 This is Brad Harab, PhD. He's a Christian Young Earth Creationist and founder of Focus Press, a Christian publishing company that produces material for sale to other creationists. Dr. Harab earned his PhD in Anatomy and Neurobiology from the University of Tennessee at Memphis. During his entire scientific career, he managed to produce a single Medline Indexed Paper in a very low impact journal on the topic of ischemia and heat shock proteins and hamsters. That paper has been cited 10 times, mostly by his co-author and advisor. If I can hypothesize a bit, I suspect he was one of the thousands of people who managed to squeak through grad school without having accomplished much and disillusioned by science, sea-comployment and other sectors. I suspect Dr. Harab saw an opportunity to take advantage of his brief scientific experience to raise his profile as an invited speaker at churches. It's certainly going to be an easier career than spending 10 hours a day in a lab scratching for grants and toiling away at lectures and exams. Dr. Harab was an invited speaker at a local church here in Texas, a church of Christ that is also attended by Don McElroy, the former head of the Texas Textbook Adoption Committee, who is also a creationist. Dr. McElroy, who is a local dentist, was also in attendance and asked by the pastor to stand and be applauded for his courageous actions in standing up to those liberal experts. I filmed the majority of Dr. Harab's talk using my tiny camera phone from my position in the fourth row. Unfortunately, Dr. Harab never responded to my request for an interview or permission to film. Contacting the sponsor church was likewise unproductive as the phone goes to a generic voicemail. What follows will be a series of short videos in which I play the shaky, granulated phone camera video of Dr. Harab's talk and then respond with a scientific rebuttal. I apologize in advance for the shockingly bad quality of the recording. At the very end there was a question and answer session, and yes I did have an extended exchange with Dr. Harab, but his arguments are so bad that it was hard to get to a single point without him interrupting me. We'll get to that at the end. Either we're here by chance with the fortune of mistakes of countless biochemical morons or there's something out there that there is something that has given man purpose and we were created in his image in life. Now as you look at those two options, I want to start by asking you a simple question. What is the only legal theory of origins that we're teaching in the public school system today? Evolution. I mean you think about it for just a moment. Young to old we're learning that humans probably evolved from bacteria that lived more than four billion years ago. We're being told that we evolved from some ape-like creature. And in fact nowadays they're even going so far as to try to say evolution is a fact not a theory. They say birds are rules from non-birds, humans from non-humans. Now you'll notice the copyright on this book. It's a 2000 copyright. They actually got their hand slapped for this one because you cannot technically say evolution is a fact. So what have they done to fix that? Let me show you. 2007 textbook. Take a look at how they changed the hierarchy of theories, facts, laws. I'm going to read it first. I'm reading this area here. I'll blow it up so that you can see it. It says scientific discoveries may be broadly categorized into four groups. Facts, hypothesis, laws, and theories. Notice this. In order of increasing importance. In other words, if you're not going to allow us to call it a fact, what we'll do is we'll just elevate the status of a theory above everything. About facts, about laws. Folks, that's not science. This is one of the most common misconceptions in science. And it's something that students should learn early in their education. That is the difference between a theory, hypothesis, law, and fact. Let's define these terms in reverse order. One, a fact is simply a confirmed observation. It is a fact that apples fall off trees. There is no useful information to be gained from facts by themselves, but they're at the heart of observation, which leads to the other elements of science here. Two, a law is the mathematical description of a single phenomenon. The inverse squares law, for example, describes the rate at which apples fall off of trees. It doesn't deal with anything except a useful model of the facts. Three, a hypothesis is a proposed mechanism to explain something. My hypothesis is that an apple will fall slower at the top of a mountain than at sea level. I could then test this single explanation. Four, a theory is the most useful of all of these elements. It's a complete model of relationships. For example, the theory of gravity is not just the inverse square law or the fact that apples fall off trees. It's an attempt at explaining the nature of the phenomenon. And we generally don't accept theories like self-theory or atomic theory until they've been well tested and supported. So Dr. Herob has missed the point entirely of the order in which we rank these things. And he's attempting to obfuscate the difference between the common, the have a theory, and the scientific use of theory. Evolution is both a theory and a fact in that we observe changes in allele frequency over time, fact. And also we have a unified theory that explains those changes, theory. The theory of evolution joins other scientific theories like the cell theory, the atomic theory, the theory of relativity, the heliocentric theory, the germ theory of disease, and molecular theory.