It's Not a Controversy

My entry for the Project Reason 2011 video contest. Why evolution is not a controversy among scientists and why it shouldn't be taught as if it is.

Resources:

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scient...
Kansas evolution hearings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_e...

Dissent from Darwin:
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
Project Steve:
http://ncse.com/taking-action/list-st...

Dogs and Cabbages:
http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-E...

Two Human Hairs:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=...

--

DonExodus's criticism of the Dissent from Darwin list as it was in 2008:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6...

--

All excerpts used in this video are either copyright-free or covered under "fair use" in Title 17 § 107 of the USC.

Vector Attributions:
A huge thanks to Snap2Objects for the many businessmen vectors I use:
http://www.snap2objects.com/freebies/
Business Women:
http://all-silhouettes.com/vectorbusi...
Other Business People Vectors:
http://all-silhouettes.com

Tree of Life:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tre...
Genetics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gen...
Football Field:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fil...

Image Attributions:
Gold Watch:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fil...
Biology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bio...
Genetics:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fil...

Pye Dog:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia...
Chiuaua:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deg...
Dachshund
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sho...
Great Dane:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fil...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fil...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dog...

Weed:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fil...
Broccoli:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia...
Cauliflower:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fil...
Cabbage:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fil...

Wild Banana:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia...
Cultivated Banana:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ban...

Abiogenesis:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fil...

Blades of Grass:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fil...
Human Hair:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fil...

Relativity:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fil...
Newtonian Mechanics:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia...

--

Music:
Self-Authored using GarageBand '09

.

• Category

  Education

[Mario Strada]

Since you are a simple mind, here is a simple explanation:

1. We are apes, not monkeys.

2. we (humans and chimpanzees, your "monkey")come from a common ancestor

3. it is not true that when one species evolves the older one goes extinct. There are many cases of speciation where both species survive.

4. most species eventually do go extinct, hence your fallacious impression that one species has to go extinct for another to evolve

You are welcome

[anticorncob6]

A "scientist" who rejects evolution rejects it because

a) they are not in a relevant field

b) they do it for the money (creation "scientists" get paid quite a lot to support creation)

c) What you said, they get educated from religious schools and colleges.

Or multiple options of the above. a is most common though.

[MerchantGhost]

This is not a problem at all. This explanation is not missing. It's called "natural selection."

To say that something "lacks mistakes" implies that there is a predetermined end product. This is a fallacious way of viewing evolution.

[MerchantGhost]

AronRa would have a word with you about point 1. lol

[Leann Claude]

Another thing: Look around you. Take in your bed or furniture for example. You see them right? So, where'd they come from? A maker! Everything around us has been made by a maker.That includes the entire cosmos. One completely elementary rule of science is that an effect cannot be greater than the cause. So, how does that support near nothingness into all of this? The only explanation is a supreme being made it. That being would have to be greater than the universe, of course. Jeremiah 10:12

[Leann Claude]

Well, why I didn't exactly appreciate the simple mind bit, you didn't start swearing so that was refreshing haha. I did understand and do respect you points. However, like all problems, you have to grab it by the roots and yank it out. The "roots" of evolution begin with the Big Bang. Just for a second, if you will, apply logic to that. How extraordinarily ridiculous does that really sound? That from nothing came everything? Why? How? When? It just doesn't come to a very concrete answer. (next)

[Carlos Eugenio Thompson Pinzón]

And they are also aware of evolution (at least what they call microevolution, but surely also macro).

There are a couple of verses in the Bible claiming that if those words are not accurate in the mundane so they are not accurate in the heavenly, so everything mundane (v.g. 6 day creation, flood, etc.) must be true. Or something like that.

Of course, that is one interpretation by certain Christians, not supported by any major denomination.

[NonAstrologer1]

If America was colonized by the British, why are there still British?

[Jordan Aoli]

I was brought up christian myself yet I don't get why fundamentalist christians deny evolution when they're well aware of the process of metamorphosis in which caterpillars become butterflies, tadpoles becomes frogs, and so on. The only difference is metamorphosis happens in a single lifetime whereas evolution happens over the course of thousands of lifetimes.

[billmaher4tw]

@TheAngryCanary <---- mistake. Lol

[billmaher4tw]

Like the music. Place credit please :) Good simple and to the point vid here, keep at it.

[WelshBucket]

(Apologies again)

There is less dissent over spherical Earth than over evolution for 2 main reasons:-

1. The model of an a spherical Earth is a much older idea than evolution (and has had more supporting evidence for longer), and so has had longer to pervade society.

2. The idea is much easier to understand and takes much less explaining, and the evidence is much easier to interpret than that of evolution.

FYI there is still a Flat Earth Society, some people are that crazy.