An Interesting Footnote

[MikeyFlorida]

Occam's razor says the simplest explanation TENDS to be the best one. If it is ALWAYS the best one, then i guess creationists had it right all along. "God made everything in 6 literal days." That's a hell of a lot simpler than anything else. No, I don't believe in creationism, just pointing out your flawed reasoning cause you're nowhere near as intelligent as you think you are. that's a delusion in itself.

[flayed2]

When all things are EQUAL occam's razor says the simplest is the best. "god created everything" is like a guess with 0 evidence to back it up.

[JennyFarlopez]

No, it's the simplest ARGUABLE explanation. Otherwise it's even far more simple to say "The universe has no meaning" than believing in a specific god, a specific number of days, etc.

[MikeyFlorida]

"the universe has no meaning"

this is getting really abstract, because a God could even have created a universe with no meaning.

..although this isn't about god(s), it's about life on earth (specifically, it's development.). the assumption that god(s) do or don't exist is always a conjecture. life on earth appearing out of nowhere is "simpler" than it evolving. in that case creationists have the more "simple" explanation.

[JennyFarlopez]

However, one must assume less axioms to explain evolution than to expain creationism.

Evolution is explainable through very few and simple physical laws plus mathematical developement (which isn't axiomatic).

An unexplainable and lawless creation of a god needs an axiom for each and every observation. Therefore is far less to be likely.

[JennyFarlopez]

*likely to be true.

Evolution is far superior as a thery because it relies on fewer AXIOMS to explain the same facts.

[MikeyFlorida]

"another noteworthy point is that Ockam himself was a theist, and to adhere to his principle (as misstated in this video) as in contention with theism clearly involves misunderstanding of "Occam's razor"."

and again, you are using a misrepresentation of Occam's razor.

[MikeyFlorida]

Theistic evolution is not a competing "theory", nor does it try to be. It is far different from 6-day creationism. Theistic evolution is a full acknowledgment and agreement with the scientific consensus of the development of life (evolution theory) and theistic evolutionists realize the compatibility of a respect for science and a belief in God.

if you understand science/evolution theory as well as theistic evolution you would know this.

[MikeyFlorida]

did you read my previous comment?...

"another few points are that most theistic evolutionists' belief in science is one not dependent on God, but rather independent and compatible. therefore occam's razor (in it's misstated form as represented in this video) does NOT pose a problem to theistic evolution."

[sanjuanpapi]

if u break the evolution theory to it s simplest form ,one question pops up,the male couldn't have existed without a FEMALE of the same age to reproduce the next beings,therefore evolution is debunked,SATANS LIE WILL NEVER AFFECT ME,OR RELIGION LIES.

[JennyFarlopez]

Congratulations, you've destroyed 150 years of work of thousands of the brightest minds of the planet with a single phrase full of gramatical errors. You can go to Sweden and pick up your Nobel prize whenever you want.

[Eaglewing17]

@sanjuanpapi as a creationist, i'm going to tell u that in evolution's "simplest form", there's just a single-cell(which appartenly evolved out of nowhere?). cells are a-sexual. but yes, later on, it would pose problems as to how a male and female organism would be around at the same time with fully-developed reproductive organs. i've never heard anyone disprove that.

[MikeyFlorida]

however, Occam's razor is misstated in this video. I misstated it as well in my comment 9 months ago.

[iluvceviche]

Point 4: is something we cannot really answer because that is G_d's thought.

At the end, it really comes down to (for christian theistic evolutionist, there are other types of course) whether or not Christians interpret the Bible as the literal truth.

Again, those that take the Bible literally are the ones that have issues with science as a whole and not all Christians take the Bible literally (specifically Genesis).

Hope that helped.

[iluvceviche]

Point 3: Theistic evolutionist (which applies to more than just those that are Christians)have different interpretations for diversity. The Christian view is the diversity is there to support the biological system in which humans live (for ex the food chain). Humans would still be viewed as the most important creation and the number of other species would not matter as it is the quality we are interested in.

The real question would be: what if there exists intelligent alien life forms?

[iluvceviche]

Point 2: Occams Razor is a weak argument and one that doesnt apply here at all. Why? Because G_d existence comes from faith (knowing without evidence).

[iluvceviche]

Point 1: You cite there is no evidence for a creator, but you fail to understand that faith needs no evidence. That is why theistic evolution is mixture of faith and science. We have faith in G_d (this means we dont require evidence for G_d to exist).

[iluvceviche]

I am a theistic evolutionist (Catholic and Chemist). I grew up in South America and this is how we are taught actually (my family was as well).

One thing you have to understand is that not all followers of religions take their texts/teachings literally (word-for-word). Those that take the bible word-for-word run into scientific contradictions (for ex the genesis account).

Characterlimitsigh

[Negativepower69]

Nice! loved it!!! <3

[twothlesswonder]

Man! I am soooo sick of hearing creationists and IDiots using obviously personal interpretations of "the bible", "the koran" (or whatever other contrivance man has invented) to back-up their views. They can't ALL be right. So, as long as they are divided on what they ACTUALLY believe, NONE of them can ever be taken seriously. Now I just point and laugh at them.

[PisceanBeautyy]

Not all theists have human-centered beliefs or believe that God's only purpose in making Earth/life/etc. was for humans. Not all theists belive they have all of the answers. Religious belief is based on faith. everyone must admit they don't know surely how or why life truly came about.

[Wiliki1]

I would love to have one of the theistic evolutionists who posted here answer a couple questions.

1. If the purpose of theistic evolution was not to create humans, then was there a purpose? If so, what?

2. Isn't there a more effecient method to create beings than evolution?

I would like it if you could not reccomend books for me, should you answer these questions. If you guys could please explain the argument in the books, instead of forcing me to read them, if you wish to debate. Thanks.

[mscman24]

Well, I'm not exactly a hard core theistic evolutionist, but if God used evolution to create than he did so in order that there would be a process which we humans could discover and learn about. Also, because he loves variety and endless possibilities, which are all parts of his nature. God's not necessarily into efficiency, he is an artist first and foremost. Great buildings are not designed just for efficiency, but also for beauty and the pleasure of those who enter.

[peterb1968]

Before you can say god did this and that or it says blah in the bible or koran or i think this about god....you need to KNOW it is there with proof otherwise you have nothing to argue for

[mscman24]

I was responding to a question of why I thought God would use evolution to create. I gave some logical answers to the question based on my knowledge of God and his character. We are dealing with philosophy here not hard core scientific proofs. These kinds of questions are outside the realm of science to answer, but that does not mean we can't come up with some rational and consistent answers that support our beliefs. That goes for both theists and atheists, as neither can prove their premise.

[peterb1968]

It is very hard to proove anything with just thought to reasonable level. We are arguing science. BTW if science cant proove it it does not exist.

[mscman24]

"BTW if science cant proove it it does not exist."

Really? Science does not understand what happened at the first moment of the big bang, every mathematical formula breaks down, and the singularity can not be proven a reality. I guess the universe doesn't really exist then, does it?

[peterb1968]

No it means we are yet to understand it. As such it them follows the theory to understand everthing does not exist. If there is one we may work it out but that will not be me but by much smarter ppl than I. If you can't prove it you are only living in hope.

[mscman24]

I agree. It's interesting that one of the hopes of the theory of everything is wrapped up in string theory, which many scientists feel is more philosophy than science and that it may never be proven scientifically. scientist are having a hard time keeping science and philosophy strictly separated when it comes to trying to hypothesize about this stuff. Strings may represent the interface between the spiritual and physical realms, as there is a demand for up to 11 dimensions.

[peterb1968]

I tend to agree on some of that. String theory seems to be a dead end and very hard to grasp if you are not a physist.

[mscman24]

Have you seen the NOVA special called "The Elegant Universe"? As a theist I find this theory pretty tantalizing. The concept of at least 11 dimensions and parallel universes opens all kinds of possibilities to help explain what has been called the spiritual world, and it evaporates many of the naturalistic arguments against it. If we are aware of only 4 dimensions, but there are actually 7, we can no longer make the naturalistic (philosophical ) assumption that only what we observe is real.

[mscman24]

Something else that came to mind is the fact that evolution, in some respects, gives the thinking person who chooses not to believe a way out. In other words, if God values free will above all else for humans, than he must not compel anyone to believe. If he leaves enough doubt of his existence so that no one is forced to believe in him, he than gives people the option to believe or not. Evolution, though not totally satisfying, gives the naturalist an intellectual excuse not to believe.

[AlexAltorfer]

Sorry for the multiple posts. They were not intentional!

[AlexAltorfer]

Your concept of theistic evolution is incorrect. No well informed theistic evolutionist believes that evolution is a linearly guided process with the sole purpose of creating man. I recommend Ken Miller's excellent book "Finding Darwin's God" as he effectively clarifies this issue. Also, the old philosophical dilemma known as theodicy (the problem of the existence of evil), is not such a surefire argument against theism.

[mscman24]

Good points AA! Another good book by a theistic evolutionist is "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" by Francis Collins. He once headed the Human Genome Project. Though I don't agree with all his ideas, I respect his ability to come to grips with the fact that there are many things we just don't know, and may never fully understand.

[AlexAltorfer]

Yes I've read Collins' book and it's great! I goes into how genetics is irrefutable evidence of evolution, which is very interesting. I think Ken Miller's book contains a far more complete defense of the theistic evolution position though. A very enjoyable read!

[AlexAltorfer]

Your concept of theistic evolution is incorrect. No well informed theistic evolutionist believes that evolution is a linearly guided process with the sole purpose of creating man. I recommend Ken Miller's excellent book "Finding Darwin's God" as he effectively clarifies this issue. Also, the old philosophical dilemma known as theodicy (the problem of the existence of evil), is not such a surefire argument against theism.

[AlexAltorfer]

Your concept of theistic evolution is incorrect. No well informed theistic evolutionist believes that evolution is a linearly guided process with the sole purpose of creating man. I recommend Ken Miller's excellent book "Finding Darwin's God" as he effectively clarifies the issue. Also, the old philosophical dilemma known as theodicy (the problem of the existence of evil), is not such a surefire argument against theism.

[mscman24]

In reading over my post again I should make it clearer that I do believe in God. But the question of how he created the universe is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon.

What pisses me off is the dogma on both sides of the issue. The unquestioned wedding of naturalism with science, and the concept of "scientific creationism", are both repugnant to me.

[mscman24]

Interesting video, and nicely done. Can't say I'm overly impressed with your arguments, but you did a good job of production. I'm not a theistic evolutionist, or a creationist, but I don't have the faith to be a naturalist. Mathematical probabilities is where I stumble. I think we are currently so far from understanding how this universe came into existence that 100 years from now people will look back at what we believed about creation and think, "Wasn't that quaint".

[CureForIgnorance]

Second law of thremodynamics debunks evolution for me. The odds of one side of one protein molecule randomly assembling correctly is 1 in 10^123. By Physics standards, anything less likely than 1 in 10^80 is considered impossible. Odds of God, 1 in 2?

[TheFallibleFiend]

When someone says 2LOT debunks evolution, you instantly realize they don't know the first thing about thermodynamics.

[robbylovesanime]

ever read genesis? it explains how god created us, we are dirt that he blew life into ... rofl

[Andyilmatto]

Great vid, as usual. But I hate 'cause you've killed such a great song by Queen in the beggining. :(

[tomspencer155]

ok, as someone who also thinks theistic evolution is rubbish i can happily say you make bad points, in a bad way in a bad video. There arer so much more valid points than the ones you raise.

[friendofdarwin]

Thank you for the constructive criticism tomspencer155, I would love if you could message me these points. I am always eager to learn and improve.

[danieltrujillo]

hey can i reupload this vid? and give you all the glory of course.

[friendofdarwin]

of course! be my guest.

[Gnophilist]

Awesome as always.

[Gearson141]

Very nice man. I must say that really the only argument online I've seen against Theistic evolution seems to be the whole "An omnibenevolent God would use something else." It's a fine argument, but it's almost as if Atheists only bring it up as an afterthought. I believe that more people believe in TE than Creationism.

[dudev]

Mucho Excellente Video. But creationism is actually recycled garbage, centuries old and very very smelly, much worse than the fresh garbage we know today. But I see one mistake. You said "tens of billions of years had passed before the first cell evolved". The first life evolved 3.5 billions years ago, and the earth is only 4.6 billion years old.

[friendofdarwin]

I was referring to the origin of the universe, not the origin of the earth...I apologize if I didn't make this clear.

[dudev]

Sorry. My mistake. I'm from the old school which thought the Universe was only 8 billion years old. I forgot about the new 13.7 billion year estimate.

[friendofdarwin]

haha no worries!

[metaknight419]

Great job FoD!! I need to show my parents this one. Take care.

[101011001]

Excellent video, I almost dislike the theistic evolutionists more than the creationists. Because they are just trying to make excuses for their belief.

[friendofdarwin]

Yeah it's frustrating. Creationists at least have enough backbone to say "ALL OF SCIENCE IS A LIE" in order to keep their faith. Although I still think I like creationists less because they are so profoundly ignorant.

[Brainmold]

nice

[Archosaur]

Bring on the pain! bring on the occams RAZOOOOOR!tuf

Good stuff!

[Rotvec]

great video, i always like learning something new about the world. 5/5

[wolf2dragon]

Pulling out the razor....NICCCCEEE!! That was a kickass video. there is no point ot have such a bloodthirsty system for survival (assuming a god exists) unless he gets their kicks from watching animals kill each other. Sick if you ask me.

[friendofdarwin]

damn right it's sick...but then again burnt offerings make a smell pleasing to the lord...and that's just plain GROSS.

[JDRedstone]

Awesome video! 5 stars =)

[iamnlck]

Another great video, FoD.

[friendofdarwin]

Exactly! It seems awfully slow and wasteful to have mutations that are not beneficial.

[dws1677]

God must have purposely killed the Dinasours becaus we wouldn't be here if they were not killed off!God thought of it all...lol

[Bertsura]

Oh, but nooo, Jesus did it! XD Seriously, for an omnipotent guy, God sure takes his sweet time getting shit done.

[WizardJim]

Nice! I love your vids dude!

[friendofdarwin]

Thanks!  I'm glad you enjoy them.

[danieltrujillo]

good, but there was one thing that i think shoulda been said, that approximately (maybe over) 99% of the species that have existed are now extinct

[friendofdarwin]

Damn! I knew I forgot something!! I'm a paleontology nut, and I should gone into the extinction topic more...but I feared the video was dragging on.

[danieltrujillo]

yeah im a paleontology nut too. like i said the video was great, that was the only thing that i can think of that was missing (which is pretty good if its only 1 thing)