![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
Videos we'll be talking about:
The Debate: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xMpk7WerF
Dawkins Quote: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi360
Miss Teen America South Carolina 2007's education question: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WALIARHHL
Trust me, the third one will make total sense later, I just want to make sure everyone knows what I'm talking about when make references.
You asked me to prove the bible and God were scientific, and you say Hovind and his kind are full of crap. You said there was lots of evidence for evolution if I would just look for it. I have been. I have watched more evo-creation debates, evo classes, vblogs, and the like in the last month than I have in a long time, and I still don't get it. Anytime someone asks 'what proof is there for evolution' most evolutionists snirk, call them a creationist, tell them 'DNA' and mock the idea that they would even ask such a stupid question.
And this happens on every level. From the bottom-end student to the smartest men in education, evolutionists point to the fact that things EXIST, like DNA, and shrug like that's supposed to be proof it came to be naturalistically without direction or design. Over and over and over again I see this. When asked “well, exactly HOW did it come to be in the first place?” They go “ah, um, well, it might have, if you imagine it for a second, happened this way, but there's no record or proof, but hey, it's not creation, so it's still better than saying god did it. Hey, you're not a creationist are you?”
Richard Dawkins, probably more renowned in biology than Hawking is in physics, could have settled it with the question “Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?”
He sat for 19 seconds then asked for the camera to be shut off. After I have no idea how long, they started it again. His answer was:
“There's a popular misunderstanding of evolution that says that fish turned into reptiles and reptiles turned into mammals and that somehow we ought to be able to look around the world today and look at our ancestors, that we should be able to see the intermediates between fish and reptiles and between reptiles and mammals, that we should be able to see fish, kind of on their way to becoming reptiles, but of course that's not the way it is at all. You see, fish are modern animals, just as modern as we are, they're descended from ancestors which we're descended from, way back 300 million years ago there would have been an ancestor, which would have been the ancestor of both modern fish and the ancestor of modern humans, and that ancestor, if you could have been there then, you could have seen the first steps towards a fish, coming out onto the land and becoming something like an amphibian. But that was a long time ago, you wouldn't expect to see that today, so quite a lot of the misunderstanding of evolution I suppose stems from the fact that people are looking at modern animals and thinking Darwin said we are descended from them, but we're not, we're not descended from modern fish, not descended from modern monkeys, not descended from modern apes, they are modern animals just as we are, they're our cousins, not our ancestors.”
And you know what? I agree. Modern creatures can't be used to look at if evolution is true, cause they're contemporary. The problem is, he didn't answer the question.
The question was, “Can you give an example of a modern mutation, the mechanism of evolution, giving rise to information of any kind that was not present in the genome before.”
Dawkins surely heard of the bacteria spontaneously becoming able to eat something it couldn't before, why not bring that up? How about the frogs in the rainforest with legs .2 cm longer than average for it's species that you and several articles were telling me was conclusive proof of evolving? Why not any one of the hundred things we've discussed over and over and over that you told me were conclusive proof? The man is quite obviously smarter than probably any two of us combined, and an expert who is paid to do nothing but research this question to boot, why didn't he talk about those things? He dismissed the question, and talked around it.
When I bring up the division in mainstream science about what many of these things mean, you tell me that the ones that think anything other than “it's glaring proof of evolution” are crackpots and shouldn't be allowed to call themselves scientists, even when they are advocating evolution but saying “This one thing isn't proof of that, although evolution is still true.” Why is even suggesting that any little change is itself not proof for evolution a reason to ridicule? It's very hard to take it seriously when every person I ask “How does it work” just snickers at me like I'm dumb for not just 'getting it', reminds me the world is round, or some other similar thing.
So, I must assume
1) you all think I'm stupid, cause only stupid people can believe in God and Creation cause smart people all 'get it' but can't explain it on paper cause it's too complicated, or
2) you don't know either, but you've been taught evolution so hard that it has become indisputable and not subject to falsification in your mind, or
3) you guys don't believe it, or at least not completely, but are afraid of what it would mean if it was false and God really did create everything and, ultimately, makes the rules and has the right to judge you for what you do.
So, I've been rehashing everything I can find on the subject. Over and over and over I keep seeing the same thing, anytime a question is raised about a tenet of evolution, even by a supporter of evolution that is trying to get the right answer on the how, is met with derision, hostility, and in many cases termination from the university they work at. Just for saying one of the main legs of evolution may not be right, even though the theory itself is right. Groups like the National Center for Science Education state in no uncertain terms that their goal is to exclude the possibility of a nonnatural explanation of the universe from science classrooms and research, EVEN IF IT IS TRUE.
Then why is it, when pressed, these experts cannot even stay on topic, let alone explain even the simplest tenets of their viewpoint? Why is it that, even among themselves, they can only teach THAT it's true, but not HOW it's true?
I ended on 'Hovind at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University', where he was debating 3 scientist/instructors there. It was fairly typical of what I have seen so far, except this one stands out for being so definitive. Here were three experts from different fields against one man, one lowly stupid creationist; One expert on genetics and fossils, one prof of philosophy as far as I can tell, and one aerospace engineer. Together, they covered everything from big bang to modern life to the philosophical implications of it all. There was no “Well, this isn't my field, so I really can't answer that” here. Second, they are well credentialed. It's not a little community college, so that can't be used. It seemed to me, if anyone was gonna do it, these guys were.
I took notes. I was ready to research every link, every name, every paper they referenced. I expected that they'd present the most cutting edge information, and if time didn't permit to explain it, they'd give book names or a scientist's name that I could google or Amazon.com to look up the research.
I don't think, in the 2 ½ hour debate, they spent 40 minutes talking about the science of evolution, how it was a proven, tenable theory that stood the test of scrutiny. In fact, the 'genetics and fossil expert' spent most of his time saying “well, this creationist said something stupid, and this one said something stupid, and my information may be wrong, but at least I don't teach God did it!” rather than showing how his information was better. He appealed to philosophy, morality, environmentalism, and a host of other things as proof of evolution.
So, my point: You say, despite the fact that anyone I ever talk to about this can't present evidence that isn't rejected or ignored by the full-time experts on evolution, that evolution is a scientifically valid point of view.
Then try this. Watch the debate, and stay on track. Remember who these people are; they are not high school graduates who went to community college for a couple years and now talk whatever they think might be, these people are on the EDGE of modern scientific understanding. Watch, but follow these two principles:
Deferment 1: Accept the fact that these men, in their respective fields, know more than we do. In other words, acknowledge that all three of these people have access to the best information available to them, including information not available to us (scientist only journals and such), and are far more on the forefront of modern understanding than we are. In other words, if the Astrophysicist says “This is the most modern evidence”, we agree that 5 minutes and Google, or “well my professor said...”, does not trump that. Likewise, for whatever argument you have that 'proves' the point, but they don't use, ask yourself why they didn't use it. Surely they are aware of your idea; if it was better, why didn't they use it?
Deferment 2: We both accept the definitions of words as held by the people they relate to. In other words, Creationists define what Creationism means, and it's tenants, and Evolutionists define what Evolution means, and it's tenants. I won't say “Evolution teaches that...” and you won't say “Creation teaches that...” unless it is expressly stated or implied clearly by the definition of something. As an example, I won't say Evolution says God does not exist, because it's not relevant to the theory. On the other hand, the inclusion of “And the crust cooled down, and it rained on the rocks for millions of years, and the minerals and chemicals from those rocks that dissolved into the ocean provided the building blocks for amino acids which formed the first cell” does mean Evolution teaches we came from a rock.
I see no point in covering why I think Hovind is right, and there's more than enough people willing to deconstruct everything he had to say, so I'll focus on my notes on the Evolution Team's arguments, and give a time index for those wanting to jump around the video.
Opening Statements (15:50)
Immediately Jim Strayer defined evolution as “change in the gene pool of a population over time”. I had no issue with that definition.
He then claims that all branches of science agrees on the age of the earth, which is a bold faced lie. They revise the age of the earth all the time. Some new thing dates older than anything else, some new picture of the universe, etc.
Then he defines Natural Selection as 'survival of the fit', not 'fittest', meaning all that manage to have kids are 'fit'. I am curious how a whale swimming through a school of fish and eating a bunch, or a forest fire, or some other external disaster that the animal has no control over factors in, since otherwise 'fit' creatures will perish through no genetic fault of their own, and an otherwise unfit creature is left with no competition.
He then states that biological processes like photosynthesis and evolution are inefficient, because they have bad design. Fossils, Genetics, Morphology, Distribution and Embryology are his tools for demonstrating this, and he says they all agree, and that only one need exist to prove evolution definitively, that each can prove evolution on it's own.
He goes on to state that, because creationists lost the right to demand the teaching creation in court, that was proof it is unscientific. This is stupid. The government does not determine truth, and law/policy does not determine what is right. After all, isn't that what the gay rights people are fighting over, the fact that the law saying marriage is between a man and a woman is wrong and should be overturned?
And he is very wrong, a school, even a public school, CAN teach creation if they want (it is a PUBLIC school, by law what the PUBLIC wants taught is what gets taught), they just can't DEMAND it be taught if the school board and community don't want it. Likewise, Evolution CAN be dropped in favor of Creation entirely. That's what PUBLIC means.
He then calls 7th grade school boards stupid. lol.
He goes back to how “REAL schools that teach REAL science don't accept creation.”
He goes on to Creation textbooks, and rails against the fact that a) they have he words “God” and “Satan” in them, b) they use verses to explain the origin of something, and c) they don't cite REAL science articles or books. He never addresses whether or not the actual material is wrong, just that it has God in it and doesn't reference anything outside the bible. Does it teach the earth is flat? Does it teach that light moves through a vaccuum because Jesus smiled in that direction? Or does it teach orbital physics and stellar motion and about the oscillation principles of electromagnetic waves, including light? Apparently it teaches good science, because I'm fairly certain if he found a falsifiable piece of the material, even one, he would surely have brought it up. The only thing that was wrong with the book, it seems, was that it said God instead of Big Bang. But even though it teaches the mechanics of the world correctly, because it says God rather than Bang as the origin of it, that excludes it from science and consideration and is akin to using “Voodoo for dummies” as your science text.
He then appeals to the veracity of the equipment to validate the conclusions. He's basically saying “Since we gather the information we have about the world with scientific equipment, that means our conclusions about what that information is likewise right.” That's why String theory, which says that the atom model is a misinterpretation of the physical data they collected over the past some-odd years with the same equipment, is gaining momentum.
He said something to the effect of “You wouldn't want to not trust the equipment used to gather the information used solve a crime, so you shouldn't question the conclusions we have when the same equipment is used in biology.” Since our argument isn't in the ability of the equipment to gather sound data, but rather their interpretation of that data, this is a meaningless argument and a bit of a herring.
So, at the end of it all, he still presented 0 proofs that it is true, and several why he thinks creation is stupid, but he doesn't address anything to do WITH evolution other than to posit a definition of terms.
Maybe later? It's just the introduction.
Hovind asks Evolutionists Why, when bird scientists say there's too many differences between birds and theropods for one to turn into the other (with citation no less), do they still believe it? (34:16)
He completely ignored the question (didn't even say yes or no), and talked about overall change and how some things do well and some things do poorly, and that's how evolution works.
Then he asks about how creationists teach that one kind of animal on noah's ark evolved into wolves, foxes and dogs in 6,000 years when we teach that evolution can't happen over millions of years.
Now, I want to elaborate a bit here on the stupidity of this argument. If I told you “Creation is true, because if evolution is true then God didn't create the universe, then the universe wouldn't exist because no one would be there to create it” you would rightly call me a fool. The entire POINT is that if evolution were true, creation can't be, and so if evolution is true God is unnecessary to begin with.
He is doing the exact same thing. “If evolution is false, then creation is impossible because 6,000 years isn't long enough for evolution to happen.”
The whole point is that the original representative on the Ark for, to use his example, canine, ALREADY possessed the genetic adaptability for the traits of ALL canis-type animals we have today, and speciation occurred because those breeds LOST the ability to interbreed later to a greater or lesser extent. That's not evolution, that's inbreeding really messing with a localized population of an originally genetically robust population. We DO see it today, when a very small group of animals is cut off from the rest of the population for a few generations. Eventually, the inbreeding screws them up bad enough they can no longer return to their original population and breed. This is not evolution, as this causes the isolated group to die from genetic defects, not evolve into new creatures. We see this TODAY in the cheetah population. Lions and Tigers can interbreed because they have maintained a large enough population base to stay robust enough that most everything matches up (although I can't remember if Tigons or Ligers are sterile). Cheetahs are so inbred from such a tiny population that they cannot breed with other cats anymore, and are STUCK breeding with very close relatives. They are gonna die out soon too. If you take 4 brown rabbits and only let them and their kids breed with each other, eventually they will lose the ability to become grey or white. This is genetic loss, not proof of evolution, and certainly not proof that noah's ark didn't exist.
And I reiterate AGAIN he avoided the question entirely (didn't even say “No I don't, that's stupid, and I'm gonna use my time to go after this” or “yes, I do, cause I know better than avian scientists”) and went after an aspect of creation, and even one whose principle arguments are as remarkably demonstrable as population genetics in an isolated group. Where's my proof of evolution? Surely he's getting to it, he just talked down miracles and reiterated the importance of proof.
....and again I am disappointed. So a 'creationist' says the original reason thorns exist is because Adam and Eve fell into sin, and he can't accept that as scientific evidence. Well duh. It's not supposed to be. No one, not even the 'creationist', is claiming it's scientific proof. It is a conclusion drawn FROM proof, or rather the lack of it, regarding the biological origin of the plant in the first place. That's like arguing “I can't accept the theory of evolution as proof that DNA exists.” Evolution is a CONCLUSION reached, Creation is a CONCLUSION reached, based on looking at the FACT that it exists, not the other way around.
Guy in the middle justified National Geographic's printing of the articles on the bird-dino fossil that was quickly found to be a hoax on the grounds that it was retracted and it shows that the scientific process is working, and with religion there's no room for falsification. He's ignoring completely that the 'religious' system he is against doesn't dictate how things work, just where they came from. Saying “God created the universe and life and set up the mechanisms we see today” is not the same as saying “Well you see, animals change because God goes down into the cells and jiggles the handle”. The HOW it works is falsifiable, but there's no way to show ORIGIN from either perspective. But kudos for actually answering the question put to him. It's sad that the professor of philosophy is the first one to actually answer a question.
Hovind asks the evolutionists if their textbook teaches the appendix is vestigial and proof for evolution, when we know exactly what it does and what it's for. (45:40)
Biology prof says yes it does teach the appendix is vestigial, but it doesn't teach God though, so what's the point?
I'd like to point out that he didn't say “well a vestige can do something, just not it's original function”. The definition of a vestige is something that is retained but no longer has a function AT ALL. Otherwise it's NOT VESTIGIAL.
At this point he admits that his book teaches an out and out lie, but because it doesn't teach that there's a God, this is perfectly acceptable. Is that really how you feel? That it's OK to teach a complete lie, so long as the possibility of God is never addressed?
He then goes on to reiterate that DNA changes.
And then to downplay the importance of vestigial structures as a proof of evolution.
After a few seconds of silence, he says Man made God and the computer. Hovind's rhetorical question (for those clicking through his parts) was “what if I asked you to explain how this computer came to be, but you cannot use man as your answer” to illustrate the scientific community's policy on origins. This is EXACTLY THE POINT. A computer HAS to have a designer. Creation HAS to have a creator.
But he goes on about how it was made by people, people with intelligence, who know how to love, and hate, and have relationships, because they have intelligence. We have intelligence because we have brains, brains cause we have DNA. Then he strawmans creationists by saying we teach that people without religion don't have feelings and don't follow the law. He also claims the Constitution doesn't mention God, even though the preamble says “We hold these truths to be self evident, that we are endowed by our CREATOR certain inalienable rights”.
Then he goes on about the “birds got wings, fish got tails, we got brains” thing.
So the first question the biologist actually answered was to admit he willingly and knowingly supports and teaches a lie, an abject bold-faced lie, because it's not teaching God.
Guy in the middle says the problem between science and religion is that religion is seeking truth, and science is not. I was always told science was THE search for truth. I mean, isn't that why we don't use divining rods or drawing straws to decide who committed a crime, but a methodical process designed to weed out innocent people as accurately as possible?
Thus far two prestigious scientists have openly admitted science and evolution AREN'T about GETTING THE TRUTH. WTH? He goes on to say that this fact is what makes talking to religious people so frustrating, cause religious people weasel out of things that make them uncomfortable with what they believe to be the truth is, and they just make up new rules and excuses to get around hard science. I can see how that might be frustrating, when people make stuff up and teach it to others so they can ignore hard science, which shows the truth of things. But it doesn't seek the truth. It deals in probabilities of truth. Of which Special Creation is 0% probable. Like the appendix being vestigial.
Honestly, at this point if I didn't know what good science was supposed to look like, I'd have a hard time keeping my faith in science at ALL. 'Science is the only way we can know the truth, but it isn't a search for truth, only probabilities'? That is a dogma that can only be applied to evolution. We KNOW how far it is to the moon because we can bounce stuff off it, and do basic math. There is no probability in this. The moon isn't 'probably' there, or 'probably' so far away, or 'probably' orbiting the earth, or 'probably' causing tidal forces.
Bah, moving on.
Hovind asks if whale evolution is mentioned in their book as proof of evolution, as it is in a ton of other science books around the country. (55:30)
He said the book does not teach whale vestigial pelvis, and that it is the most ignorant statement he's ever heard. This right after he admitted that he himself supports the appendix as a vestige a few minutes ago. Methinks he's learning the game, wot.
He goes on to say that, while not vestiges, the whale 'hip' does indeed prove evolution via the fossil record. How they know the animal the bones were attached to lived near water, and that there was a physical descent from one form to another from a few bones scattered across the world, is beyond me. We can barely tell the paternity of some deadbeat dads today, and they want us to believe they can pick through a skeleton encased in rock and say “Yes, this one is definitely the ancestor of this one”.
He then goes on to say we shouldn't believe Revelation, Authority (even him), Tradition (like a method of science that doesn't work maybe?), but only evidence, and the science used to get it. The same science they JUST said wasn't intended to get the truth, but rather a probability that might be A truth. And then, in the same breath, says he has no evidence of Noah or God and he DOES have evidence of evolution, and he can PROVE it. And that's where he stops. He can prove it. We're now 57 minutes and 47 seconds into a 2 hour 20 minute debate, and not ONCE has he presented one shred of evidence that wasn't “Yeah, well Creation's stupid.”
And then Miss South Carolina gives it a shot for map-based education and The Iraq.
The aerospace engineer opens with “cogito ergo sum, all I can really know is that I exist, I don't even really know whether you are here or just a figment of my imagination, but there's a high probability I believe in you (again, not sure if I believe in you, who may or may not exist, there's a probability though, and it's pretty high) but here's why evolution is true and creation is stupid.”
I listened to him go through his point THREE TIMES. What I got was
I exist, you probably exist, and probably the big bang probably made the earth cool down probably, and it's probably complicated enough that you, being dumber than me and maybe not even exist, can confuse the process (?!) by misinterpreting the results. They, the smart ones (well, the ones that may or may not exist), use the scientific method, based on the best available data, to form what they know is true about a universe that may or may not exist probably. But it's a probability of truth that they may or may not have.
And we follow this logical path to it's ultimate terminus; chicken. He likes chicken, because they descended from dinosaurs, and dinosaurs probably ate our ancestors. That may or may not have existed probably in a universe that somehow came to be maybe.
And the whole point of that, from the best I can comprehend, is that he's warning about straying from the established proven tested ideas (that may or may not exist), down the path of voodoo science (which also stands a statistical chance of possibly or possibly not existing, unless it's Special Creation by God, in which case we can KNOW it's 0%).
If you're just reading this without the accompanying video saying “You are totally taking it out of context, there's no way it's that stupid” LOAD THE VIDEO to about 58:30 for the above, it runs from about 58:30 to 1:01:20 . I will admit he doesn't actually say “may or may not” to monty pythonesque levels during his piece, but he started by saying “I cannot know anything but my mind exists, I may be making this up” and proceeded to say that believing God created everything was voodoo science. I think we left the Legitimate Science bus a LOOOOONG time ago. As a matter of fact, we have words for people who have made-up people in their head and can't tell if what they see and hear and feel is real or not. And we have medicine for it too.
Moving on.
Open Forum question, is the big bang theory a reasonable scientific theory. (1:06:50)
Miss South Carolina explains that the big bang is one of two theories, and the other involves a constant energy that exists and is constantly generated inside, and that's obviously false, so yes, the big bang is scientific.
The evidence for the big bang is that radiotelescopes can point in any direction and pick up background static in space by a guy that got a nobel prize for this discovery, and they believe that the fact that background radiation exists and comes from everywhere proves that the universe exploded from nothing into nothing and created everything. He also says that the big bang being the prevailing theory is proof it might be right.
As he explains it:
1 There was a void with no space; not an empty space with nothing in it, there was no SPACE.
2 Somehow, a black hole the size of an atom (in no space mind you) became unstable and exploded (no idea where it came from or how it became unstable or even fit into a 0-dimensional space) and filled a space the size of an atom (which means.... the same size as the black hole) with 10^6 more mass than the universe has now.
3 we believe in the conservation of mass, which says all things have to be conserved at the beginning, middle and end.
4 therefore, we are here and know that the information had to exist at the beginning
5 you can believe whatever you want about how it got here, but I don't know how God could go outside the universe to make it because there's nothing outside the universe (kinda like where the black hole was)
6 So we have from 10 billion years ago the cooling of energy and the formation of stars materials and planets, and 4-6 billion years ago we had a crust around earth, and eventually some chemicals got together and we had life, and the rest is here. We're here, you're here.
7 The details of how it happened are less important than the fact that it DID happen.
Sounds perfectly tenable to me, I suppose, for a religion. But not for science. Well, maybe the probability science he uses that may or may not exist.
And he never resolves 10^6 more mass than we have now and conservation of mass.
And after all this, the philosopher asks him (cause he's more knowledgable) if the hubble pictures might prove evolution.
He says knowledge of the universe is increasing so fast, and we know for sure that time goes forward into entropy into diversity, which itself generates through time everything that's possible.
And all of that means what? Where is the evidence? Where is the semblance of scientific inquiry? May have, might, probably, if we imagine it and don't care about filling in the gaps, but Creation is too stupid to even consider.
Next Open Question: Carbon dating (1:17:20)
After Hovind gives an explanation of how C14 dating is supposed to work, and why it doesn't, it goes over to the Fossil expert. He makes a joke and goes right into a pamphlet from a creation research institute and makes fun of them for praying for wisdom to find truth.
Then he went on to show how dumb a creationist explanation of why short-term dates are effective (they aren't) but long term ones aren't. That's fine.
Why didn't he correct the explanation of carbon dating, and explain why it actually works just fine? Why did he immediately go to, and stay at, trying to make the other side look stupid? Why not correct it properly, and educate the folly of the explanation Hovind gave?
It's because it works exactly the way Hovind said it does. They have to date an object multiple times, even recent ones, to get an 'uncontaminated' sample that gives the right date. They can't correct Hovind's explanation, because the effectiveness of carbon dating relies ENTIRELY on the pre-existing dates given on the geologic column. They decide how old something is, and date samples until they get a date that's close enough.
Next Question: What's the purpose of life, and why go on living if you believe in evolution (1:27:20)
I applaud the philosophy guy for making a real attempt to reconcile blind chance with meaning. He is utterly and completely missing the point though. Making your own purpose does not address the need to be loved, the need for basic material things, fear of not being alive, and ultimate meaning of one's actions beyond living long enough to pass genes on. It does not reconcile the drives and feelings one has toward, for and against things, how to deal with moral issues (especially in light of morality being totally subjective and in fact not existent under evolution), or any of the intangibles that people who are suffering have a deep need to reconcile. When someone strives toward a goal, something of deep meaning to them, and is opposed and attacked the whole way, and made unable to achieve that which he most wants, what indeed IS the purpose of living any longer? Why suffer a second longer than necessary if, once you die, slip off into an eternal nothing and cease to be? Why suffer LONGER to stop existing afterward?
The biology guy completely ignores all philosophical and spiritual implications of someone basically saying “Why shouldn't I kill myself” and he launches into a tirade on how some animals are fit to survive and some aren't, and that emotions and feelings are the result of nothing more than having the right chemicals at the right time, and importance is governed by what chemicals we have, and traits that make us survive, not by anything outside of or greater than ourselves.
And then he tops it off by saying 'some of us get a better deck than others, you can't be something more than that by wishing, cause it's in the DNA, and all you can do is try to find a niche'.
And again, he proves evolution's reasonability by citing that since you can't remember being conceived, we need no firsthand account of something evolving, modern guesswork is enough.
I'd also like to point out his comment about “We know evolution is true because it says cats and dogs are closer related than dogs and frogs. If evolution said dogs and frogs were closer, we would know we had a problem.” How so? If the research DID show that, wouldn't that be the de facto definition? He continues to run with the “The way I see it now is right, and any evidence that could surface that I am wrong is to be rejected, cause I am right in my viewpoint” logic tree. He's doing the same thing he accuses Creationists of.
Oh, and fossils don't mean anything, unlike it was about 40 or so minutes ago during whale anatomy class.
Next Question: Thermodynamics (1:44:00)
disorder = entropy = whatever word you want to use, not an argument against creation on the grounds of terms.
Miss South Carolina up again.
Black Holes are cool, so that proves evolution.
And we shouldn't believe in creation because that means we have to ask God to overcome the laws of thermodynamics, and that is less tenable than to say it happened on it's own with no known mechanism even though it's an immutable law. Because we can take advantage of the law now to drive our car while staying cool. Sort of, I think that's what he's saying. I wish I had a map of The Iraq, maybe that would help.
Next Question: Where is evolution going to take mankind? (1:47:50)
Opening thought “Well, I'll tell you we'll never have a war over a disagreement over science”. How does that relate to the question at all? “Evolution is true cause we don't have wars over science”. Very scientific.
Evolution is inefficient, but so is intelligent design, cause God did a bad job of designing humans. How is this addressing where evolution is going?
“Do you know how many kids die every year from choking on a toy, due to the inefficiency of the design of your throat?”
Why yes I do.
“11 toy-related deaths were reported in children under 15 in the US 2003” (US Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2003)
“The OPCS identified 136 children (99 boys, 37 girls) in the two year period, 65% were under 3 years of age.The children were classified as dying from choking (21 cases), aspirating gastric contents (39 cases), suffocation (29 cases), strangulation (11 cases), and hanging (36 cases). “ - Archives of Disease in Childhood, Vol. 72(1) Jan 1995
SO, like, 10 kids a year choke to death on toys. Truly, it is the greatest proof for the tenability of evolution ever.
Same with his other examples. “I don't think it's the most efficient way, so it must not be, ipso facto evolution is true.”
And he likes the question, because it means people are looking at protecting the environment and conserving natural resources. Then he strawmans the bible saying Creationists teach not to worry about anything, cause God is gonna kill us all, lulzroflroflrofl.
So we should worry about the environment and our future, and we need to understand biology, how our body works NOW, so evolution is true. And it's VERY important to understand that we evolve slowly, so we cannot OBSERVE evolution to prove it.
Oh, and his daddy told him any book that doesn't have a bibliography may not be true, and bibles don't have one, so there.
So basically, even on a question where he can MAKE SHIT UP AND STILL BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY, he chooses to rail against Creation INSTEAD.
Man in the middle actually tries to address the actual question, if not answer. I want to point out that the professor of logic is actually answering the questions more relevantly/better than BOTH the mechanical scientists, although he never actually answers any question either. Creation is wrong because it's not democratic.
Closing (1:58:20)
Without the scientific method, we have no defense against ignorance. I couldn't agree more.
Miss South Carolina thinks the discussion proved evolution. Which basically means
Undecided: “I think there's evidence the universe might not have come about naturalistically.”
Creationist: “That's what we've been saying forever.”
Evolutionist: “Oh yeah, well the bible's stupid. QED, Evolution's true. Ha! If I was sure you exist, I'd be more or less sure I won.”
Man in the middle says the only world is immediate around you, thus we exist within theoretical frameworks, and science can adapt and learn no matter what the truth is and where the path of truth leads, thus creation is stupid and must be excluded because it is stupid. Oh, and a loving God wouldn't allow sin to make mankind require punishment, so that's proof He's not real. And democracy proved the bible wrong.
Guy on the right thinks the bible talking about the earth rotating on it's axis has to do with the '6 day thing' and ignores completely the fact that Christians have known, since 4000 years ago, the earth is a sphere and floats through space and rotates on it's axis and goes around the sun. I agree the verse in question was not the best choice for non-creationists reading the book, and the company was stupid for acting that way, but that doesn't disprove creation any more than the guy in the middle being nice proves evolution.
On entropy, “Wax old like a garment” seems pretty clear. “In the same way a garment wears out over time, the heavens and earth will do the same.”
On his conspiracy quote, it STILL DOES NOT ADDRESS THE SCIENTIFIC REASONABILITY OF EVOLUTION. They keep fighting the battle on philosophical grounds rather than technical ones, and these guys are supposed to be the EXPERTS ON THE TECHNICAL. Why? Why do they feel the need to justify it intellectually rather than purely mechanically? According to them, LOTS of people convert to evolutionist philosophy purely by mechanical evidence, where is it?
On his explanation of stupid science in the bible:
Cockatrice. Come ON. The bible doesn't say it's any of that, it is a transliteration of the name of an animal. Just like horse. Just because we have made a mythical beast and call it that does not prove the bible wrong. The bible talks about many normal animals we have today, and does it in the same way. It references a known animal of the time, our mythological cockatrice is a completely separate invention.
They use the word Dragon because they didn't have a better word for what they saw. Their dragon is not the same thing as our knight-in-shining-armor-saves-princess dragon. Hell, we call a giant lizard from the island of Komodo a dragon TODAY, does that mean our literature books talking about it will be considered stupid religious mumbo jumbo a thousand years from now?
Same with unicorns. THEY had an animal they called that, the translators had no idea what it was, probably because it went extinct a few thousand years before the modern-aged translators got the texts.
My Closing
Bottom line, if you can watch this and still believe evolution is tenable, I don't know if I can help you. Over and over and over, whenever a part of evolution has actual scrutiny applied to it, it fails utterly. The best arguments I hear for evolution are usually “Well, someone else has the PROOF, and what I have supports it”.
That's not science.
The Debate: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xMpk7WerF
Dawkins Quote: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi360
Miss Teen America South Carolina 2007's education question: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WALIARHHL
Trust me, the third one will make total sense later, I just want to make sure everyone knows what I'm talking about when make references.
You asked me to prove the bible and God were scientific, and you say Hovind and his kind are full of crap. You said there was lots of evidence for evolution if I would just look for it. I have been. I have watched more evo-creation debates, evo classes, vblogs, and the like in the last month than I have in a long time, and I still don't get it. Anytime someone asks 'what proof is there for evolution' most evolutionists snirk, call them a creationist, tell them 'DNA' and mock the idea that they would even ask such a stupid question.
And this happens on every level. From the bottom-end student to the smartest men in education, evolutionists point to the fact that things EXIST, like DNA, and shrug like that's supposed to be proof it came to be naturalistically without direction or design. Over and over and over again I see this. When asked “well, exactly HOW did it come to be in the first place?” They go “ah, um, well, it might have, if you imagine it for a second, happened this way, but there's no record or proof, but hey, it's not creation, so it's still better than saying god did it. Hey, you're not a creationist are you?”
Richard Dawkins, probably more renowned in biology than Hawking is in physics, could have settled it with the question “Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?”
He sat for 19 seconds then asked for the camera to be shut off. After I have no idea how long, they started it again. His answer was:
“There's a popular misunderstanding of evolution that says that fish turned into reptiles and reptiles turned into mammals and that somehow we ought to be able to look around the world today and look at our ancestors, that we should be able to see the intermediates between fish and reptiles and between reptiles and mammals, that we should be able to see fish, kind of on their way to becoming reptiles, but of course that's not the way it is at all. You see, fish are modern animals, just as modern as we are, they're descended from ancestors which we're descended from, way back 300 million years ago there would have been an ancestor, which would have been the ancestor of both modern fish and the ancestor of modern humans, and that ancestor, if you could have been there then, you could have seen the first steps towards a fish, coming out onto the land and becoming something like an amphibian. But that was a long time ago, you wouldn't expect to see that today, so quite a lot of the misunderstanding of evolution I suppose stems from the fact that people are looking at modern animals and thinking Darwin said we are descended from them, but we're not, we're not descended from modern fish, not descended from modern monkeys, not descended from modern apes, they are modern animals just as we are, they're our cousins, not our ancestors.”
And you know what? I agree. Modern creatures can't be used to look at if evolution is true, cause they're contemporary. The problem is, he didn't answer the question.
The question was, “Can you give an example of a modern mutation, the mechanism of evolution, giving rise to information of any kind that was not present in the genome before.”
Dawkins surely heard of the bacteria spontaneously becoming able to eat something it couldn't before, why not bring that up? How about the frogs in the rainforest with legs .2 cm longer than average for it's species that you and several articles were telling me was conclusive proof of evolving? Why not any one of the hundred things we've discussed over and over and over that you told me were conclusive proof? The man is quite obviously smarter than probably any two of us combined, and an expert who is paid to do nothing but research this question to boot, why didn't he talk about those things? He dismissed the question, and talked around it.
When I bring up the division in mainstream science about what many of these things mean, you tell me that the ones that think anything other than “it's glaring proof of evolution” are crackpots and shouldn't be allowed to call themselves scientists, even when they are advocating evolution but saying “This one thing isn't proof of that, although evolution is still true.” Why is even suggesting that any little change is itself not proof for evolution a reason to ridicule? It's very hard to take it seriously when every person I ask “How does it work” just snickers at me like I'm dumb for not just 'getting it', reminds me the world is round, or some other similar thing.
So, I must assume
1) you all think I'm stupid, cause only stupid people can believe in God and Creation cause smart people all 'get it' but can't explain it on paper cause it's too complicated, or
2) you don't know either, but you've been taught evolution so hard that it has become indisputable and not subject to falsification in your mind, or
3) you guys don't believe it, or at least not completely, but are afraid of what it would mean if it was false and God really did create everything and, ultimately, makes the rules and has the right to judge you for what you do.
So, I've been rehashing everything I can find on the subject. Over and over and over I keep seeing the same thing, anytime a question is raised about a tenet of evolution, even by a supporter of evolution that is trying to get the right answer on the how, is met with derision, hostility, and in many cases termination from the university they work at. Just for saying one of the main legs of evolution may not be right, even though the theory itself is right. Groups like the National Center for Science Education state in no uncertain terms that their goal is to exclude the possibility of a nonnatural explanation of the universe from science classrooms and research, EVEN IF IT IS TRUE.
Then why is it, when pressed, these experts cannot even stay on topic, let alone explain even the simplest tenets of their viewpoint? Why is it that, even among themselves, they can only teach THAT it's true, but not HOW it's true?
I ended on 'Hovind at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University', where he was debating 3 scientist/instructors there. It was fairly typical of what I have seen so far, except this one stands out for being so definitive. Here were three experts from different fields against one man, one lowly stupid creationist; One expert on genetics and fossils, one prof of philosophy as far as I can tell, and one aerospace engineer. Together, they covered everything from big bang to modern life to the philosophical implications of it all. There was no “Well, this isn't my field, so I really can't answer that” here. Second, they are well credentialed. It's not a little community college, so that can't be used. It seemed to me, if anyone was gonna do it, these guys were.
I took notes. I was ready to research every link, every name, every paper they referenced. I expected that they'd present the most cutting edge information, and if time didn't permit to explain it, they'd give book names or a scientist's name that I could google or Amazon.com to look up the research.
I don't think, in the 2 ½ hour debate, they spent 40 minutes talking about the science of evolution, how it was a proven, tenable theory that stood the test of scrutiny. In fact, the 'genetics and fossil expert' spent most of his time saying “well, this creationist said something stupid, and this one said something stupid, and my information may be wrong, but at least I don't teach God did it!” rather than showing how his information was better. He appealed to philosophy, morality, environmentalism, and a host of other things as proof of evolution.
So, my point: You say, despite the fact that anyone I ever talk to about this can't present evidence that isn't rejected or ignored by the full-time experts on evolution, that evolution is a scientifically valid point of view.
Then try this. Watch the debate, and stay on track. Remember who these people are; they are not high school graduates who went to community college for a couple years and now talk whatever they think might be, these people are on the EDGE of modern scientific understanding. Watch, but follow these two principles:
Deferment 1: Accept the fact that these men, in their respective fields, know more than we do. In other words, acknowledge that all three of these people have access to the best information available to them, including information not available to us (scientist only journals and such), and are far more on the forefront of modern understanding than we are. In other words, if the Astrophysicist says “This is the most modern evidence”, we agree that 5 minutes and Google, or “well my professor said...”, does not trump that. Likewise, for whatever argument you have that 'proves' the point, but they don't use, ask yourself why they didn't use it. Surely they are aware of your idea; if it was better, why didn't they use it?
Deferment 2: We both accept the definitions of words as held by the people they relate to. In other words, Creationists define what Creationism means, and it's tenants, and Evolutionists define what Evolution means, and it's tenants. I won't say “Evolution teaches that...” and you won't say “Creation teaches that...” unless it is expressly stated or implied clearly by the definition of something. As an example, I won't say Evolution says God does not exist, because it's not relevant to the theory. On the other hand, the inclusion of “And the crust cooled down, and it rained on the rocks for millions of years, and the minerals and chemicals from those rocks that dissolved into the ocean provided the building blocks for amino acids which formed the first cell” does mean Evolution teaches we came from a rock.
I see no point in covering why I think Hovind is right, and there's more than enough people willing to deconstruct everything he had to say, so I'll focus on my notes on the Evolution Team's arguments, and give a time index for those wanting to jump around the video.
Opening Statements (15:50)
Immediately Jim Strayer defined evolution as “change in the gene pool of a population over time”. I had no issue with that definition.
He then claims that all branches of science agrees on the age of the earth, which is a bold faced lie. They revise the age of the earth all the time. Some new thing dates older than anything else, some new picture of the universe, etc.
Then he defines Natural Selection as 'survival of the fit', not 'fittest', meaning all that manage to have kids are 'fit'. I am curious how a whale swimming through a school of fish and eating a bunch, or a forest fire, or some other external disaster that the animal has no control over factors in, since otherwise 'fit' creatures will perish through no genetic fault of their own, and an otherwise unfit creature is left with no competition.
He then states that biological processes like photosynthesis and evolution are inefficient, because they have bad design. Fossils, Genetics, Morphology, Distribution and Embryology are his tools for demonstrating this, and he says they all agree, and that only one need exist to prove evolution definitively, that each can prove evolution on it's own.
He goes on to state that, because creationists lost the right to demand the teaching creation in court, that was proof it is unscientific. This is stupid. The government does not determine truth, and law/policy does not determine what is right. After all, isn't that what the gay rights people are fighting over, the fact that the law saying marriage is between a man and a woman is wrong and should be overturned?
And he is very wrong, a school, even a public school, CAN teach creation if they want (it is a PUBLIC school, by law what the PUBLIC wants taught is what gets taught), they just can't DEMAND it be taught if the school board and community don't want it. Likewise, Evolution CAN be dropped in favor of Creation entirely. That's what PUBLIC means.
He then calls 7th grade school boards stupid. lol.
He goes back to how “REAL schools that teach REAL science don't accept creation.”
He goes on to Creation textbooks, and rails against the fact that a) they have he words “God” and “Satan” in them, b) they use verses to explain the origin of something, and c) they don't cite REAL science articles or books. He never addresses whether or not the actual material is wrong, just that it has God in it and doesn't reference anything outside the bible. Does it teach the earth is flat? Does it teach that light moves through a vaccuum because Jesus smiled in that direction? Or does it teach orbital physics and stellar motion and about the oscillation principles of electromagnetic waves, including light? Apparently it teaches good science, because I'm fairly certain if he found a falsifiable piece of the material, even one, he would surely have brought it up. The only thing that was wrong with the book, it seems, was that it said God instead of Big Bang. But even though it teaches the mechanics of the world correctly, because it says God rather than Bang as the origin of it, that excludes it from science and consideration and is akin to using “Voodoo for dummies” as your science text.
He then appeals to the veracity of the equipment to validate the conclusions. He's basically saying “Since we gather the information we have about the world with scientific equipment, that means our conclusions about what that information is likewise right.” That's why String theory, which says that the atom model is a misinterpretation of the physical data they collected over the past some-odd years with the same equipment, is gaining momentum.
He said something to the effect of “You wouldn't want to not trust the equipment used to gather the information used solve a crime, so you shouldn't question the conclusions we have when the same equipment is used in biology.” Since our argument isn't in the ability of the equipment to gather sound data, but rather their interpretation of that data, this is a meaningless argument and a bit of a herring.
So, at the end of it all, he still presented 0 proofs that it is true, and several why he thinks creation is stupid, but he doesn't address anything to do WITH evolution other than to posit a definition of terms.
Maybe later? It's just the introduction.
Hovind asks Evolutionists Why, when bird scientists say there's too many differences between birds and theropods for one to turn into the other (with citation no less), do they still believe it? (34:16)
He completely ignored the question (didn't even say yes or no), and talked about overall change and how some things do well and some things do poorly, and that's how evolution works.
Then he asks about how creationists teach that one kind of animal on noah's ark evolved into wolves, foxes and dogs in 6,000 years when we teach that evolution can't happen over millions of years.
Now, I want to elaborate a bit here on the stupidity of this argument. If I told you “Creation is true, because if evolution is true then God didn't create the universe, then the universe wouldn't exist because no one would be there to create it” you would rightly call me a fool. The entire POINT is that if evolution were true, creation can't be, and so if evolution is true God is unnecessary to begin with.
He is doing the exact same thing. “If evolution is false, then creation is impossible because 6,000 years isn't long enough for evolution to happen.”
The whole point is that the original representative on the Ark for, to use his example, canine, ALREADY possessed the genetic adaptability for the traits of ALL canis-type animals we have today, and speciation occurred because those breeds LOST the ability to interbreed later to a greater or lesser extent. That's not evolution, that's inbreeding really messing with a localized population of an originally genetically robust population. We DO see it today, when a very small group of animals is cut off from the rest of the population for a few generations. Eventually, the inbreeding screws them up bad enough they can no longer return to their original population and breed. This is not evolution, as this causes the isolated group to die from genetic defects, not evolve into new creatures. We see this TODAY in the cheetah population. Lions and Tigers can interbreed because they have maintained a large enough population base to stay robust enough that most everything matches up (although I can't remember if Tigons or Ligers are sterile). Cheetahs are so inbred from such a tiny population that they cannot breed with other cats anymore, and are STUCK breeding with very close relatives. They are gonna die out soon too. If you take 4 brown rabbits and only let them and their kids breed with each other, eventually they will lose the ability to become grey or white. This is genetic loss, not proof of evolution, and certainly not proof that noah's ark didn't exist.
And I reiterate AGAIN he avoided the question entirely (didn't even say “No I don't, that's stupid, and I'm gonna use my time to go after this” or “yes, I do, cause I know better than avian scientists”) and went after an aspect of creation, and even one whose principle arguments are as remarkably demonstrable as population genetics in an isolated group. Where's my proof of evolution? Surely he's getting to it, he just talked down miracles and reiterated the importance of proof.
....and again I am disappointed. So a 'creationist' says the original reason thorns exist is because Adam and Eve fell into sin, and he can't accept that as scientific evidence. Well duh. It's not supposed to be. No one, not even the 'creationist', is claiming it's scientific proof. It is a conclusion drawn FROM proof, or rather the lack of it, regarding the biological origin of the plant in the first place. That's like arguing “I can't accept the theory of evolution as proof that DNA exists.” Evolution is a CONCLUSION reached, Creation is a CONCLUSION reached, based on looking at the FACT that it exists, not the other way around.
Guy in the middle justified National Geographic's printing of the articles on the bird-dino fossil that was quickly found to be a hoax on the grounds that it was retracted and it shows that the scientific process is working, and with religion there's no room for falsification. He's ignoring completely that the 'religious' system he is against doesn't dictate how things work, just where they came from. Saying “God created the universe and life and set up the mechanisms we see today” is not the same as saying “Well you see, animals change because God goes down into the cells and jiggles the handle”. The HOW it works is falsifiable, but there's no way to show ORIGIN from either perspective. But kudos for actually answering the question put to him. It's sad that the professor of philosophy is the first one to actually answer a question.
Hovind asks the evolutionists if their textbook teaches the appendix is vestigial and proof for evolution, when we know exactly what it does and what it's for. (45:40)
Biology prof says yes it does teach the appendix is vestigial, but it doesn't teach God though, so what's the point?
I'd like to point out that he didn't say “well a vestige can do something, just not it's original function”. The definition of a vestige is something that is retained but no longer has a function AT ALL. Otherwise it's NOT VESTIGIAL.
At this point he admits that his book teaches an out and out lie, but because it doesn't teach that there's a God, this is perfectly acceptable. Is that really how you feel? That it's OK to teach a complete lie, so long as the possibility of God is never addressed?
He then goes on to reiterate that DNA changes.
And then to downplay the importance of vestigial structures as a proof of evolution.
After a few seconds of silence, he says Man made God and the computer. Hovind's rhetorical question (for those clicking through his parts) was “what if I asked you to explain how this computer came to be, but you cannot use man as your answer” to illustrate the scientific community's policy on origins. This is EXACTLY THE POINT. A computer HAS to have a designer. Creation HAS to have a creator.
But he goes on about how it was made by people, people with intelligence, who know how to love, and hate, and have relationships, because they have intelligence. We have intelligence because we have brains, brains cause we have DNA. Then he strawmans creationists by saying we teach that people without religion don't have feelings and don't follow the law. He also claims the Constitution doesn't mention God, even though the preamble says “We hold these truths to be self evident, that we are endowed by our CREATOR certain inalienable rights”.
Then he goes on about the “birds got wings, fish got tails, we got brains” thing.
So the first question the biologist actually answered was to admit he willingly and knowingly supports and teaches a lie, an abject bold-faced lie, because it's not teaching God.
Guy in the middle says the problem between science and religion is that religion is seeking truth, and science is not. I was always told science was THE search for truth. I mean, isn't that why we don't use divining rods or drawing straws to decide who committed a crime, but a methodical process designed to weed out innocent people as accurately as possible?
Thus far two prestigious scientists have openly admitted science and evolution AREN'T about GETTING THE TRUTH. WTH? He goes on to say that this fact is what makes talking to religious people so frustrating, cause religious people weasel out of things that make them uncomfortable with what they believe to be the truth is, and they just make up new rules and excuses to get around hard science. I can see how that might be frustrating, when people make stuff up and teach it to others so they can ignore hard science, which shows the truth of things. But it doesn't seek the truth. It deals in probabilities of truth. Of which Special Creation is 0% probable. Like the appendix being vestigial.
Honestly, at this point if I didn't know what good science was supposed to look like, I'd have a hard time keeping my faith in science at ALL. 'Science is the only way we can know the truth, but it isn't a search for truth, only probabilities'? That is a dogma that can only be applied to evolution. We KNOW how far it is to the moon because we can bounce stuff off it, and do basic math. There is no probability in this. The moon isn't 'probably' there, or 'probably' so far away, or 'probably' orbiting the earth, or 'probably' causing tidal forces.
Bah, moving on.
Hovind asks if whale evolution is mentioned in their book as proof of evolution, as it is in a ton of other science books around the country. (55:30)
He said the book does not teach whale vestigial pelvis, and that it is the most ignorant statement he's ever heard. This right after he admitted that he himself supports the appendix as a vestige a few minutes ago. Methinks he's learning the game, wot.
He goes on to say that, while not vestiges, the whale 'hip' does indeed prove evolution via the fossil record. How they know the animal the bones were attached to lived near water, and that there was a physical descent from one form to another from a few bones scattered across the world, is beyond me. We can barely tell the paternity of some deadbeat dads today, and they want us to believe they can pick through a skeleton encased in rock and say “Yes, this one is definitely the ancestor of this one”.
He then goes on to say we shouldn't believe Revelation, Authority (even him), Tradition (like a method of science that doesn't work maybe?), but only evidence, and the science used to get it. The same science they JUST said wasn't intended to get the truth, but rather a probability that might be A truth. And then, in the same breath, says he has no evidence of Noah or God and he DOES have evidence of evolution, and he can PROVE it. And that's where he stops. He can prove it. We're now 57 minutes and 47 seconds into a 2 hour 20 minute debate, and not ONCE has he presented one shred of evidence that wasn't “Yeah, well Creation's stupid.”
And then Miss South Carolina gives it a shot for map-based education and The Iraq.
The aerospace engineer opens with “cogito ergo sum, all I can really know is that I exist, I don't even really know whether you are here or just a figment of my imagination, but there's a high probability I believe in you (again, not sure if I believe in you, who may or may not exist, there's a probability though, and it's pretty high) but here's why evolution is true and creation is stupid.”
I listened to him go through his point THREE TIMES. What I got was
I exist, you probably exist, and probably the big bang probably made the earth cool down probably, and it's probably complicated enough that you, being dumber than me and maybe not even exist, can confuse the process (?!) by misinterpreting the results. They, the smart ones (well, the ones that may or may not exist), use the scientific method, based on the best available data, to form what they know is true about a universe that may or may not exist probably. But it's a probability of truth that they may or may not have.
And we follow this logical path to it's ultimate terminus; chicken. He likes chicken, because they descended from dinosaurs, and dinosaurs probably ate our ancestors. That may or may not have existed probably in a universe that somehow came to be maybe.
And the whole point of that, from the best I can comprehend, is that he's warning about straying from the established proven tested ideas (that may or may not exist), down the path of voodoo science (which also stands a statistical chance of possibly or possibly not existing, unless it's Special Creation by God, in which case we can KNOW it's 0%).
If you're just reading this without the accompanying video saying “You are totally taking it out of context, there's no way it's that stupid” LOAD THE VIDEO to about 58:30 for the above, it runs from about 58:30 to 1:01:20 . I will admit he doesn't actually say “may or may not” to monty pythonesque levels during his piece, but he started by saying “I cannot know anything but my mind exists, I may be making this up” and proceeded to say that believing God created everything was voodoo science. I think we left the Legitimate Science bus a LOOOOONG time ago. As a matter of fact, we have words for people who have made-up people in their head and can't tell if what they see and hear and feel is real or not. And we have medicine for it too.
Moving on.
Open Forum question, is the big bang theory a reasonable scientific theory. (1:06:50)
Miss South Carolina explains that the big bang is one of two theories, and the other involves a constant energy that exists and is constantly generated inside, and that's obviously false, so yes, the big bang is scientific.
The evidence for the big bang is that radiotelescopes can point in any direction and pick up background static in space by a guy that got a nobel prize for this discovery, and they believe that the fact that background radiation exists and comes from everywhere proves that the universe exploded from nothing into nothing and created everything. He also says that the big bang being the prevailing theory is proof it might be right.
As he explains it:
1 There was a void with no space; not an empty space with nothing in it, there was no SPACE.
2 Somehow, a black hole the size of an atom (in no space mind you) became unstable and exploded (no idea where it came from or how it became unstable or even fit into a 0-dimensional space) and filled a space the size of an atom (which means.... the same size as the black hole) with 10^6 more mass than the universe has now.
3 we believe in the conservation of mass, which says all things have to be conserved at the beginning, middle and end.
4 therefore, we are here and know that the information had to exist at the beginning
5 you can believe whatever you want about how it got here, but I don't know how God could go outside the universe to make it because there's nothing outside the universe (kinda like where the black hole was)
6 So we have from 10 billion years ago the cooling of energy and the formation of stars materials and planets, and 4-6 billion years ago we had a crust around earth, and eventually some chemicals got together and we had life, and the rest is here. We're here, you're here.
7 The details of how it happened are less important than the fact that it DID happen.
Sounds perfectly tenable to me, I suppose, for a religion. But not for science. Well, maybe the probability science he uses that may or may not exist.
And he never resolves 10^6 more mass than we have now and conservation of mass.
And after all this, the philosopher asks him (cause he's more knowledgable) if the hubble pictures might prove evolution.
He says knowledge of the universe is increasing so fast, and we know for sure that time goes forward into entropy into diversity, which itself generates through time everything that's possible.
And all of that means what? Where is the evidence? Where is the semblance of scientific inquiry? May have, might, probably, if we imagine it and don't care about filling in the gaps, but Creation is too stupid to even consider.
Next Open Question: Carbon dating (1:17:20)
After Hovind gives an explanation of how C14 dating is supposed to work, and why it doesn't, it goes over to the Fossil expert. He makes a joke and goes right into a pamphlet from a creation research institute and makes fun of them for praying for wisdom to find truth.
Then he went on to show how dumb a creationist explanation of why short-term dates are effective (they aren't) but long term ones aren't. That's fine.
Why didn't he correct the explanation of carbon dating, and explain why it actually works just fine? Why did he immediately go to, and stay at, trying to make the other side look stupid? Why not correct it properly, and educate the folly of the explanation Hovind gave?
It's because it works exactly the way Hovind said it does. They have to date an object multiple times, even recent ones, to get an 'uncontaminated' sample that gives the right date. They can't correct Hovind's explanation, because the effectiveness of carbon dating relies ENTIRELY on the pre-existing dates given on the geologic column. They decide how old something is, and date samples until they get a date that's close enough.
Next Question: What's the purpose of life, and why go on living if you believe in evolution (1:27:20)
I applaud the philosophy guy for making a real attempt to reconcile blind chance with meaning. He is utterly and completely missing the point though. Making your own purpose does not address the need to be loved, the need for basic material things, fear of not being alive, and ultimate meaning of one's actions beyond living long enough to pass genes on. It does not reconcile the drives and feelings one has toward, for and against things, how to deal with moral issues (especially in light of morality being totally subjective and in fact not existent under evolution), or any of the intangibles that people who are suffering have a deep need to reconcile. When someone strives toward a goal, something of deep meaning to them, and is opposed and attacked the whole way, and made unable to achieve that which he most wants, what indeed IS the purpose of living any longer? Why suffer a second longer than necessary if, once you die, slip off into an eternal nothing and cease to be? Why suffer LONGER to stop existing afterward?
The biology guy completely ignores all philosophical and spiritual implications of someone basically saying “Why shouldn't I kill myself” and he launches into a tirade on how some animals are fit to survive and some aren't, and that emotions and feelings are the result of nothing more than having the right chemicals at the right time, and importance is governed by what chemicals we have, and traits that make us survive, not by anything outside of or greater than ourselves.
And then he tops it off by saying 'some of us get a better deck than others, you can't be something more than that by wishing, cause it's in the DNA, and all you can do is try to find a niche'.
And again, he proves evolution's reasonability by citing that since you can't remember being conceived, we need no firsthand account of something evolving, modern guesswork is enough.
I'd also like to point out his comment about “We know evolution is true because it says cats and dogs are closer related than dogs and frogs. If evolution said dogs and frogs were closer, we would know we had a problem.” How so? If the research DID show that, wouldn't that be the de facto definition? He continues to run with the “The way I see it now is right, and any evidence that could surface that I am wrong is to be rejected, cause I am right in my viewpoint” logic tree. He's doing the same thing he accuses Creationists of.
Oh, and fossils don't mean anything, unlike it was about 40 or so minutes ago during whale anatomy class.
Next Question: Thermodynamics (1:44:00)
disorder = entropy = whatever word you want to use, not an argument against creation on the grounds of terms.
Miss South Carolina up again.
Black Holes are cool, so that proves evolution.
And we shouldn't believe in creation because that means we have to ask God to overcome the laws of thermodynamics, and that is less tenable than to say it happened on it's own with no known mechanism even though it's an immutable law. Because we can take advantage of the law now to drive our car while staying cool. Sort of, I think that's what he's saying. I wish I had a map of The Iraq, maybe that would help.
Next Question: Where is evolution going to take mankind? (1:47:50)
Opening thought “Well, I'll tell you we'll never have a war over a disagreement over science”. How does that relate to the question at all? “Evolution is true cause we don't have wars over science”. Very scientific.
Evolution is inefficient, but so is intelligent design, cause God did a bad job of designing humans. How is this addressing where evolution is going?
“Do you know how many kids die every year from choking on a toy, due to the inefficiency of the design of your throat?”
Why yes I do.
“11 toy-related deaths were reported in children under 15 in the US 2003” (US Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2003)
“The OPCS identified 136 children (99 boys, 37 girls) in the two year period, 65% were under 3 years of age.The children were classified as dying from choking (21 cases), aspirating gastric contents (39 cases), suffocation (29 cases), strangulation (11 cases), and hanging (36 cases). “ - Archives of Disease in Childhood, Vol. 72(1) Jan 1995
SO, like, 10 kids a year choke to death on toys. Truly, it is the greatest proof for the tenability of evolution ever.
Same with his other examples. “I don't think it's the most efficient way, so it must not be, ipso facto evolution is true.”
And he likes the question, because it means people are looking at protecting the environment and conserving natural resources. Then he strawmans the bible saying Creationists teach not to worry about anything, cause God is gonna kill us all, lulzroflroflrofl.
So we should worry about the environment and our future, and we need to understand biology, how our body works NOW, so evolution is true. And it's VERY important to understand that we evolve slowly, so we cannot OBSERVE evolution to prove it.
Oh, and his daddy told him any book that doesn't have a bibliography may not be true, and bibles don't have one, so there.
So basically, even on a question where he can MAKE SHIT UP AND STILL BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY, he chooses to rail against Creation INSTEAD.
Man in the middle actually tries to address the actual question, if not answer. I want to point out that the professor of logic is actually answering the questions more relevantly/better than BOTH the mechanical scientists, although he never actually answers any question either. Creation is wrong because it's not democratic.
Closing (1:58:20)
Without the scientific method, we have no defense against ignorance. I couldn't agree more.
Miss South Carolina thinks the discussion proved evolution. Which basically means
Undecided: “I think there's evidence the universe might not have come about naturalistically.”
Creationist: “That's what we've been saying forever.”
Evolutionist: “Oh yeah, well the bible's stupid. QED, Evolution's true. Ha! If I was sure you exist, I'd be more or less sure I won.”
Man in the middle says the only world is immediate around you, thus we exist within theoretical frameworks, and science can adapt and learn no matter what the truth is and where the path of truth leads, thus creation is stupid and must be excluded because it is stupid. Oh, and a loving God wouldn't allow sin to make mankind require punishment, so that's proof He's not real. And democracy proved the bible wrong.
Guy on the right thinks the bible talking about the earth rotating on it's axis has to do with the '6 day thing' and ignores completely the fact that Christians have known, since 4000 years ago, the earth is a sphere and floats through space and rotates on it's axis and goes around the sun. I agree the verse in question was not the best choice for non-creationists reading the book, and the company was stupid for acting that way, but that doesn't disprove creation any more than the guy in the middle being nice proves evolution.
On entropy, “Wax old like a garment” seems pretty clear. “In the same way a garment wears out over time, the heavens and earth will do the same.”
On his conspiracy quote, it STILL DOES NOT ADDRESS THE SCIENTIFIC REASONABILITY OF EVOLUTION. They keep fighting the battle on philosophical grounds rather than technical ones, and these guys are supposed to be the EXPERTS ON THE TECHNICAL. Why? Why do they feel the need to justify it intellectually rather than purely mechanically? According to them, LOTS of people convert to evolutionist philosophy purely by mechanical evidence, where is it?
On his explanation of stupid science in the bible:
Cockatrice. Come ON. The bible doesn't say it's any of that, it is a transliteration of the name of an animal. Just like horse. Just because we have made a mythical beast and call it that does not prove the bible wrong. The bible talks about many normal animals we have today, and does it in the same way. It references a known animal of the time, our mythological cockatrice is a completely separate invention.
They use the word Dragon because they didn't have a better word for what they saw. Their dragon is not the same thing as our knight-in-shining-armor-saves-princess dragon. Hell, we call a giant lizard from the island of Komodo a dragon TODAY, does that mean our literature books talking about it will be considered stupid religious mumbo jumbo a thousand years from now?
Same with unicorns. THEY had an animal they called that, the translators had no idea what it was, probably because it went extinct a few thousand years before the modern-aged translators got the texts.
My Closing
Bottom line, if you can watch this and still believe evolution is tenable, I don't know if I can help you. Over and over and over, whenever a part of evolution has actual scrutiny applied to it, it fails utterly. The best arguments I hear for evolution are usually “Well, someone else has the PROOF, and what I have supports it”.
That's not science.
2 comments | Leave a comment
