HHMI's Evolution - Evolution and Religion

[cmart020]

An important point that the so-called scientists forget is that against FACTS there can be no denial. The problem with evolution is that it is not based on FACTS but on EVIDENCES. They are not the same, but people mistake them as being the same stuff. Evidence comes from the latin evidentìa which means "clarity or hyphotesis". And because of this, there is so much debate and discussions on the matter. Count how many times the word comes up in this or any other video on the matter.

[subductionzone]

@cmart020 Evolution is based on millions of facts. A well defined scientific theory is stronger than a fact. The word "theory" is widely abused by nonscientists. In science a theory is stronger than a law. A law only says what is observed a theory explains why we observe what we observe. A Law of Evolution would be weaker than a Law of Evolution.

And the reason why the word evidence is used to often is that scientists have to be precise in their language. There is no evidence of creation

[cmart020]

@subductionzone I will not discuss etimology of words, since you clearly do not know jack about it. In the same way that many so-called scientists don't. If there is any abuse on the usage of certain words, it cerainly comes from those who do not understand the origin (root) of a word. Something that is not taught to English-speaking folks. So, when scientists say that in science "theory" has a different meaning, it clearly shows their ignobility about it.

[subductionzone]

@cmart020 Wrong again. But you are a creationist so you should be used to that. Once again, theory has a very specific meaning in scientific circles. If you are going to have a scientific debate you must use scientific terms. And please excuse my mistake from my last post. It should have read a Law of Evolution would be weaker than a Theory of Evolution. For example Einstein's theory on gravitation trumped Newton's Law of gravitation.

[subductionzone]

@cmart020 Part II. Theory has been used since about 1630 by scientists. Its change has been by the populace as a whole, not the other way around. So not only are you wrong about the etymology and history of the word, you are wrong about scientists supposedly changing it. And the reason that scientists use the word "evidence" is because, unlike cretinists, they are honest. They know that there is no absolute proof of anything. And I am still waiting for any evidence of creation.

[bboinigelunobboi]

No fundamental conflict ? Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” that is one day if you cant read.

[287karakoli]

The talks by the two biologists were great. I can't say the same about this video though. More of the usual religious crap. "Theology" is as much of a subject as "fairy-ololgy", and theologians have nothing to teach us about anything. What a disgrace, the in this day and age some people can still earn a living by being "theologians".

[bubbamickmac]

extantdodos,

how doesn't this have a higher rating? votebots? this is a good video.

cheers;)

-king mike

[Arachibutyrophobe87]

35:09  "Don't believe this because we wish it wasn't true". Brilliant.

[coasterpro]

1:12 - Which one looks older to you? The guy on the left or the guy on the right?

j/k ^_^

Great series of videos! Especially the first four.

[TheLovePizza]

Scientism? Could have just said rational person.

[TheGamingWeasel]

If Dawkins was present at this meeting his face would go red from fury.

[photekxl]

no, no it wouldnt

[TheGamingWeasel]

Yes it would. He hates religion and thinks belief in God and doing science is irreconcilable.

[photekxl]

He hates religion, yes, but he would not be "furious" if he was present. Maybe a little peeved, maybe a little annoyed, but not furious. How can you be furious at religious zealots? Their ignorance is something to be pitied, not be angry about.

[TheGamingWeasel]

Where were religious zealots in this video? The audience? The speakers wanted to show that science doesn't bite and that there is abundant reason to enjoy it and at no expense of abandoning their faith. Dawkins would just go: Bla, bla, bla! Why don't you believe in Thor? Bla, bla, bla! Science! Reason! Bla, bla, bla! Look at me! I'm talking rubish but I'm to selfabsorbed to notice it. Blam, bla, bla! Science!

[photekxl]

I was speaking in general. As far as faith & science: faith in any of the organized religions of the world and science are not compatible, and that's because of the claims the organized religions of the world make; the claims that are announced in their "holy books." And Dawkins is right. There is no more legitimacy to the abrahamic religions than there is to the belief in Thor. Perhaps he lays it on thick but the fact remains: religion is pure ignorance, and not needed in the world.

[photekxl]

If you want to have faith, how about faith in the human spirit? Faith in just, moral societies. Faith in bringing about global cohesiveness. These things, in large part, are retarded by a belief that a personal God has picked a certain group to be his people, and those who do not share in the beliefs of that group are immoral and worthy of eternal suffering. Screw religion, to be frank. It is absolutely the most useless social construct ever established by man and I hope one day it dies forever.

[LittleSn00py]

@photekxl Human spirit, moral societies, and global cohesiveness are a product of slave morality. It is your belief in these thing that retards you, or at least a small elite. You ridicule religious people, yet believe in bigger delusions like moral obligations, meaningful life, mercy, good will. You're just a speck of dust in a meaningless, indifferent universe.

[Johnnymathews1]

so the earth is billions of years old....humanity never could have possibly seen a brontosaurus? What the heck is the pictograph of at the Kachina Bridge? Did the indians draw an interpretive representation of an elongated poodle? Clearly it couldn't have been a brontasourus? Well, that would compromise the evolutionary catalyst of "billions of years." We cant have that now!

[ezelite]

It was the loch ness monster...

[AussiePolitics]

@Johnnymathews1 by that logic the stories in the dark ages of knights going on quests to fight dragons means there were dinosaurs in europe at the time?

[RustyIronloins]

very good of you, ExDo, to post this to balance out your other postings. Not all honest religious persons are IDiots.

[Nebzz]

It's kinda funny to me, but I think technology today helps religion more because people are much lazier today. I could study some complicated science material, or I can just say "magic man done it" and go play xbox.

[LightninBoltz]

Hehe, I see someone else has picked up "Magic man done it"

[Jeremyguru]

Reconciliation shouldn't be needed. Just drop the broze age myths. Shelve the bible in the mythology section where it belongs. That would solve a lot of problems.

[Synopsism]

Amen

[prgamer]

should be filed in Fiction/Short Stories

[Jeremyguru]

Ha ha, well, I wouldn't call it a "short story." :)

Well met.

[Mahoivlich]

move it to the toilet paper section of your local supermarket.

[Jeremyguru]

Lol

[ndjarnag]

-I am a christian, yet the evidence definately supports evolution.

-thanks for the upload.

[chazcov08]

What a great event. It was great to see the young minds expanded by the possibility of some kind of reconciliation between the polar opposite viewpoints. I wonder what the event would have been like if an extremist like Hovind were there. He might have been laughed out of there. (If he weren't in jail.)

[artyfarty2]

religion and science are irreconcilable for one simple reason; the fundamental tenet of religion is faith and for science it is the abandonment of faith. Science yeilds reliable results. Religion in over 2000 years has not yeilded a single fact or tangible benefit to mankind, but has yeilded many bad things.

[hisociety119]

Your point about the irreconcilablity of science and religion is well said and worth considering. However, remember that science has yielded many bad things as well. And religion has certainly yielded good as well - charity, forgiveness, etc. Non-religious people can be charitable of course, but for many religion is the driving force.

[artyfarty2]

What do you mean by "science has yielded many bad things as well"? There is nothing intrinsically bad that science can yeild. Science just yeilds explanations for phenomena observed. If people use that information for malevolent purposes then that is a problem with people not science. Religions however do indoctrinate people in some very pernicious ways and motivates them to do malevolent things.

[artyfarty2]

I don't accept your point about good things being done because of religion since secular organisations do good and without trying to indoctrinate people. Religion is superfluous at best in this context and probably quite disingenuous.

[artyfarty2]

On this point, Christopher Hitchens poses a double question: Q1: 'Can you think of a good thing done or said that could not have been done by a non-believer?', Q2: 'Can you think of a bad thing done or said that could only be done under the influence of faith?'.

To date no one has answered Q1, but everyone can think of an answer to Q2. This suggests that religion is at best superfluous to being a good person.

[yesitstom]

Thank you so much for putting these videos up on YouTube. Until I discovered these I was only able to find the Kent Hovind debunk vids, since they are now all gone due to CSE making bogus claims on copyright to shut up all criticism, I had to do more hunting and finding these are so much better. Thank you again!

[ExtantDodo]

Ban policy update:

Due to the actions of numerous repeat trolls, bans will now only be lifted on 4 month intervals, rather than 1 week intervals. Troll bans are set to be lifted on 12/15/07.

If you are worried that your comment will result in a ban, search through the already posted comments and see what caused others to be banned. Do not repeat their mistakes. If you exercise a minimal amount of tact, you will find that we are more than accommodating to both questions and valid criticisms.

[acidburn20x]

as much as i wanted to get into this vid. If you get to 05:57/70:57 , there is this really hot girl and im pretty sure she will have my baby! a little off topic but im easly distracted by beauty.

[smaakjeks]

How's that challenge going? Are creationists working on a "critical analysis"?

Prediction: someone will and it will be in the tones of "OMGZ LOLZORS! God is perfect! Tailbones are gay! Make a choice: god's word or man's word!"

[ExtantDodo]

"How's that challenge going? Are creationists working on a "critical analysis"?"

The single creationist has apparently vanished from the face of the earth.

[smaakjeks]

Vanished..? Or physically ascended into heaven!

[ExtantDodo]

"Vanished..? Or physically ascended into heaven!"

More akin to fallen over the edge of the earth as seen in Monty Python's Erik the Viking.

[smaakjeks]

Well, the bible does say that the earth is flat, so your theory has truthological evidence to support it.

[skaggmo]

Evolution vs. Creation is not a scientific debate, it is a common sense debate. Neither theory has been proven, so we should not invoke science. Both theories take huge leaps of faith, without proof. While I admit I can't prove Creation, you must also admit that you can't prove Evolution. Failure to do so would be bordering on Religion.

[ExtantDodo]

"Evolution vs. Creation is not a scientific debate, it is a common sense debate."

Actually, it is a philosophical debate.

"Neither theory has been proven, so we should not invoke science."

Mathematics relies on proofs, not biology. The evidence supports evolutionary biology exclusively; that is why there is no scientific debate.

[skaggmo]

What evidenence? I need to see fossils of half-breeds. If a complete species changed, there would be thousands. If only one being here and there did, there should at least be a few. I still say it's a common sense arguement.

[ExtantDodo]

"What evidenence?"

The millions of fossils, billions of morphological characters, and trillions of base pairs of DNA are all evidence completely supporting evolutionary biology.

"I need to see fossils of half-breeds."

Cocapoos?

[ExtantDodo]

"If a complete species changed, there would be thousands."

This is an argument from ignorance based on a straw man argument.

"If only one being here and there did, there should at least be a few. I still say it's a common sense arguement."

Actually, this is an argument from personal incredulity. You need to argue using evidence, not logical fallacies.

[ExtantDodo]

"Both theories take huge leaps of faith, without proof."

You have now used a fallacy of equivocation. While creationism is without evidence, there is an overabundance of evidence in support of evolutionary biology.

"While I admit I can't prove Creation, you must also admit that you can't prove Evolution."

Evolution is defined as the change of allelic frequency over time. This is observable and has been observed. In short, your second equivocation has been refuted.

[ExtantDodo]

"Failure to do so would be bordering on Religion."

Religion are rife with the supernatural, deities, liturgies, sacraments, and rituals. Evolutionary biology lacks all of these hallmarks. Your comment, at best, is little more than an argument from ignorance.

[skaggmo]

Evolution is rife with the supernatural too. I have yet to see a monkey give birth to a man, or a fish walk out of the water and turn into a dinosour. Call it ignorance if you want, I call it common sense.

[ExtantDodo]

"Evolution is rife with the supernatural too."

Now, you have resorted to outright dishonesty. Science makes no comment on the supernatural.

"I have yet to see a monkey give birth to a man, or a fish walk out of the water and turn into a dinosour."

You clearly have no understanding of evolutionary biology. Your straw man argument are extremely poorly conceived.

[ExtantDodo]

"Call it ignorance if you want, I call it common sense."

Instead, I will call your comment what it truly is: an argument from personal incredulity.

Your free-trolling card has expired. Support yourself with documented evidence from henceforth.

[iviewthetube]

To keep things in perspective: Evolution is not a product of religion; religion is a product of evolution.

[particle409]

Mordecai36,

My optical mouse rolled over a hair, and I accidentally clicked spam on your comment. Sorry. :(

[scootscr15]

mine clicked spam on purpose, so now its even

[particle409]

Hahaha! Fair enough!

[ps2promo]

Thought that Michael Ruse was the weakest of the panel...didnt understand him much

[Eiketsu3000]

I see nobody has responded to the challenge yet, quite disappointing

[princesszin]

there's one thing about the video i was wondering about. they mention free will several times. first time, in a context which is about the differences between humans and other living things. the second time, in connection with suffering and pain, and they discuss the theological/philosophical views about it. i can't quite agree with this view. (cont)

[princesszin]

(cont) why do we have to connect pain and suffering with free will? i'm not sure if eg. animals had free will or not (i'm not sure that the answer is no, but i haven't made up my mind) but even if they had none it's not connected to the notion whether they are eg. in pain or not.

[dancingnature]

some YEC creationists that i know are actually told that they are not allowed to watch stuff like this

but id like to see their (pseudo)science laid out specifically as well

[princesszin]

dancing, what does YEC mean? and who told them that they were not ALLOWED?

[Chimpdaddy]

YEC = Young Earth Creationists. People who believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old (6,000 commonly accepted). Fundamentalist Christians often hide their children from this evidence, because they believe the bible to be literally true.

[princesszin]

Chimp, thanks, I know the theory, I just didn't recognise what the letters stood for. they hide them, but their children can also log on like anybody else and comment here. i was wondering if they were told not to listen to these videos at all?

[Chimpdaddy]

Often these children have been indoctrinated so much so that whatever other evidence is presented before them, they simply won't listen.

[princesszin]

Chimp, okay, but that still doesn't explain why they don't comment

[Greyghostvol1]

YEC=Young Earth Creationst

they are usually told not to watch these kinds of videos from their pastors.

[Kabane52]

Why are there almost no comments?

[ExtantDodo]

A request:

Our critical analyses have focused on creationism's assault on science. However, we have been searching for a video to use for a critical analysis which actually details the "evidence" for creation. In other words, we are looking for creationists who document the supporting evidence for their claims, not attack evolutionary biology out of ignorance. We are unsure if such a presentation actually exists which is why we are enlisting your help.

[ThinkerHA]

Have you looked at Michael Behe's videos? Maybe, "Irreducible Complexity: The Biochemical Challenge to Darwinian Theory"?

[dallased25]

Behe is a joke. He offers no evidence and was deemed as a pseudoscientist in the kitzmiller vs dover case where he was embarassed on the stand. There is no positive evidence for creationism/ID, only negative arguments against evolution.

[dancingnature]

behes dover trial evidence transcript is online

i got embarrassed for the man just reading it ,he PROVED that ID is vapid nonsense

[meth00in00venice]

Please read:

Liu, R. & Ochman, H. 2007. Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system. PNAS USA 104: 7116-7121.

There is a good review of his new book in Science:

"Behe explicitly accepts the ability of random mutation and selection to account for the variation within and differences between closely related species...He also accepts the 4.5-billion-year age of Earth and that we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees."

sciencemag(.)org(/)cgi(/)conte­nt(/)full(/)316(/)5830(/)1427

[ExtantDodo]

My collaborator and I would like to issue a challenge to the creationists who continue to troll the comment pages on our videos:

We have posted 4 videos made by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute which cover topics in evolutionary biology. The challenge is really quite simple: construct a fully-cited critical analysis similar to those which we have made. The lectures were given to high school students; so, the excuse that they are "too complex" is not going to work.