HHMI's Evolution - Evolution and Religion

Conclusion of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's 2005 Holiday Lectures in Science series. Drs. Sean B. Carroll and David M. Kingsley, along with Dr. Michael Ruse and Father James A Wiseman, discuss reconciling religious beliefs and modern science.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Evolution
• Creationism

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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]

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.

[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.

[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?

[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