Is creation "science" really science?, Part II

More on McLean v. Arkansas, the nature of creation "science", the lack of a secular reason for teaching creation "science" and more. "It's not illegal to teach bad science...but you can't advocate religion in the public schools" says Scott. Video courtesy of the Dolan DNA Learning Center * www.dnalc.org

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Genie Scott
• NCSE
• creationism
• intelligent design
• creation science
• McLean v. Arkansas

[10secstomeltdown]

Why are the same vids being posted over and over?

[NatCen4ScienceEd]

Don't worry...not trying to drive you crazy. There were some errors in the captioning on a couple of videos, so I pulled them, made the changes, and reposted them. Hence the "repeats".

[Sanngot]

I'd like it if the videos were longer please. Like maybe 10 minutes? You have no idea how much more I would like these videos if you did that.

[stephenetienne]

Why can't this whole interview be posted?

[pandorachild]

I find it annoying that creationists LIE so much yet they want me to take there word that god is real, and the only one.

[pandorachild]

@opaldragon75 hahaha thats awesome!

[pandorachild]

@Craighill9 Wow so many errors in one paragraph. First I dont think genie is an atheist. Atheism isnt a theology that contradicts science, that was just a blatant LIE. You where kind of correct about "that minds are the only things that can create" but you and you kin have never proved that the universe was created, Unless you have observed this it is just an assumption on your part. Finally I will say what all atheists think, PROVE THERE IS A GOD, im tired of listening to nut cases who know 0.

[Leones44]

@Craighill9 I don't understand why people who have never studied science nor evolution, who know so little about it, speak out against it vehemently. A word to the wise, if you're going to go around commenting on something at least have a clue. Its makes you look ridiculous when you comment on stuff you clearly don't understand. I'm sorry to break it to you but the only thing you won was the science class dunce of the year award. You fail!

[Leones44]

@Craighill9 I guess you want me to spare you my facts, logic, and reason as well as most fundies tend to be allergic to such things. "There is zero evidence that life from non-life is possible.....zero....none...zi­­lch", when you say stuff like that you make it blatantly obvious you DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!! Evolution has nothing to do with how life originated it discusses how life has changed over time. What you are referring to is abiogenesis which is a separate theory from evo

[Craighill9]

@Leones44spare me you ignorance and go bark up someone else's tree. You spout word upon word but you cannot explain knowledge without a mind. You simply must determine for yourself whose mind created all things. There is zero evidence that life from non-life is possible.....zero....none...zi­lch. You lose I win.

[Leones44]

@Craighill9 What is some of the evidence for gravity that you call substantial? And I'm gotta a hunch but I'm guessing you don't really know very much about evolution (although I'm sure you swear you do). Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution has been observed. Evolution from apes to humans also has substantial evidence to support it.

[Leones44]

@Craighill9 Science is neutral when it comes to religion or God. Science does not adress morality. Science never says what one should or shouldn't do. Science's omission of morality is no more a knock against it than mathematics omission of morality. Religon and people's world views and personal beliefs guide morality not science (or mathematics for that matter). Creationism is religion and that's why it doesn't meet the definition of science and does not belong in science classrooms.