Darwin’s Intelligent Design

Liberals vs Conservatives May 1st, 2008 Racism

"Open your mind" week continues, and today's topic - Darwin vs God. But we're gonna call it Intelligent Design cause we want to get this video into classrooms.

Uh Oh! No video. You will need the Flash player and Javascript enabled to watch this show.

“Open Your Mind Week” continues, and today’s topic: Darwin vs. God! [Bell rings] But we’re gonna call it “intelligent design,” ’cause we want to get this video into classrooms. A while back, we made a show on the scientific method. It got featured on Youtube, and the flame war begain. All we were trying to say is that lots of stuff is labelled “science” that isn’t really scientific, and some people have started treating science like a religion. But no-one really paid attention to what we actually said; the whole thing just degenerated into a discussion– debate– no, catfight about evolution vs. intelligent design.

But I’m gonna stick by my original assertion: that some people do treat science like a religion, and among them, noted evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. He’s like the poster child for neo-Darwinism. You know, like the Pope for Catholicism, or Tom Cruise for Scientology-ism. He’s also the guy who said, “As a scientist, I am pretty hostile to a rival doctrine.” Rival doctrine? I looked up “doctrine” in my dictionary; it’s defined as “a belief or set of beliefs held by a church, political party, or other group.” But focus on the beginning: a doctrine is a belief. So just like any other religious zealot, Dr. Dawkins is hostile to opposing beliefs, like creationism, and intelligent design. Because they’re the same thing, right?

Well, no, they’re not. And who do I call as my expert witness? Dr. Richard Dawkins! In an interview with Ben Stein for the movie Expelled, he stated quite clearly that no-one knows how life started, and that there’s a real possibility that life on this planet may have been seeded or influenced by higher forms of life. Like aliens or something. Told you they were here. Gotta make this into a hat somehow.

So he agrees that life could have been influenced or created by someone not from around here. So what are we fighting about? Semantics. You see, Dr. Dawkins doesn’t like it when people call the extraterrestrial God. Probably because he got paddled in Sunday School as a kid. Hooray! The debate is over! We solved the intelligent design-evolution war! Now we can all be friends again. And now people can teach intelligent design in schools. Some people hope to use that as a stepping-stone to teach creationism in the classroom, but think about that, guys. Do you really want the Bible taught in schools? I remember when high school English teachers did to Tom Sawyer – ruined. Forever. Do you really want them doing that with your holy writ? Maybe we should just stick to ABCs, 123s, and boiling things in test tubes.

Beyond that, I have one real major issue with intelligent design: it’s not science. At least, no-one to date has been able to show me the theory in a truly scientific light. They say some things are complex, so complex that they must have been created intelligently, rather than accidentally. Okay. But at what point of complexity? I mean, where do you draw the line? It seems arbitrary, and that’s not very scientific. Uh, maybe we shouldn’t teach it as science. Maybe philosophy or something. But there are other philosophies that get taught in science class. You know, like evolution. Woah, buddy – don’t tangle with the Dawkins doctrine.

Let’s examine the facts around evolution: if it ever did take place, it isn’t now. At least not that anyone can demonstrate. And the odds of it happening are really, really, really long. If scientists and educators could own up to that, I’m sure ID never would have even come up. But most people who believe in evolution aren’t willing to admit how unlikely it is, because it dramatically weakens their argument. And if you disagree that it’s unlikely, then you’re in another pickle, because if the odds are good, then you figure we’d have seen evidence of it by now. Like, concrete evidence of it. People like to point out natural selection and the resulting speciation as evidence of evolution, because there’s a mountain of data to support both of those as testable, observable science. But don’t forget: we define what a species is, and no amount of ash on trees has ever changed a moth, dark or light, into a bee or a bird.

They also like to point at bacterial mutation as evidence of evolution, but I have an issue with that, too. We’ve been watching those little guys since the invention of the microscope over 300 years ago, and while they’ve changed genetically and adapted as bacteria, they’ve never evolved into a new, higher form of life. Think about this: if a bacterial generation is 20 minutes, and a human generation is 20 years, then they should be evolving 525,000 times faster than we are. And if it took 3.2 million years for Lucy, the alleged missing linke, to become modern man, we should expect to see similar evolutionary advancements in bacteria in a period of just six years. [Whistles]. Wow. And I’m talking about real evolution. Not just slight alterations to DNA, or building up immunities to this or that, but transforming, actually evolving into something more complex – a brand new form of life. A higher form of life. They ought to have their own little civilization, and have bacto-mobiles, and at least be insects by now. I dunno.

“Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening,” says Dawkins. “It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you – the detective – hasn’t actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue. Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English.” But ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh!  Dr. Dawkins! Pick me! Pick me! Circumstantial evidence is subject to interpretation, and doesn’t necessarily prove anything. It’s like seeing two bones on the ground 40 feet apart and assuming it came from the same animal. Skullcap, thigh bone – Java Man!

The evidence of evolution may indeed spell out a message in plain English. We’ve never seen it happen. We can’t prove it happened, we can’t reproduce it, but it’s the best we’ve got, so we have to believe it. Which is a pretty poor qualifier for teaching it as an undeniable fact to impressionable young minds. Why don’t we just teach the truth? We don’t know how life came about. Why is that so threatening? You can’t prove that evolution happened, or that it didn’t. It’s beyond the current capacity of science to draw a conclusion with any degree of certainty. And if we were to subject evolutionary theory to the same rigors that scientists want to impose on ID, it probably wouldn’t pass the test to be classified as science, either.

So you think we made ‘em mad? All of ‘em? Hey, whether you’re into creationism, ID, or evolution, you know where our website is. Flame responsibly. [Bell rings]

Transcribed by: Justin G.

By Request:

MOYERS: Is evolution a theory, not a fact?
DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.
MOYERS: What do you mean it’s been observed.
DAWKINS: The consequences of. It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you… the detective hasn’t actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue. Now, any detective…
MOYERS: Circumstantial evidence.
DAWKINS: Circumstantial evidence, but masses of circumstantial evidence. Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English. Evolution is true. I mean it’s as circumstantial as that, but it’s as true as that.

Bill Moyers Richard Dawkins Interview.

Share the show:

Copy this code onto your site or blog:


  • 7/23/14 @ 13:55

    Evidences for Young Earth Creationism – Page 2 – Christian Forums

    […] […]

  • 7/23/14 @ 13:36

    What Good Is Darwinian Evolution? – Page 14 – Christian Forums

    […] into something more complex – a brand new form of life. A higher form of life." What You Ought To Know : Darwin’s Intelligent Design __________________ My personal apologetics website: To view links or images in signatures […]

  • 2/6/14 @ 7:03

    Bill Nye the Science Guy vs Ken Ham Young Earth Creationist ‘debate’ – Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President – Page 8 – City-Data Forum

    […] What You Ought To Know : Darwin’s Intelligent Design I think this sums up things pretty good. […]

  • 1/17/13 @ 0:14


    I like it

  • 9/6/12 @ 3:50


    Congratulations to WYOTK on your Golden Crocoduck nomination!


    Can I suggest you research and check the sources you use more rigorously in future? Spurious videos with edits a 2 year old could see are not good sources.

  • 10/9/11 @ 12:44


    The only problem with this video is that you seem to think that evolution is a theory of how life began… It’s not. We do teach in schools that we do not know how life began. The truth as you stated. The beginning of life has nothing to do with evolution.

  • 6/18/11 @ 8:00

    The Perspicacious Loris

    You kept the foil-ball ball?

  • 6/18/11 @ 7:56

    The Perspicacious Loris

    To me, it makes sense to say that God set evolution in motion. If the animals and plants (and people) He created couldn’t adapt to a changing environment, how could it be intelligent?

  • 6/11/11 @ 1:08


    I find this entire argument stupid. i dunno maybe the way its taught in america is different but where i went to school (australia btw). we were never taught any science that wasnt observable straight off the bat on simple "this is how it is" terms. We were taught full historys and discoverys how each theory was hammered out into what we have today. noone ever said to us the reasons for things a ... (more)
  • 4/4/11 @ 13:07


    Dawkins is definitely a religious zealot. That part of your video, I agree with completely, having read one of his books. I disagree with you on several key points though. You say that evolution isn’t happening now. In fact, all evidence points to the fact that it is. The problem is that it’s just happening so slowly we can’t observe it until afterwards. Much like you can’t see a child ... (more)
  • 3/29/11 @ 11:31


    On you tube there’s a series called “before the dinosaurs”. What fantasy. How “science” KNOWS that certain dinosaurs did “pushups” as part of their mating/fighting rituals is beyond me. The series if full of things like this teaching everyone such as fact.

  • 3/7/11 @ 9:57

    There’s no such thing as "Separation of Church and State"

    [...] moral fabric into humanity, as well as such rights, they could not exist. As the Brothers Winn at WhatYouOughtToKnow.com have sarcastically noted, Richard Dawkins has pondered the possibility of us being designed by [...]

  • 3/3/11 @ 13:33

    The Guy Who Knows

    Since I KNOW: I say macro evolution is a bunch of nonsence. Micro evolution is possible though. A single cell can't turn into a complex organism! It's like a bike. You can take a bike and make slight changes to it (Micro evolution), but you cant take a bike and turn it into a motorscycle! There just arn't enough parts!AND THEN you have natural selection! The evolutionists say "mutations will m ... (more)
  • 2/28/11 @ 10:21


    @Perrygirl: Yes, and this is why it is so vital to eliminate *all* biases and preconceptions before even touching anything like this. Any time we look for the truth about something, be it religious truth, scientific truth, or even the truth about “Now where on Earth did I put my shoes?”, we can’t afford to let prejudice of any kind hold us back…unless you feel like walking barefoot… ;)

  • 2/25/11 @ 7:29


    @ thor123422: Cosidering everything about evelution is all based on theory how do we even know it took 2 million+ years for bacteria to evolve?
    Even IF it is true saying something is fact from a theory is not scientific. I mean if I have preconceved notions about something I can get anything to back up my idea.

  • 2/23/11 @ 1:07


    Whoops forgot something. Observing bacteria not going to a higher being isn’t a good argument. It took bacteria over 2 billion years (I think, its something 1b +) to have multicellularity. Comparing it to lucy isn’t a good argument.

  • 2/23/11 @ 1:05


    There's 2 big problems with his argument against evolution here. 1. He drastically, and I mean HORRIBLY DRASTICALLY DOESN'T EVEN SCRATCH THE SURFACE of the amount of evidence for evolution. Every field of biological science from embryology to dentistry to everything else is able to construct the same phylogenetic tree of species based on their own evidence completely independent of each other ... (more)
  • 1/24/11 @ 15:29


    I am surprised by the egotistical and elitist comments posted by many. You claim that anyone who is a biologist, mathematician and etc are the only ones who truly understand evolution and that anyone else is not intelligent enough or are too weak-willed to push aside their "faith". I know many anthropologists and biologists who believe in a creator and evolution to an extent. Think about it...e ... (more)
  • 12/15/10 @ 6:16


    I have spent quite a long time figuring this out myself. Full disclosure: I'm an ex-creationist myself, I was convinced by the evidence, not by being taught in school. Even in high school, I found the evidence presented in the textbooks to be weak and circumstantial -- perhaps a common creator is responsible for common traits, rather than a common ancestor? --- However, the evidence is very ... (more)
  • 12/10/10 @ 6:10


    I agree that the brothers Winn didn't have good explanations for stuff (like the bacteria), but they were right on one very specific thing: ITS A THEORY. A fact is 100% true (although we have no real facts just a theory that hold water with no leaks). However a theory is a idea. Evolution Is not 100% true (and has holes [see my last post]) Natural selection. Yes it's around. Now what in the world ... (more)
  • 12/9/10 @ 18:25


    But going from a single cell bacteria to a multi-cellular organism is a bit different Lucy to a modern human. Besides, once we developed technology and grew upon each idea, hey, the entire world was trying not to get extinct. There are some examples though. Take a domesticated cow, it decided to let itself be herded together to be later slaughtered to benefit its species as a whole. It adapted ... (more)
  • 11/29/10 @ 11:49


    mrnighttime: I am genuinely interested in why you think that evolution is a sound theory (no I truly am I promise).I have a list of doubts that I haven't been able to get plausible answers for. You must have done your research on this. Tell me the answer to the question I really want answered. Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has publish ... (more)
  • 11/7/10 @ 12:41


    Awesome one guys. Some do teach Evolution like it is Dogma. It's a theory--a sound theory, but a theory just the same. We have mounds of evidence but no proof and no good solid info on how it all started. It's like the big bang, ask a scientist why it happened at the precise moment it did, why not one second before or a million years after? What came before the Big Bang? What set it off? And wait ... (more)
  • 11/4/10 @ 12:12


    Ok I have an idea for this whole conversation. Since thus far evolution is pretty much just a joke. ID vs.Creationism, the only problem is what to call the Intelligent designer…how about we rename all gods the great Oogimachoo? (spell check?)….. I think I just made a lot of people mad. Well at least now when I pray I will have a name to pray to.

  • 11/4/10 @ 12:04


    Since they reproduce asexually, wouldn’t they actually reproduce faster, causing mutation faster,seeing as how they don’t need both sexes to reproduce? (either…not iether. I want a petition on this!!)

  • 7/12/10 @ 11:07


    If evolution did work the way science is pretending, we would find more "Bonobo" and "Bigfoot" types roaming the earth. The History channel has a good expose on human evolution and it clearly makes a case that to get from ape to man we would have had hundreds of missing link mutations. So if natural selection were to wipe out all but a few, one or more which turned into us, would have had to g ... (more)
  • 4/29/10 @ 16:23


    Problem with the bacteria thing. Bacteria reproduce asexually, not sexually like humans, animals, and a lot of plants. This makes for less mutations, so no, they won’t change very dramatically in 6 years.

  • 3/14/10 @ 23:56


    Just wait until science and technology DOES prove where the beginings of life came from. That’ll be interesting. But I like the saying: If gods didn’t exist, humans would have to make their own gods. But we’ve already done it! We are just so incredible as a race.

  • 12/8/09 @ 11:32


    Abbreviated view of Science vs Christianity. Science is How, God is Why. Actually, unless I am confused (which I might be) the video just gave an example of why people believe intelligent design. Because it appears that life forms don't naturally evolve into higher life forms. But, you are right, creationism isn't science. Notably, Christianity isn't science. Also Notably, no form of history ... (more)
  • 11/30/09 @ 14:22


    a video like this will always attract intelligent comments because any intelligent, 'open minded' person will always object to religious doctrine disguising itself as science in order to fool children and other weak-minded adults into questioning scientific fact. i really do hate whatyououghttoknow. why would anyone think that having an open mind means to believe anything you're told, no matter ho ... (more)
  • 9/6/09 @ 22:31


    Here's my issue. 99.999% of people who think they understand evolution really do not. Getting natural selection, speciation, genetic drift and all that good stuff is all well and good, but they are also an endless source of "what about -insert favorite evolution fascination-?" questions, all answerable btw, that prevent/distract most people from having that "aha!" moment that you need to truly get ... (more)
  • 8/8/09 @ 15:36


    Dawkin's explained this pretty well. The evidence for evolutionary theory is enormous. We have mountains of biological/morphological/geographical evidence. To write it off as "circumstantial" shows a lack of knowledge of the magnitude of the evidence. How can you say anything about the "odds" of natural selection being unlikely? Even noted I.D. proponent Michael Behe admitted that in one squa ... (more)
  • 8/2/09 @ 15:46


    I got to slightly disagree. I mean evolution and natural selection is the base to survival. It is simple if you can’t blend into the standards you wont make it. There is a clear reason why evolution or natural selection is on a “halt”. For millions of years earth was a really harsh place to live, and therefore even the simples types of life had to adapt making evolution something required to ... (more)
  • 4/30/09 @ 20:57


    I spoke with a neighbor once who said he had a Master's Degree, and (me summarizing) therefore knew that God is like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny... he doesn't exist. My answer? I studied science in college, and loved the heredity and reproductions classes. I understand the processes, and how a fetus grows from conception to birth, and beyond. I was pregnant at the time I was talking to h ... (more)
  • 2/28/09 @ 6:39


    Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution was in development for over (30) years, before it was published in the ‘On the Origin of Species’. Darwin’s actually discovered one of the driving forces of his theory, as in Natural Selection, in 1938 and took a span of (21) years of observation, deduction and accumulation of evidence to help support and prove his position and theory. He did this by a ... (more)
  • 2/2/09 @ 20:02


    Awesome video!

    Posted for debate:


  • 12/7/08 @ 17:13


    This was very interesting (I had my mom explain it all in a little more detail). It would be nice to hear all these discussions in Catholic School so kids could choose their own beliefs – Adam, 12yrs.

    My mom’s thinks this site is great!

  • 12/5/08 @ 18:26


    great observation that we have not yet seen bacteria etc form into a multi celled grouping . WE have seen it adapt to surrounding but grow in complexity ? has that been observed ? man and our ape cousins , we have not grown in complexity but adapted to enviroments and stresses . We the Savannha Ape the Fire plains ape has not chnged much more that the toy poodle has changed from the Great DAne ... (more)
  • 12/3/08 @ 16:18


    To Xigging (guy 8 posts down): We can’t explain a purely physical designer for the same reason we can’t explain a purely material beginning to this universe – Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation. However, that logically leaves one possibility – an immaterial beginning, and since God doesn’t claim to be material or bound by material laws, then that’s not a problem, correct?

  • 11/20/08 @ 20:58


    You deserve a medal! This is intelligent, articulate, convincing (as well as damn entertaining!). It’s good science because it’s sound logic. Thanks.

  • 11/9/08 @ 15:01


    This is the largest amount of comments with intelligent words I’ve seen on your site.

  • 9/15/08 @ 14:28

    carl grant

    Great video. I think however only a small % of your viewers will be able to appreciate anything they don’t already agree with. Still the open minded ones are worth the effort.

  • 8/24/08 @ 10:07


    First off let me say that i love your blog http://www.whatyououghttoknow.com a lot
    now.. back to the post lol
    I cant say that i agree with what you typed up… care to elaberate?

  • 8/21/08 @ 14:14

    Eric P. Metze

    Science is not a religion. As soon as he made that assertion, the rest of what he says is a non-point. What bothers me is that people continue this worthless conversation instead of seeing for what it really is: an attempt to prove the existence of God.

  • 8/3/08 @ 13:58


    If he wants to talk about how long it took for bacteria to form higher lifeforms we are not talking 300 years. We are talking about the time from the appearance of the first cyanobacteria to the cambrian explosion. That’s 1.5billion years. See the difference? 300 years – 1.5 billion years. This is just dumb.

  • 8/1/08 @ 9:27


    You know, I’m pretty sure I posted on this already, but I can’t search through the whole bunch to find it so here is my post. Lucky you.

  • 7/15/08 @ 19:25


    I didn't have time to read through all 139 posts up to this point, so I apologize if somebody already made this point. however, the largest problem I have with ID, is that you merely postpone the explanation. If there is an intelligent designer, then who created the designer? Either you have an infinite series of more and more complex designers, which does no good, or you can say the designer didn ... (more)
  • 6/24/08 @ 17:27


    woah does this one have the most comments... i think so. and once again i agree with this one we arent exactly sure how us humans became humans or our species came about so why do we keep arguing like this is almost worthless because both sides have an equal amount of evidence and both sides can be easy to believe we just dont have enough actual information to prove exactly that either one is true ... (more)
  • 6/24/08 @ 14:49


    At my school they actually said all of them were theories and my bio teacher made a good point. One girl argued that how can you say that creation from god is a belief. My teacher said ok how did you learn creation at church. she said by Adam and Eve and my teacher said how do you know that is true. He finally got her to say well I believe that and he said yes you believe and doesn't that make it ... (more)
  • 6/21/08 @ 21:31


    Great show, as I keep catching up on all those of the past. Great comment discussion, too. Seems this topic struck the greatest chord with all your viewers. Keep up the informative and open-minded shows.

  • 6/20/08 @ 15:02

    Joshua Zambrano

    First of all, I LOVED the video. Great logical, unbiased approach to the matter. As a creationist, I'd love to see both evolution and ID presented in philosophy classes, rather than forcing either theory as fact upon students. Let them draw their own conclusions based on where the facts lead them without being told what the conclusion is. Also, I wanted to address some criticisms others are ... (more)
  • 6/3/08 @ 9:34


    There is no such thing as ‘devolution’ evolution is not about ‘complexity’ or ‘information’ but organism / environment fit.

    Also, the different parts of the ring species can all have babies and even transfer genomic information through intermediaries, so genetic diversity (which YOU might take is information) has increased.

  • 6/2/08 @ 19:40


    X said... Take a ring species for example. These types of species had evolved across tropical islands to the point where the intermediates could interbreed, but the first form and final forms could not… that’s the definition of a new species: _______ Wouldn't that be an example of devolution - a lose of information? It's started with a ring species and ended with a ring species that can't ... (more)
  • 5/29/08 @ 22:25

    AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?)



  • 5/26/08 @ 23:15


    Hey, Winn Brothers,
    Did you catch the Winn announcer in this “Rock the World” Youtube video, dealing with the topic at hand?:
    (If they used your video without permission, sue for millions!)

  • 5/26/08 @ 15:22

    José from Surin (France)

    Let’s just have a look at Popper’s book “Logik der Vorschung”. It really can help

  • 5/24/08 @ 16:52


    scratch that.. meant to say “round”: “denying the earth is flat”
    No comment editing option = failsauce

  • 5/24/08 @ 16:49


    Hasn't been observed while it's happening?! You can't be serious. We have seen it happen, we can prove it happened, and it's science. Ring species, Gregor Mendel and his pea pods, fruit flies, bacterium. Not to mention the great advances in bioengineering that show without a doubt that by modifying plant's DNA, new genetic traits can be given. Take a ring species for example. These types of ... (more)
  • 5/22/08 @ 16:51


    I'm not specifically attracted to any model of abiogensis, the field is very young. Evolution abiogenesis, obviously. Old earth / universe / etc. See that starlight? That's what happened millions of years ago. Or did God create false images of supernovae in transit 6k years ago? What a prankster! Carbon 14 explained: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html Don't worry about the naval g ... (more)
  • 5/22/08 @ 11:06

    Mr. G.

    Rich, You most certainly do. You have book, called a biology book, that says that a cell can put itself together when operational science says that life comes only from life (biogenesis). That book claims that mutations are the source of novel and new structures that have not existed before which transform a sponge into a human being. That book claims that carbon 14 has a half life of only 5 ... (more)
  • 5/20/08 @ 15:07


    Mr. G, I don’t have a book that I believe is infallible that makes claims about the observable universe that are obviously false. The faithful can of course use the scientific method, but they’re not using their faith when they do it.

  • 5/19/08 @ 11:15

    Mr. G.

    Rich, (and Squeezed Turnip at end!) I have read the definition of naval gazing. Please tell me the phrase(s) where Dr. Pudom was naval gazing. I couldn't tell when she was doing that specifically. Finally you admit your philosophical construct! But you still have not shown how my adherence to creation as being true knocks out my ability to be of scientific mind. Does this mean I cannot a ... (more)
  • 5/17/08 @ 16:26


    Sorry guys, poorly researched. You bought the ID misinformation campaign against Evolution, which is all the DI, Stein, Behe and their friends seem to care about. Your counter arguments are not based on evidence, but misinformation. Science is a doctrine, a doctrine that works, if that is an article of faith, then so is everything else in life. Saying "belief" about the scientific method and it ... (more)
  • 5/17/08 @ 15:56

    AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?)

    All Hail The All Powerful And All Knowing Ants!!! ;)

  • 5/17/08 @ 15:49

    AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?)

    Precisely my dear fellow! (but not nearly as funny as the raucous debate [and I do mean raucous in the formal definition of the word] that's raging here) As for me, I think I may stick with the Theory (oops, I mean Doctine) Of The Forming Of Humans And All Living Things From Tiny Particles Of Colony Earth By The All Powerful All Knowing Ants etc.etc. (don't forget the Antennae part), after ... (more)
  • 5/17/08 @ 11:17


    As long as you think its funny, AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?). That’s the main thing.

  • 5/16/08 @ 19:01

    AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?)

    Humor, Awaiting moderation? Please
    Go look up borborygmus and Orycteropus Afer, then go back and read my humorous posts again…
    (The Pope, Cardinalus Primus, and Grand Inquisitor of The Church of The Informed Minority Of The Enlightened Colony said, shaking his head as he typed)…

    oh and by the way,
    (we are annnt peopllle! annnt-people-ant-people-annnt-peeeopllle..)

  • 5/16/08 @ 13:09


    2. I've signed no statement. I don't believe. a priori in a religious text and try to bend interpretations to fit it. I'm commented to methodological naturalism for science, because you need to be able to repeat and study. Hope this clarifies. Let my highlight the difference Bible -> Observation -> interpretation -> Bible based conjecture. Observe -> Hypothesis -> test -> ... (more)
  • 5/16/08 @ 11:45

    Mr. G.

    Rich, Regards to 2. Why aren't you the same way in your statements? Consider your statement of faith. No one! Nature! Billions of years! All the evidence in interpreted in the light of evolution...just like Gould said is done. (Facts are interpreted in the light of theory.) You ignored the carbon 14 facts I presented. They really ought to carbon date the next batch of soft tissue found i ... (more)
  • 5/16/08 @ 9:04


    *also* "- Your comment is awaiting moderation." Why? This got through: "AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?) I proclaim you both evil heretics and servants of Orycteropus Afer and I rebuke you! You will be consigned to the Borborygmus of Orycteropus Afer to suffer for all eternity! (or until you are expunged onto the tortured plains by Orycteropus Afer, to be recycled into building mate ... (more)
  • 5/16/08 @ 9:02


    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navel-gazing 2. Dr. Purdom has signed AIG's statement of faith: http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith She already has all her answers: Jesus! God! 6000 years! so she's not doing science, she's trying to affirm a book. 3. You are perhaps talking around 'confirmation bias'. See point 2. 4. That would be arguing to consequences: http://www.fallacyfi ... (more)
  • 5/16/08 @ 5:28

    Mr. G.

    Rich, While I await Dr. Purdom's response, thank you for your patience towards me and that you have not resorted to calling me names...yet. (What an idiot) Please help me out here. 1. What is naval gazing? Not sure what this is or what you mean by it. 2. Dr. Purdom stated that much is to be learned yet in this field. You don't make any mention of this nor, apparently, do you accept ... (more)
  • 5/15/08 @ 17:08

    AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?)

    I proclaim you both evil heretics and servants of Orycteropus Afer and I rebuke you! You will be consigned to the Borborygmus of Orycteropus Afer to suffer for all eternity! (or until you are expunged onto the tortured plains by Orycteropus Afer, to be recycled into building material by the all powerful, all knowing ants) All hail the all powerfull all knowing ants! The Church of The Informed ... (more)
  • 5/15/08 @ 13:35


    Have you actually read what she wrote? What an idiot... and what unscientific navel gazing. Appealing to her authority is clearly a mistake. She links too and uncharitably quote mines from three papers, ALL OF WHICH SUPPORT MY THESIS. I love the way how AIG tells you by clicking this link you may leave AIG and enter reality... Here's the deal. You can piece the ERV LTRs back together and get a ... (more)
  • 5/15/08 @ 12:17

    Mr. G.

    Rich, Go here. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1219herv.asp Dr.Purdom - her bio. is below http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/g_purdom.asp is qualified to respond. It wuold be interesting to get these two women together to see what is what. Note that it does not matter where these things come from. Whether I believe in evolution or creation they are still what t ... (more)
  • 5/15/08 @ 8:16


    Mr. G.
    I don’t know why its in every biology book you’ve ever taught with. The correct answer is we have some ideas but the field is very young.

    Let’s see this creationist interpretation. I look forward to shredding it. To save you some time, here are most of the canards already debunked by Abbie Smith:


    Now onto ‘interpretations’. You have ‘interpretations’, I have theories and hypothesis, which are different. You can advance this PoMo pluralistic view of science, but you can’t get me to think that 2+2=5 is as valid as 2+2=4. So whilst you’re welcome to a creationist viewpoint, I don’t respect it, because I’ve never seen any datum or experimentation to confirm it.

    Fond Regards,

  • 5/15/08 @ 5:22

    Mr. G.

    To Another Squeezed... For the most part I agree with your fine and respectful presentation of ideas. Now I'd like to present one for you to consider. Those I've read and one I know in person, have said that whenever the Hebrew word for day has a cardinal number before it (first, second, etc.) that the word day has no other meaning than a 24 hour day. Another fact is that the verb forms us ... (more)
  • 5/15/08 @ 5:09

    Mr. G.

    Rich, If abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, then why is it in every section of every Biology book I have ever taught with...including Miller's? Okay, so your viruses are your "ace-in-the-hole". What is interesting is that creationist scientists can explain those. Yup! Both sides look at the same items (viruses, proteins, DNA, stars, you name it!) What both then do is come up wi ... (more)
  • 5/14/08 @ 16:03

    AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?)

    As a founding member of The Church of The Informed Minority Of The Enlightened Colony, (I am in fact the Pope, Cardinalus Primus, and Grand Inquisitor)I cannot concede that evolution is a fact, or that creationists really know what they are talking about, else I be brought before the Grand Inquisitor and tortured by the all powerful, all knowing ants and summarily executo-communicated. I must a ... (more)
  • 5/14/08 @ 13:11


    Sadly, you're not really getting your head around science. i don't mean that nastily, but journalistically. Let me expound, if I am. Gravity is both theory and fact. Evolution is both theory and fact. Both have been directly observed and indirectly inferred from other evidence. We do not know all the evolutionary mechanisms, *yet*, but here are a few: Sources of Heritable Variation (both genoty ... (more)
  • 5/14/08 @ 13:04

    AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?)

    Hardcore Evolutionist = Malodorous flesh-cog, slowly turning in the massive leftist machine that spills out vomitousness, for which the uninformed proletariat masses line up to fill their cups... Hardcore Creationist = Blankly grinning robot, hobbling unsteadily through the death-tainted vapors that emanate from the frog-like mouths of the clergy… The Informed Minority Of The Enlightened ... (more)
  • 5/14/08 @ 12:53

    AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?)

    Thanks for the response Rich. I've read a lot of books, I'm keen to understand the universe and everything in it accurately, no matter what the truth may turn out to be. I wasn't meaning to criticize anyones understanding of science, but more to point out, through questions, that there's nothing wrong with there being a diversity of opinions, and that there should be nothing wrong with expressi ... (more)
  • 5/14/08 @ 11:36


    You are perhaps conflating the big bang with a ‘big banger’. Do you think there wasn’t a big bang? The universe suggests otherwise.

  • 5/14/08 @ 11:22


    “When you postulate an answer more fabulous than the question, you may have a problem.”

    Big Bang?

  • 5/14/08 @ 8:07


    "AnotherSqueezedRadish(orTurnip?)" May I suggest you become familiar with the terms you use before criticizing people's understanding of science? Evolution is concerned with the diversity of life, not its first beginning (abiogenesis). It also doesn't addresses origins of the universe, the uniformity of nature or any other red herrings you may want to throw out there. next you might want ... (more)
  • 5/13/08 @ 23:09


    @“Science” Avenger (and friends) I say this with all respect: Check your scientific method, I’m serious, please, go back and study the Scientific method in detail and then think deeply about it. Also, please think about these questions calmly and objectively: In your opinion, is it ok for people who choose to, to believe in a higher intelligence, to believe there is a designer who engine ... (more)
  • 5/9/08 @ 17:49

    Miguel Chavez

    Well John, I didn't say creationist, or people that disagree with me are ignorant. I was just saying that the dude in the video didn't know what he was talking about. And sorry John, he didn't. And yes extinction is consistent with storms and such, but you fail to appreciate that extinction is a *risky prediction* of Darwinian evolution and not really something you would expect in an intelligently ... (more)
  • 5/9/08 @ 16:35

    John Bay

    Dimensio - I believe you are the one who is demonstrably ignorant of evolution. Maybe you should start by getting your facts straight. Perhaps not every scientist agrees, but "Lucy" (and I can look up her scientific name on wikipedia too) is WIDELY used to try and fill one of the many gaps in the alleged ape to human evolutionary chain. Or at least reputable sources like -->
  • 5/9/08 @ 12:46


    Mr. G. Do you know what arguing to consequences is? You might want to research it. Reality is not contingent on your approval of it or its perceived consequences. I find your mirror faulty.. but you might apply it to the rapture and make the same *bad* arguments... the arguments against old earth / old universe are legion and multidisciplinary. Starlight - it's what happened millions / bi ... (more)
  • 5/9/08 @ 11:48

    Mr. G.


    Ooops! Sorry for not proof-reading my text. I should have said that “…such and such cities or persons did NOT exist…”

    I apologize for that benficial mutation of my earlier work.

  • 5/9/08 @ 11:42

    Mr. G.

    Rich, I clicked on the link and was amazed to find that they did not date the artifact, but the ash deposits. Did you know that carbon-14 has been found in coal dated millions of years old by evolutionary reckoning? One of the arguemtns used against the Biblical histories, not stories, was that such and such cities or persons existed. Lo and behold, they were later discovered to exist. Ri ... (more)
  • 5/9/08 @ 11:37


    The narrator is demonstrably ignorant of evolution. He claims that it is not occurring now, however this is not the case. The narrator also claims that evolution is extremely improbable, but he cites no statistical evidence in support of the claim. He asserts that there exists no evidence in support of evolution, ignoring -->
  • 5/9/08 @ 8:35


    “DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”


  • 5/9/08 @ 8:07


    "Biblical Christianity, you will find that it is supported by the science of archeolgy." WRONG. Biblical Christianity says the world is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old, was a mass culling of humanity followed by respeciation of life from pairs of animals and one human family. http://www.burlingtonnews.net/artifacts.html Oops. The bible makes origin claims that are incongruent with r ... (more)
  • 5/9/08 @ 5:51

    Mr. G.

    Alex, Yes, and no. It depends on your religion. For example if you examine Biblical Christianity, you will find that it is supported by the science of archeolgy. Religions like Mormonism are not, ie, the places mentioned in that bokk have never been found. Both sides need to consider this point. How we got here is NOT an issue of science, it is an issue of philosophy or religion. Scienc ... (more)
  • 5/9/08 @ 0:11


    One thing I would like to say is this: evolution and religion don;t have to be mutually exclusive. One could believe that God put in place the principles by which evolution takes place and he used this to steer evolution in a way that he saw fit. I mean, there's a middle way. We don't all have to be enemies. There is in fact a lot about evolution that is proven. And there is a lot that we don't ... (more)
  • 5/8/08 @ 23:49


    IMO I believe we should be doing what we were set out to do which is living life.
    Go have fun or try to make the world a better place.
    Sure the past helps us understand how we got where we are but that doesn’t sound like it’ll cure cancer sooner than something like regenerative medicine?
    btw great video!

  • 5/8/08 @ 18:30

    John Bay

    Miguel, It's pretty bold to assume someone has never read or studied an issue just because they don't happen to agree with you. But bold is the wrong word. How about ignorant. But leaving that aside, what factual errors? I'd love to see a list, if you can pull one together. And please don't tell me that you really believe the only way extinction, natural distribution or intermediaries can com ... (more)
  • 5/8/08 @ 17:26

    Miguel Chavez

    You should probably spend more time reading up on evolution than making videos on a subject I'm afraid you know little about. Ignoring for the moment your factual errors, I wonder how you would explain structural homologies, geographic distribution, extinction, genetic homologies, as well as fossil intermediates, among other bits of so called circumstantial evidence which overwhelmingly support ev ... (more)
  • 5/8/08 @ 14:08


    PS Quadfather. The issue is not to define ‘science’ but scientific theory’ – Nice try to move the goalposts. I can tell you why Astrology isn’t a scientific theory – no supporting evidence. Hopefully I’ve cleaned up your conflation for you.

  • 5/8/08 @ 13:58


    Biological processes are physical processes. The organic substrate is physical. Moreover, show me ‘information’ without an associated physical presence…

  • 5/8/08 @ 13:15


    Language is constituted by *symbols* that are converted into physical states by an information processing system (or by physical states that have been converted into symbols).
    You are talking about physical interractions, not language.

  • 5/8/08 @ 12:06


    Mr. G. That’s a lot of question begging.
    You could similarly argue that physics is a language that tells matter how do behave. Anything is a language.

    I don’t want to use analogy really. It’s the tentative tool of lazy minds IMHO.

  • 5/8/08 @ 11:56

    Mr. G.

    Rich, Agreed that it is an analogy. So is nature (or do you say Nature?) the designer of the arthropod "car" series? If you want to use an analogy, then all parts of it should be able to fit. Try this. Miller describes DNA as a molecule which transmits information. It has also been described as instructions/bluprints/plans/etc. We use messages as a way to transmit information, and DNA-e ... (more)
  • 5/8/08 @ 10:47


    Here’s an analogy:
    My car sits in the driveway.
    Nothing happens.
    I call the mechanic and an engineer.
    They build me a new car.

  • 5/8/08 @ 10:43


    Science Avenger, Is is typically your modus operandi to attend to everything but the points that refuted your opinion? ` I guess you didn't hear about Scott Minnich testifying about his research demonstrating the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum by knocking out each of its 35 parts one by one. Rich, Good job on that stellar research! How astute of you. What a fantastic po ... (more)
  • 5/8/08 @ 9:38


    Alex, No need to defend yourself. I think it's great that you are making yourself aware of this controversy. ` Let me just say that I have absolutely no problem if you disagree with me, so long as you are being rational. I also apologize for lumping you with the other quacks in here, since you are obviously not like them (even if you do seem predisposed to one side - but I guess, who isn't?). ... (more)
  • 5/8/08 @ 9:00


    Mr. G.
    It’s an analogy. D’oh!
    Cars don’t have baby cars, for example.

  • 5/8/08 @ 5:39

    Mr. G.

    Hey all, To the lovers of Ken Miller,et al. you need to read his Biology Text "Biology" Prentice Hall (2002) on P. 716. "These gradual changes in arthropods are similar to the changes in modern cars since the Model T, the first mass produced automobile." He goes on in the paragraph to point out the many changes in design and style of cars are analogous to the modifications in arthropods pro ... (more)
  • 5/7/08 @ 15:38


    Quack Quack Quack.. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html "Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct? A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to b ... (more)
  • 5/7/08 @ 14:30

    Science Avenger

    The fact that Behe hadn't even read the papers killed his credibility right there. It is inexcusable for a scientist writing a controversial opinion on a subject to not be up to speed on the latest in the peer-reviewed literature. That he automatically dismissed them as not answering the questions he asked after admitting he hadn't read them branded him rightly as a crank. Behe was the best w ... (more)
  • 5/7/08 @ 11:53


    QF: thanks, I did not know it was called the Dover case, that makes finding it very easy. (I must say in my defence that I had never heard about it, it was only very recently that I learned that people were actually serious about questioning evolution so I don;t really know much about the debate yet. I'll try to keep up) Alright, let's take a look at the passage: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs ... (more)
  • 5/7/08 @ 9:32


    Alex, . Well you sound rational enough, and I respect that. FYI, the transcripts of the Dover case are widely available online. . Rich, . I can do that too: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/10/500_years_ago_geocentrism_aamp_astrology.html . What Behe actually said was that the NAS's definition of science could include astrology and geocentrism - not his own definition of science. . Any ... (more)
  • 5/7/08 @ 9:19


    Behe! http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8178.html "Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday. Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted h ... (more)
  • 5/7/08 @ 8:45


    I haven't had the chance to actually look up the case itself. The way Miller described the process was that they put one of the folders on his desk, asked if he had read it, he confirmed and then they went on to the next one. I accepted this as the truth. If Behe's version of this is different the only way to know for sure is to look it up because there is really no way to know who is right. W ... (more)
  • 5/7/08 @ 7:18


    Alex, : You really need to understand what was going on, here. The most glaring point that can be made against you and Kenneth Miller is that: Only a SINGLE example was necessary in order to prove Behe wrong. Instead, a lawyer flooded the witness stand with a copious amount of information that the witness could not possibly go through during his testimony. Could the theatrics BE anymore obvio ... (more)
  • 5/7/08 @ 1:59


    After two minutes of searching I found this: http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=rj06cvj0VLQ. It is a speech by Ken Miller talking about a trial of the ideas of Behe. Here apparently Behe brushed aside a huge pile of 56 scientific papers that provided evidence for the evolution of the immune system. Although this was just a small part of his theories, he had read them all and found these papers all rub ... (more)
  • 5/6/08 @ 21:27


    Good job Paul. It’s nice to have somebody who can hold their own in these discussions.
    Notice how your opponents can’t even simply disagree. They have to insult other people in a million different ways.
    It would be much more effective if they would just make an argument, but alas.

  • 5/6/08 @ 14:51


    Dissent from darwin:


    What a joke!

  • 5/6/08 @ 12:56


    My previous post seems to be held up - perhaps because it has some links in it. So - I'm resending it without the links. Perhaps it will go through now. ScienceAvenger and others, Remember - I’m not saying I know what’s right. I’m saying there is an issue here. Check out the Dissent from Darwin list - 700+ Ph.D.’s - all cranks, willing participants in a smokescreen? (Type "dissent from D ... (more)
  • 5/6/08 @ 11:56


    I was sitting there listening to the narrator talk about Lucy and bacterial evolution and sort of just staring at his face when a mental image of a chimpanzee popped into my head. No offense to the gentleman but I, he, and all the rest of us aren't much more than shaved chimps with well formed noses. The differences aren't much, especially compared with the differences between humans and sharks. ... (more)
  • 5/6/08 @ 9:50


    ScienceAvenger, For speaking so confidently, you sure focus an awful lot of time on motives and conspiracies than you do on debunking what ID proponents say are their scientific arguments. From your comments, it appears that you will talk about anything BUT that. This is a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument: appeal to motive. To speak nothing of the errors in your pos ... (more)
  • 5/6/08 @ 5:31


    Remember - I'm not saying I know what's right. I'm saying there is an issue here. Check out the Dissent from Darwin list - 700+ Ph.D.'s - all cranks, willing participants in a smokescreen? http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660 Or if that link doesn't work - look here and click on the proper link: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ Look into the ... (more)
  • 5/6/08 @ 4:29


    I have checked out Expelled exposed site - have you checked out the counterarguments at Discovery or the Expelled site? (I didn't claim Sterberg was fired - I claimed he was discriminated against. Is he lying to promote some smokescreen? Just look at the other side on these cases. Have you done any of this? Isn't this the point of this little blog these guys did? It's fine that you think I've been ... (more)
  • 5/5/08 @ 22:24

    Science Avenger

    Sorry Paul, you have been conned. ID is not about science. It was about masking creationism enough to pass muster in courts. They literally replaced "Creationists" with "intelligent design proponents", which is how they got "cdesign proponentsists". All the flapjabber about detecting design is a smoke screen. There is no substance there, as every scientist who has tried to delve into it could ... (more)
  • 5/5/08 @ 19:34


    Science Avenger. Thanks for responding. My quick response tonight - grading papers and fading quickly...Don't conflate creationism with ID. Very different. ID starts only with the broad assumption that evidence of agency is possible. Creationism knows "God did it" and then goes to look how. (Darwinism, by the way, knows blind processed did it and then goes to look how it did it. Both are Cartesia ... (more)
  • 5/5/08 @ 13:08

    Science Avenger

    Paul, perhaps you miss my point. I'm not arguing that evolution is true because the consensus says so. I am simply refuting the claims by ID proponents that there is growing controversy in science about ID. There isn't. The consensus view on evolution is stronger than ever. I'm not making an authoritative argument, I'm refuting their's. I am also refuting arguments like yours about "scienti ... (more)
  • 5/5/08 @ 12:28


    Meanwhile, back in reality…


  • 5/5/08 @ 5:03

    Jeff Long

    Good summary analysis of the controversy. But...if after all is said and done evolution is still by admission too flimsily supported by the data and its interpretations, then it should be time to begin considering concurrently the possibility of PURPOSEFUL design by an Intelligent Agent of some nature. Much of the interpretation of data to support this is forensic and statistical and mathematical ... (more)
  • 5/4/08 @ 16:23


    I thought science wasn't about arguments from authority. Shows you what I know. Sorry about all of this trouble making - I'll stop asking questions now and just go back to listening to all of those really smart people. But then what does my Ph.D. in an experimental science mean? Oh yeah, it's not in mathematics or physics. Forgot, I'll sit back down now. (I'm often amazed at the willingness of ... (more)
  • 5/4/08 @ 15:36

    Science Avenger

    Those who actually study these issues for a living keep getting more and more certain of the validity of modern evolutionary theory (MET), not less. This is one of the many reasons pseudo arguments like those put forth in this silly video aren't treated too seriously. Consider as the most glaring example, this whole argument about how "unlikely" evolution is. People (99% of which are neither ... (more)
  • 5/4/08 @ 14:49


    Mike: what do you mean by the term "evolution"? It has multiple definitions. Obviously you don't mean blind processes responsible for creating major biological body plans (aka macroevolution) - or if you do mean this you have a very weak definition of the term "fact." (Show me - or even create a plausible set of steps to go from one body plan to another - none exist, I assure you.) NeoDarwinism ... (more)
  • 5/4/08 @ 14:42


    Alex: thanks for responding. You need to read Behe's "Edge of Evolution" - there are all kinds of selection pressures placed on those little critters (fruit flies) - and yet nothing positive has happened (selection pressures refer to what you were talking about when you said "changing environments"). You see it's one thing to agree that the theory sounds plausible (natural selection working on ... (more)
  • 5/4/08 @ 11:49


    WARNING, WARNING!!: The agnostics feel left out! "PICK ME, PICK ME" This guy is definitely an only child. He's making an argument out of absolutely squat, creating false facts and trivializing scientific method in a condescending 'chess club' tone just to make a name for himself. As he desperately tries to glorify the title of "Fence Sitter" slamming both sides of every argument, the world goes o ... (more)
  • 5/4/08 @ 11:28

    Science Avenger

    Typical ignorant rambling. When he says that evolution has stopped, or that it is too improbable, he’s left the realm of science and entered into denialist claptrap. Ditto with his claims of interpretation. Ignorance of science incarnate. These videos ought to be called “What You Wish Were So”

  • 5/4/08 @ 9:50


    Paul: (on the fruitfly experiment) I don't know about this fruitfly experiment. I'm just saying that the fact that they did not evolve could mean anything. Anything that couild evolve needs to gain an advantage by evolving, an example is a changing environment. If you keep the fruitflies in a stable environment and they have no need to change into another species they will not do so (generally). ... (more)
  • 5/4/08 @ 9:44


    Paul: I am familiar with the "weasel"-experiment and I agree that it is cheating a bit. I was referring to this piece of research: http://www.karlsims.com/papers/alife94.pdf. It is a piece of research by Karl Sims that describes the process of putting virtual creatures in a virtual environment and doing nothing but giving them a greater chance of survival in future generations if the can obtai ... (more)
  • 5/3/08 @ 20:10


    Doh! And now I F’ed Up just by posting that! :)

  • 5/3/08 @ 20:10


    To: John from NIU and others.
    No offense but I think you have missed the entire point of this week. These guys systematically attacked everybody. Of course they tried to piss you off and push your buttons. The point was not what they said, it was to see how you reacted to it. So in a sense you are the one that F’ed up.

  • 5/3/08 @ 15:35

    John from NIU

    My comments are not to be mean, but because I want your show to be the best. Because it really is good.
    You guys are better than this. You F’ed up.
    Show us what you can really do.

  • 5/3/08 @ 15:33

    John from NIU

    Winn Bros. I'm not gonna rant on this one because so many people have already done a fantastic job. But I highly encourage you brothers to redo your research on this topic. What you've presented was quite awful and you quoted Dawkins out of context alot. If you have some free time, go sit in on a real evolutionary biology course. Go check out the National Center for Science Education website a ... (more)
  • 5/3/08 @ 11:58


    paul: Those are excellent questions which lead into the epistemology and metaphysics of high level science, areas of philosophy which are still very young. And your concerns about intelligence lead inexorably to philosophy of mind and cognitive science. Needless to say, there are no easy answers to these lofty questions and to date, nobody has found a terribly satisfactory way to find them, sa ... (more)
  • 5/3/08 @ 7:47


    Dave: this is not my area of study, but I do understand that there are multiple levels of organization for proteins. The AA sequence itself, the 3D folding, the fit with other proteins, etc. I guess my point is that suggesting that blind processes can account for moving a living organ from the capacities of a typical primate brain to the capacities represented here of two humans carrying on a d ... (more)
  • 5/3/08 @ 7:36


    Paul, a 2% genetic change in a human would be 60 million base pairs. But what really matters is the proteins that are formed by transcribing the DNA. And protein folding is very complex stuff; it takes all the computing power we can throw at it and then some to begin to understand the subject matter. And while Lamarckian evolution is almost totally discredited, there is an element of truth to it; ... (more)
  • 5/3/08 @ 7:34


    Ingrid: ok - fair enough. We disagree. Just for the record, I do think chimps are smart (I know of your reference to Kohler's work with chimps and so forth) but figuring out how to stack boxes or put sticks together to get a banana is a world away from designing a computer chip (to my way of thinking). (I would argue that ant behavior could be argued to be more intelligent than primate.) Can ... (more)
  • 5/3/08 @ 7:20


    Yes Paul, I am, how did you put it, "intellectually satisfied with the idea that a 2% difference between chimp and human genetic construction can account for the ability to..." Because all the abilities you stated derive from a more evolved brain. And I do believe a more evolved brain is possible with only 2% differenence. 2% sounds like nothing, but as I tried to explain earlier, 2% is a LOT, hug ... (more)
  • 5/3/08 @ 7:11


    Question: when’s the last time someone in the Christian west got burned at the stake for questioning holy writ? Now, in terms of the shoe being on the other foot – have you seen the movie “Expelled”? Very interesting – these questions aren’t going away – and there’s a lot of very smart people asking them.

  • 5/3/08 @ 7:06


    Alex: correction - I should have said "letter-generator" not number generator. Perhaps you're familiar with what I'm talking about in one of Dawkins' books back in the '80's. This most recent post from "No blind belief" is a perfect example of which side usually brings in theological arguments to make their case. In this example we have the following argument: I know God wouldn't do it this way ... (more)
  • 5/3/08 @ 6:44

    No blind belief

    If the world is 4 billion years old, and it is.... Why did your god wait until the last 4 million years to put an upright bi-pedal species on it? hmmmm... Seems like an awful waste of time. Adam and Eve, Noah's ark, all fables to fill in the gaps. It has always been in mans nature to believe in god. Religion does exactly what it was designed to do, control the masses. Those who choose to thin ... (more)
  • 5/3/08 @ 4:49


    Alex: On your second point. Make sure the programs that claim to demonstrate movements from simple systems to more complex ones don't smuggle in information through the mechanism - much like Dawkins number generator that can supposedly construct the phrase, "Methinks it is a weasel" or whatever that phrase was he used. The mechanism smuggled in info by the selection mechanism used. Lots of stuf ... (more)
  • 5/3/08 @ 4:38


    Alex says: Saying evolution is false because we haven’t seen it is like putting a box on the floor and saying: “Well, it does not fall so gravity must not exist”. I disagree. Read Behe's "Edge of Evolution". We've had plenty of time and used tons of selection pressure to try to move fruit flies off of their basic form and get some novel development. No success. I believe the makers of th ... (more)
  • 5/3/08 @ 4:34


    Ingrid: Thanks for responding. So, you are intellectually satisfied with the idea that a 2% difference between chimp and human genetic construction can account for the ability to build computers, explore the solar system, wrote sublime poetry, reflect upon our past and future, plan cities, organize governments, stage the Olympics every four years, etc. I'm not. I would actually argue that the ge ... (more)
  • 5/3/08 @ 4:28


    Darron: I found some quotes in the area of systematics from researchers that, perhaps, will shed some better light on the point I'm trying to make. “When biologists talk of the 'evolution wars', they usually mean the ongoing battle for supremacy in American schoolrooms between Darwinists and their creationist opponents. But the phrase could also be applied to a debate that is raging within ... (more)
  • 5/3/08 @ 1:50


    Just two things that I really wanted to say: Saying evolution is false because we haven't seen it is like putting a box on the floor and saying: "Well, it does not fall so gravity must not exist". You could disprove it only i you found evidence that contradicts this theory. Secondly: In simulations it is possible to use evolution as a way to evolve simple robots. The principles on which evolut ... (more)
  • 5/3/08 @ 0:40


    paul, I do believe that 2% genetic difference could make the difference between a chimp and a human being. If you have any knowledge on how DNA is built, how it is replicated and translated, you can understand that a minor change in the sequence can have a dramatical effect. Proteins are synthesysed through the information in your DNA. Nucleotides are chained together in a long sequence and every ... (more)
  • 5/2/08 @ 18:09


    Darron: Thanks for responding - let me clarify on the genetic similarity thing. I gave the banana reference as an example of things that surely aren't more similar but genetically are. I just pulled two things off the top of my head - not meaning that they were actually two examples (I think i mentioned "or things of that kind.") My point here is that morphological trees do not match up real we ... (more)
  • 5/2/08 @ 16:38

    Darron S

    paul, I'm sorry if my post came across as hostile. I'm simply very matter-of-fact when I exchange ideas. I thought the Ben Stein reference was humorous as a couple posts up someone was saying "go see Expelled"... I believe your statement about humans being more genetically similar to bananas than we are to mice is false. I did some quick googles but couldn't find anything on the subject. ... (more)
  • 5/2/08 @ 15:22


    Paul: We see entities today with these intermediary steps, including heliotropic plants (like sunflowers), photosynthetic animals (like some anemones and corals), flat eye spots (like euglenids), cup eye spots (like planaria), pinhole camera eyes (like the nautilus), etc. This is not proof of evolution, but it does clearly demonstrate that such wide variety is at least possible. Behe's argum ... (more)
  • 5/2/08 @ 15:19


    Sadly, those here that are proposing that the above links giving examples of "obseved speciation" are to be validly used as some evidence of evolution are quite mistaken. Many examples there listed are deliberate attempts at speciation, not natural occerrances, either through hybridization or other artificial means of deliberately selected divergent breeding. Might we call this "Intelligent Desig ... (more)
  • 5/2/08 @ 15:10

    What You Ought To Know : Darwin’s Intelligent Design « Read, Think, Pray, Live

    [...] from http://www.whatyououghttokn posted with vodpod [...]

  • 5/2/08 @ 14:22


    Darron: Well, first of all, the genetic similarity studies aren't that cut-n-dried. There's a lot of weird stuff out there - like humans having more similarity with bananas than mice - or things of that kind. But, your point still stands - to some degree. There does appear to be a basic correlation between genetic material and apparent similarity as judged by sources independent of genes. But t ... (more)
  • 5/2/08 @ 14:05

    Darron S

    A simple question: How to you explain the distinct genomic similarity between chimps and humans, as well the divergence from species we are less "like"? We share 95-99% of our Genome (DNA) with Chimps, who are our closest relatives on the tree of life. We share less with dogs and pigs, but enough that we see stories all the time about using our genetic links with other mammals to help fight d ... (more)
  • 5/2/08 @ 14:03

    Lynoure Braakman

    So, about watching bacteria evolve… How would you do that? If you keep them in a petri dish and give them bacteria food, there is absolutely nothing driving the natural selection. Nowadays you can even keep them in a petri dish full of antibiotics, and many of them will be just getting lazy and fat.

  • 5/2/08 @ 12:29

    William Brookfield – ICON-RIDS

    Great video overall,

    “But at what point of complexity?… where to you draw the line?”

    At the.. universal probability bound.


  • 5/2/08 @ 11:18

    Steve #2

    I encourage anyone interested in some of the science behind ID to read Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box." Behe is a microbiologist who presents evidence for ID in biological systems. I think one of the major points Behe makes is when we look at the changes in species, and talk about evolution, we often look at it in a wide angle lens (i.e. bird develops wing, fish develops legs, etc.). W ... (more)
  • 5/2/08 @ 11:00


    Some dude:

    how does this just-so story get you the eye in the first place? Yes, everyone agrees that loss of genetic information is a real phenomenon. But…how did it get there in the first place? Big question – and the only thing we have to go on are “just-so” stories postulating hypothetical light-sensitive spots, imaginary intermediates that we can’t really even describe, etc.

  • 5/2/08 @ 10:56

    Some Dude

    There is a cave, and in this cave there is a lizard. This lizard has a dent on it's head. My history teacher was on vacation and told us about this lizard he was. It was in like 4th grade or something, I don't know what kind this lizard is. The lizard had no eyes but it had this dent, which was a clear sign of an eye having been there at one point. It is like a crimescene, we don't know w ... (more)
  • 5/2/08 @ 9:54


    Due to a language barrier here (my english is fine, just not THAT fine) I find it hard to point out my views on this topic. I have heard you, and understood most of it ;) (here to an open mind!) but I don't agree with you. You have made some fine points, but what bothers me most is that you make it sound as if people in favour of the evolution theory state it as being fact. But I think that isn't ... (more)
  • 5/2/08 @ 9:06


    Great video - loved it! One small (maybe not so small) comment. The ID folks don't define ID the same way you did. They say ID is the study of things that are best explained by making reference to intelligent causation. ID doesn't claim to "know" it was designed. This is important as both Creationism and Darwinism already know the "truth" of the matter and their definitions of science focus on ... (more)
  • 5/2/08 @ 8:56


    A Thing that has not yet been disproved … can hold it’s reasonable assumption that it exist; And as long as a Thing remain unproven, it can maintain it’s greatest possibility of being so. Indeed in this world, Intelligent Design has faltered, but because the beautiful and shinning crystal glass was shattered when it fell to the floor, doesn’t mean it’s Superior Design didn’t exist befo ... (more)
  • 5/2/08 @ 8:40


    Flame on! I love this. So, oh, what’s the word… RATIONAL. Yeah, that’s it. Hooray for another winner..

  • 5/2/08 @ 7:52


    anyone told you guys how incredibly rad you are in the past few minutes?

    because you are

  • 5/2/08 @ 7:44

    chris’ random ramblings » Blog Archive » Evolution or Darwinism or Dawkinsism or Creationism or whatever its called these days…

    [...] There’s a great new piece up on What You Ought to Know called Darwin’s Intelligent Design. [...]

  • 5/2/08 @ 7:17


    I feel my college science professors were unusual. To summarize two of them: 1) Many science teachers teach evolution as fact because they don't understand it. It is a theory. He then explained the "Theory of Evolution". Creationism, or Intelligent design, as you have termed it, is another idea of how life could have come about as we know it. Those are 2 ideas. Study them, decide for yourse ... (more)
  • 5/2/08 @ 7:08


    Wow. You’ve got a real talent for summarizing rather complex issues. Keep it coming!

  • 5/2/08 @ 6:54


    I completely agree. Science is the study of OBSERVABLE facts, and nobody was alive at the beginning of the world. Therefore, I don’t think that our “origins” should be taught in schools. Not to mention, I don’t like having evolution shoved down my throat and being looked at like a fool when I bring up the problems with it.

  • 5/2/08 @ 5:32


    You have some fallacies that I'd like to address, but at the broadest level, your points are well expressed. 1. Natural selection IS the process of evolution and requires selective pressures and changing conditions to take place. We have no way to monitor wild populations of bacteria and their environment for 6 continuous years. Petri dish populations don't experience selective pressures. 2. ... (more)
  • 5/2/08 @ 3:21


    Go see the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. We just saw it in the movie theater and it was disturbingly enlightening. Ben Stein did an excellent job. See what Dawkins really said about ID.

  • 5/2/08 @ 0:31


    woops, of course I meant theorY, but that’s just me being Dutch ;)

  • 5/2/08 @ 0:30


    Okey, just one thing. Of course you can’t really prove it, but isn’t that why we call it a THEORIE. As in, not fact…

  • 5/2/08 @ 0:06


    3 things to note: 1) There are no higher forms of species. Humans are no more well evolved than cockroaches. 2) Evolution talks nothing of the origin of life. It's about how it has changed since it's inception--however that may have occurred is still a very open question in science. I don't know what Dawkins explicitly said (you didn't quote him there), but I'm guessing he wasn't talking about l ... (more)
  • 5/1/08 @ 19:49


    First of all i'm disappointed with the the tiny campfire that you guys have started but ok :( I wanna comment on when you said "its the best we got so we have to believe it , which is a pretty bad qualifier..." if another 'scientific' theory comes up i'm pretty sure that will find its way into text-books as well. Not every one is teaching evolution as an undeniable fact, and i'm sure if you co ... (more)
  • 5/1/08 @ 18:23


    I really appreciate this sort of video. So many people seem to have an opinion about this without really understanding all of the arguments on all sides. However, this video makes a very common mistake about evolution. Evolution DOES NOT lead towards 'higher' forms of life or more complex organisms. This idea has been long abandoned by modern scientists and this is one of the most common misconcep ... (more)
  • 5/1/08 @ 18:15


    I only just discovered you as of your last two videos, and I am knocked out by how doggone sensible they are. I mean, I can’t find a thing I can really disagree with. Kudos.

  • 5/1/08 @ 18:12

    eric swenson

    I highly recommend the book by Lee Strobel called ,
    ” the case for a Creator “

  • 5/1/08 @ 18:05


    A++ It’s good to see more of this kind of discussion. If origin “science” was moved to the philosophy classroom where it belongs, this whole debate would be seen differently.

Sorry, we're getting way too much spam.
You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't already, register here.

Recent Shows

Recent Comments

The Brothers Winn

Just two brothers making a podcast. We both research and write the show.

Get a hold of us here:

Notice: Use of undefined constant - assumed '' in /home/media/public_html/wyotk/show/wp-content/themes/wyotk/single.php on line 87