on their findings to tell people whether or not they should support their work , either for ethical reasons , economic reasons , or scientific reasons .
In the beginning there was nothing in the universe.... and then energy,matter. How this happened? Accident? Chance?How the unoverse became organized?Where the information came from?
Feedback between DNA and the environment. DNA changes are always occurring, we know that. We also know that the environment and other effects decide which changes get into the next generation.
Some of those changes include duplications of sequence, insertions of sequence to new locations. A gene that is duplicated can then give rise to a new gene by repeated changes.
Congratulations for your contribuitions! i REALY MEAN IT! Now unbrainwash your mind and search for the truth, I will not sugest you taht I'am right btu you have to neutralized your mind set and go out of the regular spectrum or your present status cuo, just try to be out side the circle were you find yourself, if you have to pray just do it, Bsude the material there is a spiritual face for humans, You are a very inteligent person. I hope you don't rediculized me or despise my advice! GOOD LUCK!
By the way you are sugesting only a biologist have the right to give an opinion on evolution , then by your own words, your "gurus" Hitchings and Hawkins" are not qualified to give an opinion on evolution, and if I may, probably neither you!
"only a biologist have the right to give an opinion on evolution"
Who's talking about opinions? I would say only people well grounded in biology are able to completely understand the evidence.
I wouldn't presume to "disbelieve" the Higgs boson, because I don't know much about the evidence for it. But I trust that the scientific process will focus in on what theory is supported by the evidence.
I've been a molecular biologist since 1997. I've contributed to the scientific body of knowledge.
The irony of your inane comment is that this organization is actually dedicated to SUBVERTING the US Constitution.
Specifically, the free speech protections against state-sponsored religious endorsement in the 1st amendment. It's all clearly spelled out in the Wedge Document.
In no way is this group any way Libertarian. No libertarian I have ever met is a proponent of creationism. Perhaps you could call them conservative. They are religious fanatics who twists real conservatism words to seem rational to their gullible followers. They would use the goverment to force ID onto our kids. Thats the very opposite of libertarianism.
Hmmm... well, how about "free market" conservatives? Actually, they advocate unrestricted trade with Russia, private ownership and entrepreneurship of transportation resources, and electronic direct democracy technologies.
The lying for Jesus is just sort of a hobby for them.
lol its ok to lie for jesus? wow then peopel can kill anyone in the name of jesus that would be fun killing ur whole family in tha name of god :) just like muslims do kill in the name of god. catholic is the next terrorist in future cool!
ROFL!!! I thought the Discovery Institute was part of the BBC's Discovery channel, obviously it is not, but you can see the deceptive use of similar title and lettering.
Ray Bohlin (President, Probe Ministries, Fellow, Discovery Institute) is going to be the topic of a future video.
I've just been reading his website, and I strongly urge you to visit for the entertainment value. He's a true YEC, anti-homosexual, and ... well, you really can spend an hour delving into the mindset.
If you stumble across a particular gem, send it to me via PM, and I'll credit you in the vid.
Honor would be easy for Darwinian fundamentalists if they would actually try and stick with the argument of the videos I post without acting like an immature child or cursing or cussing. The fact that you can't acknowledge this shows you have no capacity for logic.
After having looked at what Monton has to say I agree with some of his basic points. Intelligent Design does raise some good points, about things such as the fine tuning of the constants of our universe, the origin of time, space, matter etc, and other things. I do think that much of these points are reasonable and worth talking about from a philosophical view point, but the bottom line is; it's just not science.
I've posted some videos entitled "Atheists for Intelligent Design." Darwinian fundamentalists don't like to admit it, but there are plenty of atheists and non-Christians who support ID.
5. The whole intent of the organization appears to be Christian apologetics and subversion of the First Amendment.
You're trying to create loopholes in a law created by the founders of this nation to protect us from religious tyranny or theocracy.
"Darwinian fundamentalists" is just another example of PR spin. You are transparent to those of us who actually do biological research, who actually work on problems like cancer and HIV every day.
5. Bull. Again, you're just putting your opinions but the facts say the opposite. The Discovery Institute is not converting people into Christianity. Otherwise, why would they accept atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. You have no idea what you're talking about at all.
1. "Primarily Christian"? So what? Not all Christians are creationists. Even Ken Ham (a young-earth creationist) of "Answers in Genesis" is against the Discovery Institute.
2. Bull. Well over the majority are scientists and philosophers. Please, get your facts straight.
3. Undefended? That's just your opinion.
4. The "Wedge" fiasco has been addressed over and over again. Yet nobody acknowledged what the Discovery Institute has to say about it. I recommend people read it.
What a perfect example of Intelligent Design creationism at work.
1. You've eliminated the operative word "evangelical"
2. You've added philosophers to my point, which was not in the original.
3. Undefended and unpublished is a matter of record in the scientific literature. ID has not presented original data to support the positive case in peer-reviewed literature.
4. I'm not terribly interested in the damage control, but I have read Casey's PR piece. But it speaks for itself.
I would really like to speak to some of these "Atheists for Intelligent Design." I would like them to explain who they think the designer(s) is/are, what methods were used in designing, if it/they will ever be coming back so we can observe some designing for real, and a whole bunch of other questions.
I really suspect that these people are mostly just cranks such as Berlinski who know they can make a lot of money selling anti-evolution propaganda to fundies who desperately want to hear it.
Balabaw2: Go email Dr. Bradley Monton who defends ID. I would hope you would be respectful though. Your tone is quite immature. And the fact that you can't accept the fact that agnostics (like Berlinski) who think that evolution is a joke goes to show where you are as an intellectual.
I would tell Morton to his face that he's a fool. Berlinski doesn't even understand evolution, he thinks it says whales evolved from cows.
I would ask both of them to read the entire 'Wedge' document and then look me in the face and tell me that ID is a secular, scientific idea that is just interested in good science.
It was exposed in court as biblical creationism rehashed - rememer cdesign proponentsists - how stupid would Dr. Morton be to think that it has anything new to say about anything?
Just out of interest, since you note that Minnich accepts common descent, why not do so for Behe too? He has stated many times that he has no problem with what he sees as very convincing evidence for it.
Let's get this straight. Behe is the originator of a concept of DESIGN, IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY (the "you can't get there from here" principle), and yet accepts a common origin of all life on earth?
Anyone else see a major disconnect? By definition, his theory calls for the intervention of an outside agency... which he believes is the Christian God, to create the bacterial flagellum, for example.
So I think it would be mis-characterizing his position to say he "accepts common descent".
Yes I absolutely do see a major disconnect, but the thing is that he doesn't. I've have heard him speak many times on this, and also read what he has to say and he absolutely accepts that all organisms are 'biological relatives' or in 'biological continuity' (two ways I have seen him phrase it). His position is really of God directly guiding mutations, so that outcomes that he says would have otherwise been impossible are actually achievable through God's direct guidance, eg. bacterial flagella.
why the FUCK is bill gates donating to these pieces of shit?
BillKiernan 1 month ago
It's one of the most hypocritical organizations I've ever heard of, what a shame to have it in the state I lilve in (((
julqw2 2 months ago
@tnafguy Nephilim owned Concordance? You been smokin that jebus crack, admit it?
Rockster969 3 months ago
@tnafguy "i dont have a lot listed,but many scientists can be found by searching on here about evidence for creation. in my Favorite videos are some things that might helps u think in other ways maybe" I'm sorry, what? Creation? As in Genesis, the bible? And I actually thought you had an observable, testable, repeatable theory here! I've seen these creationists at work. If they're so certain, why do each of them rely on lies and misrepresentations and slander as a matter of course?
fdasherv 4 months ago
@tnafguy Hi again, thanks for the reply. So I went to your channel but only found negative arguments against evolution. Where are the positive arguments for a more modern theory of diversification? It would help if you actually named them, so I can look them up on my own. Thanks again! ; )
fdasherv 4 months ago
@tnafguy You're so right. I want to get my head out of the 1800's and the ancient science of evolution. Would you start me on my way by showing me the more modern theories of the diversity of life? Thanks in advance! ; )
fdasherv 4 months ago
@tnafguy Nephilimfree hasn't even provided proof of any basic education. And he has been unapologetically false in many of what he says, using a shotgun tactic of barraging the opposition with fallacies. A man who thinks himself to be more infallible than God himself and yet has not published a single peer-reviewed scientific paper, surely is the person to believe on ANY subject pertaining to science. Orrr, we could go with reality and see him for the false prophet of who he is.
crazyinsane500 4 months ago
@tnafguy interesting. what flaws are you talking about? (and don't bring in other branches of science, please stick to biology)
DrProfessorMDPhD17 5 months ago
@tnafguy As opposed to what, the nonexistent research of intelligent design?
Akira625 5 months ago
@tnafguy
Over the past few millennia evolution has gone from a rough idea of various philosophers in among others ancient Greece, through a set of hypotheses all the way to being a large theory involving several hypotheses, laws and smaller theories, used in various sciences and in biology as its framework.
Creationism on the other hand has gone from God did it to God did it.
Quintinohthree 5 months ago
@werewolf873 Oh no someone I don't even know thinks I have no creditability. I'm so hurt.
txroye 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ptondus you are clearly in the dark about allot of things. Perhaps go and do some research and get back to me.
I had to repost
txroye 8 months ago
@prondus you are clearly in the dark about allot of things. Perhaps go and do some research and get back to me.
txroye 8 months ago
@drfoxcourt there is no evidence backing up evolution only missing links and theories.
txroye 9 months ago
Oh and by the way I've never been vaccinated and neither were my kids. We are all healthy and I would never trust vaccines. All vaccination has done is bring on Aids in humans.
txroye 9 months ago
@txroye what proof do you have that vaccination have given Aids to people? there is a reason people get vaccines, and they work.
Ptondus 8 months ago
@txroye and you lose all credibility after saying that.
werewolf873 6 months ago
I don't know why anyone would waste their time making videos on bashing religion. Do the same amount of research into science and you will find allot of excepted science is just as waked. Science is flawed because it doesn't allow for non-physical influence. When you have the structure of the universe balancing on a Higgs particle in physics, and dark matter explaining gravity both of which have never been seen you have to start asking some serious questions. Both science and religion are flawe
txroye 9 months ago
It's the extremes of both religion and science that stop proper evolution of the human race. I could make videos of bogus science covering up massive findings that change history or scientists ignoring experiments that go beyond the laws of physics, but I have much better things to do with my time. If you think science is unflawed and non corrupt I feel very sad for you because you are disillusioned. Quantum physics are suggesting backing for allot of religious theories.
txroye 9 months ago
"Mistakenly thing the Discovery Institute is a religious organization"
So much for Paul in the bonfire courtyard, huh? Mark 14:72
LesPaul2006 9 months ago
I got half way through and thought "I don't even care. Religion and science both have massive flaws and both can't definitively prove crap all. Why am I bothering to listen to this shit" they should teach all theories in school. I'm not even religious. Just recently Steven Hawkings said "it is a FACT that nothing happens when you die" A massive blow for his credibility and that of science. No one can tell facts about after we die.
txroye 9 months ago
@txroye Science brought you penicillin and vaccines. What did Religion bring to you?
LesPaul2006 9 months ago
This guy sounds like Patrick Bateman, kinda creepy.
ThePuzzler81 9 months ago
What is with Christians that think evolution is de facto anti-christian? Evolution says nothing about God. It can't. Evolution is a scientific theory and scientific theories have nothing to say about the supernatural.
If DI were a scientific organization, it would adjust it's Christian theory to fit the evidence rather than the other way around.
Creationism has no testable evidence, it's not science.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago 6
I'm surprised to hear that Bill Gates donates to the DI. They don't seem like his type of charity.
Macrochenia 1 year ago
Atheist, libertarian, free market promoter, anti-ID. Not many of us left.
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
Also , Discovery Institute's goal isn't one based on religion anyway or mainly scientific.
If you had actually gone on to their website , you would see that their goals are mostly to establish peace between Russia and America , debate politics , make clear their ethics for biotechnology and biology , and to help our scientific understanding of the world much better.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8 If they aren't publishing papers that have passed peer review in credible science journals, they aren't contributing towards humanity's scientific understanding of the world. As far as I've heard, the "discovery institute" hasn't discovered anything that is recognized by any credible skeptical body at all. Perhaps they should appropriately rename themselves the Supposition Institute, because all they do is "suppose" things happened; they can't prove shit.
EcrossH 1 year ago
@EcrossH
They aren't mainly science.
Their most researched category is bioethics and philosophy.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8 They (discovery institute) aren't science at all. Unless your research is getting peer reviewed by a credible science journal, it is NOT SCIENCE. Please go and educate yourself about what science is if you won't take my word for it.
EcrossH 1 year ago
@EcrossH
It is .
Go educate yourself and go on to their site and read.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8
The Intelligent Design creationists have started their own journal, called BIOComplexity. As I understand, it has only published one issue, and only two papers. The editorial board is almost entirely DI Fellows.
There has never been a paper to make a positive argument for intelligent design on experimental laboratory data. Behe published two papers arguing that evolution is too slow, and Meyer wrote an opinion piece that Sternberg published.
No research, no science.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@alexross8 I've nearly got three science degrees, working on a PhD in electrical engineering.Hell, I've taught science for a couple of years. I'm educated enough about science, and I'm telling you that the Discovery Institute does NOT DO SCIENCE. You must do active research that passes peer review in credible science journals to have your work classified as legit science. Didn't they teach you this in gradeschool??? Go google it now.
EcrossH 1 year ago
@EcrossH
But they are contributing towards humanity's scientific understanding of the world , by making science ethical and reasonable.
People aren't going to agree with scientists (Further cutting back scientific progress) if it is not done in a clean moral way.
That is why Discovery Institute helps.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8 How is science unethical, unreasonable, or immoral? Please keep in mind that what political leaders and corporations DO with scientific knowledge is NOT THE FAULT OF SCIENCE ITSELF, so don't list the actions by politicians and corporations as the actions of real scientific researchers.
EcrossH 1 year ago
@EcrossH
I didn't say science is unethical or unreasonable.
Bioethics keep humans or pets from being used as test subjects.
Being peer reviewed doesn't mean it's true. When something is discovered It can be explainable in a way. it's like a calf that has it's head stuck in a cow's rear. There are two ways to explain it. Either the calf was being born , or the calf ran into a cow's rear.
Even if something was explainable , doesn't mean the explanation is true , and needs more than peer review.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8 Being peer reviewed by a credible science journal is as true as we humans know. Nowhere else can you submit an argument that is grounded in logic an backed up by physical evidence to many life-long, seasoned, and extremely well-educated experts in that field to be double, triple, quadruple, and quintuple checked for accuracy. The scientific peer review process is the highest form of truth checking we humans have. I challenge you to find me another process more rigorous.I challenge you
EcrossH 1 year ago
@EcrossH
But there have been cases where people have been wrong.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8 Name one other method of determining usable truth that makes less mistakes than scientific peer review.
EcrossH 1 year ago
@alexross8 Your interpretation of science and peer review is patently false and paper thin. It's not just a description of the immediate observations (calf half in) it's the creation of a theory which explains the causes, the current state and makes accurate predictions. Evolution, big bang, gravity, cell, and germ theories all fulfill that criteria and got there through peer review.
dlandon2000 1 year ago
@alexross8
"by making science ethical and reasonable."
WHAT? they lie, they are litigious as hell. They publish no dissenting views and they basically publish ANYTHING that agrees with them EVEN if it's not supported by the evidence. That's the definition of bias and the antithesis of science.
you couldn't have been more wrong if you tried.
addmoreice 1 year ago
@addmoreice
Einstein has gotten things wrong a few times , even though his views were supported.
Continental drift wasn't accepted for years , but but accepted it , because they finaly came to terms with the evidence.
Scientists can have a big ego , like all of us. And it gets the better of them even when the other person is entirely right.
The "South Park" episode "Medicinal Fried Chicken" gives a pretty good example of what I am talking about. No Joke !
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8
all of this is true.
what does that have to do with the evidence we know NOW that has been tested for (in same cases HUNDREDS) of years? we know evolution happens, we know mostly HOW it happens, we have genetic evidence (which counts as legal proof of it in a court of law) we use it daily (use a computer made in the last 4 years? it's transistor layout was decided with a genetic algorithm) which counts as computational evidence. use medicine? evolution again. etc etc.
addmoreice 1 year ago
@alexross8 Good grief, you ARE gullible! You use the DI's own claims as proof of what their real goals are!!!
And why do you keep ignoring people who explain to you that ID has been exposed, legally and definitively, as fraud - as religious creationism in disguise?
queenastilon 1 year ago
"He also translates intelligent design books into chinese" EPIC
ForYeensSake 1 year ago
Intelligent Design IS religion. It was judged so by a court in Kansas. Fuck these ID creatons for trying to set scientific thought back 1,000 years.
EcrossH 1 year ago
I really think it is ingorant of everyone to say that those people are liars.
Maybe it is a Christian company. But remember , there were a lot of scientists in the past that were Christian.
In the bible , it shows conditions which people are allowed to lie for.
People are allowed to lie to save a life whether it is their own or not. But under no circumstance , are people allowed to lie for God .
If you are going to judge someones character , I don't care , but don't judge them on their beliefs.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8 "there were a lot of scientists in the past that were Christian" Yes, when you couldn't get educated, get a job or get published if you said you weren't christian! Church had a stranglehold on all institutes of learning & everyone was so indoctrinated that it never occurred to most people to even question it.
"..don't judge them on their beliefs" Why not? Your beliefs inform your actions, in this case deliberate deception and trying to sabotage education.
queenastilon 1 year ago
@alexross8 "I really think it is ingorant of everyone to say that those people are liars." And I think it's ignorant of anyone to say that they're not.
ID has been legally proven to be just creationism in disguise, a deliberate attempt to deceptively hide the religious agenda behind it. The only reason these people have not gone into caves to hide away in shame is there are still enough gullible fools who believe in them.
queenastilon 1 year ago
@queenastilon
Intelligent design is certainly not Creation.
Creation is a religious belief in Genesis , literal Genesis .
Intelligent design is a belief that the universe is created , no matter how it was created , and it has small signatures of the designer.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8 "Intelligent design is certainly not Creation." It's creationISM. I see others have already pointed out that you're wrong. ID *IS* Creationism, deliberate deception. Now that you understand, you can take back your "ignorance" accusations & view ID proponents with the appropriate suspicion.
You said everyone has beliefs they hold more important than family (the bible actually demands that), now you talk about people killing themSELVES for beliefs. That's different.
queenastilon 1 year ago
@queenastilon
Please go educate yourself. I seriously think you need to do that , before you make a fool out of yourself.
Creation is intelligent design , but intelligent design is not Creation.
Creationists adhere to the Creation myth of their religion.
Intelligent design , a completely unrelated philosophy , is believed by all creationists and some non-Creationists who don't believe the Earth to be 6,000 years old But billions of years old. It's more of a philosophy than science or religion.
alexross8 1 year ago
Luskin has the voice and speech pattern/cadence of an 8 year old boy. As well as the intellectual capacity of a 4 year old boy.
D119heavy 1 year ago
Steve Mayer is a bit of a jerk off
ThieleM 1 year ago
@IxxGODxxI
prove it.
Everyone has a cherished belief that they would put before their family , friends , and even the authorities. People do horrible things to protect their beliefs. Lying is one of those horrible things.
Scientists are no exceptions.
I personally think all scientists lie , whether they be Christian or not.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8 ''I personally think all scientists lie'' Even the christian ones?
They is because you are brainwashed.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@alexross8 "prove it [that they defend beliefs with lies]" Just look around YT; hundreds of vids about that very subject. AronRa has a great one about 'how can creationism not be dishonest?'
"Everyone has a cherished belief that they would put before their family , friends .." No, everyone does not, just *religious* people.
"People do horrible things to protect their beliefs" Here again, you mean RELIGIOUS people. Weinberg: "..to make good people do bad things it takes religion"
queenastilon 1 year ago
@queenastilon
Often times , scientists follow more philosophies than religious people do.
I'm not just talking about religion. People have starved themselves to boycott certain foods. National socialists shot themselves because they would rather die a Nazi than be taken captive by communists. Some believe that it is more moral to save a child and die than to save yourself. There are millions of more beliefs than religious ones, that people will risk their lives for .
alexross8 1 year ago
THat guy sounds retarded
Todda468 1 year ago
aronra is soo cool
shaithesm0ck 1 year ago
There is an excellent paper available online in .pdf format:
"UNDERSTANDING THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONIST MOVEMENT: ITS TRUE NATURE AND GOALS A POSITION PAPER FROM THE CENTER FOR INQUIRY OFFICE OF PUBLIC POLICY AUTHOR: BARBARA FORREST, Ph.D." It's available on the Center for Inquiry website.
colourmegone 1 year ago
So what if Christians support the discovery institute?
IT WOULDN'T MATTER ANYWAYS!!!!
Just like any intelligent person that is a scientist , you can have beliefs and still be a scientist. Part of being a scientist is about learning new things , and letting go of the old things. Philosophy and ethics play greater roles.
If you , in your right mind , are saying that scientists will lie for their beliefs , then I will not believe science.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8
Scientists WILL lie for their beliefs. If a scientist tries to sell you a bridge, don't buy it. What we rely on is the PROCESS of science. The evidence, not the scientists' opinions, are the basis for knowledge. In modern science, that's directly related to peer review and science journals.
The thesis of the video is that the Discovery Institute is NOT a secular research organization, by virtue of their personnel, funding, and activities. It's a Christian apologist think tank.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago 29
@C0nc0rdance
Call it what you want.
Secular thinking and science is without religious thinking or dogma.
A Christian (Or a Creationist for that matter) could be a scientist , yet still could be considered part of secular research if their research isn't necessarily based upon their personal beliefs , but by their need for learning. Being a secular organization isn't going by the people's standards , but by what the organization stands for altogether , truth.
alexross8 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance
I don't know what they teach children in school these days. The activities of an organization, not its staffing or funding, determines whether an organization is secular or religious. DI engages in scientific discourse and education, therefore it is a secular organization.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@alexross8 "Intelligent design" was ruled to be religion by a Kansas court. ID books cited as evidence were nothing more than creationist books that replaced the word "creationism" with "intelligent design". They also ruled that ID was NOT science. I don't know how much more clear it can be.
EcrossH 1 year ago
@EcrossH
Please read the definitions of both Creation and Intelligent design.
Intelligent , while not a science , is a scientific pursuit for some , just as the hover-car is a scientific pursuit for others. While it may not be possible for a hover-car to actually work , it may still be a profitable and sane endeavor , just like the pursuit for Absolute truth.
Intelligent design isn't a religion , it is a philosophical belief , just like the belief that the universe wasn't created by a designer.
alexross8 1 year ago
Is there someone on this planet who honestly thinks DI is what it claims to be?
i.e. Who even needs videos like this? I mean, it's a good clip, but .. why is it necessary? Does anyone know people who buy DI's bullshit story? Who are these people(if they exist)? Where are they? How do they function in everyday society? How do they feed themselves?
DI's a joke. As far as I'm aware, there isn't ANYONE who doesn't know it...
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago
According to this logic only atheist are allowed to contribute to non profit groups. I would urge the poster to take those same insightful observations & focus them on the NCSE. Find out who donates to that organization and apply the same standards of logic. Make a video & tell us what you find. Then look at the signers of the Third Humanist Manifesto and tell us if you see a connection of just how unbiased this group really is. These are the people who write lesson plans for US school children.
benthemiester 1 year ago
I wonder of Mr. Luskin honestly believes what he's saying. If he knows anything about his own organization, he KNOWS that it isn't a secular thinktank. Something tells me that if one were to count the number of non-religious individuals in the Discovery Institute, it would be less than 5%.
Regardless, you would also have to ignore the fact that the DI (and scientists who work for the DI), have done NO SCIENCE since entering the institute. And this is supposed to be an intellectual juggernaut.
FiddleofNero 1 year ago
The Disco Institute (do the hustle)...utter fraud from beginning to end...
jackalmate 1 year ago
I'm surprised that Scott Minnich accepts evolutions and common descent, works for the DI, AND studies the flagellum -- the icon of ID.
adkinsjr 1 year ago
secular think tank??? LMAO
freethinker923 1 year ago
READ THE BOOK "MONKEY GIRL", its all about the 2004 dover case in which intelignent design was put in to scools and the school board was taken to court. It is very unbiased book.
XANDERXXZ 1 year ago
haha 'Intelligent design' and 'think-tank' in the same sentence. Try real science.
Richy15251 1 year ago
What kind of research does the Discovery Institute do when they have mainly unscientific right wing hacks like Medved on their board & staff? It's a propaganda mill pure and simple.
jakefree24 1 year ago
LOL - BTW, Libertarians and neocons have virtually nothing in common. It's a common misperception made by "progressives" and other leftist types.
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
No it's because neocon and theocons often call themselves libertarians to appear hip or are out of power, then revert to conservatism once they get a little power.
jakefree24 1 year ago
@jakefree24 Have any names to validate your premise?
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
@FaganRoberts No I don't have any hard core research but a lot of cons play the libertarian game when they are out power, but switch to more traditional hard line when they get some. Case 1, Glenn Beck claims to be a libertarian yet he said that the separation clause only applied to federal level so his pals can have homogeneous religious communities. When Bush was around, Beck was total neocon. BTW do you have any proof of your premise?
jakefree24 1 year ago
@jakefree24 Beck is predominately an establishment neocon Zionist. He can call himself whatever he wants, but his verbiage as one trumps any subsequent libertarian pronouncements. It's a mutually exclusive dichotomy. But he's an entertainer and a paid Israel first Zionist TV hack, in my view. Your opinion can vary.
I wouldn't take him too seriously as you can read into him almost anything you wish. But a libertarian he is not!
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
Thanks, so Beck's a Zionist too, maybe a Freemason. I have had some experience with the Libertarian movement and there is a strong fundamentalist strata to that movement. Many Libertarians downplay that to keep up a respectable front but never the less, there is a lot of overlap between the two movements since the fundamentalist want to get rid of secular schools, etc. & all sorts of government they consider un-godly. Calling that observation "secular progressive" propaganda is dishonest.
jakefree24 1 year ago
@jakefree24 I've never met a Libertarian who wanted to establish a state religion or downgrade secular schools or humanist principles. Nary a one! I've never read it in their platform, either. Sorry - I call BS! Trust me progressive socialism will not make you freer nor recognize your pre existing natural rights. It merely grants you privileges at the expense of others and can be taken away from you at authority's will.
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
@FaganRoberts many libertarians don't believe in any government schools period, which would also make some theocons happy. Since libertarianism and theo-conservatism are large vague movements full of people who have different takes on it. there is no litmus test you can apply to either group. But you talk like a typical stupid right winger, who goes around labeling everyone you disagree with as some sort of leftist. You don't know anything about my politics so stuff your talk radio comments.
jakefree24 1 year ago
@jakefree24 You seem to be a vitriolic little man, but I did seem to strike a nerve with you. Which is a good thing, because I can only better you for it.
I tell you what? You convey to me in one sentence what self described political pursuasion you are and I will be sure to take the opposing view. Too complicated for you? (And....I'll be sure to bring it up on my next talk radio show)
How's them banannas?
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
This has nothing to do with my political views. Most people don't walk around with some stamped card that explicitly defines their whole political, social & personal outlook on life to the smallest detail. But LIKE A LOT OF RIGHT WINGERS OF LIMITED INTELLECT, you seem to label any news or POVS you disagree with as left wing propaganda, That is what I find so contemptible about you, I never said libertarianism & theocons are the same, just that there is SOME over lap. That is a valid POV, so STFU
jakefree24 1 year ago
@jakefree24 Thank you for making me worthy. This I am. So we now have it that you're not on the right. We're narrowing it down a bit. Still a large margin left. With just a bit more work I think we'll get to the bottom of this. Me thinks you've got more thinking to do and I know you can pull this off. I have faith - LOL.
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
Thank you so much for posting this. These people are dangerous fanatics, disguised as scientists. Fortunately the mask has been mainly torn off them, at least among thinking circles, but they are still out there pushing their deceptive agenda.
Bfdidc 2 years ago 2
Jesus loves anal
nilbud 2 years ago 5
Lol.
AronRa IS indeed made of awesome.
TinyCoconut 2 years ago 4
What does "J.D' stand for?
Voidic 2 years ago
It means "Juris Doctor". It's a professional degree for American laywers. Goes to show you that even an ass-hat like Luskin can achieve doctoral level...
Frosttty 2 years ago
Thank you.
Voidic 2 years ago
what did u use to edit this?
evidencebasedliving 2 years ago
Vegas Pro 6
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Great work, man. Seriously, keep doing what you're doing.
purplefuzzythings 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheist morons need to learn basic chemistry and Homochirality if the they life could happen by chance and time,first life by chance would be its own Paradox..and could never happen..science has reached a dead end..only stubborn morons like u think it can happen purely by time and chance,even evolution scientists know simple chemicals cant make life
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
Fuck Casey Luskin, he had his boys file false DMCAs against some guys on youtube then denied it and dismissed it as "bad information" when confronted directly. Check qdragon's phone call to the SOB, and you'll see what I'm talking about. I hate that sneaky, conniving little shit-sniffer...
338dmac 2 years ago 2
Concordance,
I was reading Behe's response to Ken MIller (2005) and apparently in that document Behe uses the familar icons of evolution to bash it. Saying that haekcel's embryos count as a strike against natural selection(his words)
Strangely also, he calls into question natural selection
Man that paper really deserves a video callout
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago 7
Yeah, I'm definitely thinking about it.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
You should not call it intelligent design, it is CREATIONISM.
The name "intelligent design" gives it a minute shred of credibility.
Intelligent designer? Who is this designer if not God?
It's nonsense.
CrosshairJack 2 years ago
Either:
A. Religious group.
B. Anti-science lobby group representing primarily christians, comprised of nothing but a PR and legal firm. No science, no research, nothing to do with actual science.
omensign 2 years ago 32
@omensign
It's neither a religious group or anti-science.
They share their views on bio-ethical issues , the same thing that keeps cats and dogs from being cut up in a laboratory.
They do not work with research. Their biologists mainly look at the methods that other biologists use , and they release papers on their findings to tell people whether or not they should support their work , either for ethical reasons , economic reasons , or scientific reasons .
alexross8 1 year ago
Who say it was nothing in the universe ?
Who does even know what the universe really is ?
What scientist have measured, and calculated. Are, that it seem much of the matter originated from a singular point in the universe.
I don't think none of these scientist claim there was nothing there. Obviously it must have been something, and something that caused a reaction.
The "big bang". Who can say what was there, and what caused the reaction ?
BelieveNoGod 2 years ago 5
What makes people think their version of god did it. lol
Theronguardaaah 2 years ago 3
In the beginning there was nothing in the universe.... and then energy,matter. How this happened? Accident? Chance?How the unoverse became organized?Where the information came from?
It evolve?Ask yourself.
levonet33 2 years ago
The theory of evolution explains the current diversity of living things. It does not seek to explain physics or cosmology.
Here's what the modern theory says:
1. DNA is responsible for the inherited differences between organisms.
2. DNA changes over time.
3. Those changes are acted on by the environment.
4. There is no limit to the amount of genetic change that can occur.
If you have a problem with any of those statements, let me know.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Where the information come from in the dna
levonet33 2 years ago
Feedback between DNA and the environment. DNA changes are always occurring, we know that. We also know that the environment and other effects decide which changes get into the next generation.
Some of those changes include duplications of sequence, insertions of sequence to new locations. A gene that is duplicated can then give rise to a new gene by repeated changes.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Congratulations for your contribuitions! i REALY MEAN IT! Now unbrainwash your mind and search for the truth, I will not sugest you taht I'am right btu you have to neutralized your mind set and go out of the regular spectrum or your present status cuo, just try to be out side the circle were you find yourself, if you have to pray just do it, Bsude the material there is a spiritual face for humans, You are a very inteligent person. I hope you don't rediculized me or despise my advice! GOOD LUCK!
darsal123 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
By the way you are sugesting only a biologist have the right to give an opinion on evolution , then by your own words, your "gurus" Hitchings and Hawkins" are not qualified to give an opinion on evolution, and if I may, probably neither you!
darsal123 2 years ago
"only a biologist have the right to give an opinion on evolution"
Who's talking about opinions? I would say only people well grounded in biology are able to completely understand the evidence.
I wouldn't presume to "disbelieve" the Higgs boson, because I don't know much about the evidence for it. But I trust that the scientific process will focus in on what theory is supported by the evidence.
I've been a molecular biologist since 1997. I've contributed to the scientific body of knowledge.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Comment removed
darsal123 2 years ago
oops, I forgot only atheist have the right to decieved!
darsal123 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Secular not always is = to atheist
Clinton is secular however he is a southern Baptist!
darsal123 2 years ago
Hitchings and Hawkins are philosofers
and they are the propfets and gurus of the atheist movement in America and the UK
darsal123 2 years ago
"Hitchings" "Hawkins"? "philosofers" "propfets"?
Are you drunk?
Richard Dawkins has an M.A. and D.Phil from Oxford. He is not a philosopher, he is a population geneticist and science popularizer.
He has added the body of scientific knowledge in the peer-reviewed literature.
He also happens to be an outspoken atheist.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
religous is not always theist, for example,
atheist are religious but not theistic, I am not a religous however I believe in God!
darsal123 2 years ago
Let's send them to prison so we will proudly call our country United Soviet Republic of America.
levonet33 2 years ago
The irony of your inane comment is that this organization is actually dedicated to SUBVERTING the US Constitution.
Specifically, the free speech protections against state-sponsored religious endorsement in the 1st amendment. It's all clearly spelled out in the Wedge Document.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
duped dope
no1saphead 2 years ago
In no way is this group any way Libertarian. No libertarian I have ever met is a proponent of creationism. Perhaps you could call them conservative. They are religious fanatics who twists real conservatism words to seem rational to their gullible followers. They would use the goverment to force ID onto our kids. Thats the very opposite of libertarianism.
JonKevinCherry 2 years ago
Hmmm... well, how about "free market" conservatives? Actually, they advocate unrestricted trade with Russia, private ownership and entrepreneurship of transportation resources, and electronic direct democracy technologies.
The lying for Jesus is just sort of a hobby for them.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Its ok to lie, as long as you "lie for jesus"(tm)
linuxpenguin73 2 years ago
lol its ok to lie for jesus? wow then peopel can kill anyone in the name of jesus that would be fun killing ur whole family in tha name of god :) just like muslims do kill in the name of god. catholic is the next terrorist in future cool!
3L3M3NTO 2 years ago
sorry, I was actually being sarcastic........ did everyone miss it then?
linuxpenguin73 2 years ago
same here hehe
3L3M3NTO 2 years ago
Now is the DI mostly lawyers because that's all they can get or is it more that their strategy involves more legal maneuvering than biology?
If so how to the miscellaneous degrees fit into this?
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
Both. I think they would hire more biologists if they could find them, but they are content to flesh out the legal team and the apologetics.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
That's pathetic. They hate secularism so much yet they pretend to be secular to fool people. They have absolutely no principles!
SpazzzDog 2 years ago 4
ROFL!!! I thought the Discovery Institute was part of the BBC's Discovery channel, obviously it is not, but you can see the deceptive use of similar title and lettering.
WTF?!!!! this is one big deceptive institution!!!
emancoy 2 years ago 19
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The sons of Abraham, not the sons of GAYbraham
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
This is seriously a good investigation. I mean this is journalist quality inquiry. You followed the money like deepthroat told woodstein : )
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago 3
"...[T}otal intergration of Biblical law into our lives.."
Only one thing I can say about that : holy shit!
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
Ray Bohlin (President, Probe Ministries, Fellow, Discovery Institute) is going to be the topic of a future video.
I've just been reading his website, and I strongly urge you to visit for the entertainment value. He's a true YEC, anti-homosexual, and ... well, you really can spend an hour delving into the mindset.
If you stumble across a particular gem, send it to me via PM, and I'll credit you in the vid.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's all consistent. You know...
Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve!
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
this stuff is like a good movie. come back and watch it again.
no1saphead 2 years ago
DI has no honor.
no1saphead 2 years ago
And you have no argument. You're like c0nc0rdance: lie and strawman ID, worship natural selection.
IDquest 2 years ago
neither do you have any honor.
no1saphead 2 years ago
all the vids from this IDQUEST 21 year old boy are disabled to comments and rating.Where is his honor..
no1saphead 2 years ago
Honor would be easy for Darwinian fundamentalists if they would actually try and stick with the argument of the videos I post without acting like an immature child or cursing or cussing. The fact that you can't acknowledge this shows you have no capacity for logic.
IDquest 2 years ago
After having looked at what Monton has to say I agree with some of his basic points. Intelligent Design does raise some good points, about things such as the fine tuning of the constants of our universe, the origin of time, space, matter etc, and other things. I do think that much of these points are reasonable and worth talking about from a philosophical view point, but the bottom line is; it's just not science.
Balabaw2 2 years ago
Good luck with the id quest, its kinda like finding ice on the sahara.
Ryosuke1208 2 years ago
I have honor, you have no brain.
IDquest 2 years ago
Im getting smarter since i threw the bible that was collecting dust ,down the laundry chute.
no1saphead 2 years ago
Yeah lots of honor, what are you scared of, that you always have to deactivate scores and comments?
Ryosuke1208 2 years ago
I've posted some videos entitled "Atheists for Intelligent Design." Darwinian fundamentalists don't like to admit it, but there are plenty of atheists and non-Christians who support ID.
IDquest 2 years ago
That's great, you managed to find some token non-Christian philosophers. But that doesn't address the points about the CSC in the video:
1. Primarily funded by evangelical Christian organizations.
2. Large majority of fellows are non-scientists.
3. Intelligent design remains an almost entirely unpublished, undefended point of view.
4. The Wedge Document plainly states the REAL intention of your organization as religious.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
5. The whole intent of the organization appears to be Christian apologetics and subversion of the First Amendment.
You're trying to create loopholes in a law created by the founders of this nation to protect us from religious tyranny or theocracy.
"Darwinian fundamentalists" is just another example of PR spin. You are transparent to those of us who actually do biological research, who actually work on problems like cancer and HIV every day.
All your vids are no comment, no rating.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
5. Bull. Again, you're just putting your opinions but the facts say the opposite. The Discovery Institute is not converting people into Christianity. Otherwise, why would they accept atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. You have no idea what you're talking about at all.
IDquest 2 years ago
Yes, let's restate those facts and spot where I state an opinion:
1. Funded by evangelicals.
2. Mostly philosophers, not scientists.
3. Evidence not published in peer-review.
4. Wedge document reveals intent.
5. Activities focused on textbook adoption and science education issues determined to be religious in nature by a court of law.
Where is the opinion inserted in those points?
I am not against positions of faith. I am not an atheist.
I object to deception and subversion.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
1. "Primarily Christian"? So what? Not all Christians are creationists. Even Ken Ham (a young-earth creationist) of "Answers in Genesis" is against the Discovery Institute.
2. Bull. Well over the majority are scientists and philosophers. Please, get your facts straight.
3. Undefended? That's just your opinion.
4. The "Wedge" fiasco has been addressed over and over again. Yet nobody acknowledged what the Discovery Institute has to say about it. I recommend people read it.
IDquest 2 years ago
What a perfect example of Intelligent Design creationism at work.
1. You've eliminated the operative word "evangelical"
2. You've added philosophers to my point, which was not in the original.
3. Undefended and unpublished is a matter of record in the scientific literature. ID has not presented original data to support the positive case in peer-reviewed literature.
4. I'm not terribly interested in the damage control, but I have read Casey's PR piece. But it speaks for itself.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
I would really like to speak to some of these "Atheists for Intelligent Design." I would like them to explain who they think the designer(s) is/are, what methods were used in designing, if it/they will ever be coming back so we can observe some designing for real, and a whole bunch of other questions.
I really suspect that these people are mostly just cranks such as Berlinski who know they can make a lot of money selling anti-evolution propaganda to fundies who desperately want to hear it.
Balabaw2 2 years ago
Balabaw2: Go email Dr. Bradley Monton who defends ID. I would hope you would be respectful though. Your tone is quite immature. And the fact that you can't accept the fact that agnostics (like Berlinski) who think that evolution is a joke goes to show where you are as an intellectual.
IDquest 2 years ago
I would tell Morton to his face that he's a fool. Berlinski doesn't even understand evolution, he thinks it says whales evolved from cows.
I would ask both of them to read the entire 'Wedge' document and then look me in the face and tell me that ID is a secular, scientific idea that is just interested in good science.
It was exposed in court as biblical creationism rehashed - rememer cdesign proponentsists - how stupid would Dr. Morton be to think that it has anything new to say about anything?
Balabaw2 2 years ago
aw, don't let 'em bother ya' CC, there's about as much science at the Discovery Institute as there is at the Ponds Institute.
OccamsView 2 years ago
*Laughs* That one caught me off guard, Occam.
Ponds Institute indeed. More like the Big Tobacco Health and Wellness Research Center proving that smoking is good for your lungs.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Just out of interest, since you note that Minnich accepts common descent, why not do so for Behe too? He has stated many times that he has no problem with what he sees as very convincing evidence for it.
Balabaw2 2 years ago
Let's get this straight. Behe is the originator of a concept of DESIGN, IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY (the "you can't get there from here" principle), and yet accepts a common origin of all life on earth?
Anyone else see a major disconnect? By definition, his theory calls for the intervention of an outside agency... which he believes is the Christian God, to create the bacterial flagellum, for example.
So I think it would be mis-characterizing his position to say he "accepts common descent".
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Yes I absolutely do see a major disconnect, but the thing is that he doesn't. I've have heard him speak many times on this, and also read what he has to say and he absolutely accepts that all organisms are 'biological relatives' or in 'biological continuity' (two ways I have seen him phrase it). His position is really of God directly guiding mutations, so that outcomes that he says would have otherwise been impossible are actually achievable through God's direct guidance, eg. bacterial flagella.
Balabaw2 2 years ago
Excellent research and delivery. Cheers.
RJackson808 2 years ago
Did I see that right? Bill Gates supports the DI?
Eron2828 2 years ago
'Bill Gates supports the DI?'
He donates towards the Cascadia Transportation research. I'm sure he has a good cause behind this.
LordBLB 2 years ago