The reason creationism still flies is because creationists don’t have the time or the honesty to understand videos like these.
(Time is understandable– we’re all busy people; but intellectual dishonnesty is annoying– most don’t even try.)
Lovelovelove Hank Green and the vlogbrothers. Heading to this vid on Youtube to shake my head at the sure-to-exist comment war.
@Celestial_Teapot - I think thats much too general of an assumption. I agree most people don’t even try. But that is true on both sides. Its funny to me how arrogant some people can be after taking 1 semester of evolutionary biology in college. They think they know everything there is to know about evolutionary theory….as if taking a semester of physics gives me great knowledge of the nature of physical reality. Poor critical thinking skills and intellectual dishonesty are prevalent on both sides. In fact, I’d say intellectual dishonesty is more prevalent on the evolution side. While many creationists might be ignorant of the science, many evolutionist professors are intentionally deceptive in their lectures. They do so knowingly and without guilt because …after all….they are conveying a “truth” and the ends justify the means. Even the guy in this video is being intellectually dishonest (which I’m sure no evolutionist most simply didn’t picked up on). Aside for obvious biases and assumptions made in the video…I want to mention the Italian wall lizard. I’ve looked up the actual study myself. And in it the authors mention the lizards as genetically identical and also mention phenotypic plasticity. So, this clearly seems to be a case of epigenetic variation and a matter of gene expression. This should be COMPLETELY obvious to any biologist. At the LEAST, if I were a biologist, I would want to see for myself the genetic mutation itself…not merely a phenotypic change.And yet, this lizard is championed as not only a great example of evolution…but as evidence of hyper-evolution! This is utterly ridiculous….and yet you don’t think this is intellectually dishonest? But this is what occurs with many “evidences” of evolution….particularly those of the fossil record. They are prematurely paraded as definitive evidence for the “fact” of Darwinian theory and if it sticks…great. If later on it is shown that the evidence wasn’t really nearly as strong as previously thought….oh well…no biggie. This is intellectually honest?
So sure, there are some that are intellectually dishonest (and again, the same is true for both sides)….but its too much of a generalization to think someone that doesn’t believe in evolution is basically either dumb…or dishonest. I’m not an “evolutionist”. At the same time, I’m actually very open to it. Despite some xangan’s foolish assertions that I’m a creationist/Christian in disguise (*sigh*) I really have no dog in this fight. Its simply a topic I’m interested in….and have read many textbooks, books, and many a scientific study/paper on the subject (as I’m sure you have given your background). I think thats a better way of educating oneself on the topic rather than many people being convinced of evolution by 10 minute youtube videos that offer nothing really substantial to the debate.
@wizexel22 - It’s been like a year, and you still haven’t answered as to what you PERSONALLY believe in this debate.
@wizexel22 - They are prematurely paraded as definitive evidence for the “fact” of Darwinian theory and if it sticks…great. If later on it is shown that the evidence wasn’t really nearly as strong as previously thought….oh well…no biggie. This is intellectually honest?
As more study is conducted and new details emerge, what we know has to be adjusted from what we knew. It is not intellectual dishonesty to say, “This is what we thought, but further study has shown the situation to actually be something else.” That’s the way science works. The findings are reported, to keep them secret would be intellectual dishonesty, but to adjust as new information becomes available is basic scientific practice.
nice post.
[many evolutionist professors are intentionally deceptive in their lectures] Examples?
[ Even the guy in this video is being intellectually dishonest (which I'm sure no evolutionist most simply didn't picked up on).] Such as?
[Aside for obvious biases and assumptions made in the video] Like…?
[I want to mention the Italian wall lizard. I've looked up the actual study myself. And in it the authors mention the lizards as genetically identical and also mention phenotypic plasticity. So, this clearly seems to be a case of epigenetic variation and a matter of gene expression. ] Actually, it shows how major changes can happen in small amounts of time. Like how Creationists like to claim that you can’t create a wing out of a leg, but here we have a very large change in physiology in a very short amount of time. Not every single example is meant to prove all of evolution, something you seem to be driving at with this objection.
[But this is what occurs with many "evidences" of evolution....particularly those of the fossil record. They are prematurely paraded as definitive evidence for the "fact" of Darwinian theory and if it sticks...great. If later on it is shown that the evidence wasn't really nearly as strong as previously thought....oh well...no biggie. This is intellectually honest] If the fossil record doesn’t stick to the current understanding of evolution, then it changes. This is what happened long ago, when we thought that gorillas were our most common ancestors. Science changes on the evidence brought before it. That’s not a failing, that’s a benefit.
[ I think thats a better way of educating oneself on the topic rather than many people being convinced of evolution by 10 minute youtube videos that offer nothing really substantial to the debate.] I agree, and I never claimed that this 10 minute video alone would be enough to make up someone’s mind. If I thought 10 minutes was all it took, I would have stopped writing long ago. I also think it’s ridiculous to try and understand a concept as complex as evolutionary biology by a few articles here or there. Which, again, is a topic I’ve written about.
Once again (for maybe the 20th time?) I request you state what your actual beliefs are on the subject.
How dare you! God created the earth and everything living thing in it seven thousand years ago in seven actual 24 hour periods. Dinosaurs and man lived together. It never rained until the flood happened and the flood covered the entire planet. Also, for some reason, God hatted apples.
Sorry, I’m just messing with you.
@GodlessLiberal - Also, how stupid is this comment: “I would want to see for myself the genetic mutation itself…not merely a phenotypic change.”
Like, I could write a book on this. It actually made my mouth fall open. The misuse of “epigenetic variation” and other terminology was chuckle-worthy, but this is like mind-blowing.
@GodlessLiberal - Lol. Does he have to personally take sides? Some on here would discredit every word he writes if he professed to be one side or the other. (Not you, per se, but some.)
@Ooglick - Every time he comments it’s anti-evolution.
The concept of creationism, from my perspective (I say that a lot), is based on the 6k year old earth theory. This theory was born of ignorance, however, it evolved into a tool to convert people to religious belief. What follows a belief in young earth is a belief in mythological creatures, or other things like aliens etc. Really, no ufo believer believes in young earth, or very few, however the two views (aliens visit earth + young earth) are actually pretty inclusive. Two examples of delusions. Another belief that follows the young earth dogma is obviously creationism.
@liquor90 - Off-topic: After posting that, I’m stuck thinking that I used some kind of logical fallacy. It’s the danger of speaking your opinion, that once it’s out there, it’s pretty destructable. Also I probably did use a logical fallacy. However I do group ufologists and YE believers in the same category, and recognize it as a delusion. Creationism, I don’t see as a delusion. Although I believe a rejection of evolution is a delusion.
Basically, I have the perfect belief system for myself, and it doesn’t fly totally in the face of most of the modern world’s discoveries. Also I’m christian if you wanted to know :3
@liquor90 - What’s most telling of the “skeptics” on Xanga (they never admit to being creationists or ID proponents outright, which is very telling) is not how ignorant they are of evolution, but how ignorant they are of the theories they demand are correct. People come onto GL’s site all the time and promote Young Earth Creationism or intelligent design while have absolutely no idea what those theories entail, their level of support, or how those theories came into being. For example, ID proponents will come in here all the time and say “Yeah, creationism is wrong, but not ID.” the problem being that ID is just retooled creationism. We know, as a historical fact, ID was created by creationists in response to legal rulings keeping “creationism” out of public schools. You would think people challenging well-established scientific theories adopted by every prominent life scientist and every major academic/scientific institution would at least bother learning what their alternatives entail and where those theories came from. Nope. Not necessary to these people. All that’s required is the theories oppose evolution and are adopted by the right right-wing religious groups. That’s more “scientific” to these people than the theory that supplanted creationism over a hundred years ago and has become the most thoroughly researched scientific theory ever (evolution), both in terms of the number of studies conducted and the amount of money put into researching it. It’s so fucking crazy.
@GodlessLiberal - Also, didn’t he used to claim on his blog that he was a biologist? It was either him or some other asian Christian that I used to argue with here or elsewhere.
@UTRow1 - I should stop pressing buttons. “YE” is a button. “Ufologist” is a button. If only I could restrict myself to more controlled dialogue
My biology teacher uses crash course videos to help us in our lecture to understand certain topics. It’s great.
@liquor90 - Creationism is (on my site, and this is true for most scientists) used only in reference to Young Earth Creationists. Old Earth Creationists are usually referred to with the extra words tagged on. It’s like the Mitch Hedberg joke (RIP, buddy): “You know they call corn-on-the-cob “corn-on-the-cob,” right? But that’s how it comes out of the ground, man. They should call that “corn”, and they should call every other version “corn-off-the-cob.” It’s not like if you cut off my arm you would call my arm “Mitch”, but then reattach it and call it “Mitch-all-together.”
That being said, when calling something Creationism it’s pretty much assumed you’re talking YEC. There are plenty of Old Earth Creationists who are also strong proponents of evolution (like Kennith Miller, head of the Human Genome Project, who believe that God put that first “spark” into life billions of years ago).
I know I don’t comment often, but I just wanted to tell you I’m glad you’re here. Thanks for all the interesting posts and jokes. I never tire of your stuff.
Noticeable lack of SDFL on this. I guess Answers in Genesis hasn’t created a talking points list for people to regurgitate in response to these videos yet.
Very good teaching video, but I’m disappointed that he left out the most important and most compelling evidence for evolution – the evidence from genetics.
Comments (22)
The reason creationism still flies is because creationists don’t have the time or the honesty to understand videos like these.
(Time is understandable– we’re all busy people; but intellectual dishonnesty is annoying– most don’t even try.)
Lovelovelove Hank Green and the vlogbrothers. Heading to this vid on Youtube to shake my head at the sure-to-exist comment war.
@Celestial_Teapot - I think thats much too general of an assumption. I agree most people don’t even try. But that is true on both sides. Its funny to me how arrogant some people can be after taking 1 semester of evolutionary biology in college. They think they know everything there is to know about evolutionary theory….as if taking a semester of physics gives me great knowledge of the nature of physical reality. Poor critical thinking skills and intellectual dishonesty are prevalent on both sides. In fact, I’d say intellectual dishonesty is more prevalent on the evolution side. While many creationists might be ignorant of the science, many evolutionist professors are intentionally deceptive in their lectures. They do so knowingly and without guilt because …after all….they are conveying a “truth” and the ends justify the means. Even the guy in this video is being intellectually dishonest (which I’m sure no evolutionist most simply didn’t picked up on). Aside for obvious biases and assumptions made in the video…I want to mention the Italian wall lizard. I’ve looked up the actual study myself. And in it the authors mention the lizards as genetically identical and also mention phenotypic plasticity. So, this clearly seems to be a case of epigenetic variation and a matter of gene expression. This should be COMPLETELY obvious to any biologist. At the LEAST, if I were a biologist, I would want to see for myself the genetic mutation itself…not merely a phenotypic change.And yet, this lizard is championed as not only a great example of evolution…but as evidence of hyper-evolution! This is utterly ridiculous….and yet you don’t think this is intellectually dishonest? But this is what occurs with many “evidences” of evolution….particularly those of the fossil record. They are prematurely paraded as definitive evidence for the “fact” of Darwinian theory and if it sticks…great. If later on it is shown that the evidence wasn’t really nearly as strong as previously thought….oh well…no biggie. This is intellectually honest?
So sure, there are some that are intellectually dishonest (and again, the same is true for both sides)….but its too much of a generalization to think someone that doesn’t believe in evolution is basically either dumb…or dishonest. I’m not an “evolutionist”. At the same time, I’m actually very open to it. Despite some xangan’s foolish assertions that I’m a creationist/Christian in disguise (*sigh*) I really have no dog in this fight. Its simply a topic I’m interested in….and have read many textbooks, books, and many a scientific study/paper on the subject (as I’m sure you have given your background). I think thats a better way of educating oneself on the topic rather than many people being convinced of evolution by 10 minute youtube videos that offer nothing really substantial to the debate.
@wizexel22 - It’s been like a year, and you still haven’t answered as to what you PERSONALLY believe in this debate.
@wizexel22 - They are prematurely paraded as definitive
evidence for the “fact” of Darwinian theory and if it sticks…great. If
later on it is shown that the evidence wasn’t really nearly as strong
as previously thought….oh well…no biggie. This is intellectually
honest?
As more study is conducted and new details emerge, what we know has to be adjusted from what we knew. It is not intellectual dishonesty to say, “This is what we thought, but further study has shown the situation to actually be something else.” That’s the way science works. The findings are reported, to keep them secret would be intellectual dishonesty, but to adjust as new information becomes available is basic scientific practice.
nice post.
[many evolutionist professors are intentionally deceptive in their lectures]
Examples?
[ Even the guy in this video is being intellectually dishonest (which I'm sure no evolutionist most simply didn't picked up on).]
Such as?
[Aside for obvious biases and assumptions made in the video]
Like…?
[I want to mention the Italian wall lizard.
I've looked up the actual study myself. And in it the authors mention
the lizards as genetically identical and also mention phenotypic
plasticity. So, this clearly seems to be a case of epigenetic variation
and a matter of gene expression. ]
Actually, it shows how major changes can happen in small amounts of time. Like how Creationists like to claim that you can’t create a wing out of a leg, but here we have a very large change in physiology in a very short amount of time. Not every single example is meant to prove all of evolution, something you seem to be driving at with this objection.
[this lizard is championed as not only a great example of evolution...but as evidence of hyper-evolution!]
Sorry, where are you getting this “fact” of “hyper-evolution?” The only people that I know that profess a belief in hyper or super evolution are strict young earth creationists.
[But this is what occurs with many "evidences"
of evolution....particularly those of the fossil record. They are
prematurely paraded as definitive evidence for the "fact" of Darwinian
theory and if it sticks...great. If later on it is shown that the
evidence wasn't really nearly as strong as previously thought....oh
well...no biggie. This is intellectually honest]
If the fossil record doesn’t stick to the current understanding of evolution, then it changes. This is what happened long ago, when we thought that gorillas were our most common ancestors. Science changes on the evidence brought before it. That’s not a failing, that’s a benefit.
[ I think thats a better way of educating
oneself on the topic rather than many people being convinced of
evolution by 10 minute youtube videos that offer nothing really
substantial to the debate.]
I agree, and I never claimed that this 10 minute video alone would be enough to make up someone’s mind. If I thought 10 minutes was all it took, I would have stopped writing long ago. I also think it’s ridiculous to try and understand a concept as complex as evolutionary biology by a few articles here or there. Which, again, is a topic I’ve written about.
Once again (for maybe the 20th time?) I request you state what your actual beliefs are on the subject.
How dare you! God created the earth and everything living thing in it seven thousand years ago in seven actual 24 hour periods. Dinosaurs and man lived together. It never rained until the flood happened and the flood covered the entire planet. Also, for some reason, God hatted apples.
Sorry, I’m just messing with you.
@GodlessLiberal - Also, how stupid is this comment: “I would want to see for myself the genetic mutation itself…not merely a phenotypic change.”
Like, I could write a book on this. It actually made my mouth fall open. The misuse of “epigenetic variation” and other terminology was chuckle-worthy, but this is like mind-blowing.
@GodlessLiberal - Lol. Does he have to personally take sides? Some on here would discredit every word he writes if he professed to be one side or the other. (Not you, per se, but some.)
@Ooglick - Every time he comments it’s anti-evolution.
The concept of creationism, from my perspective (I say that a lot), is based on the 6k year old earth theory. This theory was born of ignorance, however, it evolved into a tool to convert people to religious belief. What follows a belief in young earth is a belief in mythological creatures, or other things like aliens etc. Really, no ufo believer believes in young earth, or very few, however the two views (aliens visit earth + young earth) are actually pretty inclusive. Two examples of delusions. Another belief that follows the young earth dogma is obviously creationism.
@liquor90 - Off-topic: After posting that, I’m stuck thinking that I used some kind of logical fallacy. It’s the danger of speaking your opinion, that once it’s out there, it’s pretty destructable. Also I probably did use a logical fallacy. However I do group ufologists and YE believers in the same category, and recognize it as a delusion. Creationism, I don’t see as a delusion. Although I believe a rejection of evolution is a delusion.
Basically, I have the perfect belief system for myself, and it doesn’t fly totally in the face of most of the modern world’s discoveries. Also I’m christian if you wanted to know :3
@liquor90 - What’s most telling of the “skeptics” on Xanga (they never admit to being creationists or ID proponents outright, which is very telling) is not how ignorant they are of evolution, but how ignorant they are of the theories they demand are correct. People come onto GL’s site all the time and promote Young Earth Creationism or intelligent design while have absolutely no idea what those theories entail, their level of support, or how those theories came into being. For example, ID proponents will come in here all the time and say “Yeah, creationism is wrong, but not ID.” the problem being that ID is just retooled creationism. We know, as a historical fact, ID was created by creationists in response to legal rulings keeping “creationism” out of public schools. You would think people challenging well-established scientific theories adopted by every prominent life scientist and every major academic/scientific institution would at least bother learning what their alternatives entail and where those theories came from. Nope. Not necessary to these people. All that’s required is the theories oppose evolution and are adopted by the right right-wing religious groups. That’s more “scientific” to these people than the theory that supplanted creationism over a hundred years ago and has become the most thoroughly researched scientific theory ever (evolution), both in terms of the number of studies conducted and the amount of money put into researching it. It’s so fucking crazy.
@GodlessLiberal - Also, didn’t he used to claim on his blog that he was a biologist? It was either him or some other asian Christian that I used to argue with here or elsewhere.
@UTRow1 - I should stop pressing buttons. “YE” is a button. “Ufologist” is a button. If only I could restrict myself to more controlled dialogue
My biology teacher uses crash course videos to help us in our lecture to understand certain topics. It’s great.
@liquor90 - Creationism is (on my site, and this is true for most scientists) used only in reference to Young Earth Creationists. Old Earth Creationists are usually referred to with the extra words tagged on. It’s like the Mitch Hedberg joke (RIP, buddy): “You know they call corn-on-the-cob “corn-on-the-cob,” right? But that’s
how it comes out of the ground, man. They should call that “corn”, and
they should call every other version “corn-off-the-cob.” It’s not like
if you cut off my arm you would call my arm “Mitch”, but then reattach
it and call it “Mitch-all-together.”
That being said, when calling something Creationism it’s pretty much assumed you’re talking YEC. There are plenty of Old Earth Creationists who are also strong proponents of evolution (like Kennith Miller, head of the Human Genome Project, who believe that God put that first “spark” into life billions of years ago).
I know I don’t comment often, but I just wanted to tell you I’m glad you’re here. Thanks for all the interesting posts and jokes. I never tire of your stuff.
@GodlessLiberal - I actually didn’t know that, thanks
Noticeable lack of SDFL on this. I guess Answers in Genesis hasn’t created a talking points list for people to regurgitate in response to these videos yet.
Very good teaching video, but I’m disappointed that he left out the most important and most compelling evidence for evolution – the evidence from genetics.